Oil - You get what you pay for!

[oilman 0]

A word of caution – You get what you pay for!

 

Below is an article written by John Rowland, Silkolene/Fuchs Chief R & D Chemist for 40 years.

 

Quote:

 

Costs of synthetics vary considerably. The most expensive are the “Ester” types originally only used in jet engines. These cost 6 to 10 times more than high quality mineral oils. The cheapest synthetics are not really synthetic at all, from a chemists point of view. These are in fact specially refined light viscosity mineral oils known as “hydrocracked”. These have some advantages over equivalent mineral oils, particularly in lower viscosity motor oils such as 5w-30 or other oils with a low “W” rating such as 5w-50 etc and they cost about 1.5 times more than good quality mineral fractions.

 

We use several different grades of this base oil, where appropriate. This is the “synthetic” which is always used in cheap oils that are labelled “synthetic”.

 

Yes it’s a cruel world, you get what you pay for!

 

Now, you may ask, why are these special mineral oils called “synthetic”?

 

Well, it was all sorted in a legal battle that took place in the USA about ten years ago. Sound reasons (including evidence from a Nobel Prize winning chemist) were disregarded and the final ruling was that certain mineral bases that had undergone extra chemical treatments could be called “synthetic”.

 

Needless to say, the marketing executives wet their knickers with pure delight!

They realised that this meant, and still does, that the critical buzz-word “synthetic” could be printed on a can of cheap oil provided that the contents included a few percent of “hydrocracked” mineral oil, at a cost of quite literally a few pence.

 

So, the chemistry of “synthetics” is complex and so is the politics!

 

The economics are very simple. If you like the look of a smart well-marketed can with “synthetic” printed on it, fair enough, it will not cost you a lot; and now you know why this is the case.

 

But, if you drive a high performance car, and you intend to keep it for several years, and maybe do the odd “track day”, then you need a genuine Ester/PAO (Poly Alpha Olefin) synthetic oil.

 

This oil costs more money to buy, because it costs us a lot of money to make, very simply, you always get what you pay for!

 

Unquote:

 

This article is something that all car owners should read and understand before buying oil and I’ve posted this with Johns permission.

 

Cheers

Simon

[Kevin Bacon 5]

Sales slow Simon? ;-) :-)

 

Good info as ever.... as a user of Pro S 10W/50 Silkolene, I can't recommend it enough. There's a limited amount of feedback an engine can give you in terms of oil quality, all it cares about is there's something wet and slippery between it's tight gaps.....but if smoother running and vastly reduced consumption are two areas of feedback I've noticed since using it, then it should sell in droves.....strange that it isn't, imo.

[VR6 0]

Moving to Suppliers.

 

Very useful post, but I'm sure the intention is to tout for business ;) (which is why I'm moving it...)

[craigowl 0]

As I have said already, only a few days ago on another thread about "engine cleaning" additives in some petrols, the uninformed consumer is at the mercy of the scientists working for manufacturers.

I have no reason to disbelieve what the oilman's boffin is saying (in fact, as a scientific minded person myself, I always enjoy reading what oilman puts on the forum). However, he does have an axe to grind. kevHaywire's remark about reduced consumption is of interest, though. I have always taken it as read that fuel consumption is a simple but reliable guide to engine performance and efficiency. Likewise, if your consumption climbs for no apparent reason, it is time to get things checked out.

[Taggart 0]

craigowl, I think Kev was talking about oil consumption, not fuel.

[craigowl 0]

xbones said

craigowl, I think Kev was talking about oil consumption, not fuel

 

Oops, sorry. As I dont use a drop of oil in my VR6, I thought kev was talking about fuel/petrol consumption.

[oilman 0]

I don't think Mr Rowland has an axe to grind at all, he's a chemist not a salesman!

 

I think that what he says is very pertinent.

 

If I did a survey on this forum (or any other) asking who is using synthetic oil and what one we would find 90% of people are not using synthetic at all!

 

Now, that's pertinent when we are talking about the true quality of a product that you just paid good money for because it was labelled synthetic.

 

Get the point now?

 

Cheers

Simon

[Kevin Bacon 5]

We do... no offense meant by our jesting.

 

Yeah Craig, I meant oil consumption. My engine is pretty long in the tooth now but the metalwork under the oil filler cap is spotlessly clean after 125 thou', a testament to regular changes of oil hydrocracked 'synthetic' oil ;-)

 

I had a spell during the summer of the old dreaded blue on the over run and that was with Synta. Since changing to this Silkolene stuff, it's not smoked at all and that's good enough reason for using it in my book.

 

If yours is using zero oil, then you've got a good un there as VRs are known for their healthy appetite of the stuff.

[NickVR6 0]

Mines on 127,000 and I get blue smoke on prolonged overun when the engine is hot. Will be trying to get hold of some of this to do a quick filter change before the RR day. Will let you know if i get the same results as Kev, fingers crossed.

 

Have to say mine also looks nice and shiny on the lobes also, but on paper its never been more than 8k without a service.

[Kevin Bacon 5]

Yeah it's not just the lobes that are clean, but the entire head casting is spotless, as new looking.

[NickVR6 0]

Bet you a 5er at the rr day mines cleaner....lol

[dr_mat 0]

the uninformed consumer is at the mercy of the scientists working for manufacturers.

 

Erm.. I would say they're more at the mercy of the marketeers working for manufacturers .. The scientists generally aren't in the business of misdescribing things..

[oilman 0]

Indeed it's the Sales Blurb on the bottle to avoid.

 

What's in the bottle is more important and that's the Chemists job!

 

Cheers

Simon

[craigowl 0]

dr mat said

.. The scientists generally aren't in the business of misdescribing things..

 

True to a degree, doc, as many scientists want their loyalties to lie with the science. That is what I say to the lawyers, anyway!

On the other side of the coin, see "Science and the Swastika" which describes what can happen when self-interest beckons.

I was thinking, too, of the pharmaceutical scientists that you sometimes see on programs like "Panorama" spouting clearly biased dogma about the wonderful efficacy of the multi-million£-making pill made by their company.

It would be nice to think that scientists were wholly ethical and not like those greedy, deceitful marketing types.

Someone close in the family works as a chemist for a large company, so I may have had my thoughts about the industry coloured by his accounts, too!