Synthetic Oils Comparison
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 15 Non-Rinker Boats
- 2.9K General Boating Discussions
- 294 Rinker Custom Projects
- 136 Trailer & Trailering Discussions
- 473 Generator Discussions
- 172 Rinker Photo Gallery
- 364 Rinker Sport Boat Forum
- 3.9K Rinker Express Cruisers Forum
- 1.2K Engine Discussions
- 1.2K Electrical Discussions
- 662 Rinker Support Q&A
- 595 Rinker Marketplace & Classifieds
- 67 Rinker News & Updates
- 102 RBO Forum Archives
- 175 Region-Specific Questions
- 31 Canada
- 136 United States
Comments
Great time of year for an oil discussion though.
I'm not fond of additives (except Sta-Bil & such). The rest of it is complete garbage. There's a reason the additive aisle at supply shops is full of colorful bottles of all shapes & sizes. A lot of profit in that stuff with little requirement for proof of effectiveness.
Makes no sense to me.
I did my oil change for 2016 already, and I used Mobil 1 15w-50, mostly because I "used" a quart of the Merc stuff over the summer, and I plan on doing even more tubing & wakeboarding next season, which is high load activities.
If the Merc oil analysis comes back perfect maybe I'll bite the bullet and go back to it right after spring launch, but I'll bet it isnt anywhere near as robust after a season as the Mobil 1 was.....
(Playing devil's advocate here ... please, no flames from happy owners of restored 30-year-old Rinkers!)
for the fact mechanical failures vs wear failures will kill the engine first
#1- operating temperature and distance... the engine in a car, by most modern standards and stipulated by EPA mandates, is between 195* and 205*, all in the name of burning a:f better, and burning off particulates in blow-by... the cats are even hotter than the exhaust that passes through them, again in order to burn off particulates, but also to create that magic vacuum that pulls exhaust pulses towards it (scavenging, as it's known, not back pressure, which is bad no matter it's form)... boats can't have any respectable distance between the manifold and the cat, and I'm wagering the cat is of a differing design due to the heat factor- scavenging isn't an issue (or as much as it is in a auto) because the pulses don't have as much time to slow down and become denser...
metals expand better hotter, sealing rings more efficiently, and disallowing blow-by and or oil seeping past.. oil with zinc chemically reacts with metals in the cat, clogging and destroying them, unless the engine is hot enough to seal the rings efficiently and it's hot enough to burn off particulates...
boats are most often open wide at 160*... some 40* off the average cars 'stat. 40 important degrees.
#2- they said so...
i don't fall in the camp that oil isn't extremely important... I think it is exceptionally important to the engine, especially engines (as these do) that use it in an additional capacity of cooling.
tired engines are worn engines.. you can **** near stop wear in it's tracks by using proper oil, and monitoring it... it's foolishness to say otherwise, and this is the principle that drives me to the newer nanotechnology in oils...
riding a film of exchanging oil instead of metal to metal prohibits wear, period.. how resilient that film is, or known in oil terms as 'shear strength', is the key... using a oil with proper properties in every environment it's ever been in, with proper filtration both air and oil, will make a tore down after 10k hours, degreased, and cleaned, look identical to a brand new engine... now, the likelihood of being able to keep the perfect balance of lubricant for every rpm in those 10k miles is exceptionally impossible.... but, you get my drift, no?
analysis will show what's wearing... lead? nickel? aluminum? chromium? you'll know precisely what's wearing by looking closely at the report, and then comparing the virgin analysis of the same oil... you'll know whether you should use an oil with more moly, phospherous, zinc, sodium, ect... it makes a HUGE difference.
as an example, I dropped from a aluminum count of near 100 to around 7 in consecutive analysis's, doing nothing any different with the exception of different oil... aluminum of that grade spoke of one thing: pistons.. the oil was altered to an oil with a higher stability count and specifically looking at viscosity- the manner in which the oil offered protection was different than the one prior... I went from a zddp concept to a moly/phos philosophy- and it turns out that engine and that oil, in the conditions I most often use that engine, agreed better than the prior... do I want to prove it outside of analysis? Not really, as that would entail a full tear down and computer aided measuring... but let it be known, there is bookoo less wear metals floating around in my oil now than there was... what does that mean? better compression, more uniform lift and duration, more precise movement, less parasitic drag..... better performance, albeit slight when really getting down to brass tacks, but better nonetheless. Also, more reliability.. longevity... those are pretty important to boats that venture, no? They're also important to folks who want to protect their investment.
Are we having fun yet?
I can't remember anyone I know whose Mercruiser marine engine "blew-up" as in a catastrophic failure, during normal, non-commercial use.
I can remember many, many guys having to re-build after a lot of hours, due to normal "wear and tear".
I have never heard anyone, whose opinion I respected (based on their experience), say that using a quality synthetic oil, and a quality filter with them both being changed according to your usage pattern, was a dumb idea or a waste of money.
Conversely, I have heard everyone whose opinion I trust say that doing the aforementioned was the cheapest and best way to maximize engine longevity.
I have heard of exploding marine engines though - some of the new supercharged outboards have had some wild occurrences, but not Mercruiser I/Os.
.....wait a minute have we been down this road already?
Dream 'Inn III -- 2008 400 Express
EGT and thermostat temps are independent of each other. Until the cooling system reaches it max thermal rejection point.
But to each his own. We have guys at the race track doing the same thing with oil analysis. I think its an added expense that is not warranted with most of these low cost engines that are in boats. And provides dubious information from which to base conclusions on.
@F1100 not sure where you get your prices for marine engines? Joe's midnight marine? You might want to cost-out the price of s set of twin 350 Mags, 377 mags, a 383, or 502 Mags to see why we concern ourselves with oil and filter quality and usage.
@LaRea said it with less words than most of us - last longer (far longer) run better (far better). Actually I am shocked that we are having some aspects of this conversation as no one I know, automotive or marine - for at least the last 10 years - would even try to argue that quality synthetic oil and filters on a usage change interval was not a good idea, amazing.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/New-8-2L-502-Gen-VI-GM-Marine-Base-Engine-425HP-Replaces-Mercruiser-1991-2005-/311392797543?hash=item4880750367:g:5bAAAOSwLVZVkgb3&vxp=mtr
No one is debating that, the discussion was brand / benefit/ oil analysis. Obviously synthetic oil and doing proper interval changes is important
so to clarify.... I am saying buying expensive brand "X" vs off the shelf Mobil 1 synthetic, will provide no tangible benefit. Nor would oil analysis.
Man, I flat out disagree.
knowing how an oil is performing for your application is important, and more than a little- no matter if it's protecting your investment or if it's making sure you get back to the dock after your next outing.
using M1 is fine, so long as that works for your engine, but how would you know without an analysis? okay... a lot of emulsions would be visible, but what of aluminum, for instance? What of lead and/or nickel? What if you're destroying your bearings, evident by the insoluble's, that can only be seen by stripping your motor (or other oil containing item such as outdrive) or by analysis?
there isn't anything dubious about an analysis by a reputable laboratory... there certainly is something dubious about running M1, and expecting it not to emulsify, when an oil intended for proximity to water approaches the same issue differently, and is a dispersant... one allows the water to burn out quicker, one doesn't but instead just separates the water and oil... does your engine just sit there more than it runs? This is an important question to answer if you want it to last longer than it's warrantied, no?
Amsoil HD- expensive, and also discontinued, has THE highest shear strength of any oil available, and is awesome for seasonal boaters.... it means the metals are protected even months after the last time the engine was ran... Quaker State? yeah no... it would be fine for an engine seeing constant service and then being changed on interval, and is the sound decision because of that.... but not for the guy who only uses his engine three weekends a month four months out of the year for a total of 50 hours...
we're talking Marine engines, here.... it is almost as important what the oil is doing when the engine ISN'T running as it is when it IS running...
"there isn't anything dubious about an analysis by a reputable laboratory.."
There is nothing dubious about the analysis, however it is very dubious about the conclusions drawn on the reports.
So you see a count of 100PPM of aluminum, what does that mean? Maybe its some aluminum debris from something else in the engine? Perhaps its from ignition detonation on your pistons from bad gas or bad ignition timing? part of your intake manifold if its aluminum? Perhaps the results got better as the aluminum partilcles were filtered out over time? ECT ECT...the list goes on.
Then you change your oil..and it goes to 7PPM.. must be the oil? Did you ever go back to using your old oil and then recheck the aluminum count to see if it jumped back up to 100PPM? Thats the only way to really see if it was the oil or not.
We are talking such infinitesimal numbers here its hard to determine whats causing the results or even if they have merit at all.
At what rate would the engine deteriorate at 100PPM counts? vs 7PPM? does it make a difference? what scale is it representational of? Is that scale of loss even a factor in the longevity of the engine? Is that scale of loss worth the extra effort and funds associated with the special oils and testing costs?
Engines are not failing due to oil Brand. Simple as that.
but explaining the benefits of nanotechnology in oils is likely lost on some people who've a notion planted in their heads and won't let go- not even knowing how that notion was planted in the first place, but simply shrugging and saying "it works for me".... and maybe it has, but that doesn't mean there isn't a better way....
how it's not a simple concept is beyond me, as far as the nanotechnology goes- that if there is a gap of .003 between moving parts, and there are oil additives with almost perfectly spherical borate compounds smaller than .003, which reduce friction by as much as 40% in some applications- it's astounding that isn't understood to me, with all the examples all around us everyday to draw from.
but.. Like I said... it's lost.