Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 04-11-2012, 10:07 AM   #21
Guru
 
RCook's Avatar


 
City: Holladay, UT
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Dream Catcher
Vessel Model: Nordic Tug 37-065
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 506
Another reason to stick with a readily available quality dino oil: I can get Delo 15-40 just about anywhere along the Inside Passage, and I need to change the oil 3-5 times each summer.
__________________
Advertisement

__________________
Richard Cook
Dream Catcher (Nordic Tug 37)
New Moon (Bounty 257) - FOR SALE
"Cruising in a Big Way"
RCook is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2012, 11:02 AM   #22
Guru
 
psneeld's Avatar
 
City: Avalon, NJ
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Freedom
Vessel Model: Albin 40
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 15,920
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daddyo View Post
I asked Bob Smith himself about this last year. Bottom line is he said it was fine but use single weight SAE30. He didn't see much benefit other then the longer cycle between changes. The other experts I've spoken with are Zimmerman Marine and they say it will actually make the engine run quieter with the synthetic. As to the cost it is actually a little cheaper the conventional oil when you factor in the savings of double life of the oil and half as many filter changes.
True for tannies and gearboxes...problem with combustion engines is the acidity builds...so without oil analysis doubling the interval can be an iffy thing....probably OK if the hrs are accumulated over a short calendar period.
__________________

psneeld is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2012, 11:05 AM   #23
Guru
 
psneeld's Avatar
 
City: Avalon, NJ
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Freedom
Vessel Model: Albin 40
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 15,920
Quote:
Originally Posted by rwidman View Post
I thought some commercial oils are just that - a blend of synthetic and "dino" oil. Am I wrong on that?
I run the Rotella 5W-40 in my truck in the winter and I'm pretty sure it's a blend and not a true syn like Mobile 1.

Some oil "experts" believe a blend is better in the long run for normal use because it clings better as FF was pointing out. (best of both worlds without downsides other than it will cook faster at higher than normal operating temps but unfortunately twice the price)
psneeld is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2012, 12:14 PM   #24
Guru
 
Conrad's Avatar
 
City: Calgary
Country: Canada
Vessel Name: Blue Sky
Vessel Model: Nordic Tugs 42 Hull #001
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,553
Quote:
Originally Posted by rwidman View Post
I thought some commercial oils are just that - a blend of synthetic and "dino" oil. Am I wrong on that?
I'm just going by what the mechanics have told me; that applies to the boat, and all three of my vehicles. The blends may have some peculiarities that allow them to coexist, I don't know.

Having said that, another "truism" that I've been told over the years is that you never use synthetic oil to break in a new engine. Yet when you look at Amsoil's site they say you can.

Given the choice, I'd probably stay conventional, as it just makes life simpler.
__________________
Conrad
Berthed in
Campbell River BC
Conrad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2012, 12:44 PM   #25
Guru
 
Phil Fill's Avatar
 
City: Everett Wa
Country: US
Vessel Name: Eagle
Vessel Model: Roughwater 58 pilot house
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,919
A big difference is if the engine is a 2 stroke or 4 stroke. If 2 stoke the oil need to be thick and cling, and low sulfur/detergent. The reason is at least one cylinder on a 2 stroke is open at any time. Thus the cylinder wall should have a think lasting clingy coating if not run for long periods of time. It is also recomend to turn/bump/start the engine every once in a while. Second is the sulfur/detergent as a two stock cylinder ride on a thin film of oil, and some oils are to thin and clean. Anyway I will only use single 30 or 40 weight oil in the Eagle 1978 engines.

As to when oil is change it is dependant on the corbon and sulfur and/or how dirty the oil is. If you take oil samples you can push oil chnages to 200+ hours. You can buy test kits at many marine stores. I am not sure where the 100 hour or 3,000 miles came from? It use to be 200 hours and 5,000 miles?

We had some great discussion in the past and I ma to lazy to go find pull out the detail again. So you newbies can do it as us older have already been thorugh it and decided.
Phil Fill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2012, 05:27 PM   #26
Guru
 
Nomad Willy's Avatar
 
City: Concrete Washington State
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Willy
Vessel Model: Willard Nomad 30'
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,720
Richard,
Yes.....That's one of the reasons I use the same brand but I do not use multi-vis. I think that unless we have some trouble cranking in low temps multi-vis is totally not needed. For the same reason I have a bronze Jabsco sea water pump. Any NAPA in SE has impellers.
psneeld,
I agree. Half the interval w inexpensive dino oil seems much more effective. I believe good quality dino oil like Shell or Chevron is 100% as good as synthetic if not over stressed and you could run your non-turbo'd at WOT for hours and not over stress your oil. And I'll bet you could run a turbo engine on dino oil at at least 80% load and it looks like nobody here does that. If you put straight 30W or 40W in your engine and do'nt have trouble cranking and starting you're good to go w 100% dino.
Conrad,
Mechanics are not engineers and remember that mechanics told us for decades not to put a battery on concrete? We all know that was/is total bunk now but most everybody bought into that. Not using syn for break-in comes from the belief that there is not enough engine wear properly seat the rings. I do'nt know if that's true (I suspect not) but it wont hurt to break in w dino and for that matter it wont hurt to run dino for the whole engine's life.
Phil Fill,
I agree .......30 or 40 weight oil for our boat engines. I'll talk about it again as that's what we do on TF.http://www.trawlerforum.com/forums/i...s/sk/dance.gif
Nomad Willy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2012, 06:09 PM   #27
Guru
 
psneeld's Avatar
 
City: Avalon, NJ
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Freedom
Vessel Model: Albin 40
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 15,920
Quote:
Originally Posted by manyboats View Post
Richard,
Yes.....That's one of the reasons I use the same brand but I do not use multi-vis. I think that unless we have some trouble cranking in low temps multi-vis is totally not needed. For the same reason I have a bronze Jabsco sea water pump. Any NAPA in SE has impellers.
psneeld,
I agree. Half the interval w inexpensive dino oil seems much more effective. I believe good quality dino oil like Shell or Chevron is 100% as good as synthetic if not over stressed and you could run your non-turbo'd at WOT for hours and not over stress your oil. And I'll bet you could run a turbo engine on dino oil at at least 80% load and it looks like nobody here does that. If you put straight 30W or 40W in your engine and do'nt have trouble cranking and starting you're good to go w 100% dino.
Conrad,
Mechanics are not engineers and remember that mechanics told us for decades not to put a battery on concrete? We all know that was/is total bunk now but most everybody bought into that. Not using syn for break-in comes from the belief that there is not enough engine wear properly seat the rings. I do'nt know if that's true (I suspect not) but it wont hurt to break in w dino and for that matter it wont hurt to run dino for the whole engine's life.
Phil Fill,
I agree .......30 or 40 weight oil for our boat engines. I'll talk about it again as that's what we do on TF.http://www.trawlerforum.com/forums/i...s/sk/dance.gif
From what I read on battery manufacturer websites was that when batteries had rubber cases...moisture (concrete) was a problem but when batteries switched to plastic cases it became moot.

I've been debating the multi-viscosity issue as my boat lived 22 years in South Florida and now NJ till at least freezing temps are experienced. Hard not to think 15W-40 isn't my best solution as it is one of the most recommended oils for diesels in the mid-Atlantic region.
psneeld is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2012, 07:20 PM   #28
Guru
 
City: North Charleston, SC
Country: USA
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 4,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Conrad View Post
I'm just going by what the mechanics have told me; ...............
Sometimes, mechanics aren't experts, they are just good at repairing things.
rwidman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2012, 07:56 PM   #29
Scraping Paint
 
City: -
Country: -
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,748
Quote:
Originally Posted by psneeld View Post
I've been debating the multi-viscosity issue as my boat lived 22 years in South Florida and now NJ till at least freezing temps are experienced.
The multi-vis question is an interesting one. When we bought our boat and I asked the experts I knew at the time what oil they felt would be best for the engines (1973 FL120s) all of them recommended single-weight oil and all of them advised against multi-viscosity. This included the head of the engineering department of one of the marine industry's most respected propulsion and generator manufacturers. At the time I asked the question (1998) he said that their current lineup of propulsion and generator diesels all used multi-vis and some even used synthetic. But for very old generation engines like the FL120, he said they recommend sticking with a single-weight oil.

He had some reasons which unfortunately I didn't actually pay much attention to at the time since I got my basic question answered and it jibed with the engine manufacturer's manual. But I have since seen a very detailed discourse on the T&T list from a fellow in the oil industry about the pros and cons of multi-vis oil in engines like the FL120 and there were some issues with multi-vis that appeared to be less than ideal. I believe it had to do with the reaction of the oil as it gets hot and that lubricity is actually lost to a degree. I could be misremembering the reason the oil guy gave for multi-vis being less than ideal for older diesels, but whatever the reasons were they made sense. Unfortunatly T&T has the most user-unfriendly archives search function I've ever seen and trying to unearth this discussion today would become a career.

However..... while the 1973-vintage Ford and Lehman operator's manuals for our engines specify single weight oil only based on the ambient temperatures the engine will be operated in, later versions of the Lehman manual for the same engine include multi-vis oil in the lubrication chart. The operators manual for my 1973 Land Rover, which has an engine Rover designed as a diesel and then later adapted for gas (a long story in itself), specifies multi-vis oils.

So I'm not sure what the real story is. But we have elected to follow the advice we were originally given and that our manual calls out, which is to use single-weight oil only. For our climate, the recommended weight is 30.
Marin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2012, 08:48 PM   #30
Guru
 
Conrad's Avatar
 
City: Calgary
Country: Canada
Vessel Name: Blue Sky
Vessel Model: Nordic Tugs 42 Hull #001
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,553
Quote:
Originally Posted by rwidman View Post
Sometimes, mechanics aren't experts, they are just good at repairing things.
In any profession you will find folks who are not experts I'm afraid.
__________________
Conrad
Berthed in
Campbell River BC
Conrad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2012, 09:37 PM   #31
Guru
 
psneeld's Avatar
 
City: Avalon, NJ
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Freedom
Vessel Model: Albin 40
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 15,920
Quote:
Originally Posted by JD View Post
I'm sorry but I can't agree with this 100%. It may have been true for an engine that was built in 1970 but remember the engineers didn't have at their disposal the things that are at the disposal of engineers today.

As an example what if you had a heart attack today and the Dr. that came into the room to treat you was 90 years old and he said "take two aspirins and get a lot of bed rest" because that was the way they did it when he got out of medical school in 1950. Would you do that or would you like to have the triple by pass, or valve replacement that has saved so many people in the last 40 years?

The point is that there are oils and lubricants that are available today that were not even thought of when your engine was built so there was no way for the manual to recommend them. Read the side of the can. If it meets or exceeds the SAE Specs for your engine it will not hurt your engine.
I agree with the above...the oils of today are far beyond what was available in the 70's. Lehman's ran forever on crap oil of the 70's so it's easy to say "why change what ain't broken".

Some guys laugh at SuperTech oil from WalMart...but an independent lab showed it to be superior to many big name oils in many applications.

I'll bet if I ask a bunch of engineers and mechanics if it's OK to use WaMart oil they would probably give me a dozen reasons not to...but ask a bunch of petro-chemical chemists and they might say different.

My boat engine gets babied compared to my diesel truck...because my truck engine is flawless after the 12 yrs I have owned it and it will probably do another 12...I don't see how a lehman loafing along at 1600 rpm is going to be hurt by almost any decent oil.
psneeld is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2012, 11:57 PM   #32
TF Site Team
 
Peter B's Avatar
 
City: Brisbane
Country: Australia
Vessel Name: Lotus
Vessel Model: Clipper (CHB) 34 Sedan/Europa style
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 6,670
Send a message via Skype™ to Peter B
Quote:
Originally Posted by FF View Post
"Of course syn will not hurt your engine. It's better except for the price so how is it going to hurt your engine?"

EASY, its special effects can HARM the engine by reducing protection.

The Syn oil is great oil for extreme loads and high heat,but it is created to scrape easier off the cylinder walls.
This will give the engine 1 to 1 1/2 better fuel burn . But the chemistry that lets it scrape off also helps it run off.

A few days after an engine is shut down there may not be enough residual oil on the cylinder walls to keep them from rusting.

Less of a problem on a truck operated 250 days a year .
BUT on a boat with the usual wet exhaust there is frequently water in the exhaust all the time.Esp if a muffler or water lift silencer is aboard.

The choice of 1% better fuel burn VS rusty cylinder walls keeps me on std oil , and fogging fluid when there will be a known stand down time.

FF
Which is why I use Castrol Magnatec Diesel oil, based on their claim for it sticking to the metal better, and covering that cold start-up wear. Works well so far. Still barely using any oil in quite an old engine. I also use the equivalent in our cars, and was interested to find (Marin might be interested in this) the franchise dealer used synthetic Castrol Magnatec in our near new Sub Outback at each service.
They use the term 'intelligent molecules' in their description of how it works, but what the technology really does, (but feel the public could not understand), is they positively charge the molecules so they are attracted to the inherent negative charge on the engine metal.
PS, FF you might not have found your PM site yet - did that thing ever arrive...?
Peter B is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2012, 12:12 AM   #33
Scraping Paint
 
City: -
Country: -
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter B View Post
I also use the equivalent in our cars, and was interested to find (Marin might be interested in this) the franchise dealer used synthetic Castrol Magnatec in our near new Sub Outback at each service.
They use the term 'intelligent molecules' in their description of how it works, but what the technology really does, (but feel the public could not understand), is they positively charge the molecules so they are attracted to the inherent negative charge on the engine
Hmmm.... I am always suspicious of anyone using "magnetic" with reference to fluids like fuel, oil, etc. Reminds me too much of Algae-X, one of the biggest scams on the planet. Or the $50 kit back in the 80s that included two 25 cent cow magnets, three feet of electrical tape, and a Xeroxed set of instructions on how to tape the magnets to your fuel line to increase your mileage by 15%. One of my co-workers fell for this in a big way and was the object of the most effective practical joke I've ever seen as a result.

We use Subaru-branded synthetic oil in our Forester, 0-20 wt. It's not made by Subaru, of course, and it's probably no different than the other "shelf" brands of synthetic oil. But it's priced exactly the same as all the good synthetics at the auto parts stores including Castrol so I figure if we do have a problem with the engine (unlikely given the reputation of Subaru's drive train), they can't say it's because we used the wrong oil.
Marin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2012, 01:11 AM   #34
Guru
 
Nomad Willy's Avatar
 
City: Concrete Washington State
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Willy
Vessel Model: Willard Nomad 30'
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,720
Re the Wall Mart oil....NAPA oil is Valvoline and I have nothing but respect for their products so Wall Mart oil could be another fine product as well.
Single weight oil is not the least bit old technology in that it has all the new additives the MV oils have except the viscosity improvers (VIs). Whatever space or weight the VI occupies in MV oils .....that void is oil. There is more oil in single weight oil. So lubricity should be higher. That is the most important element of "lubricating " oil. However I do'nt know how much space the VIs take. I live in Alaska and I have NEVER had the slightest problem cranking or starting my engine. I'm sure we do'nt need multi-vis oil. One should also keep in mind that the degree of viscosity stabilization is only slight.
Another viscosity thing to keep in mind is that the higher the viscosity of lube oil used in an engine the lower the engine wear. I have never heard of an engineer or other oil expert disagree on that. The one thing they all agree on is that thicker oil means reduced wear. The car manufacturers probably do'nt care how long your car lasts but I know they care very much how high the fuel mileage numbers are on the stickers in the windows of the new cars and lighter weight oils raise those numbers through lower friction. So at times even manufacturers recommendations should be at least suspect. But if you know little about engines and oils following the manufacturers recommendations is the safest thing to do. Some of the new cars may have light oils specified to enhance EPA mileage ratings and since synthetics don't thin as much when hot synthetic oil may be specified for the same reason.
psneeld wrote: "I don't see how a lehman loafing along at 1600 rpm is going to be hurt by almost any decent oil." HaHa....even bananas will probably work for a surprisingly long time.
Nomad Willy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2012, 01:18 AM   #35
Guru
 
BruceK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 7,573
Quick question. We know it as "synthetic oil",but in the back of my mind lurks the recollection it is still crude oil derived, but heavily modified. I have also seen engine oil marketed as "semi-synthetic". What is "synthetic oil?
For the record,I use 15/40 multigrade in my FLs, it seems fine.
BruceK
BruceK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2012, 06:26 AM   #36
FF
Guru
 
FF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 16,531
"As to the cost it is actually a little cheaper the conventional oil when you factor in the savings of double life of the oil and half as many filter changes. "

For folks that think the engine assembler knows a bit about his product , remember oil is changed on EITHER operating hours or time in the engine,which ever is reached first!

For any engine I am a firm believer in single weight oil , if DA Book sez its OK.

Usually never a problem in 3 -4 decades old marinizations.

FF
FF is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2012, 07:12 AM   #37
Guru
 
psneeld's Avatar
 
City: Avalon, NJ
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Freedom
Vessel Model: Albin 40
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 15,920
Quote:
Originally Posted by manyboats View Post
Re the Wall Mart oil....NAPA oil is Valvoline and I have nothing but respect for their products so Wall Mart oil could be another fine product as well.
Single weight oil is not the least bit old technology in that it has all the new additives the MV oils have except the viscosity improvers (VIs). Whatever space or weight the VI occupies in MV oils .....that void is oil. There is more oil in single weight oil. So lubricity should be higher. That is the most important element of "lubricating " oil. However I do'nt know how much space the VIs take. I live in Alaska and I have NEVER had the slightest problem cranking or starting my engine. I'm sure we do'nt need multi-vis oil. One should also keep in mind that the degree of viscosity stabilization is only slight.
Another viscosity thing to keep in mind is that the higher the viscosity of lube oil used in an engine the lower the engine wear. I have never heard of an engineer or other oil expert disagree on that. The one thing they all agree on is that thicker oil means reduced wear. The car manufacturers probably do'nt care how long your car lasts but I know they care very much how high the fuel mileage numbers are on the stickers in the windows of the new cars and lighter weight oils raise those numbers through lower friction. So at times even manufacturers recommendations should be at least suspect. But if you know little about engines and oils following the manufacturers recommendations is the safest thing to do. Some of the new cars may have light oils specified to enhance EPA mileage ratings and since synthetics don't thin as much when hot synthetic oil may be specified for the same reason.
psneeld wrote: "I don't see how a lehman loafing along at 1600 rpm is going to be hurt by almost any decent oil." HaHa....even bananas will probably work for a surprisingly long time.
Good...with your logic my 15W-40 has a higher viscosity rating than the recommended 30W AND I get quicker starts with quicker oil pressure build (less starting wear which is greatly recognized as the worst) so I'm WAYYYYYY better off than with straight 30W.

And PLEEEASE show me the chemistry where there's less "oil" molecules therefore less lubricity in a multi-weight...it should be an interesting read.

I lived on Kodiak for 2 years...heck... gets colder here in Jersey than it ever did when I was up there.
psneeld is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2012, 09:12 AM   #38
JD
Guru
 
JD's Avatar
 
City: New Bern NC
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Stella Di Mare
Vessel Model: Mainship 34t
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,702
Quote:
Originally Posted by manyboats View Post
Re the Wall Mart oil....NAPA oil is Valvoline and I have nothing but respect for their products so Wall Mart oil could be another fine product as well.
I have never understood this logic. It is the same with batteries, oil, tires, steel and the list goes on. Company X builds a product that we will call a Duck and does a right nice job by building a quality product for which they charge accordingly. Company WM sells company X's product in their store but the margin is not what WM wants. So WM goes to Company X and says "hey can you build that product for us under our own label but for less money?". Company X's say "if we could built it for less and keep it as good don't you think we would have done so? We could make more on it or sell it for less". WM says "we thought of that but we really don't care if it is as good as you make yours we just want something like yours but cheaper so we can make as much as you do". Company X says " well we can make it look like a Duck, we can make it walk like a Duck but it will have shorter legs and it won't Quack as loud nor will it be able to fly because we have to remove most of the wing surface due to costs but it will look just like our Duck except it will be different and not cost as much and you can call it Mallard". WM says OK and there you have it. Company X builds both products but one has their name on it and the other has WM on it. So saying that WM's Mallard is as good as X's Duck is a mind game. It is cheaper for a reason plain and simple.

Do we need to go back to the Anchors from China again?

Anyone remember the Cadillac Cimarron and the Chevrolet Cavalier? Both J cars but one cost $12k and the other was $9k. Same car built by the same company and some were built in the same GM plant. But there were differences aside from some chrome and name plates. Real leather in the Cimarron, real walnut on the dash and doors. Things like this were easily seen. But the fact that the wire harness made by Packard Electric in Warren OH was different was not easily seen nor was it widely known. The harness for the Chevrolet had all of it's clips and spades crimped on where as the one for the Cimarron had all of it's clips and spades crimped and soldered. Much more costly to make but better reliability.

So as I said in the beginning, I don't understand why we think that someone can make it cheaper for another company than they do for their own company.
JD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2012, 09:25 AM   #39
Guru
 
psneeld's Avatar
 
City: Avalon, NJ
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Freedom
Vessel Model: Albin 40
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 15,920
Quote:
Originally Posted by JD View Post
I have never understood this logic. It is the same with batteries, oil, tires, steel and the list goes on. Company X builds a product that we will call a Duck and does a right nice job by building a quality product for which they charge accordingly. Company WM sells company X's product in their store but the margin is not what WM wants. So WM goes to Company X and says "hey can you build that product for us under our own label but for less money?". Company X's say "if we could built it for less and keep it as good don't you think we would have done so? We could make more on it or sell it for less". WM says "we thought of that but we really don't care if it is as good as you make yours we just want something like yours but cheaper so we can make as much as you do". Company X says " well we can make it look like a Duck, we can make it walk like a Duck but it will have shorter legs and it won't Quack as loud nor will it be able to fly because we have to remove most of the wing surface due to costs but it will look just like our Duck except it will be different and not cost as much and you can call it Mallard". WM says OK and there you have it. Company X builds both products but one has their name on it and the other has WM on it. So saying that WM's Mallard is as good as X's Duck is a mind game. It is cheaper for a reason plain and simple.

Do we need to go back to the Anchors from China again?

Anyone remember the Cadillac Cimarron and the Chevrolet Cavalier? Both J cars but one cost $12k and the other was $9k. Same car built by the same company and some were built in the same GM plant. But there were differences aside from some chrome and name plates. Real leather in the Cimarron, real walnut on the dash and doors. Things like this were easily seen. But the fact that the wire harness made by Packard Electric in Warren OH was different was not easily seen nor was it widely known. The harness for the Chevrolet had all of it's clips and spades crimped on where as the one for the Cimarron had all of it's clips and spades crimped and soldered. Much more costly to make but better reliability.

So as I said in the beginning, I don't understand why we think that someone can make it cheaper for another company than they do for their own company.
You are kidding right? It's called marketing and once you have a rep...it's easier to charge a higher price...just like WalMarts rep for selling brand stuff at a lower price.

Ever order stuff direct from a manufacturer? Often it's more expensive than ordering it from a retailer.

Plus I never suggested that WalMart oil was the "best" on the market...just better than many bigger name brands. Plus I'm not sure of anything including whether syn is better or multis are bad.

All I suggested was an independent testing lab said Supertech (WalMart) oil had chemical properties that put it in the running with most all other oils.

I didn't do the test so don't fall into the trap that I'm the idiot that didn't do any homework...I still use Rotella and pay the premium...why? Probably because I don't believe everything I hear or see either...but what I wrote was verified by an independent...so who ya gonna believe...manufacturer ads or independent testing? Are we to the point where everyone's a liar???
psneeld is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2012, 09:37 AM   #40
TF Site Team
 
Peter B's Avatar
 
City: Brisbane
Country: Australia
Vessel Name: Lotus
Vessel Model: Clipper (CHB) 34 Sedan/Europa style
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 6,670
Send a message via Skype™ to Peter B
Marin wrote...
Hmmm.... I am always suspicious of anyone using "magnetic" with reference to fluids like fuel, oil, etc. Reminds me too much of Algae-X, one of the biggest scams on the planet. Or the $50 kit back in the 80s that included two 25 cent cow magnets, three feet of electrical tape, and a Xeroxed set of instructions on how to tape the magnets to your fuel line to increase your mileage by 15%...
___________________________________________
Actually, I can understand why you would be sceptical Marin, as it does sound a bit sus, but the technology has actually been pretty well proven. Apparently, the process was developed by the Russians, who got sick of their tanks being immobilised by the Afghanistan Mujahadin blowing up the tanks undersides and all the oil leaking out of their gearboxes and engines leaving them stranded, so developed these oils so the tanks could still limp home. The idea was taken up and actually sold as a range of vehicle care products via network marketing by a company started in the US called Bi-Tron, which I was in for a time. I used it long enough to be convinced there was merit in the cold start-up protection potential. One simple demo was the fact the oil never quite ran off the dipstick, no matter how long the vehicle was not used. Other demos consisted of running a vehicle treated with it for many miles with the sump plug out of engine and also gearbox. The product and the network sort of died down a bit when Castrol Magnatec came out. I think that was not really just coincidence, as the concept by then was not patented, sadly for Bi-Tron it would seem. Still, the principle works, so why not take advantage I say - sort of like the "hole in the doughnut" eh..?
It's still out there...check this out...

Bi-Tron - 21st Century Technology

__________________

Peter B is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off





All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:15 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2006 - 2012