Oil weight for older diesels?
- Thread starter Submarine deckhand
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone who enjoys boating.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
FF
Guru
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2007
- Messages
- 22,552
The few folks that own Da Book for their engine , and actually READ it will note for most yacht service dino oil is all that is needed.
Engine hours is only HALF the equation , so folks that follow the Mfg specifications will probably be changing oil on calender months in the engine , rather than operating hours.
When we see 30-40 year old TT with 2000 hours , does anyone actually think shooting for 10,000 is realistic , never mind 20,000 or LMAO,,,, 40,000?
What a commercial does has zero to do with yachting.
Engine hours is only HALF the equation , so folks that follow the Mfg specifications will probably be changing oil on calender months in the engine , rather than operating hours.
When we see 30-40 year old TT with 2000 hours , does anyone actually think shooting for 10,000 is realistic , never mind 20,000 or LMAO,,,, 40,000?
What a commercial does has zero to do with yachting.
RickB
Guru
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2007
- Messages
- 3,804
- Vessel Make
- CHB 48 Zodiac YL 4.2
This engine is quite possibly the most expensive diesel engine ever built:
http://www.mae.ncsu.edu/eischen/courses/mae415/docs/WorldsLargestInternalCombustionEngine.pdf
According to the installation manual the 6 lubrication system oils approved by the manufacturer are all "dino" oils.
I personally don't believe they are suffering from "closed minds" or are trying to scrimp on lube oil.
Wärtsilä RT-Flex96C and RTA96C
Look for the Marine Installation Manual 25.72.07.40 - Issue V.04 - Rev. 0 page F-28 for the list of approved oils.
Geez, no need to get snippy ...
Last edited:
psneeld
Guru
Still waiting for that ONE PIECE OF DOCUMENTATION to support the statement that synthetics will make engines last longer...
Me a chump?.... maybe...but at least I'm not proving it with unsubstantiated claims...
The other thing I find funny is I just threw away my long list of aircraft accident investigation school diplomas...between all that schooling on equipment maintenance/failure modes... and reviewing maybe thousands of aviation accident reports...I don't recall a one because the aircraft was using dino instead of synthetic....or any oil related failure except total loss from a hardware failure.
Me a chump?.... maybe...but at least I'm not proving it with unsubstantiated claims...
The other thing I find funny is I just threw away my long list of aircraft accident investigation school diplomas...between all that schooling on equipment maintenance/failure modes... and reviewing maybe thousands of aviation accident reports...I don't recall a one because the aircraft was using dino instead of synthetic....or any oil related failure except total loss from a hardware failure.
JDCAVE
Guru
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2011
- Messages
- 2,905
- Location
- Canada
- Vessel Name
- Phoenix Hunter
- Vessel Make
- Kadey Krogen 42 (1985)
Ooooh! Things are getting testy! I just changed my oil with 14.5 quarts of Shell Rotela 30 at 200 hours because that's what Bob Smith said to use. And he knows more about Lehmans than I do (that's for sure) and possibly others here as well.
Jim, Sent from my iPad using Trawler
Jim, Sent from my iPad using Trawler
Nomad Willy
Guru
JDCAVE,
Me too straight 30W.
Bob Smith must have a good bedside manor as everyone here seems to do just what he says.
Re the synthetic I just checked my Camry,s oil and it's real clean. I've been driving it a lot in the last month or so and would expect the oil to look a bit blackish but it looks like I just changed it. Don't know if it has anything to do w the syn but I felt compelled to mention it. I suspect the syn is recommended so the best numbers will appear on the new car window sticker re gas mileage but I really don't know. In this regard I intend to follow the book.
Why does it say "sent from my I-pad" ?
This is coming from my i-pad .. do you see "sent ...... ?
Me too straight 30W.
Bob Smith must have a good bedside manor as everyone here seems to do just what he says.
Re the synthetic I just checked my Camry,s oil and it's real clean. I've been driving it a lot in the last month or so and would expect the oil to look a bit blackish but it looks like I just changed it. Don't know if it has anything to do w the syn but I felt compelled to mention it. I suspect the syn is recommended so the best numbers will appear on the new car window sticker re gas mileage but I really don't know. In this regard I intend to follow the book.
Why does it say "sent from my I-pad" ?
This is coming from my i-pad .. do you see "sent ...... ?
BruceK
Moderator Emeritus
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2011
- Messages
- 13,347
- Vessel Name
- Sojourn
- Vessel Make
- Integrity 386
For the moment, take cost out of the discussion. If conventional/dino, semi synthetic, and synthetic all cost the same, what would you use?
psneeld
Guru
A combo...many experts think the drain off of pure synthetic is too much for occasionally used engines yet the synthetics do have a few advantages...just not enough to switch in my opinion till the price is similar. better to change often than slightly better performance at a longer interval.
Edelweiss
Guru
Manufactures recommendation is 30W Dino. It's already gone 37 years with no appreciable wear. What's the point in changing oils now??
It's just like my sailboater friends. . . Why should I feed them 20 year old Brandy, when they're just as happy with Wild Turkey in a red solo cup??
Besides, the dirty rotten biach is going to out live me, sippin Dino, the way it is!! Why should I feed her something special??
Last edited:
Robert Durio
Member
Synthetic, almost regardless of cost, within reason.
Let me try to clear all the haze and obfuscation/diversion etc., from the air.
My assertion is that Synthetic Oil is superior to Conventional
To illustrate, itemize the things oil does
Prevents metal-to-metal contact
Reduces wear from such contact
Reduces friction
Removes heat
Prevents corrosion
Maintains a film during idle times to protect during startup
Keep engine clean and free of deposits
Withstands damage from excessive heat
In all these characteristics, Synthetics win - hands down.
You can go on about Caterpillar, or other people and what they recommend or not if you wish, but that is mute, i.e. beyond the scope of my assertion.
In a head-to-head, characteristic by characteristic competition, Synthetic wins - period.
Sorry to use the "chump" word.
Last edited:
psneeld
Guru
No one will probably argue the "tiny details"...find that ONE PIECE OF DOCUMENTATION yet that proves anything?
Robert Durio
Member
Perhaps it should say "Sent from my Trawler using my iPad"
Robert Durio
Member
It is in plethoric abundance and everywhere for anyone truly interested in the truth to find. You are invited to do your own research - it isn't hard.
psneeld
Guru
I have for years...in fact since you have posted your "opinion" I have been looking and have found WAY more articles that disagree with you...kinda like the knowledgeable boaters and marine experts here.
So for YOUR credibility...I suggest you post a link that you think would convince a few of us.
The real reason I think you aren't is there isn't any as I have found...lot's of opinions out there...but no hard facts that synthetics will make the average engine under average conditions last longer...the ball is in your court...not mine. And no links to synthetic manufacturers please...we are smarter than that.
here's just one of hundreds I have found...but again...just opinion and no scientific proof either way....
Motor Oil Myths and Facts
Advantages of Synthetic
Synthetic oil was originally developed for high performance racing engines. Mobil tried to popularize synthetic oil for passenger vehicles back in the early 1970's. At the time, Mobil was promoting 20K or 25K oil changes with synthetic, but they soon backed down from this. Synthetic oil is a good choice if you have a vehicle with a high performance engine (in fact synthetic is required for many of these engines). It is also a good choice if your vehicle is operated in extremely cold climates. It has higher resistance to breakdown caused by heat and it flows better in extreme cold. Unfortunately for the synthetic oil industry there is virtually no advantage to using synthetic oil in a non-high performance engine that is operated in moderate climates. You probably could go a bit longer between oil changes with a synthetic, i.e. following the normal service schedule even if you fall into the severe service category, but I wouldn't advise this. In short, synthetic may give you the peace of mind of knowing that you are using an oil that is far better than necessary for your vehicle, but it won't reduce wear or extend the life of the engine. The mistake some people make it to wrongly extrapolate these benefits onto normal engines operated in mild climates, with the ultimate lack of any knowledge being manifested with statements such as "synthetics provide 'Peace of Mind,' or 'Cheap Insurance,'" or other such nonsense.
Bob Cofer
Guru
The peanut gallery speaks
It does smell better! I use synthetic in my hot rods, modern and ancient and I do have to say that in gear boxes it is unsurpassed. We need mythbusters to do a test! The old Perkins gets dino though cause to use synthetic makes as much sense as a dress on a cow.
It does smell better! I use synthetic in my hot rods, modern and ancient and I do have to say that in gear boxes it is unsurpassed. We need mythbusters to do a test! The old Perkins gets dino though cause to use synthetic makes as much sense as a dress on a cow.
Nomad Willy
Guru
I would use synthetic ... no question. Like Robert Durio says ... it's better.
But syn isn't going to extend the life of my engine because it can't protect my engine from what it's going to die from. So as long as synthetic is considerably more expensive I'll use dino. One of my cars specifies it and I'll use it there. Also I use it for certain upper cylinder lubricating chores. I have a trawler engine that uses 5 quarts but if I had a big engine like most here that needs 14 quarts per oil change I'd Damn sure use dino.
Dressing cows Bob? .. you've been too long on the east side.
Last edited:
Robert Durio
Member
I'll cover Formula 1, Somebody else cover CART, IRL, Endurance Racers, somebody else contact the Aviation Industry and tell them that the expensive, heavily engineered, custom designed and manufactured oil they use isn't any better than fermented Dino-guts - despite the decades of testing by professionals in various allied fields proving otherwise
On Three,, Ready, Break. Hut one, Hut Two, Hut Three.
They only one you are fooling is Yourself.
Robert Durio
Member
About the only thing I am on the East Side of is the Pacific Ocean!!! I prefer my cows undressed Medium Rare, Ribeye or Fillet Mignon, if you please.
Last edited:
Robert Durio
Member
My mistake, and I do thank you for pointing it out, and with humor as well. Nicely done, and Thanks.
Robert Durio
Member
Listen, I don't want to get into a pissing contest with you. It is universally known the Synthetic Oil is vastly superior, no serious player in the field disagrees, and for a myriad of reasons.
The only real issue is much more subjective, and that is whether it is worth the expense, but in the end, all things considered, like longer service life of the product itself, protection of engine parts - especially at startup after long periods of laying idle (do you start your boat's engines several times a week), synthetic seems to be about the same price. But that wasn't my point, for only you can answer that for your own circumstance, if you have a lot of engines, for some it may be worth it, and for others, not so much. In don't use it in my lawn-mower, for example, but in my trucks, absolutely - wouldn't consider dino-guts oil.
Regards
RT Firefly
Enigma
Nomad Willy
Guru
I thought syn was developed for the military to be able to start their engines at -50 degrees F.
Haha Durio I use it in my lawn mower as an upper cylinder lubricant but wouldn't dream of putting it in my truck. Different strokes .................
Haha Durio I use it in my lawn mower as an upper cylinder lubricant but wouldn't dream of putting it in my truck. Different strokes .................
Last edited:
markpierce
Master and Commander
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2010
- Messages
- 12,557
- Location
- USA
- Vessel Name
- Carquinez Coot
- Vessel Make
- penultimate Seahorse Marine Coot hull #6
I'll use the type of oil (natural versus synthetic) a new engine comes with.
Robert Durio
Member
I am curious, and have really have no idea, but how does one lubricate the upper cylinder, without lubricating the entire engine?
My earliest encounter with it was hearing people at the University I attended, who were in the Aviation Program, talking about it as used in Helo's in RVN.
Curious, (again) why would you NOT put it in your truck (other than expense).
Last edited:
Robert Durio
Member
Here is an interesting article on the development of synthetic oil.
[Published in the January 2000 issue of Lubricants World magazine]
Synthetic Automotive Engine Oils--A Brief History
by
Maurice E. LePera
LePera and Associates
[The story of synthetics development is peppered with war, frigid cold, and variable commercial success.
The synthetic automotive engine oils of today had their start many decades ago, perhaps as early as in the last century. And it seems that since the beginning, the compounds have generated controversy. Some of it has been positive: Many companies claim to have been the first with such-and-such a development, for instance. And some has been less flattering: Witness the emergent challenge to even the definition of “synthetic.”
In this article, we examine the history of the compounds traditionally considered to be synthetic lubricants and offer some insights into their former, current, and future role in the automotive engine oil market.
Initial Research and Development in the United States
Although the first “synthetic” hydrocarbons are believed to have been synthesized by C. Friedel and J.M. Crafts in 1877, the first attempt at commercial development of synthetic hydrocarbons did not occur until 1929, by Standard Oil of Indiana. These results were reported later, acknowledging that many gallons of synthetic oil had been made by polymerizing different olefins. However, there was no demand for these new synthetic oils because of their high costs, and this initial attempt failed.
During the same time frame, other types of synthetic oils were also being investigated. One such type, a water-insoluble polyalkylene glycol (PAG), was being developed by Union Carbide and Carbon Corp. H.R. Fife of the Mellon Institute of Industrial Research carried out the original work in the 1930s. Later, these research efforts were augmented by development activities of the Carbide and Carbon Corp. and Linde Air Products Co. It was readily recognized that these synthetic oils, referred to as Ucon LB Lubricants, were inherently more expensive to produce than the best petroleum oils being marketed at that time. Although these synthetic oils possessed special qualities--such as excellent low-temperature fluidity, desirable viscosity-temperature relationships, reduced carbon formation tendencies, and good solvency-- Union Carbide and Carbon Corp. realized that the high production costs could eventually become market barriers for their synthetic oils.
Extensive field tests of these PAG engine oils in fleets of new, older, and commercial vehicles were conducted starting as early as 1942 and continued into the mid-1940s. The results indicated the PAG engine oils performed extremely well. However, one shortcoming of the PAG engine oils revealed during testing was their ability to absorb water (about 3%-4% at room temperature). This water tolerance resulted in a tendency for rusting and corrosion on oil-wetted surfaces when engines were exposed to high humidity.
Some limited testing was conducted in diesel engines, but ring sticking and piston deposits indicated the need for additional research. A number of U.S. Army aircraft operating in Canada and Alaska were lubricated with the PAG engine oils through the summer of 1944 and accumulated more than 150,000 hours with no problems.
The German Contribution
The synthesis of petroleum substitutes from carbon monoxide and hydrogen by means of the Fischer-Tropsch process was commercialized in Germany by 1939. Germany realized early on that supplies of crude oil would become a major problem in operating its war machine during World War II. So the country expended a considerable amount of technical effort to develop its own synthetic fuels and lubricants industry.
1
From this industry, which was based on coal gasification technology, three processes became commercialized, producing about 10% of the German supply of lubricating oil. One process produced lubricating oils by polymerization of cracked waxes, another by reacting chlorinated Fischer-Tropsch middle oils with naphthalene, and the third by the synthesis and then polymerization of ethylene.
Additionally, Germany was able to produce a synthetic bright stock by the condensation of paraffin with olefins and subsequent ethylene polymerization. Germany also developed special engine oils for operation on the Russian front because of the extremely low prevailing temperatures. These oils were blends of light synthetic oils with adipic acid ester, giving the resultant blended oils very low pour points and high viscosity indexes.
Impact of the Turbine Engine
After the war, development of PAG engine oils continued. National Carbide Company Inc. marketed its first commercial PAG engine oils--Prestone Motor Oil--in two areas in the East during the winter of 1946. The geographical area selected and short duration of marketing were due to limited production capabilities. Concurrently, the New York Power and Light Corp. had been conducting extensive fleet testing using PAG engine oils in a variety of commercial vehicles, tractors, and trucks that eventually accumulated some 605,000 miles without experiencing problems. Because of the limited production capabilities and higher costs, the emergence of the gas turbine engine and its demand for more thermally stable engine oils terminated further consideration of PAG oils for automotive engine applications.
Diester oils (that is, dibasic acid esters) became the focus in the late 1940s and early 1950s, as petroleum-based engine oils were simply inadequate to meet the demands of turbine engines. High- and low-temperature operability, low basestock volatility for controlling oil consumption, and resistance to thermal and oxidative degradation were all prerequisites for these engines.
The turbine-powered aircraft provided the need for synthetic-based engine oils, and the diester oils satisfied this initial requirement. As the operating temperatures increased with newer and advanced turbine engines, hindered neopentyl or polyol esters came into use; these compounds possessed good thermal and mechanical stability. These synthetic oils had fully demonstrated their superior performance over petroleum-based oils in the aircraft turbine engine. Their demonstrated performance qualities (higher operating temperatures, fluidity at very low temperatures, reduced oil consumption, reduced carbon deposits, etc.) were all viewed as potential technological opportunities that could certainly become benefits for automotive engine oils.
The Emerging Passenger Car Market
As the commercial availability of these diester and polyol ester basestocks had been established for the aircraft turbine engine industry and was growing, oil formulators began to experiment with using these for automotive engine applications. At the same time, production capability was evolving for polyalphaolefins (PAOs), which had actually been synthesized in 1937. Created by polymerizing long-chained olefins, these PAOs were being viewed as possible basestock components for automotive engine oil applications.
Apart from the improved low-temperature starting benefit that would be realized with a synthetic automotive engine oil, other such potential benefits quickly came to the forefront. These benefits included extended drain intervals, increased fuel economy, reduced engine wear, cooler-running engines due to less friction, all-season oil applications, higher operating temperatures, and cleaner engines due to the lower levels of deposit formation. The extended drain interval quality perhaps took on the most importance and provided the key selling point for these oils.
Army’s Experience and Contributions
During the 1960s, the U.S. Army had been experiencing significant problems in operating vehicles and equipment in Alaska in using its MIL-L-10295 Lubricating Oil, Internal Combustion Engine, Sub-Zero (OES). This was a petroleum-based engine oil that produced unsatisfactory performance in a variety of engine systems, particularly in the two-stroke diesel engines manufactured by Detroit Diesel that have sensitivity to lubricant volatility. These engine systems powered a large number of both wheeled and tracked vehicles.
2
Recognizing the problem to be one related to basestock volatility, the Army initiated a program to develop engine oils for both gasoline- and diesel-fueled ground vehicles and equipment required to operate in cold-temperature environments and year-round. Working closely with industry, the Army subsequently completed engine dynamometer, transmission, and field tests of three types of synthetic-based oils that eventually became qualified and part of a purchase description called “Aberdeen Proving Ground Purchase Description Number 1 (Lubricating Oil, Internal Combustion Engine, Arctic),” issued in 1968. The products qualified under this purchase description included three types of synthetic base products. One qualified product was formulated using an alkylated aromatic oligomer. Another product was qualified using a diester. And the third qualified product was formulated using an olefin oligomer, or PAO. This purchase description was converted to the military specification MIL-L-46167 (Lubricating Oil, Internal Combustion Engine, Arctic) in the early 1970s.
These synthetic oils, which all passed the necessary sequence and component testing initially called out in the purchase description and later the military specification, were quickly “adopted” by the commercial operators in Alaska once the oil was introduced into the military supply system. As a result of later successful field demonstrations at four U.S. Army military installations, use of this class of lubricant spread in the mid-1980s to “outside arctic” use in the northern-tier states and in the higher elevations of the U. S. Because of this, the Army is recognized for leading the introduction of synthetic oils for automotive engine and powertrain applications.
The Push in the ‘70s and ‘80s
The 1970s brought a new momentum to synthetic engine oils for application in both passenger car and commercial vehicles. This may have been due in part to the Arab oil embargo, which resulted in many new synthetic engine oils being introduced. All of these claimed to provide extended drain or “lubrication for life” benefits, and improved fuel economy, clearly brought into focus because of long lines at service stations. Some companies also promoted use of these synthetic oils because of their not being dependent upon crude oil resources. At the same time, the successful application of synthetic engine oils by the U. S. Army in Alaska led to synthetic engine oils being exclusively used during the construction of the Alaskan pipeline system.
The successful penetration of synthetic engine oils was temporarily curtailed as a result of action taken by the automotive industry in the late 1970s. Questioning the quality of synthetic-based engine oils as well as the claims that were being made about them, the automobile manufacturers included statements in their owner’s manuals warning that using synthetic oils would not justify extended drain intervals and that engine warranties could be impacted. Since the extended drain benefit was the largest drawing card for synthetics and served to offset their higher costs, consumer interest in synthetic engine oils declined during the late 1970s.
During this temporary lull in the U.S., Europe began to take the initiative. Oil marketers saw the opportunity to increase their profits by selling synthetic automotive engine oils there, and the European automobile manufacturers pushed the higher performance qualities of synthetics rather than extended drains. This apparently did accelerate the development of the synthetic engine oil market in Europe, which has sustained itself to the present time.
A resurgence of activity in synthetic engine oils has since returned to the U.S. This is in part due to the declining price of synthetic basestocks, the fact that synthetics have gained legitimacy, and the increasing performance requirements for automotive engine oils (e.g., higher engine operating temperatures, increased emission regulations).
Past Problems and Solutions
Many problems confronted synthetic engine oil formulators, ranging from additive package incompatibility to high oil consumption and oil filter deterioration. The additive package problem was perhaps the most troublesome to resolve. Individual additives within an additive package depend upon the composition of the basestock, which affects both solubility and additive responsiveness. Formulators learned early on that additive packages that responded well in petroleum basestocks did not necessarily work as effectively in the different synthetic base oils. PAOs were found to exhibit excellent additive response, but were poor additive solvents. Diesters, on the other hand, were found to vary in additive
3
response but were excellent solvents, except for those additives with which they reacted to form precipitates.
High oil consumption became a real problem with the early PAO-based products, as the formulations caused slight shrinking effects on the engine seals. This in turn caused oil to migrate past the seals; the lower viscosity of these synthetic oils further exacerbated the problem. This was later corrected by incorporating a diester component into the basestock, which provided positive seal swell and improved the additives’ solubility in the base oil.
Oil filter deterioration also initially created problems. Because of the increased solvency of some of the synthetic oils, the adhesives binding the end caps, as well as the phenolic resin treatment on the conventional pleated paper filters, became affected, resulting in filter leakage or bypassing of oil directly to the engine. These problems were subsequently remedied by improving filter construction and going to more efficient depth-type filters.
New Kid on the Block
Although the field of synthetic engine oils had principally been led by the PAOs and to a lesser degree the diester base oils, a new base oil emerging in the mid-1990s began to compete with established market: the very high viscosity index, or hydroisomerized, base oils. Since the introduction of these base oils, there has been much controversy as to whether engine oils formulated with the hydroisomerized base oils can be considered synthetic. In April 1999, a ruling by the National Advertising Division of the Council of Better Business Bureaus allowed engine oils formulated with hydroisomerized base oils to be classified as “synthetic oils.” (See LW’s two-part series, “A Defining Moment for Synthetics,” October and November 1999.)
The Future
Synthetic-based engine oils have continued to grow during the past decade and many expect a continued increase in automotive applications of these products. Almost every oil company now carries a premium-type synthetic-based engine oil in its product line. Moreover, many automobile manufacturers are now specifying synthetic oils for not only engine crankcases, but also transmissions, differentials, and transaxles.
Bibliography
The following sources were used in developing this article:
• Sullivan, F.W., Voorhees, V., Oak, P.T., Barnard, D.P. “The Field for Synthetic Lubricating Oils,”
SAE Paper 310033, May 1931.
• Kratzer, J.C., Green, D.H., Williams, D.B. “New Synthetic Lubricants,” SAE Paper 460215,
January 1946.
• Caines, A., Haycock, R., Automotive Lubricants Reference Book, Society of Automotive Engineers
Inc., 1996.
• Klein, N.L. “German Military Fuels and Lubricants,” SAE Paper 460170, March 1946.
• Wilson, D.K. “Fleet Testing of Synthetic Lubricants,” SAE Paper 480193, April 1947.
• Potter, R.I. “Synthetic Automotive Engine Oils from a Consultant’s Experience,” SAE Paper 760561,
June 1976.
• Lestz, S.J., Bowen, T.C. “Army Experience with Synthetic Oils in Mixed Fleet Arctic Service,” SAE
Paper 750685, June 1975.
• Hopler, P.D., Lestz, S.J. “Application of Synthetic Engine Oils in Army Hydraulic and Power Train
Fluid Systems,” SAE Paper 750828, September 1975.
• Lestz, S.J., Owens, E.C., Bowen, T.C. “Army Arctic Engine Oil Performance in High Ambient
Temperatures,” SAE Paper 892051, September 1989.
• Frame, E.A., Yost, D.M., Bowen, T.C., Villahermosa, L.A. “Development of Improved Arctic
Engine Oil (OEA-30),” SAE Paper 1999-01-1523, May 1999.
• “Pennzoil Technical Product Information--Synthetic Motor Oil History,” URL
• http://www.home.aone.net.au/oilandenergy/proddocs/sohistory.htm .
4
• Booser, E.R. CRC Handbook of Lubrication –Theory and Design, Volume II, CRC Press Inc., 1984.
• Bui, K. “A Defining Moment for Synthetics,” Lubricants World, October & November 1999.
• “Chek-Chart Lubrication Recommendations Guide,” Check-Chart Publications, 1998.
5
Last edited:
RickB
Guru
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2007
- Messages
- 3,804
- Vessel Make
- CHB 48 Zodiac YL 4.2
I thought your "I'm outa here" post was your best contribution.
Attachments
FF
Guru
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2007
- Messages
- 22,552
>However, one shortcoming of the PAG engine oils revealed during testing was their ability to absorb water (about 3%-4% at room temperature). This water tolerance resulted in a tendency for rusting and corrosion on oil-wetted surfaces when engines were exposed to high humidity.<
Doesnt sound like a great boat oil to me.
Doesnt sound like a great boat oil to me.
psneeld
Guru
I'm starting to think that also...usually one minded posting lasts only about this long...especially with the "I'm outta here stuff"...
Although pilothouse king came back with a completely refreshing difference.
Still no documentation which I just love....
here's a good source of oil info...all correct? heck I don't know but many experience people have referenced it through the years...
- Bob is the Oil Guy
He touts the advantages of synthetics....but not ONE reference to a "study" that shows synthetics will make your engine last longer.....just his opinion how it may make many parts last longer due to easier starting...
In the end what's he use in HIS vehicle...a blended multi-weight...and a SUV at that and we know boat engines aren't exactly the same...like to know what he would put in his Lehman....
Last edited:
