Syn Oil?

JD said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

FF said:

"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

Click to expand...

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 said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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

"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

manyboats said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

manyboats said:

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.

Click to expand...

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 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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???

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

Bi-Tron Lubricant Test - YouTube

psneeld said:

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

Click to expand...

The reason the Manufacturer charges retail is to support there deal base. No other. The Retailer can take a little or as much of a margin as they like.

My apologies as to mis quoting you. I thought that I was quoting Eric.

Now we can get our underwear un wadded and go about our normal business.

Nothing wadded here... but your auto analogy doesn't apply to independent testing...just passing along info in case someone wants to reasearch oil further than just buying brand names...

I think I painted myself as someone that is against mulit-vis lubricants. Not so. I use Castrol GTX 10W30 and 20W50 in my cars. Frequently to occasionally one needs to come out of a motel room on a cold morning and run right up to speed on the highway and some of us live at the bottom of a hill and need to put a load on the engine right away. Unless we want to stand around a while and warm the engine up ......but most of us are not built that way. But w most all of our boats we warm up in the way we get underway and by the time we tie up all our mooring lines and the power chord the engine has cooled down nicely. So I think the duty cycle of our boats is such that 30W oil works perfectly well. And If one uses multi-vis it's almost absolutely certain positively nothing will happen that is bad. I just think it's a tad better to run single weight in the boats. The difference is just fly stuff. And synthetic won't hurt your engine ....just your wallet.

Peter B

Thanks! I watched your impressive Bi-Tron video and placed Bi-Tron website into my favorites collection; will begin to research that lube.

I think you mentioned you were entailed somehow with Bi-Tron Company... You know where Bi-Tron is sold in USA? To your knowledge, does Bi-Tron product produce any lasting ill effects (e.g. blockages from long term buildup) on crank shaft or other bearings’ lubrication journals of gasoline engines? Also, over time, does Bi-Tron produce any problematic coating build-ups on cylinder walls, piston rings/groves – or on – bearing, cam lobe, flat tappet/lifter surfaces?

Gas engines in my 1967 classic muscle car and 1977 classic Tollycraft are original and in excellent condition. They each have flat tappets/lifters (before roller bearing lifters became standardized). Since the advent of catalytic converters zinc volumes in gasoline motor oil have been greatly reduced. Not good for flat lifters and cam lobes, or even bearings in general, as zinc is a good barrier regarding metal to metal lubrication and barrier protection. To counteract that circumstance, in all my classic gas engines, I use Valvoline HD Diesel 5W-40 engine oil having zinc and also include at each oil change a 4 oz bottle of “ZDDP” (ZINC DYALKYL DITHIOPHOSPHATE) http://www.zddplus.com/

From the video it appears Bi-Tron is simply great for bearing surface protection... Reason I ask the questions in first paragraph is because I just wonder if Bi-Tron has any known down side over the long term. I plan to put many more hours on my classic vehicles with their classic engines and will begin to use Bi-Tron if my due diligence proves it to be the winner it appears!

BTW: For cold-starts, after more than two days has elapsed since reaching full temperature, I make sure to turn my engines over by starter alone until oil pressure has come up two to three consecutive times before allowing engine to start. I feel this helps pre-lube/coat the metal parts before ignition begins to put real stress upon their cam, lifter, and bearings’ lubrication barriers.

psneeld said:

...............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..

Click to expand...

Yes, but the Walmart oil might be different the next time you buy it. Walmart doesn't own any oil wells.

A name brand oil such as Shell will be the same or better.

rwidman said:

Yes, but the Walmart oil might be different the next time you buy it. Walmart doesn't own any oil wells.

A name brand oil such as Shell will be the same or better.

Click to expand...

yeah...MAYBE.....MAYBE NOT.....

anyway...if you read the tests...the differences between cheap oils and the brand names were so miniscule that the "boating engine expert" who wrote the article proclaimed that to the average boater...their engine would never know the difference...

Thanks for the explanation Peter. But as another poster pointed out, fresh oil is fresh oil and as long as the oil and filter(s) are changed before they reach the threshold of "too dirty," the liklihood of an engine failing based solely on the differences between different brands of oil or gimmicks like magnetic adhesion is probably zero. The engine will fail or reach the point of needing a major overhaul for reasons other than the characteristics of the lube oil used, assuming a properly specced oil.

So when our Lehmans crap out--- if I'm even around to see it--- it won't be because we've been using Delo 400 30wt in it instead of multi-vis or synthetic or magnetic oil. It will be because valves burned, or valve guides wore to the point of damaging the valves and valve seats or the head gasket failed or the water pump failed and cooked the engine or...... the list goes on.

The FL120 has a long-established record of longevity running on the oil specified by the manufacturter. Changing to synthetic or magnetic or whatever oil might add a few more hours to the life of the engine, or it might not, but with a life expenctancy of 12,000 to 14,000 hours assuming proper operation and maintenance, who cares?

Armchair theory is fun to discuss and debate but in the end it usually makes little or no difference to reality

I note Mr Higgins, the OP, never said WHY he wanted to put Syn in his old engines. The WHY is a big question IMHO. If you care to look it up on CAt's off road user site, CAT has lots of reasons for recommending Dino oil. So do the users who save many $$ by sticking with Cats recommendation for Dino.

Art;I make sure to turn my engines over by starter alone until oil pressure has come up two to three consecutive times before allowing engine to start. I feel this helps pre-lube/coat the metal parts before ignition begins to put real stress upon their cam said:

[/SIZE]

Click to expand...

I've talked to a fair amount of people over the years about this because on paper it make sense. But...... turns out that, according to the people I've talked to who ranged from the head of the engineering department for a marine diesel manufacturer to the folks in the diesel shop we use to people who have run diesels in boats and heavy equipment for decades, it's another armchair theory that bears no resemblence to reality. According to all of them, pre-building oil pressure by turning an engine over with the starter basically generates business for the companies that make and rebuild starters. It has zero, nada, zilch, no effect on the operational life of the engine.

Now, if you have an engine that is rigged with a pre-lube system that warms lube oil and then pressurizes the lubrication system prior to engine start, that's another story altogether. For example, the diesels in the motor lifeboats of the RNLI in the UK that are ready for immediate startup and launch from their slipways 24/7/365 are kept heated to full operating temperature at all times and their lubrication systems are fully pressurized prior to engine start. So when they hit the end of their launch ramps they can go to max power immediately.

But simply turning a non-pre-lubed engine over with the starter on the theory that this will reduce start-up wear does nothing to enhance the operational longevity of the engine but does reduce the longevity of the starter. The point being that the engine wil fail or require an overhaul for some other reason long before any benefit--- if there even is one---- from the tiny reduction of startup friction is ever realized.

Marin said:

But simply turning a non-pre-lubed engine over with the starter on the theory that this will reduce start-up wear does nothing to enhance the operational longevity of the engine but does reduce the longevity of the starter. The point being that the engine wil fail or require an overhaul for some other reason long before any benefit--- if there even is one---- from the tiny reduction of startup friction is ever realized.

Click to expand...

Marin – Although you may be correct for diesel engines (I have not run a marine diesel since mid 70’s), regarding pre start oil pressure build-up via starter action alone not meaning much for pre-lubing bearings before start up (as Fred sardonically says: Best done on a genuine marine engine with the decompression levers pulled.)... There is no doubt that in classic gasoline engines building pre ignition engine oil-pressure by starter action alone effectively splurges renewed coatings of oil throughout the bearings’ journals and onto their surfaces before the heavy torque of ignition occurs. I've discussed this with many a qualified gasoline engine mechanic. Starters are a real cheap easy install compared to increased bearing wear as well as possible turned bearings!

While never say never, I have yet to hear a mechanic--- auto, marine, or aviation--- tell me that an engine wore out to the point of needing an overhaul because of excess wear on the components due to starting the engine with no oil pressure built up beforehand. If it was as big a deal as some people seem to think it is, you would expect that all the engine manufacturers would have long ago equipped their engines with pre-lube systems as standard equipment. It's not rocket science to come up with a simple, effective, inexpensive system that could be installed during engine assembly. Given the volume of engines produced I expect it would add less than $100 if that to the cost of the engine.

But nobody has, at least not with regards to automotive or non-specialized diesel engines. Your engines will fail for other reasons WAY before whatever friction is developed during startup has any detrimental effect.

If you don't mnd replacing or rebuilding starters more frequently, there's notthing inherently wrong with the practice of turning an engine over on the starter to build oil pressure every time you start it up. If it gives you some sort of peace of mind, great, have at it. But if you think you're making a significant difference to the operational life of the engine, think again.

Block Heaters

While I live and boat in mostly temperate climates I use block heaters to keep my engines free of condensation and my engine room dry. My engine starts are instantaneous with no visible smoking. My engine oil is warm and ready to go. My boat has always been treated this way, or at least for the last 25 years. I think this may be one of the best things you can do to extend the life of your marine engine. I can't remember hearing of a marine engine failure do to brand of oil or type for that matter. My brother in law lost a Volvo when the oil pump fell off, twice, I'm not a big Volvo fan by the way. I think more engines are lost through poor cooling system maintenance than anything else. Most of these slow boat engines are under stressed by design. The Cat engines in my road trucks had 33,000 mile service intervals. My Detroit manual recommends 300hrs on my 453's. I had a 653 in a Dump truck that leaked so much oil I figured that filter changes was all that was needed in the 15 years I owned it. I'm joking a little but brand of oil isn't big in the scheme of things as long as you change it as recommend. Block heaters now that's important!

Marin said:

If you don't mnd replacing or rebuilding starters more frequently, there's notthing inherently wrong with the practice of turning an engine over on the starter to build oil pressure every time you start it up. If it gives you some sort of peace of mind, great, have at it. But if you think you're making a significant difference to the operational life of the engine, think again.

Click to expand...

Marin - Don't forget I'm not speaking diesel here, but rather classic, old world, last Century... marine and automotive gas engines.

With accomplished gasoline engine mechanics I have spoken and in the automotive industry in general, it is commonly expressed that as compared to an oil-pressured running gas engine a considerably increased amount of bearing wear occurs in first seconds of ignition as oil pressure begins to again fill the journals to recoat bearing surfaces with the needed lubrication barrier. Also, I've not found any appreciable shorter life-span for starters with or without starter actuated engine oil pressure pre-lube being accomplished. A primary reason for starter failure (although overall hours of use as well as simply years of age do hold a part in this) is overheating due to too often too long actuating of a starter; starters do not like to be overheated! The manner I do my starter-powered oil pressure bearing-pre-lubes is 5 second starter burst with 2 second space between each. I usually get the 1st oil gauge reading in 3 to 4 bursts and then oil pressure reading each burst after. Feeling confident that the engine’s bearings have oil already newly coated with a needed barrier on their surfaces I then start my engine. Why engines don’t come with electric actuated pre-lube oil pressure pumps is anybody’s guess and a good question... In my opinion, they should.

From another forum - Haven't researched it myself. Just thought be good to place on this thread!

A major container ship operator recently announced they exceeded 40,000 (thousand) operating hours without overhaul on a single large MAN diesel. They credit the exclusive use of EXXON/MOBIL lubes throughout.

Some "old salts" may recall a simiiar claim by Socony Vacuum corporation, back in the 50''s for their motor oil used in the engines for the Queen Mary.

Socony Vacuum of course is now Exxon/Mobil.

I dunno..... I have never pre-lubed with the starter any engine I have ever run from the WWII-vintage Pratt & Whitney R-985 radial in the Beaver I fly to the 1987 engine (gas) in my BMW that now has some 250,000 miles on it with no overhaul needed to the rude and crude 2.25 litre engine (gas but designed as a diesel) in my 1973 Land Rover that now has about 200,000 miles on it to the 1973 Lehmans (diesel) in our boat to the high time diesel in the Cat D8 I ran on a ranch in Colorado a few decades ago. And all these engines other than the D-8 which I only ran way back when are running just fine, burning no oil (which is NOT the same as leaking no oil), and so forth.

So unless someone can definitively prove otherwise I'm going to keep this whole "pre-lube with the starter" notion in the armchair theory file.

Marin said:

I dunno..... I have never pre-lubed with the starter any engine I have ever run from the WWII-vintage Pratt & Whitney R-985 radial in the Beaver I fly to the 1987 engine (gas) in my BMW that now has some 250,000 miles on it with no overhaul needed to the rude and crude 2.25 litre engine (gas but designed as a diesel) in my 1973 Land Rover that now has about 200,000 miles on it to the 1973 Lehmans (diesel) in our boat to the high time diesel in the Cat D8 I ran on a ranch in Colorado a few decades ago. And all these engines other than the D-8 which I only ran way back when are running just fine, burning no oil (which is NOT the same as leaking no oil), and so forth.

So unless someone can definitively prove otherwise I'm going to keep this whole "pre-lube with the starter" notion in the armchair theory file.

Click to expand...

Geezz Marin

That means if the starter actuated pre-lube oil pressure actually elongates engine bearing life, as I've heard it does and I believe it to do... I might be getting 350 to 500K miles out of my 430 cid 360 hp 1967 classic muscle car motor and 5 to 7K hrs each from my Tollycraft 350 cid 255 hp twin engines! If I run one engine at a time doing hull speed my gassers will together push the envelope of the best diesel engine durability. That's pretty good. Thanks for the encouragement! :lol:

Well, the old FL120 is said to be a 12,000 to 14,000 hour engine in recreational boat service, assuming proper operation and mainenance, and it has done this without people pre-lubing the engine with the starter. So you can see why I think the starter pre-lube business is bunk in terms of it actually doing anything for you over the life of the engine.

Like I--- and everyone else I've talked to with professional engine experience--- said, while the engine may in theory go a few hours or miles longer with the starter pre-lube, the reality is that it will fail to the point of needing an overhaul or replacement from some other cause far earlier than it will theoretically fail from not being pre-lubed by the starter. So you're preventing something that won't make any difference to you. So why bother?

Cauz it makes me and my motors feel good!! LOL :lol:

That's a good enogh reason to do anything