Fordnatics List Archive

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: (email redacted) (Scott Griffith, Sun Microsystems Lumpyware)

On Mar 28, Jim Bixby wrote:

> > As for oil change intervals, the problem here isn't the oil, its the
> > filter. Your car is still generating as much combustion crud, so the
> > oil is still getting just as dirty, and the filter is still collecting
> > as much stuff.

> This is kind of true. With a synthetic oil your particles from wear are
> going to be smaller.

Ok, folks, let's just wait a minute. I've never seen a reference to
the "wear particles being smaller" in any of the manufacturer or SAE
lubrication papers on this topic. If that's documented somewhere, I'd
love to read the research! Wear particles are wear particles. The
*real* problem is in the contaminants that build up, from combustion
blow-by, condensation, and so on. And that's what makes the extended
drain interval for synthetics a myth.

I've been looking into the question of synthetic versus mineral oils
for some time, primarily because this religious war comes up every 6
months, and has ever since I've been doing this stuff. There's so much
misinformation floating around out there that it just makes you want
to give up in despair sometimes.

I'll cut to the chase first, then load on the detail later. Basically,
in terms of real-world applications, it *doesn't matter* if the oil is
synthetic or dinosaur. Keep it fresh, keep it clean, keep it at a
decent level in the sump, change it and the filter every 3000 miles,
and the powertrain will live longer. That is the absolute truth in
this debate, and I doubt that anyone questions it. In any case, if
someone wants to play with longer change intervals, funky filters, or
other hack cost cutting measures, be my guest. It's your toy, and your
money. But IMNSHO, the right way to do it is the most conservative
way- 3000 miles, period.

As to the "seal shrinking" urban legend: forget it. In the early days
of synthetic lubes, this was widely touted as an absolute truth. "Put
synthetics in an older vehicle", they said, "and it'll kill the seals
and run right out". As with all urban legends, there's actually a
grain or two of truth in there amidst all the misinformation and
hyperbole. But just a grain.

Most synthetics in common automotive use have two properties that make
them _appear_ to leak more. First and foremost, they generally tend to
be lower in viscosity, since there are so few of the heavy, long-chain
hydrocarbon fractions that make dinosaur oils viscous when cold. The
consistent makeup of the synthetics allows a much lower viscosity oil
(at testing temperatures) to provide a much higher film strength at
real-world operating temps. So the synthetics are usually *thinner*.
Thinner oil runs out past marginal seals and bad gaskets faster,
period.

Secondly, the synthetics generally are very highly detergent, and this
can lead to leaks "appearing". If the seals were primarily being held
together with congealed, dead oil sludge, and the detergents wash that
out, then they will magically "begin to leak". Well, hell, they were
dead anyway, they just didn't _know_ it yet. This is one part of the
urban legend that is certainly true. Synthetic lubes will probably
help you identify marginal seals, all right. However, the synthetic
lube didn't _kill_ them to start with. Wear did that. This is a
non-problem with new or nearly new (say, 40kmiles or less) seals.

Part of the urban legend probably cropped up when someone with a
vintage car that used some ancient neoprene or ethylene acrylic seals
poured in a sumpful of some of the really esoteric diester or silicate
ester synthetics (like the rare but supertrick jet oils, or some of
the *early* Red Line stuff, which was basically repackaged synthetic
jet oil). Wham! Yes, the synthetics (some of them) *can* eat certain
seal materials, but those do not have an SAE grading on them, nor are
they sold in automotive outlets. Now, if your seals have been made in
the last 30 years, they probably are FCR (flourocarbon rubber) like
Viton or Flourel, one of the flouropolymers like Silastic, or maybe
Hycar or Krynac in an automatic tranny, which are polyacrylate rubber.
No problem, here. Those will handle *all* the common (PAO, PAE,
polyol ester) synthetics.

Red Line is built with a polyol ester (organic ester) base stock,
Mobil One is composed primarily with a polyalphaolefin (PAO, or
synthesized hydrocarbon) base stock. Don't know about Amsoil, or the
Castrol/Valvoline/Pennzoil "me-too" synthetics, but I'd bet a case of
beer that they are also constructed around PAO base stocks, just like
the Mobil 1 (because it's a hell of a lot cheaper to make!). Whatever
they call it, from polymumblestuff to gorilla snot, the commonly
available synthetic oils are very compatible with these modern seal
materials.

But there's *always* some old country mechanic who has an old nitrile
rubber axle seal from an old Frazier-Nash that "just fell apart a week
after I put in that damned synthetic stuff- lookee here...", and the
debate comes up _again_.

Part truth, part hyperbole. In any case: if the car was made in the
last 30 years, you can most likely use synthetics without a second
thought about damaging your seal materials. Whether you *choose* to or
not is up to your own personal tribological religious leanings, and
I'll shut up on that now before I get my head sheared off flush with
my shoulders.

One last thing about mixing synthetic and dinosaur oils. The days of
synthetic lubes and mineral lubes mixing and precipitating out greasy
boulders are *long* behind us. To the best of my knowledge, *all* the
modern SAE-classified synthetics can be mixed with SAE-graded mineral
oils in any proportion you care to, with no bad effects. There's no
better indication of that than the Castrol Syntec, which is a mix of
synthetic and dinosaur right out of the bottle. Drain the dino oil,
pour in synthetic, enjoy. Some thing the other way around.

Now, if you happen to have in your possession a couple of cases of
MIL-H-8446 Lubricating Oil, Aircraft/Missile, Silicate Ester Base, and
you've been running it in your Frazier-Nash for a while now... well,
now _then_ we'd have to talk about doing some serious washing-out.

For the humor-impaired, there is a massive smiley-face on that last
paragraph. Sources for this rant: Parker O-Ring Handbook, SAE Fuels
and Lubes Handbook, various SAE papers on oils and seal compatibility
(numbers on request), Red Line Product Guide, Mobil Synthetic
Lubricants Guide.

Hope that helps clear up some of the fog. Enjoy!

-skod

- --
Scott Griffith, Sun Microsystems Lumpyware
Nor Cal SAAC/Green Flag Driving Association driving instructor
(and driver, of anything that turns both right and left,
and can pass tech...) Return Path : (email redacted)

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: "Fontana Peter" <(email redacted)>

> Hope that helps clear up some of the fog. Enjoy!

Friggin' wearying - isn't it?

Good post - but just like a the flash of a camera in the night, once the the
creatures of the dark regain their night vision, the misinformation will leech
into the system again...

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: (email redacted)

On March 26th, Scott Griffith wrote:
<<Ok, folks, let's just wait a minute. I've never seen a reference to
the "wear particles being smaller" in any of the manufacturer or SAE
lubrication papers on this topic. If that's documented somewhere, I'd
love to read the research! Wear particles are wear particles. The
*real* problem is in the contaminants that build up, from combustion
blow-by, condensation, and so on. And that's what makes the extended
drain interval for synthetics a myth.>>

<the rest deleted for space considerations>

I have to second what Scott said in the previous post about Synthetics,
et.al, ad nauseum...

I pulled the engine out of my hard driven, abused, trashed and thrashed 89 LX
about 18,000 miles ago and, after using Mobil 1 faithfully for 88,000 miles,
I was hard pressed to see any wear on any of the bearing surfaces, journals,
cylinder bores, etc. Degreasing the engine block took nothing more than the
inexpensive degreaser you can buy at any parts store for about 2 bucks.

I can't, and I stress can't, attribute the lack of wear solely to the use
of Mobil1. What I can attribute to the lack of wear was constant, timely LOF
services. Other than blowing T-5's on a regular basis <g>, I was unable to
find anything wrong.

Just for grins and giggles I performed a compression test before I tore the
motor apart and the specs were within 2 psi of the original recommended
reading.
Furthermore, I didn't have to hot tank the block because I changed and
flushed my cooling system every single year. There wasn't the expected
buildup in the cooling system passages. Of course, I couldn't see all the way
into the block, but I did have use of a fiber optic viewer so I was able to
see most of what I considered to be important.

Some people may not have the time or see the need to do that every year. I
felt it was necessary and sincerely think it was worth the trouble. Since I
change all my fluids regularly, i.e. trans, axle, oil, coolant, I think I
stand a fair chance of seeing better than 200,000 on the car and I will be
stomping it until the frame splits in two.

Did I mention I have 112,000 miles on the car?? Or that I have an 8lb
Vortech?? As well as other significant modifications?? hell, I didn't install
the Vortech until I overhauled the engine.

I'm running this car harder than ever and it keeps coming back for more.
I'll update the story when I hit the magic 200,000 mark.I don't see 100,000
to be that big of a deal. Until then, I can't wait to run it at the track.
Along with my other mods, this ought to be pretty fun.
Joe

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: chucko (Chuck Fry)

From: (email redacted)
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 1995 09:51:07 -0500

I have to second what Scott said in the previous post about Synthetics,
et.al, ad nauseum...

I pulled the engine out of my hard driven, abused, trashed and thrashed 89 LX
about 18,000 miles ago and, after using Mobil 1 faithfully for 88,000 miles,
I was hard pressed to see any wear on any of the bearing surfaces, journals,
cylinder bores, etc.

Good work! Not all gearheads will be so fortunate, however. Street
driving, drag racing, road racing, oval racing, etc. all put different
kinds of strains on the car.

My favorite hobby, road racing, is especially hard on oiling systems.
Cornering, braking, and acceleration team up to throw oil all over the
crankcase. 20-minute sessions dump massive amounts of heat into the
oil. All the while, the engine is roaring along in the heart of the
power band between the corners, requiring more-than-adequate lubrication
at all times. And in my case, I share the car with my fiancee, who's
just as hard on the throttle as I am!

What killed the original motor in my '89 Mustang was oil starvation due
to G-loads from road racing. The cylinder bores looked great, but the
bearings were trashed clear down to the copper lining, and the crank
journals were scored. (I still have the crank, if anyone wants a look
at it.) Had I not shut it down when I heard it go raspy, it could have
spit out a couple of rods.

In case anyone thinks synthetic oil is going to save him from the
deficiencies of the stock oiling system, think again. My motor had run
Mobil 1 since it was broken in, and had a fresh fill of Amsoil 40 weight
race oil when it died. That may have been the only thing that saved it
from blowing up.

Advertising hype about gee-whiz lubricants "bonding to wear surfaces" is
total BS, and would be irrelevant even if true. You *must* have
substantial oil pressure at the bearings at full throttle. If you
don't, you'll have to replace the bearings and anything they rode on,
and no miracle oil or high-tech treatment will prevent serious damage.
It's that simple.

If you're playing hard, IMHO your motor should have the right kind of
oil pan for the job. I think my problems started when I began using
sticky Showroom Stock race tires; the stock pan just wasn't designed for
sustained Gs under cornering and braking (not to mention slow corners at
the top of a hill), and the oil went everywhere except the pickup.

My new 5.0 engine sports a Canton road race pan, a high-volume oil pump,
and an external oil cooler. In addition, oil temp and pressure gauges
are mounted high on the dash, where I can see them through a helmet.
During my recent trip to Thunderhill Park (the site of the old engine's
demise), oil pressures in the corners held steady at 75-80 PSI, and
temps peaked at 240 degrees F -- both well within the desired range.
(This with Amsoil 20W-50 race oil.) I am no longer worried about the
bottom end.

Drag racers have it a little easier than road racers. They only have to
worry about the oil sloshing backwards when they launch, the oil doesn't
have time to get hot during a run, and there's lots of time to cool down
between runs. This suggests to me that drag racers (in street cars)
probably don't need heavyweight oils, because the oil never really gets
warm enough that you need the extra viscosity.

Still, if you're serious about racing, you should give serious thought
to an oil system built for the job. Something as simple as a couple of
sheet-metal baffles tack-welded into a stock pan could save you from a
premature engine rebuild. Late Mustang owners should look at the
baffling described in William Mathis's Mustang Performance Handbook
(vol. 1) for an example.

-- Chuck

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: (email redacted)

On March 30th, Chucko wrote:
<<
What killed the original motor in my '89 Mustang was oil starvation due
to G-loads from road racing. The cylinder bores looked great, but the
bearings were trashed clear down to the copper lining, and the crank
journals were scored. (I still have the crank, if anyone wants a look
at it.) Had I not shut it down when I heard it go raspy, it could have
spit out a couple of rods.>>

<OUCH>

Along with other things mentioned in the reply that had to do with problems
of oil starvation, I think you may have been reading my mind.

I only run Mobil1 10W30 in the engine, along with a few strategically placed
baffles and of course, a windage tray, high volume oil pump, and a FL1P Oil
Filter. Is the latter, I wonder, really worth it?? I don't really think so
but since I got 6 of them for a good price I will continue using them until
my supply is exhausted. I do like the idea of an external cooler since I
frequently take the car on long trips especially in the summer.

You're absolutely correct when you state the differences with 1/4 mile cars,
which mine primarily is, compared to your's which sees autocrossing duties.

Another, allbeit expensive, consideration is going to the use of a dry sump
system. It may not be worth it and I don't have much experience with it so I
can qualify an answer right now.
Joe

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: chucko (Chuck Fry)

From: (email redacted)
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 1995 17:54:48 -0500

Along with other things mentioned in the reply that had to do with problems
of oil starvation, I think you may have been reading my mind.

What else struck you? I'm curious.

I only run Mobil1 10W30 in the engine, along with a few strategically placed
baffles and of course, a windage tray, high volume oil pump, and a FL1P Oil
Filter. Is the latter, I wonder, really worth it??

I think so. At the very least, the stouter can is cheap insurance
against oil pressure surges, which are more likely in drag racing (and
auto-X, see below) because of the long cool-down between runs and the
sudden increase in loading when the light turns green. I haven't been
able to document any other differences though.

For a while a local Ford dealer was selling them for $6 each -- cheap
enough that I didn't think twice about it. Now they're back up to $10.
I change oil frequently enough (every 3k street miles, and before and
after every track event) that the cost would start adding up.

I do like the idea of an external cooler since I
frequently take the car on long trips especially in the summer.

I'm not sure it's worth the hassle and expense for a street/strip car.
OTOH, I think it's mandatory for any car that sees road course use, or
any extended time at full throttle.

I say that after monitoring my oil temp gauge during a variety of
driving over the last 3 months... and after spending some $600 on
race-grade plumbing and oil coolers, and many hours trying to fix the
last of the leaks. (Word to the wise: race-grade plumbing is expensive,
but the engine failures it will prevent are worth it. IMHO, hose clamps
and fabric-braided hose in an oil system are a failure waiting to
happen. Aircraft-quality hose and fittings are the only way to go.)

With the cooler and a 180 degree oil thermostat installed, oil temp in
street use never exceeded 200 degrees, and it took 20 minutes or so to
creep up to this level. (OK, so ambient temps were in the 60s.)

On the track, it only took a lap or two before oil temps hit 220, and
they kept climbing throughout each session, peaking on the cooldown lap.
This tells me that the full-power heat loads are substantially higher
than in street duty.

You're absolutely correct when you state the differences with 1/4 mile cars,
which mine primarily is, compared to your's which sees autocrossing duties.

No, I don't autocross yet. Autocross is like drag racing in that the
engine only runs for a short time (typically a minute or so) and has a
while to cool between runs, but it's like road racing in the constantly
changing G-loadings.

I think road racing is nearly worst-case for an oil system, combining
sustained high power requirements with heavy cornering and braking Gs.
Makes me wonder how Showroom Stock race cars can survive a 3-hour race
without external coolers! No wonder SS racers swear by synthetic lubes.

Another, allbeit expensive, consideration is going to the use of a dry sump
system. It may not be worth it and I don't have much experience with it so I
can qualify an answer right now.

Dry sumps are like any other system on a race car. They look really
cool, and allow you to do some things that can't be done any other way;
but the expense and other tradeoffs often outweigh the benefits for all
but the most critical applications.

Dry sumps are *expensive*!! Pumps alone cost around $1000, tanks
another $500, and the pan, plumbing and coolers will likely eat up
another thousand before you're through.

And they're hardly foolproof. I watched a friend destroy 2 engines (in
a small British sports car, for those who care) trying to build a
home-brewed dry sump system. His first home-built pan leaked. The
second pan was fabricated by a pro, but something else was wrong
internally, and he couldn't keep the oil cool enough to run more than 2
laps. The car hasn't run since last summer, and I don't know when he'll
get around to doing it right. The money he spent on engines could have
bought a professional system, but he had to do it himself...

Given all that, I'd say leave dry sumps to the folks who really need
them.
-- Chuck

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: (email redacted) (Dave Williams)


-> home-brewed dry sump system. His first home-built pan leaked. The
-> second pan was fabricated by a pro, but something else was wrong

Having dealt with several circle track pans, I can assure you a "pro"
or off-the-shelf pan has a good chance of weeping too. A couple of feet
of weld is a lot of room for trouble. Seams that are watertight and
gasoline tight will leave a car-size patch of drooled oil overnight.
That's one reason you very seldom see welded pans on production cars.

Brazing, on the other hand, works just fine, thank you. For some
reason there's a lot of prejudice against brazing. Beats me.


-> get around to doing it right. The money he spent on engines could
-> have bought a professional system, but he had to do it himself...

Why stop there? Just buy a prebuilt race car and hire someone to drive
it. Then you could just sit home and watch it on TV while writing
checks for the car's upkeep.

I assume you're talking about Andy Banta and his MG. Last time he
brought the subject up on wheeltowheel I gave it a whirl too. Andy
seems to have a good grasp of everything involved with the system, and
has reworked it several times. I don't see anything wrong with his
setup as he described it. It's probably one of those oh-shit-how-
could-I-have-done-THAT things that hits us all every now and then.
Bolting up a few thousand dollars' worth of dry sump would probably fix
the problem, whatever it is, but that's not the point. Anyone can throw
money at problems until they go away. Andy has bought more "learning
experiences" than he probably wanted, but that's the way it is when you
do things yourself instead of being just another drone.

==(email redacted)=========================DoD# 978=======