Why Would A Lubricant Work Better On Older Engines?

Gotta be lying: Better lube is better lube, don't matter if its working something on a Modle T or the M1 tank. For average work I mean, you gotta have some mean slickery stuff where a lot of weight is bearing.

I'd be thinking or guessing that he's not recommending it for newer engines because if there were a WARRANTY issue, you'd be "stuck holding the bag".

Older engines have no warranty.

There are certain products ( oil additives ) that actually permeate the pores of the steel cylinders and YES they are recommended for "older" engines.

My advice is, let someone else be "guinea pigs", wait till they're raving about it in the automotive journals before you try new additives.

The webmaster is conflicted and can not give proper advice. His wages come from selling the lube to people, so he uses 'anecdotal' data...

If this stuff was so great, don't you think EPA would be shoving it down our throat. Endorsements are a load of bull too. I see Al Unser Jr. has his face on it. He also endorsed the "Turbo Car Wash System". It was as effective as holding your finger over the end of a hose. The only thing it did well was use up a lot of their soap. Bought one, used it once, threw it out in the trash. That's the truth.

No 3rd party testing

No peer reviewed publications

Most of the benefits sound like the attributes of Biodiesel

increased lubricity

superior solvent properties

reduced particulate matter.

This is marketing nothing else , this product is inteded for old engine (old technology)that means old oil technology , specifications , with norms that worked for engines of there age , refiled with additives and treatment they do not mention, restamped with new date ,in shiny packing ,there they tend to warn for new engines for under performance , warranty voids , other environmental norms , and all that

The first link is utter BOSH and complete rubbish. For example:-

Austin's goal is to have 100,000 vehicles in the Greater Austin area reduce their emissions by 30% or more by the end of 2007. Some vehicles already participating in the Ethos Challenge are showing zero emissions of carbon monoxide in their emission tests. That's a 100 percent reduction!

This is theoretically possible, but most unlikely, getting all the fuel to burn to CO2 at the speed of any engine is very very difficult, which is one of the main reasons you have a catalytic converter, it should burn all the still CO and unburnt fuel to CO2 before it leaves the exhaust pipe.

If we take just 10% of all the vehicles in the Austin area and reduce their emissions by 30%, we will prevent 200 tons of carbon pollution from entering the atmosphere every day! That is 73,000 tons per year in Austin alone. Imagine the effect we can have on the world if we all come together as people and do something good for our pocket book and our world.

This is the absolute rubbish, CO2 production from a petrol (any, also Diesel & Gas etc!) engines is simply UNAVOIDABLE, you are burning a fuel with air (only the Oxygen part of the air!) and the result is CO2, end of story!!!

The more gas you guzzle, the more CO2 you produce, it does not matter if you have a small car gas guzzler or a big car gas guzzler, if the both use X gallons of petrol, then out comes Y tons of CO2!!! (assuming that the Cat has converted the CO to CO2 that the engine did not!!!)

Not being in the car industry myself, I can understand your scepticism, but there is a simple way for anyone to check this out, just look at any two modern cars from two different manufacturers that have the same or very similar overall fuel consumption OF THE SAME FUEL GRADE. Allowing for slight differences in technology, look at the CO2 each engine produces, it will be nearly if not completely identical!!!

In Latin one would say "Quid Pro Quo" I believe!!!

(Quid pro quo (Latin for "something for something" ^[1]) indicates a more-or-less equal exchange or substitution of goods or services.

See Wikipedia:- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quid_pro_quo)

With regard to the oil lubrication properties, my personal thoughts on lubrication are that the best lubricants lower engine wear by staying in important areas when the engine is switched off, but also race to the bearings quickly as soon as the engine is switched on, they reduce the amount of lube oil burnt, look after seals carefully and piston rings, but contribute only a very little, if anything, to fuel consumption properties IF OF THE CORRECT VISCOCITY OF OIL FOR THAT ENGINE is used.

Some people are stupid enough to try using "Thicker" oils than they should according to the manufacturer "because they think its better its better!!!" and end up with engine damage that warranty does not cover.....this has been covered in other recent CR4 Blogs....Valve damage due to hydraulic tappets opening and closing at a slightly wrong time, causing valves to burn....for example!

I will make one statement for anyone reading this, if your engine manufacturer allows or recommends the use of Synthetic oil, USE IT. Make sure you use the exact grade he recommended, make sure that the oil is of a grade that fits and has the funny little car manufacturer numbers on the can that prove this. Synthetics do not produce hard carbon deposits, they will, if the temperature is high enoug, just evaporate....put a drop of ordinary oil in an old pan, heat it, you get a black carbon stain. Do the same with a top Synthetic, it just evaporates and leaves almost no residue whatsoever!!

Also with Synthetic, you can usually double or even more your mileage between oil changes!!! Do that too!! You are doing your engine and your pocket good. I have been using them since 1989 on many cars, fantastic!!!

Change oil not engines!!

But I guess that it is possible for an engine to be "better lubricated" with some fancy new products other than just Synthetic or even with Synthetic together!!!, but I would appreciate having the input of someone else here....that is not an area that I trust myself in....nor do I believe it personally, otherwise Greenpeace would alert us to this fact immediately!!!

My only personal problem with Greenpeace is that every summer, on the beach, they try and pull me into deep water offshore, Lord knows why!!!!

Andy covered the debunking of the marketing crap well enough, but I have to second his recommendation of synthetic oil. Not only will synthetic increase your time between changes by at least 2x it is also better than natural dino juice in maintaining lubricity over the long haul. It also has a nice low viscosity at cold temperatures so it gets to the bearing galleries quickly, which reduces a lot of wear right off the top.

Of course getting the engine warm with gentle driving until the temp is close to normal is a good way to keep your engine healthy too.

As far as Ethos goes, we've got a few bottles around from the latest car show and none of the engineers here want it. Makes a good paperweight...

I couldn't help but read all these postings, and the fact is that as your engine gets older there is more wear and tear on the engine. I once owned an Audi 100, it was new in 1976, and over the years I could not help but notice that the lubricant was not doing it's job properly if I didn't change to a different viscosity lubricating oil. It was recomended that I use a synthetic oil, and boy did I notice the difference. I got rid of this vehicle in 2001, it had about 450,000 miles on the clock and it was still running sweetly the day that I sold it. The secret? Before driving off I let the engine run on idle for a good five minutes!!! I learned this one when I was an engineering officer in the merchant navy, a ship that is driven by a large diesel engine has to be run for about an hour before the ship leaves harbour, the reason is simple. An engine when started has to be given time for the expansion of it's componets before it is put under the pressures of service running. If not there will be excesive wear on the engine and the lubricating oil. Spencer.

Perfectly said Spencer, many thanks for your accurate and well written input.

Now you are someone "who really does put your money where your mouth is!"

Most of the proponents of old fashioned oil (old fashioned people?) have never even tried Synthetic....they do not know what they are missing, perhaps your input might prompt a few more to at least try it out!!

Well said & thanks.

Great paperweights!!!!!

We all knew it had a usage......now we know what!!!

Don't forget to take a look at what PetroPower said here.

-John

Well said Andy. My 97 Toyota has 460k miles. First oil change I went syn and have never looked back.

Mike

My compliments to you too Sir, another one who put his money where his mouth is!!!

Shall I tell you what the biggest problems I have found with synthetic oils?

1) Nobody believes you how good it is, for your car engine, your pocket and of course the environment.

2) The engine never wears out, so you cannot find a good reason to buy something new and modern! have to have a small accident and bend it a bit!!!

3) When selling a high mileage Synthetic oiled engine, you never get the price that it was really worth, in spite of its age!!

It's possible this stuff could reduce CO emissions by 100% if it ruins your engine. In that case, your fuel consumption would also go to zero.

You have a very valid point that shamefully, I totally overlooked. Many thanks for the "Heads up" on that one......

Was that after they covered you in wet tarps and were pouring water all over you?

My experience with synthetics have not been as fruitful. I keep cars and trucks to the point that even Fred Sanford wouldn't take them. The engine is always the last thing to go. I use inexpensive mineral based oils that have the proper API rating. No sense spending good money to sponsor some NASCAR team. I change oil and filter every 5,000 miles. I have tried using synthetics and extending the change interval on an '89 Chyrsler mini-van and when I bought my used '00 Ford pick-up truck, the previous owner swore by the synthetic (85,000 miles). What I found was that even for the same rated viscosity, I was burning at least twice the amount of synthetic than I did for the same viscosity mineral based oil. With the pick-up truck I was adding about 1/2 quart every two tankfuls. I switched to mineral oil and my oil additions are almost a thing of the past. The mini-van did better at 100K plus miles but I was adding about two quarts over a 5,000 mile interval vice one quart of mineral based oil when I switched back to mineral based oils. We finally junked the mini-van after clocking 235K miles and it had begun leaking coolant into the intakes (suspected) and blowing lots of whitish smoke. Just wasn't worth fixing at that point.

Maybe somebody on this post can shed some light on the oil consumption synthetic vs. mineral based?

Since most automobile and light truck applications rarely get oil that hot (even with my 1/2 Ton Suburban pulling a 32 foot travel trailer through the Rockies and Sierra Nevada mountains in the summertime) the vaporization point of the oil is a moot point. The coolant gauge on my 'Burb never went past 230F (halfway between "normal" and the "red zone") even climbing a long grade at high altitude on a 100F day with the A/C running full-tilt. Race cars can reasonably expect to run very hot, for them, synthetic makes sense. I do run synthetic in my '06 Buell Ulysses because it has 1200 cc air-cooled Harley engine and it can run very hot. Otherwise, I run mineral based oils because synthetics just don't make cent$ for me. All my used motor oil goes to the recycling center so it can be refined and used again.

P.S. If you're not familiar with Fred Sanford, he was the elder member of the Sanford & Son junk yard on a 1970's sitcom.

I'm not going to speak to this particular product. I know nothing about it. However I can see a couple ways in which the ideal lubricant for an older engine might differ from the ideal for a newer engine, and it all has to do with wear. Older engines have larger running clearances in bearing surfaces, and their rings are worn and therefore accumulate combustion products in the crankcase more than newer engines do. These combustion products are acidic. All oil must be able to buffer that acidity to prevent corrosion in the crankcase, but oil formulated for an older engine must be up to the task of doing it to a much greater degree. Acids also break down the oil. Oil for an older engine must also be able to maintain a hydrodynamic oil film in the wider bearing clearances. generally that means that the oil needs to be higher viscosity, however that higher viscosity means that the oil will get hotter due to hydrodynamic shear. Therefore the oil must be able to withstand that higher shear without degrading. Higher viscosity oil helps to reduce blow-by contamination from combustion products, it also prevents oil from seeping past worn valve guides into the combustion chamber causing an increase in emissions.
Older engine oil also needs to be able to dissolve and keep in suspension sludge that can cause a reduction of heat transfer from the engine to the oil. Most all engines over time accumulate sludge which is oil that has broken down and partially polymerized due to the acids present.

Therefore to summarize:

New engine oil needs lower viscosity and lower acid buffering potential.

Older engine oil needs higher viscosity, higher max temp, and greater buffering potential.

You are dead right in what an old engine needs in an oil, in all but one respect, Synthetic does all that better....

The only time you need an old fashioned oil is when the leak rate and the burn rate mean that you use nearly a sump full in 3000 miles or less......then you really need a new engine as you are killing the environment.

You should also learn all the good points of a synthetic oil better too and if you had used it from day 1 with your car, you would not have got to the point of burning or losing so much oil, over the same mileage as you have got to...in fact, the likelihood is that the engine would be running normally, but with 300,000 miles on the clock or so!!

I am guessing here Mr Guest, but I bet you are from the USA......US Citizens are either the hardest to convince to try Synthetic oil, or they are the biggest and best users, there is no middle of the road.....

You Guys are often set on your cheap old fashioned oil and 3000 miles between changes....with a new filter each time, come what may!!! Why, because your Grandfather did that way........!!! and he's been dead 50 years.....!!

I tore down the engine on a 1975 VW Rabbit many moons ago when my parents shed it off to me in my college days after they clocked 120K miles on it. They only used mineral oil. I had it down to the bare block and plastigauged all the bearings, checked the cylinders, pistons, rings, everything. In every case, the measured clearances and dimensions were within the tolerances for the new engine, let alone the service limit as specified by the factory shop manual. I did have to replace the valve guides as the OEM bronze was too soft, and the valve stems rocked in the guides and sucked oil past the seals. Other than the new valve guides and obviously new gaskets and oil seals all around, I put back all the original parts and ran that little car till rust endeth its life much too prematurely in 1987 with 176K on the clock and still with excellent compression across all four cylinders.

When you replace the oil in the engine, you also remove a great deal of contaminants. The additives get used up by the by-products of combustion. With synthetic oil coming in at four times the cost of mineral oils, it just doesn't make economic sense to me to use synthetic. The '00 Ford pick-up truck I purchased used from a synthetic oil guy used way too much oil for a truck with only 85,000 miles. He bought into the extended change interval, and the engine paid the price. Since I only drive the pick-up truck occasionally, the oil consumption is not a big concern. None of the automotive manufacturers will recommend an oil change interval longer than what they specify in their owners manual for good 'ol mineral oil even if you are using synthetic.

I know there are so many people who will swear by synthetics to the grave, but quite frankly, I believe you all have been sold a bill of goods by companies peddling overpriced oil. A small percentage of applications may be suitable for synthetic (think Alaska in the winter, Death Valley racing in the summer).

What does Irv Gordon use in his Volvo? Has there been any good research not done or sponsored by a motor oil company? The U.S. Army uses mineral oils and an oil sampling program to avoid changing it too soon. Synthetic may be better, but not necessary. Remember the sketch?

"Hank and Roy Spim are tough, fearless backwoodsmen who have chosen to live in a violent, unrelenting world of nature's creatures, where only the fittest survive. Today they are off to hunt mosquitoes."

Also most of the auto manufacturer recomend oil change between time irrespective of distance run , even oil manufacturers direct same atleast mineral oil lubes do recomend to replace oil within say 3 / 5months , once induced in the engine and has a run whether your vehicle has covered a distance of 3000 km or not or whatever is higher , synthetic manufacturers may over ride this rule , but you do affect some properties of lubrication over a wide varying climate , condition outside if you travel long distance , your engine breathes air also , you do get contaminates , unburnt fuel mixup can creat acidic formations , it will eventually let loose detergent property of the lubericant , if synthetic oils provides some other advantages that mineral oil cannot apart from longitivity , they sure have the share and command price. i will go with mineral oil , as i can afford to change it at regular intervals and keep my engine humming with every change

You do not know what the Guy did with the truck before you bought it. He probably wrecked it and you carried the (oil!) can.

I have been lucky and I have only bought one secondhand car in the last 18 years, it ran fine (sorry, still is!!) on Synth....all the rest have been new.

Except for a Mitsubishi L300 which came from Japan with normal Oil in it in 1989, a Punto in 2000 and a Sharan Diesel in 1997, all the rest came with Synth AS A REQUIREMENT!!!

That was the second Sharan, a Touran and now a Mitsubishi Grandis Diesel.....

I have had several cars till nearly 400,000 KMs, all the rest between 120-150,000 KMs, no new engines, no rebuilds, no heavy usage of oil, simply NOTHING.....service and drive.....

There have been minor irritations from other areas in some cars, but no engine problems.....

I'm with you, use mineral based & change it more often. @ 3 times the price synthetic isn't worth it.

Using Synth IS FAR CHEAPER THAN A NEW ENGINE.....I have no idea how long a Synth motor will last......a very,very long time though!!!

None of you would pass Math 101 anymore......!

You change less often, so the environment thanks you, I personally have never had an engine problem of any sort, and the engines live to an age beyond when I have had them...some as I said with almost 400,000 kms on them!!!

Read the other posts from people with long living engines on synth, with no other special maintenance.....

To prove me wrong, you have to try it!!! Otherwise it is just hearsay......I have put my money where my mouth is, all the rest who will not try it are just running scared of something fairly new....

Have a great weekend.

But far more expensive than using mineral oil that works just fine for most people. Every vehicle I have owned and disposed of has died from something other than internal engine wear.

I know I will never convince a synthead to change. That's fine. It's your money. I just wanted to present my case for mineral oil as a balance to the whole argument.

I'd love to see a peer- reviewed study on various oils over the long term.

Cheers !!

On one point alone, we should be all using Synthetic, if we all double or even treble the miles we drive on one fill up of oil, look what we do for the environment. No matter how we get rid of the old oil, we are then NOT using up the reserves as quickly either......a very important point.

Think of your children and the world we leave them once we have gone.....not just your pocketbook! But I firmly believe that Synthetics extend the engine life, sadly I have no facts other than " I have driven many miles on Synth, sold cars with a lot of miles on them that ran like new, and known several others with similar experience" none of which are facts....

I also accept that there are some people who appeared to have had a bad experience too, but one bad experience should not offset many good experiences I feel.

Some people appear to feel that using Synthetic oil is like believing in Voodoo !!! But the same ones will buy additives of unknown quality and pour them in their engines and gearboxes! Now that is real VOODOO.....see this Blog for example!

Most of the scaremongers I talk to HAVE NEVER TRIED TO USE Synthetic oil!!!! What a surprise!

As an example of usage, VW TDI diesel engines, at least the newer ones since about 2001 I think, and BMWs for the last 20 odd years, have a computer that works out when the oil needs replacement. I used to get between 33-36,000 kms before it would tell me (2,000 kms in advance on the VW) that I needed to plan an oil change.

I tow a heavy (1500KG) Caravan quite often, which of course takes off a large part of my possible mileage, so I have to change oil earlier than most!!!!

I feel that the environmental aspect alone is worth money to any one interested in the environment, how much that is financially is difficult to quantify, the extra mileage, double is about right, means we put less used oil back into burning recycling etc.. Plus the seemingly extended life of the engine is also difficult to quantify in financial terms.....

Using up the earths resources SHOULD make all of us search for alternatives.

For example, I have invested in a lot of new light bulbs with lower current usage, actually over the last 20 years, but it has only really in the last few years become viable for more situations. I now have mixed LEDs (up to 3 watts which are equal to about 40 watts) CFLs (up to 15 watts which are equal to a 75 watt) as well as normal tubes in the garage and cellar....there are still a few Halogens around, usually mixed with LED or CFL, where I need the distance, though the newer bulbs are getting better and better in this respect....

I have steadily pushed my usage of electricity down for lighting for many years...(the price has always risen, so price wise the change is less obvious....) I sincerely believe that electricity will become a very pricey product in the next 20 years....

I do put my money where my mouth is, do you??? Can you all answer sincerely "YES"?

I did a search or three, lots of explanations, not side by side comparisons over the total life of an engine(s) I'd still like to see a cradle to grave analysis. What are the secondary uses of used oil & how much pollution do they cause? Hey it's your $'s spend em as you see fit.

CFL's save energy, while spreading little bits of mercury everywhere. California is @ least making an effort, by offering community electronic & hazardous waste drop off. Keeping toxics out of landfills & the water table. Led's are the next improvement, saving energy & reducing hazardous waste.

Have you considered the hazardous and deadly chemicals used in the manufacture of the wafers that are sliced up to be made into LEDs as well as integrated circuits for all of our electronic devices? Hydrofluoric acid (one drop on the skin WILL kill you), arsenic (when it gets into the blood stream, red corpuscles pop like balloons), gallium (one of those heavy metals) to name just a few. And don't fool yourself into thinking that "those chemicals are handled properly by professionals". I worked in a wafer foundry for one week and quit when someone who was cleaning a reactor (high vacuum chamber) fully dressed in Tyveks walked into an office and used the telephone with his sooty gloves. He didn't give a ***t. I figured the candy machine was a sad accident just waiting to happen, let alone the door handle to the rest room.

Just remember, those energy efficient light bulbs still use mercury vapor. They will burn out. They will end up in a landfill. Ecologyheads must look at the complete BIG picture before they say we must do this or that. Just like anything else, the job isn't finished until the science is complete.

You say that the waste is collected. Got any idea where it is collected to? Out of your back yard is not a good answer. Some of it is containerized and stored until someone can think of what to do with it. Some of it is incinerated at very high temperatures to break down the molecular structure. And what is one of the "non-hazardous" end products...anyone? One or more of those carbon oxides. Suuuprise! Go ahead, buy that latest IPod. What will it hurt? You"ll have yours.

Oh, by the way, add synthetic oils to the list.

Good points.

Locally the electronics go to recycler, who gets paid by the # to accept. The various precisous metals [including mercury] are extracted for resale.

I'm w/you & won't be working there.

Total life cycle accounting would be interesting.

Yes, Hydroflouric Acid "can" kill you... However, having had ~3-4 oz splashed on my abdomen and groin (with NO protective gear on AND soaking my shirt and jeans, while lying prostrate, working, under a hot-sink) more than 20 yrs ago, I wish to point out that "one drop on the skin WILL kill you" is a bit of a stretch...

Point me at some real evidence! including a true cost analysis.

As to the enviromental concerns, synthetic increases consumption of oil & may slightly decrease fuel consumption.

The # of oil changes makes no difference unless you're dumping the used oil on the ground or on down the drain.

If You're talking about a motorcycle where the clutch & transmission share the same oil. synthetic is the way to go.

I've seen plenty of Dodge brand gear reducers have a greatly extended life, because they were filled with do not change synthetic.

using synthetic & changing 1/3 to 1/2 as often, allows more fuel & moisture to build up in the oil.

It depends on how & for how long you drive.

more oil changes are better than less oil changes.

I suppose next we'll argue about how 1 brand of fuel is better than another even though it all comes from the same pipeline.

I have , and still do, driven around on classic bikes for a long time and there is some difference in lubrication requirements due to the design and advance technologies in modern engines.

We use multigrades in our engines as they keep a steady viscosity over a wider temperature range and as the new engines have smooth running surfaces and sinter bronze or babbitt bearings, these multigrades are perfect. You put a multigrade in a 40 year old engine with great big ball races in everywhere and I'll bet you anything that the oil will lose a significant part of its slipperyness rather fast. This is due to the mechanical action in those bearings which tends to break down the chemical structure of polyXXX shaped molecules. If you use a monograde in those you do not have that problem as the monogrades are much more stable.

I doubt however that this ethos stuff will live up to this particular scenario as esters are very complex molecules. I do not know how stable they are in mechanical environments but like somebody before me said, let someone else be the guinea pig and don't sacrifice you engine for this nonsense.

I always thought these guys are very good and if you need help or advice they were always willing to offer any without expecting a sale straight away.

http://www.castrol.com/castrol/subsection.do?categoryId=9014105&contentId=7027417

"According the the webmaster of that site the product works better on older cars than on new ones."

I believe by better that he means more improvement in older cars of fuel mileage and emissions. Ethos may help to increase compression lost due to piston ring wear. Reduce the burning of oil due to oil seal wear on the piston.

In a new engine rings are tight. Would see some improvement if the product can keep them wet in the high heat of the combustion chamber.

Whether it works or not is the question.

Here is some clips i have from some of the oil testing labs, also being a mechanic my self i dont go along with the "change your oil later syndrome" , the main reason you are changing the oil and filter is to rid that oil that has the particales in the oil and to ensure the oil filter is not "full" and starts bypassing the unfiltered oil thru the engine!

You can go into any mass retailer (Wal-Mart, K-Mart, Meijer, etc.) that sells engine oil and buy a 10W/30 (or any other preferred grade) that will perform well in your engine. One of the best-kept secrets of the oil industry is that these store brands are actually the same, quality oils that are produced by the major oil companies. The only difference between these products and the major company brands is the name on the container and about 50¢ a quart.

Industrial oils normally contain very low insolubles due to the few and relatively mild heat cycles the oil experiences (heat cycles accelerate the oil's normal tendency to oxidize). Further, oil filtration on industrial machines may filter particles as small as 210 microns, keeping the oil pristine for a very long time, often years.

Automotive and aircraft oils however, suffer the most difficult environmental problems of all types of oils we analyze. They regularly receive blow-by products from the combustion process. They suffer extreme heat cycles. Any contaminate in an oil will accelerate the oxidation process, causing insoluble materials to increase. Engine oils need to be changed regularly due to all of the above.

Excessive insolubles can form in an engine oil if the oil: is running hot, is receiving more than a normal amount of contamination, is suffering more (or more severe) heat cycles than is normal, is being run longer than a typical use cycle, or, on the other side of the coin, if oil filtration is marginal or relatively ineffective.

You wrote:-

Engine oils need to be changed regularly due to all of the above.

Which of course I agree with completely. But it should not be misunderstood by some people as to meaning "often for no reason at all"....

Synthetic does everything better than normal mineral oil and can stay in an engine longer than non synthetic without any danger, usually/generally about twice as long....changing it out "too early" is just bad for the environment and bad for your pocket, but will of course not harm your engine....

Your engine will remain in a pristine state far longer in my experience with Synthetic than normal.

Most of my cars over the last 20 odd years have been hard driven diesels (lot of heavy towing) with Turbo, probably the hardest of all on their oil and lubrication - no problems of any sort with the engines, some up to 400,000 kms.....all more than 130,000. Even the few petrol engines had extremely long life engines with no failures...

All with very little oil usage after the engine was run in, that was after about 50,000 kms on the diesel Turbos and about 30,000 kms (from memory!) on at least some of the petrol engines (wife's cars).

In my expereince, engines take longer to run in on Synthetic, a very good sign to my mind!!!

Highest usage of oil is usually in first 10,000 kms of about 2 pints. Some engines not even then.