Any New Thoughts on Synthetic vs. Conventional Oil

I pretty much agree with most of the things already said but, I would add...don't put any type of "stop leak" in your engine should you come across a leak (and I think you might once the new oil has time to fully circulate.....basically flushing your seals and gaskets all the time now. all stop leak products are designed to cause gasket materials to swell. if you do that you're potentionally going to make a manageable problem into a real headache. I'd stick with the syn at this point and just live with it

GA AH

I was always told never to switch to synthetic after the engine had been run on conventional for any length of time, and NEVER mix the two.

It's my understanding, as previously posted, that once the switch to synthetic has occurred, the new oil cleans out everything, including the good stuff that had built up and sealed everything. Now every gasket, and seal that is exposed to this new oil is in jeopardy of leaking.

Bad deal, You might want to sell the Jeep, get one with low miles, or one that is already running synthetic oil.

FYI, I only use conventional oil in my vehicles... but all my vehicles have hundreds of thousands of miles. I run them longer than most people, but all it takes is a bit of knowhow, and elbow grease. (and a six pack or two)

Rather than sell, just get the leaks fixed as they happen.

Not every seal and gasket will leak, but when I had a front seal leak I would systematically replace everything else up front as a matter of course.

Eventually you catch up with the problems and they get fixed. You are good for another 100K+ miles. Well, maybe not. It is a Jeep. :)

My Wrangler has 180K and going like she was new, only things I have ever needed to replace in a breakdown situation was a water pump and clutch... proactive maintenance does wonders.

I suppose if you wanted to get into it, you could go about replacing the seals and gaskets, but it sounds like a potential can of worms.

'....My Wrangler has 180K and going like she was new....'

.

That cuts both ways....could be good, could be bad. How did it run when it was new?

Like a top of course.

Only complaint I've ever had with it was when I replaced the clutch. The throw-out bearing was made in Mexico, and seems to rattle a little at times. After some research, I found out that the particular kit I bought came with a bearing known to be out of tolerance, the ID is slightly larger than the OD of the shaft, causing too much play in the assembly. Next spring I'll tear her back down and put in a quality bearing.

But that Jeep will scream up a mountain like no one's business and go just about anywhere. LOVE IT.

I'm of the same opinion as the two previous posters.

I also read that syn oil cleans out carbon deposits on cylinder walls and piston rings and makes for more leakage.

I wouldn't change, unless I bought a new vehicle.

Greetings.

It may depend on What Brand of oil you used.

If I remember correctly at one time there only needed to be 2 % synthetic in the oil to call it synthetic.

I use synthetic in motor, transmissions, transfer case, differentials.

I use Amsoil in 68 Chev 3/4 ton 185,000 miles, 92 Dakota 245,000 miles, 99 Saturn 166,000 miles. They all use a little oil, but they did with regular oil and I got them used with over 119,000 to 135,000 miles.

I use Amsoil in 2004 Chev 1 Ton motorhome that had 28,500 when I bought it and it doesn't use any oil after 7,500+ miles.

Check with your supplier and see if they recommend a particular grade for your engine. Not all synthetic is the same or is rated the same.

Oly

There is a specific high mileage synthetic available I'll never go back to regular oil I run 10k per change mobile 1

What do you mean, you "flushed it"? With what, exactly?

Good question!

Id empty it all back out and put the standard oil back in, then deal with problems if they occur.

I considered changing to synthetic but was pointed out the engine was designed to work on standard oil, which worked fine, moving to synthetic may just cause issues.

I did use semi synthetic but on the next change im back to normal oil.
It was slightly noisier and felt slightly looser, the cost was about the same.

So no advantage using synthetic, if I go back to conventional oil ill sleep easier.

As for cant switch, umm yes you can, drain it and out what ever you like in,
if there were serious issues with it mixing types of oil there would be lots of news and discussions on the problems it causes.
Im sure that people who don't know much on cars do it and don't know any difference.

I run the cheap stuff in the summer and full synthetic in the winter on all of my vehicles and have never had issues from switching back and forth but then I drive Fords and drive them hard.

My personal thoughts, some of which have already been noted here:-

1) Does this engine have any seals that are not proof against synthetic oil? Tip, never buy a car where the manufacturer still uses (used) such seals....

2) The state of wear in your engine at this point, is reliant on the quality of the oil used previously, the quality of the filters (Tip only use OEM Filters) and the adherence to the oil change schedule. Cheap oil change companies generally use cheap oils, not good for engine life in the long run.

To my mind, if using synthetic oil causes a blue haze in the exhaust, it is possible that it is simply too late for this engine. Normal oil builds up coke on certain engine parts, cutting down oil consumption, these will eventually get cleaned away by synthetic, if the parts are already too worn and now "clean", then oil burning may occur.

You did not mention when the blue haze is seen, whether when accelerating, when slowing, when cruising or when accelerating after decelerating. Each one indicates where the probable wear has occurred, or damage in the case of certain older rubber seals.

Get your wife to drive in front of you with that car and watch the exhaust carefully, let engine get fully warm.

3) Synthetic cleans all the crud out, the good and the bad! You should run only a short time on synthetic with an older engine before changing the filter out again, say two weeks of daily usage.

4) Synthetic needs to go in an engine before any wear starts, at the first oil change is the perfect point, the mineral oil will help the engine to run in, then the synthetic will protect it. Synthetic from day one seems to lengthen the run in time considerably in the cars I have driven over the last 22 years....I accept this as the engines run with low oil consumption that just gets better and better over the first 100,000 miles.....

5) Due to the increased mileage between oil changes for Synthetic, the extra costs are easily recovered.....once the extra long life of the engine is noticed and calculated, the savings are huge!!!

Note.

I think that maybe it is possibly simply too late for this engine to run it on synthetic now at this mileage.....though as I said earlier, this depends on "when" the engine blows "blue".....

Two things on this subject.

1. Had a 1978 ford LTD II as a company car. At about 75000 miles I let the "mechanics" at the shop where I worked change the oil. They used what they normally put in our truck diesel engines, whtever that was. The engine begin leaking at nearly every seal within a few thousand miles. Serious leaking - the type requiring replacement to keep running. Oil type change can affect the seals. (this is rather extreme versus just a conventional to synthetic of the same type, as I can't be sure of the type the oil was)

2. Had a 1987 Cougar with the 302 (5.0L) engine. I never ran conventional oil in it - only synthetic from the day I got it. (had the dealership put it in when it arrived) At 105000 miles my son and I tore the engine down to get it ready for bracket clas drag racing use - no bore overs were required. Re-ringed with stock size and installed new stock dimension bearings. Synthetic did work here as advertized. Never had to add oil to this engine, and at an estimated 20000 more miles, plus close to a thousand 1/4 mile passes, my son is now using it in his 1950 Ford street rod.

3. Okay - a third thing - my current car had conventional in to 20000 and I added synthetic then. No leaks, but this is rather low mileage. Probably meaningless to this discussion.

Go back to conventional oil and keep an eye on the level. It should go back to the way it was after a few changes.

A few years ago I switched to synthetic in my 175k Toyota 4runner with the 2.4 4 banger. Engine smoothed out with improved peformance across the board. Not life altering, but noticable enough. No increased leakage, just smoother performance.

Check out this link to Bob the oil guy. Basic, but informative.

www.bobistheoilguy.com/motor-oil-101/

This mirrors my experience with my 01 Honda Accord (V-Tech 4 engine) at 160K miles.

Last year I had to start driving 140 miles a day round trip to work, and my mech decided that because synthetic allowed for double the mileage between oil changes for exactly double the price (so I saved time otherwise spent on oil changes, AND was thus more able to hit the intervals correctly) it made sense to go to synthetic.

I did, and had no problems for the year I continued running it that long trip daily.

Now we're back to short commutes, and I still run synthetic, but now I'm approaching 180K.

Still no problems.

Great link, thanks.

I have read it before, but forgotten about it.....

I have an ancient '98 dodge Avenger ES Sport w/ 156K miles on it and have only used Castrol Full Synthetic in it since it was brand new. Never a loss of oil or oil burning. Damn engine runs like a top and not a clatter from it. I generally change the oil and filter every 10k miles or once a year, whichever comes first. Mind you, you could probably go for longer service intervals, but it's the detergents in the oil that break down first, not the base oil itself. that is extremely important to remember!

Okay, I am biased. My kid brother is a Chem E who works for Castrol/BP and has been running their Racing Oil Program for 14 years.

I have had this problem over the years on occasion and most of the time an oil additive solved the leaking problem. I am not sure of the item added to oil to keep seals soft but I will use the term elastomer. Many brand name and high quality additives have this chemical to restore elasticity in seals. Some of them will restore an o ring or two depending on the degradation.

From experience, I believed whatever problem that you are now experiencing was caused by the "engine flushing" that was done prior to switching to synthetic oil!

It is a common mistake to run the engine with what they call as "flushing oil", especially old engines! By flushing the engine with this very light cleaning fluid actually rubs your engine off with its needed lubrication. Similar to pouring lighter fluid, dissolving / washing all the oily component needed by your engine! Your best bet to prevent your engine from knocking is to initially use heavier grade oil before shifting back to the recommended grade there after following the regular 3000 mile oil change.. Good luck with your engine!

There is no good answer for you till you know where the oil is going, and why.

The other reason for using synthetic oil has to do with the "what if". Like what if the upper radiator hose blows off a half mile from the exit. Will the extra heat ruin the engine? Or will your extra engine protection allow lower friction, and you get to say Wow, I was lucky, the engine got hot, but nothing worse happened.

If the upper radiator hose blows off 1/2 mile before the exit, you better think about walking 1/2 mile or you'll be buying a new motor. Only engines designed to run a limited time without water can do it without damage to the engine.

ever see a dragster with a radiator??

The example given will vary with many variables. But your chances of survival are ALWAYS better with synthetic.

I just said that as well, before reading your excellent post!!!

If you are trying to butter me up for a better Christmas gift, forget it. I mailed it yesterday.

What a bust up!!!

It also depends somewhat on the quality of the oil being used......I have had two engines blow all the water out due to overheating, one several times between Genoa and Switzerland due to Agri petrol being sold in Italy as super. I had to refill 8 times.....

Due I am sure to the Full Synthetic oil, it ran a further 150,000 Kms with no problems and was sold in a still good running condition.....

Mineral oil would have caused a different situation I am sure.......

'....I have had two engines blow all the water out due to overheating, one several times between Genoa and Switzerland due to Agri petrol being sold in Italy as super.....'

.

That is odd. By what effect, do you suppose, the non-super petrol caused engine overheating sufficient to 'blow all the water out?

The lower pressure that resulted from the extra load from the oil breakdown, sucked the water right out of the radiator.

Or, The coolant loss was not related to the engine oil, and the oil just provided better protection after the coolant was lost.

Second one was right. 80 Octane instead of 95 or more. Fully loaded car, 600Kg. Trailer. On the flat everything was hunky dory, I first noticed it it started as I climbed into the mountains.

My friend, if you are unaware of what happens when an engine that needs 96 Octane or better, is only getting 80 Octane or less, this is not really the place to learn.

But believe me the engine gets hot.....the fix was to fill the tank with the highest Octane petrol, Super Plus......instant fix. Once I had checked the rest of the engine setup out...

Sadly I did not think of this immediately. Which is why it took from the mountains north of Genoa, till the Swiss border.....The best part of 200 KMs..

I have always heard that low octane was a problem because it could result in knocking (pre-ignition).

As it has been explained to me, rapid burning of the fuel before reaching TDC results in damaging pressure transients and concentrated areas of very high temperature.

The very high temperatures are damaging and can melt pistons and cylinder surfaces, but this is not because more energy is being released by the combustion, but instead because of the more rapid burning and small area, that heat transfer to the coolant or oil is insufficient resulting in very high temperature inside the cylinder.

But, insufficient heat transfer to the coolant is a very different situation than excessive heat transfer to the coolant.

Since the total heat isn't significantly different for higher or lower octane only the heat added to the coolant should be predominantly based on the average amount of fuel air mixture burned in the cylinder over time, not the burning rate of each combustion.

.

So when I saw (in my favorite engineering blog, CR4), a statement blaming Italian low octane gas for an overheating event that blew all the coolant out of the car, I was curious.

.

While I read your admonition that CR4 is not the place to learn about this type of thing, and I think you are wrong.

CR4 is a perfect place to learn about this rare phenomena, because not only are you the source for this story but there there are other people here who are smart, experience and helpful in CR4. Even if you think an engineering blog is not a good place to delve into ideas related to engineering, I do.

.

Even if you refuse to elaborate, there are many very bright CR4 members who

be willing to offer different perspective.

.

Just out of curiosity, how many engines have you overheated? Have you modified your driving?...or do Italians selling you AGRI-gas, have all the blame?

I have no concrete evidence of your knowledge level. You have not mentioned it as far as I am aware....

Depending upon this, depends upon what you need to learn......Petrol 101 maybe?

I have to admit to a certain reluctance on my part as well to spend any time on a discussion of this nature.......but there are many petrol heads here that could do it better, one may be willing to bring you up to scratch on the subject. Any takers?

I am a simple person, so I will try to give a simple explanation.

The fuel does not have sufficient octane to prevent the mixture from burning and heating up . And all of that pressure is then further compressed as the piston continues upward near the top of the compression stroke.

Does it seem reasonable to anyone else that the friction of trying to turn a spinning motor backwards would create some additional heat?

And I believe that when gasoline and air, in the correct mixture are igniter by a spark plug in an engine that there is a flame front that consumes the fuel mixture at a given rate. But in the case of the low octane fuel mixture, the fuel mixture reaches a point where it self-ignites, in a more explosive fashion. I would thing that that also generates additional heat.

You are almost there, you in fact half mentioned it, though low octane fuel for the engine in question, does not necessarily "self ignite", at least at first before some parts like the electrodes of the spark plug exceed their designed temperatures, which would probably happen fairly fast by the way.

The correct octane fuel, as you yourself mentioned, will BURN at a predetermined rate, not explode.

The lower octane fuel, even when ignited at the correct engine timing, explodes, which can be very detrimental to the long life of the engine.....This explosion can be heard from some engines and is called "knocking" or " pinking" in some areas....by the time you can actually "hear" the knocking, it has been happening a lot already.

e.g. The engine is also silently being damaged before....

Do not forget that due to the relative "slow" burning of the fuel when correctly set up, the ignition timing in petrol engines requires that the spark is usually made well BEFORE TDC.

This ignition time (in degrees) before TDC is variable in some way with regard to RPM and engine load amongst other factors. Temperature, air pressure and humidity are also taken into account in some modern engines, as well as "keeping an eye" on the octane level of the fuel by measuring as to whether the fuel is exploding or not with a "knock" sensor......

In comparison, a Diesel engine injects at TDC or even slightly later, as the fuel is designed to explode (though most modern Diesel engines actually divide the amount of fuel injected into many short segments of "minor" explosions to reduce the noise and stress, making the engine quieter amongst other things and more attractive to average humans).

Therefore the bearings in Diesel motor are wider and often bigger, as well as having a higher capacity/pressure oil pump in the engine, to protect the bearings from damage due to these explosions, as well as cooling piston bases in Turbo driven diesels. This makes diesel engines usually heavier than equivalent sized petrol engines using the same metals.

These differences also contribute to giving the diesel usually have a long working life as well as an economical engine, though modern petrol engines using synthetic oils and correct maintenance are getting closer and closer to the diesel engine's lifespan, though not yet as economical.

I hope this explanation crosses the "t" and dots the "i" for you a little more....there are others here with even better detailed knowledge that might also help further if needed.

I can accept that engine knocking causes high pressure and high temperature because the fuel ignites early, still on the compression stroke.

.

I can also accept that this early rapid addition of heat intensified by compression can cause temperatures momentarily high enough to damage the metal surface of the piston and cylinder.

.

All that makes sense.

.

What doesn't make sense is that engine knocking alone would cause all the coolant to boil off.

Although the heat from each combustion is created over a shorter time and in a smaller space (enough to melt the piston face), since the amount of fuel and air are not significantly increased, the average heat introduced over a cycle is the same.

That is what the coolant will experience. One single early ignition is not going to be enough to boil off all the coolant, and the total heat averaged over many successive early ignitions, shouldn't be that different from normal ignitions, because tje amount of fuel and air is not that different....

.

I also can find no reasonable support on the internet for this path to overheating, nor even any reliable stories relating a similar occurrence....

.

I can only tell you that any petrol engine, over advanced (the same as having low octane petrol) will "knock". This causes overheating. I would guess that the heat energy produced is staying in the engine and not being correctly used to push the pistons down.......

I had it in a Ford Cortina in 1980 because the mechanic had stripped out the screws that fixed the contacts down and it managed to "advance" itself. The engine was destroyed because I was talking to a great lady instead of watching dials, till it was too late.

Ford put a new engine in and used the old distributor as it was. I asked if they had replaced the plate, he asked why. When I told him it was still loose!!!! He took one out of a new car from the showroom as it wasn't a spare he could get quickly.

If this isn't enough info for you you about advanced timing/too low octane for the engine causing overheating, you have two choices, believe it or ask someone else!!!!!

Here is Engine 101 for you!

The first link actually mentions overheating as well with this paragraph:-

Overheating

• If ignition timing is too far advanced it will cause the fuel and air mixture to ignite too early in the combustion cycle. This can cause the amount of heat generated by the combustion process to increase and lead to overheating of the engine.

http://www.ehow.com/list_7443696_ignition-timing-symptoms.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignition_timing

the premise is rubbish, he had another problem causing overheating

How often has it happened to you that you can be so certain of your comment? I have had both the over advanced engine and the low octane problem, my wife has never forgotten the latter!!!! And it was 1995!!

In my last post before this one, I added two links, one of which said quite accurately that the engine can overheat.......do remember it hinges on the engine itself (one pre MCUs for example), the load being pulled, the terrain as well as the fuel. I sincerely doubt that a modern engine would get problems as the timing would be set correctly for the fuel I believe.

Both the engines in question had no MCU and had contacts for the ignition, an almost forgotten (and misunderstood today) technology....

Thanks in advance for your answer.

(I assume you meant my experiences, but you were not particularly clear in the way you wrote your last comment as to exactly who you were talking about!!, you may have meant someone else, sorry if true then for my questions/comments above.....)

Andy I've read your stuff for over a year and It's easy to tell you're a sharp guy. I just don't buy low octane explanation

Those are my exact sentiments. I'm glad I'm not alone on this one.

You are both wrong. Andy is RIGHT! I first started "mechanicing" when I was 16 years old (I'm 58 now, so you do the math) and NO cars had anything but breaker point ignition. those things were finicky two ways, dwell, or spark duration, and timing. But timing was advanced by two different options, both of which existed on ALL cars of the day. One was centrifugal advance, controlled by the rotational speed of the distributor, and the other was vacuum advance, controlled by the "open/shut" condition of the throttle butterfly.

Since you both seem to think that breaker-point ignition couldn't cause the problem both Andy AND I have seen, perhaps you need to find one of those old monsters and spend a few thousand hours working on them, and driving the result, in all weather and all traffic conditions, before you say it didn't happen.

I don't normally weigh in on Andy's arguments, cause he holds his own well enough to garner his own respect, but you guys are down-right disrespectful to a guy who knows what he is talking about, and apparently is talking about something you've either not worked on or forgotten.

And the links Andy posted DIDN'T lie. Are you really so arrogant you think he'd post links purporting to support his story, knowing they were lies, and too easy to prove wrong! C'mon, guys, wake up! We aren't stupid, any more than you are!!

arguing with people online is like winning a race at the special Olympics....you're still retarded. for the record I have respect for Andy and the many posts I've read by him. but one of the nice things about a forum is getting different input from many sources, I just happen to disagree on this one. as for my knowledge of ignition systems from the past you gave me a good laugh. I'm a hot rodder from the 70's.you neglected to mention spring tensions on the centrifugal advance!

You wrote:-

you neglected to mention spring tensions on the centrifugal advance!

Well in a way he did as he mentioned advance and retard(?), but he probably thought that mentioning the individual parts/detail was not needed, for most here anyway.

Read here from his post:-

But timing was advanced by two different options, both of which existed on ALL cars of the day. One was centrifugal advance, controlled by the rotational speed of the distributor, and the other was vacuum advance, controlled by the "open/shut" condition of the throttle butterfly.

If you were a hot rodder in the 70's, then you were simply never confronted by this phenomena, but that still does not mean its not true!!!

I bet there are literally millions of things that you and I both don't know about, nor had experience of.....true? That still doesn't make them untrue.

I only brought up the springs because a LONG time ago when I was a street racer we had no electronic "anything"....I worked almost constantly on my distributor, I had several sets of weights.....as well as several sets of springs........neither of which had much effect on "Total Advance but they did impact how quickly the engine would rev as well as when the engine made it's best power in some lower RPM bands.....just a foot note and a bit off the octane topic

Many thanks for the friendly support. GA for accuracy and knowledge.

You are someone who obviously not only worked on the same generation of cars as I did, you professionally, me as an amateur, but fully understood what he was doing as well, that is seldom today.

Some here come on blogs just to argue, their Id needs it for some reason that no normal person will ever understand........they are usually under 35, sometimes far less even than that, little life experience or knowledge.

I have got used to them over the years and don't let them upset in any way, I can usually then post some light, sometimes sarcastic replies that most do not even understand.....

That's usually enough "win" for me, but such a great post as you made, makes it really all worth while. Thanks.

Micahd02:

You misunderstand the point of contention. I never claimed that 'breaker-point ignition couldn't be the problem'.

It is entirely possible the 'finicky' ignition was the cause of the problem. Cars use to require adjustment to run properly at vastly different altitude. Any problem related to changes in altitude would be especially noticeable going up hill fully loaded for long periods, and probably hard to notice while traveling mostly downhill to flat.

.

Here is a breakdown of the disagreement:

-. In specific: I am questioning the blame AndyGermany placed 100% on Italian selling him fuel that was improperly labeled.

I questioned whether low octane was sufficient to 'blow all the water out of an engine' or if perhaps AndyGermany had some fault in this whole ordeal.

He said this happened to him several times. Wouldn't that imply that low octane was not a one time swindle, but the norm in Italy? Is the claim being made that the highest octane sold in Italy is 80? Or is he just claiming to be a sucker for whom tricky Italians save up bad gas in order to sell it to him next time he visits?

-. In general: I am questioning whether the gusto with which AndyGermany proclaims to know with absolute certainty the definitive truth, might be better described as hubris than infallibility.

I am actually undecided as to whether or not low octane fuel alone is sufficient to cause sufficient overheating to 'blow all the water out of an engine' of an auto dated a few decades in the past? The other side of the argument is not without merit.

What is without merit, is someone operating under the premise that their analysis of something is infallible and that no other plausible alternative explanation could exist.

After all, shouldn't the incongruity of a self assessment of infallibility, juxtaposed to the memory of r4epeatedly blowing the water out of your engine returning from Italy, cause at least a little cognitive dissonance? Certainly perfect assessment couldn't let that happen more than once, twice at the outside, but certainly before ruining an engine.

When AndyGermany writes:

'...Do please not forget (I did mention it quite clearly at the time) that the 100% fix was to fill a now half empty tank in Switzerland with Super Plus petrol. It was an immediate fix, the engine never ran hot EVER again, even directly after the fill up....'

He leaves no room for any other explanation. He has proclaimed his analysis to be the '100% fix'. (and yet he fell victim to the same thing several more times).

He leaves no room for consideration now that he was at a Swiss filling station, having traveled from Genoa Italy, the most severe climb was over. The tallest elevation was behind him and engine load would be significantly lower than prior to his '100% fix' fill up.

He leaves no room to remember that he likely did not fill up and depart immediately. There was time for the car to cool down, a lot. Her just 'blew all the water out of the engine' . I doubt AndyGermany would be foolish enough to pour cold coolant into the cooling system he just steamed dry? would he?

.

It is that same hubris that has him warmly congratulating himself in post 51....

'..... I can usually then post some light, sometimes sarcastic replies that most do not even understand.....

That's usually enough "win" for me, but such a great post as you made, makes it really all worth while. Thanks......'

.

'

Hey AndyGermany

You are welcome.

If you want to declare yourself the winner, more power to you! Calling myself 'the winner', doesn't interest me, feel free to continue warmly congratulating yourself. ...( On a side note: I can think several areas in which you actually excel, so just ask if you ever need of a legitimate 'winner title')

By the way, no need be concerned that your 'sarcasm' or other attempted witticisms, might be too much for this blog to handle. The only thing of yours that meets that criteria seems to be your ego.

As usual, subjects a little "offbeat" and "difficult to comprehend" bring out the experts!!!! Usual CR4......

Just for you personally truth is not a compromise, I will give the explanation and reasons for maybe a fourth (and certainly final) time. I will try and dot and cross all the "i" and "t". Any I miss you must work out for yourself using your own mass of grey matter, OK?:-

The reasons that it happened many times in the 180 odd kilometers between Genoa and Switzerland was simple, I did not even consider the petrol to be the problem until I was almost at the border with Switzerland. Do look at a map if you don't know the countryside, a map with indications of height, hills and mountains....Contour map?

The few miles I did on the flat near to the coast after filling the tank full probably warmed the engine up a little, but basically I did not notice anything untoward.....since then I keep a better eye on temperature changes than I did before....even today.

I kept thinking that the engine had a problem, I checked and rechecked the timing, how clean the radiator was, back flushed it as well as checking for leaves and litter, made sure the water pump was moving water as it should etc etc etc..... I even removed some bugs and litter and thought that was it, but it wasn't.

So I had to stop every 25-30 KMs (that was why it was many times, miles from home on a Sunday! You misinterpreted the reasons for "many"...... It is generally better to ask than make a bad guess.....)and wait for the engine to cool before filling up again with water and driving on......slowed me down no end, but I had to be at work the next day......luckily I had started early that morning. Two small children in the car as well to keep amused....

While driving, with the problem going back and forth in my head, I remembered an article in the ADAC Zeitung (similar to the UK AA or the USA's AAA, the German one issues a quarterly magazine) earlier in the year about the Italian Mafia passing off Agri-petrol for Super. Many engines severely damaged.

It went "PING" (joke intended) in my brain. I said to my wife, when we get to Switzerland (then about 10KMs away or less, I cannot be exact anymore, but VERY close), "I will fix the engine without having to work on it, because I now know what the problem is (it was the only possibility left!) and we can drive the rest of the way home with no more problems, in the very first filling station in Switzerland we see." (It was a big Shell station!!)

Very skeptical look from my wife!!!!

But that is just how it was, I drove in with half empty tank, filled up to the brim with Super Plus (my engine actually only required Super normally), drove home without any more problems ever again (in the next 200,000 odd kilometers either that I had that car!!!) I filled the rad for the last time there as well with water......though later that week I had to replace the lost Antifreeze of course.

My wife spent the last 200 odd KMs looking at the temperature gauge and asking me if it was all OK......

Now with this last and final Testament, have I convinced you or not? Not that it bothers me much if you do not understand it, its more your loss not mine....

Also, a request, you should polish your manners up, they are appallingly bad to your fellow CR4 colleagues I feel, especially to me personally.......try some high quality sarcasm, it keeps me laughing when I read (or write) it!!!!

Shows a higher sort of intellect I feel, though some say its the lowest form of wit. But its always better to have some "low" wit than none at all I feel!!!

Do please remember that certain online blogs are a bit like the TV, if you don't like the program/contents, then simply turn it off or search for another station......don't just lose your manners.....

There is a quote, I forget who from, but it goes something like this:- "It is better to remain silent when maybe some may think you are a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt!"

Also I remember my very then beautiful Blonde ex-wife, who many years ago, when I asked how she managed to screw up so many things in the day. She answered " I get up early!".....sadly she meant it seriously and we parted ways some time later.....

'nuff said.

Have a great day anyway.........(waiting on a real good bit of sarcasm back now from you, something that you can be proud of and I can have a good laugh at!!!! Don't forget.)

you guys need to give it a rest

I keep trying to, this is my very last attempt to help him understand!

Have a great day.....

The plot thickens!

The incongruities make difficult to just take your word for it. Which particular set of word are we supposed to accept.

Consider comment #28 opposed to comment # 55

from #28, '.....I have had two engines blow all the water out due to overheating, one several times between Genoa and Switzerland due to Agri petrol being sold in Italy as super. I had to refill 8 times.........'

from #55'....that is just how it was, I drove in with half empty tank, filled up to the brim with Super Plus (my engine actually only required Super normally), drove home without any more problems ever again...'

.

So which is it? Did you pull in with 1/2 a tank, fill up and never have problems again? Or did you have to fill up 8 times?

.

Sooner or later it always shows through.

(I cqn hardly wait for the reply. Seriously, if you re-concoct your way out of this one, you will have me convinced that you are unquestionably the Spalding Grey of crap.) Does that tickle your sarcasm funny bone enough?

Its all there, you just need to read with comprehension, make notes if its difficult to remember things in the order they are written.......difficult!

You will eventually die someday in the future, still not having understood what it was all about.....your loss, not mine.

I did get a few friendly emails the last week (4, from 3 different people!), sort of trying to second guess your next direction amongst other things.

All have been completely wrong up to now....You have managed to fox their guessing completely, well done....but you did amuse them well (and me!), thanks.

I should have run a book, didn't occur to me at first and now its simply too late.

Bye.

I'm glad you at least reap some benefit (enjoyment), even though it is based predominantly on delusion. At least you have something.

I have to confess, I get a kick out of reading your your sassy, self-important responses.

When I check my notices of updated comments, a wide smile comes across my face when I see a new gem of a response from you.

Admittedly, it is a rather base flavor of humor, not that different from schadenfreude, and not really the most noble thing to be chuckling about. None the less, the irony and absurdity of your impotently peevish vignettes, make this whole thing captivating.

This is a little strange, but the characteristics of your attacks, (from the impulsiveness to the reliance on ad hominem attacks, down to the progression of tactics) are remarkably similar to those a typical six to nine year old child could be expected to use.

Lest you claim I am following in your footsteps of unsupported claims, lets look at a great example:

.

'....I did get a few friendly emails the last week (4, from 3 different people!), sort of trying to second guess your next direction amongst other things.....'

.

In light of alll the name calling and self congratulating you have done, this latest addition rounds out so well the fight-on-the-playground-during-recess genera.

.

You really thought it pertinent to describe vague support of your side (of our discussion) from fan base of three email buddies? I guess the only thing shocking here is that it wasn't 8 buddies that later you would narrow down to just 1.

.

While creating the illusion of community acceptance may be a highly utilized marketing ploy; done impulsively, your particular use is far more akin to a grade school tactics like trying to convince an opponent that everyone disagrees with their ideas and that everyone is laughing at them.

.

One of the ironies is that in your attempt to legitimize your arguments by enlisting the vague opinions (whether pure fiction or containing some element of truth) of email buddies, has resulted in furthe4r calling your assertions into question. After all, an argument should be able to stand on its own merit.

.

Perhaps recheck those emails. Are you certain you correctly understood what was intended to be communicated? Maybe they weren't guessing about the flaw i would next point out, and instead perhaps they were simply pointing out further inconsistencies?

.

Looking forward to your next.

I have already said "Bye" to you.

I also do not bother to read your (probably) sycophantic posts anymore......you are simply a waste of time, space and resources.

What is this? Now you are jumping on the "Blame the Mafia" band wagon.

Why is it that every time someone shows up with cement shoes in the river the Mafia gets the blame?

It is just stereotyping all over again!

Actually, it does need a big organization to get it properly organized and to get the necessary officials paid off.

The ADAC called it the Mafia, I am sure that they understood it better than me at least......I will stay with their words....you can call it what you like!!!.

http://www.lifeinitaly.com/news/en/155079

It seems they still do it!!!!

It is a family business. Handed down from generation to generation.

Last year in Fla, the state nailed a gas attendant at a station on the state's turnpike that was changing the price of the gas by one cent per gallon, and placing a stick on "correct" number over the inflated number on the pumps. He would make ins cent per gallon on hundreds of gallons of gas sold every day. He would then pull the extra cash out of the till, and reset the pumps for the next shift. He was supposedly doing this for over a year.

Interesting, but he was only fiddling the price, in Italy then they were changing the quality by filling the underground tanks with a far cheaper/Octane lower fuel.

That takes some power!!! Many have to be involved for it to work from the tanker driver, gas station owner onwards.....big business.....

Speaking of reading for comprehension.....

.

Did you miss the fact that what you linked to was an article about gas stations being fined for pumping less gas than the customers were paying for, not really about lower octane gas.

.

In fact the term octane appears no where in the story.

.

In fact the only thing vaguely similar to your claims of a pervasive conspiracy to sell fuel with low octane is a short statement that:

'....The police said two station managers in Palermo, Sicily, had watered down petrol with low-quality chemical substances.....'

OK, so the article states that 132 stations in Italy had been fined for dispensing

fuel at a different price than marked, and was mainly about 23 recent cases in Rome where equipment that pumped less than indicated were used to swindle people.

But with a brief mention of two (two!) cases of poor quality chemicals being used to 'water down' gas, in Sicily (far far from where you say you were in Italy), you believe that is grounds to make the assertion of a widespread mafia conspiracy to sell you low octane fuel.

.

It is important also to note that ;low quality chemical isn't sufficient to determine the effect on Octane rating.

I have already said "Bye" to you.

I also do not bother to read your (probably) sycophantic posts anymore......you are simply a waste of time, space and resources.

What? No newly revealed twists conjured to correct this discrepancy?

Aww. That's disappointing.

I was so looking forward to your creative response.

Would you perhaps reconsider? I promise to add sarcasm to my comments, just as you requested....

CR4 needs to set up a ring so you 2 can put some gloves on and settle this there....or in a cage!

Would you perhaps reconsider? I promise to add sarcasm to my comments, just as you requested....

That would be a bonus, more to laugh at!!!

Look at the post I just made before this, it seems they are still doing it.....

....so no nifty, that's-what-you-meant-all-along attempts to explain the discrepancy in your story?

.

You aren't going to let us know which version we should actually believe, your first version where you had to fill up eight times, or your later versions trimmed down to just one fill up to prove it was the dastardly Italian octane all along?

.

Would you say that's the only place in this blog, that you've related as honest truth, something with a description subject to modification at your whim?

.

I hope you can get over any insult you perceive in this line of questioning. Right now I'm just ascertaining whether you might be capable of being forthright, or if your lack of denial stems mainly from not being able to think of any believable way to explanations.

If I understand you correctly, you do not think that poor octane will cause an overheating condition on a non knock controlled vehicle. That opinion would be in direct opposition to the service manuals from that period that I still have.

In the 43rd edition of the Motor Repair Manual, Professional Service Trade Edition, on Page 2-11 Under the heading of conditions, it has listed "High temperature indication-overheating", it lists twenty one possible causes. The seventh cause for that condition is listed as "Ignition timing incorrect". And for a cure it states, "Adjust ignition timing".

Was the book wrong?

You have misunderstood me.

My main point of contention is with the absolute certainty AndyGermany is claiming that the ultimate and only possible cause of the described occurrences of 'blowing all the water out of the engine' was low octane gas sold to him as part of a mafia conspiracy.

.

I can't speak for the book. I don't know either if being included inn a list of things that contribute to overheating clarifies whether low octane alone would cause sufficient overheating to 'blow all the water out of the engine'. My main point of contention is however supported by your description of the book, in that there are at least 20 other possible causes of overheating.

.

Technically, in the case he now describes (in both the refilling 8 times to alleviate, and the filling up one time versions of the story) there are additional factors, so the overheating as described did not occur due to low octane alone.

.....so why continue?

Well, AndyGermany's utter refusal to allow for any alternative possibilities, along with commitment to being (seen as) correct, makes him very easy to spin up, and I thing anyone who makes bigoted, awkward to defend statements, should be spun up and challenged to assume the awkward defense.

.

His blustery little diatribes replete with name calling, self congratulations, grandstanding, and occasional failure-to-keep-his-story-straight blunders make is all worth while.

Points all well taken, tinac. And no argument from me. My response was in reply to the seeming view that low octane could not account for the damage, because I didn't see what you HAVE amply demonstrated, to wit, that Andy was pushing for that being the ONLY possible answer. Having followed your "discussion" with Andy through Post number 78 (so far) I definitely see your points, and agree. I've debated whether I wanted to have my post in his defense removed just out of embarassment, but, given that I know low octane CAN BE (note, didn't say is the only) cause for severe engine damage, including the kind of over-heating he describes (though not necessarily in the circumstances he describes) I think I'll let it stay.

But I did read once that one should never enter an argument that was already in place when you entered the room, because you may find yourself defending a point with which you disagree (due to periphery to the main argument, in this case) and even find yourself on the side of someone who you don't particularly like. I don't think that last has happened, here, but the periphery issue certainly holds.

And face it, as you've already noted, Andy can be a pain in the neck sometimes, for precisely the reasons you've noted. Can't quit arguing no matter what, so just stomps off in a huff. He's done it before. Takes all kinds to spin the world, though, huh?

Thank you for putting this in perspective. Andy isn't the only one that finds it difficult to quit arguing; I am certainly guilty of that too.

Your comment is a good one and well taken.. Thanks again.

I do believe that the problems I saw will occur very seldom in the USA due to the widespread use of regular unleaded being an 87 octane fuel (according to some websites I have looked at).

The Petrol we have here in general usage for most vehicles is 95 though some filling stations still have 91 for some vehicles which need it which means that the engines have, in comparison to 87 octane engines, a higher compression ration....

We also have 98 for those engines that need it.....Super Plus.

You will as good as never see the problem in the USA, especially since most cars (all?) have an MCU to control timing.

So basically, you can read and learn about problems you will probably never have in the USA, or not. Whether you believe in the truth is immaterial to me as well, what difference will it make in the big scheme of things? Answer = NONE!!

Do please not forget (I did mention it quite clearly at the time) that the 100% fix was to fill a now half empty tank in Switzerland with Super Plus petrol. It was an immediate fix, the engine never ran hot EVER again, even directly after the fill up.....it probably made a quasi 95 mix.....at least nearer to what the engine required than before....

Now if you can give me another plausible technical explanation, other than mine, as to how the Super Plus fixed the problem completely and instantly, I will read it, print it out and stick it in a book of fairy tales!!!

You can lead a horse to water, but he must drink without any further help on his own!!!

This thing with Octane, it seems, is similar to the reception to the statement that only tyres with low air pressure explode while driving!!! Especially when driven fast or with a heavy load or both!!!!!

Many people NEVER get their heads round that statement!!!!!! But still more than those who understand Octane......

Have a great day anyway.......

Maybe this little nugget from an engine tuner is valuable (emphasis added):

"...If the spark occurs too soon, the engine will fight against the pressure in the cylinder creating extra heat and possibly cause a pinging problem that may do engine damage. If the spark occurs too late, the maximum cylinder pressure will occur too late, thus not converting the gasoline energy into power, but wasting it as heat that the cooling system must get rid of..."

My experience is that we tend to think that a system that works well under design conditions will also perform similarly outside those condtions, but second and third order effects that usually don't occur can often screw things up if not considered.

In this case the unanticipated extra mechanical load on the engine from having to compress against its already combusted fuel mixture sounds like a pretty good explanation to Andy's experience, especially when coupled with the extreme conditions of high altitude mountainous driving.

Also consider this, as the engine overheats it creates enough pressure to exceed the pressure rating of the radiator cap. Under normal conditions that works fine as the expanded coolant goes into the reservoir, only to be sucked back in as the engine cools down, no problem. But if the additional heat load causes too much coolant to be expelled then the amount that exceeds the reservoir capacity will be lost, and as the engine cools down it will suck in air in place of the coolant. Do this enough times while going up and down and mountains and you'll be blowing off steam as the radiator cap now acts a pressure relief valve.

I know very little about engine design, but I do know that if we overload an electric motor, sooner or later there will come a point where there will be a runaway thermal condition that leads to heat being created at a rate faster than its cooling system can handle. These are physical systems, and physical systems have limitations when operated way outside their design iimits. We all know that excessive heat is an equipment-killer.

You have described the effects I saw/experienced exactly!!

You are a man with a good brain, who also knows how to use it (even more important), many thanks.

But when I was a kid, and having to buy my gas at the cheapest places I could find it, it regularly ran to low octane values (as noted by the ping, not by the numbers, which weren't posted on the pumps then) and my car would run hotter (never excessively though, as I remember) until I could find a place I could afford (or make my friends chip in for the ride) and get higher quality (read higher octane) gas.

I had a car that was only two years younger than I was, with a flat-head six, in a 57 Plymouth Plaza (early Aircraft Carrier), which, because of the weight of the car, small engine, and my lead foot, was always on its ragged edge. So maybe that made us both more susceptible to the low octane heatup problems.

for the record.....I'm Canadian, born here, grew up in Southern California, but have been back here for years...........and I think this thread needs to fade away!

i get disgusted when posters acts like they're more knowedgable than a poster that may have a short and sweet answer rather than going into a diatribe like many regulars on this site. there will be hell to pay and i think all of of you are starting to realize that.

i'm refferring to "truth is not a compromise" for one, but there are many others who feel too intiminated to post or respond.

Here's an update on the original posting. When I had to replace 1.5 qts after 500 miles I also put in 4 oz. of Lucas Heavy Duty Oil Stabilzer, something I've been doing every 2,000 mi. or so since I got the Jeep. After a few short trips I noticed that there were no more blue puffs of smoke and the oil level was not dropping.

This weekend I drove nearly 500 mi. at highway speeds. When I checked the dipstick I was glad to see that the level had hardly changed and the oil was still quite clear, so maybe I won't have to worry about the potential for leaky seals. However I was disappointed that the synthetic hadn't done much for the gasoline consumption, bu.t that could be due to the cold weather which normally hurts the mileage anyway

Many thanks for the comments and suggestions, it's been an interesting thread, including a few twists and turns through the Alps!

Well another blog taken over by "Wankers United" here on CR4, not that there are many! Just one as far as I personally can tell. I wonder if he even knows what a wanker is? It is in the Oxford English dictionary.....for anyone in doubt.

We have "compromised on the truth!" again, sadly .

(What an inappropriate name)

I know what the facts were, I wrote them clearly enough for most of the intelligent world, but not for all it seems....

Those who are reasonable men/women know who they are, the rest simply don't matter in my book. It will never be perfect here, but we can all "vote" with our presence or not. I am doing that right now.

I hope to meet the good guys again soon on some other blog, till then, its me signing off. BYE.

Aw. There, there.

You certainly sound like you have a lot of sand in your fotze.

Does it sting realizing your self-congratulations were premature and ultimately inappropriate? ...and none of your supportive email 'friends' are offering condolences?

Shhhh. Name calling won't help. It hasn't helped this entire time, why would it start helping now.

I don't think you'll learn from this, you are far too smart to learn anything from anyone at this point. Better for you to just not think of this anymore, and let the familiar folds of your self delusion seal you off from this uncooperative world.

The question becomes do you like a ford or Chevy. Oil is oil is oil. Run it, loose it , leak it or what ever. 200K 100K 10K or change at 3k. If it works for you then it works for you. every engine, every circumstance is different. I change at 3k, have 300k on engine in the two units I have. No leaks no burn. Just plain lucky!