Vlad D Impeller
Commander
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2005
- Messages
- 2,644
Re: Synthetic oil
Thanks Mike
Thanks Mike
There is some truth to this, However, with the larger V6s, I continually see a 1-200 RPM difference when the change is made, I have seen it many times that if you change the lower unit over at the same time you may see 2-300 RPM @ WOT.<br /><br />Now I have never done this test with anything but Amsoil products, so I cant say for sure that you would find the same results with other products, but I see no reason that you wouldnt.<br /><br />Now Im talking after the decarb, you run regular oil for awhile and get you base #s from there first, then make all the changes.
I'll have to say I tried a gallon of Pennzoil pure synthetic last year and really didn't notice a difference in smoke. I have two built in tanks, premis, and ran with the synthetic for a few tanks until the oil was gone. I ran the other tank with OEM (I believe it was Quicksilver) during that time. I really didn't notice any difference in smoke or performance.<br /><br />This summer, I have a partial case of Castrol TCW3 quarts that I bought on sale and a case of Pennzoil dino oil that a friend gave me (bought it by accident, meaning to buy car oil). I plan to buy another gallon of the Penn synthetic and compare to these non OEM oils. But my experience so far is that I haven't seen any noticable difference between Johhnyrude bulk (which I usually run), Quicksilver bulk and the tank or so of Castrol that I ran through it late last year. I'd REALLY like it if the synthetic smokes less and would almost feel it's worth twice the price if it did. But so far, hasn't happened.
I have seen this site before and have quoted parts of it, its got some merrit. However, we have no Idea what synthetic we are dealing with here, is it a group III or a group IV Basestock? I get the impresion that Pennzoil has something to do with this testing. You suppose that if it would have stated Pennzoil synthetic that the results would have been the same?<br /><br />No, I have never seen synthetic cause more carboning that regular oil, Never. Also, I dont care how much you try and make four different engines the same, they never are. This test is just too far the other way to be viable in my opinion.
I thought the test was interesting and their findings are what ultralight engine mechanics thoughout the country say for non-synthetics. It's the first I've seen where more deposits were from synthetic. It kinda of goes against all other reports of the clean burn from synthetics. <br /><br />Pennsoil sponsored the tests so a bit of salt has to be figured. However, I've flown into Lockwood's facility where the test was done. It is one of the most professional and well equipped anywhere and they are known as one of the most authoritive folks on earth for ultralights. Anything Phil Lockwood says can be taken to the bank as fact so I give high credibility to the test. Maybe I can find out which synthetic they used. It did point out that ratios were heavy and that added to the problem. They mentioned "gold" colored. The only gold synthetic I've been around is Golden Spectro...and run it in my chain saw and weed whacker. That and Bel-Ray.
. Therefore, my guess is that in the water cooled arena, Pennzoil would not have a bias against synthetic.<br /><br />But that's water cooled oil and I have no idea if Pennzoil offers a synthetic designed for air cooled 2 strokes. Hmmm.