Synthetic Oil question

ACAR wrote:
> On Dec 12, 10:08 pm, jim beam > wrote:
>>
>> doesn't benefit revs, but there are benefits to synthetic. these
>> include better chemical stability, lower ash, slightly better lubricity
>> [with consequent slightly better fuel economy], better thermal
>> stability, etc. wikipedia has an article on it that contains some
>> useful information, but it tends to be vandalized quite often, so refer
>> to the page over several weeks to get an idea of average consensus.
>
> When I first started using Mobil 1 synthetic, nearly 20 years ago, I
> was able to measure a gain in mpg over conventional oil in my 1.6 I4
> Honda engine. A few years ago I switched over an Accord at 15,000
> miles and did not notice a significant mpg gain. There may have been a
> gain but it could have been masked by season changes in fuel blend and/
> or cold weather fuel consumption change. The point being that current
> conventional oil is pretty darn good compared with current synthetic
> offerings.

it may also be that "synthetic" isn't what it once was. today, most
brands seem to be just highly refined conventional base oils - the
oilcos are highly reluctant to reveal content to consumers [somewhat odd
considering that their formulations are analyzable by other oilcos, so
it's not like they can protect a trade secret by being so coy].

afaict, the only synthetic that boasts about what its base oil actually
is, is motul - they use an ester-based formulation like genuine jet
lubes. others claim to be based on 1-decene, but give no idea of
proportions. mobil 1 claims a 50% difference in "supersyn" content
between standard and high mileage formulations - something clearly
impossible if "supersyn" is the real synthetic and standard formulation
truly is supposed to be this synthetic base.

bottom line, this whole subject is a murky pool of slime. suspicion and
distrust will always be a buying decision factor if the vendor won't say
what their product contains.

>
> I continue to use synthetic for its superior thermal and chemical
> stability that allows me to extend my oil change interval.

"Polfus" <nostringscouldsecureyou@thestation> wrote in message ...
>> Yours is a 4 cyl with AT transmission, no?
>>
>> My 1989 Accord (242K miles and still running strong)
>
> Holy crap! Thats amazing!

You are easily amused... this milleage is not unusuall.
I drive toyota camry 4-cyl 1995 with 238k miles on the odometer.

> I continue to use synthetic for its superior thermal and chemical
> stability that allows me to extend my oil change interval.

On my Acura, owner's manual recommend the same oil change interval
regardless of synthetic oil or not.

> oh by the way, Castrol Syntec 5W-20 works best for mine
>

How do you know? Why is your car any different from others?

On Dec 13, 10:16 pm, "Bob Jones" > wrote:
> > I continue to use synthetic for its superior thermal and chemical
> > stability that allows me to extend my oil change interval.
>
> On my Acura, owner's manual recommend the same oil change interval
> regardless of synthetic oil or not.

If following the owner's manual to the letter makes you happy, then do
so.

May I remind you that until recently Honda did not recommend periodic
brake fluid replacement and many owners who followed the manual to the
letter found themselves with seized calipers.

Actually, there's quite a list of PM items omitted from owner's
manuals in the interest of showing low maintenance costs for those
silly on-line total cost of ownership comparisons. Not all the "extra"
items dealers do are frivolous.

ACAR wrote:

> On Dec 13, 10:16 pm, "Bob Jones" > wrote:
>
>>>I continue to use synthetic for its superior thermal and chemical
>>>stability that allows me to extend my oil change interval.
>>
>>On my Acura, owner's manual recommend the same oil change interval
>>regardless of synthetic oil or not.
>
>
> If following the owner's manual to the letter makes you happy, then do
> so.
>
> May I remind you that until recently Honda did not recommend periodic
> brake fluid replacement and many owners who followed the manual to the
> letter found themselves with seized calipers.
>
> Actually, there's quite a list of PM items omitted from owner's
> manuals in the interest of showing low maintenance costs for those
> silly on-line total cost of ownership comparisons. Not all the "extra"
> items dealers do are frivolous.


I would imagine, (Since I don't own a vehicle with it), that today's ABS
systems require brake fluid that is in good condition and considering
that conventional fluids are hydroscopic in nature, that would require
frequent changes. OTOH, my old cars probably can have fluid changes
deferred to four or five years. And again, I'll compare ABS to aircraft
braking systems that are continuously maintained whereas automobiles are
not.

And, part of the omission of maintenance items on original vehicle
documentation may well be intentional to generate more profit for
dealers after the sale.

Just label me as a skeptical cynic...

<G>

JT

On Dec 13, 8:37 am, jim beam > wrote:
> wrote:
> > Yours is a 4 cyl with AT transmission, no?
>
> > My 1989 Accord (242K miles and still running strong) does the same.
> > Slugglish acceleration through the gears, but after the torque
> > converter has locked up, i have to hold on to my seat cause it seems
> > the car is possessed by demons!!!
>
> let me guess, you're not using honda z1 atf, just ordinary dexron atf,
> right? typical symptom. believe it or not, if you change back to the
> honda fluid, your transmission will become smooth again.
>
>

I think Honda Accord are designed to have a perfect balance of work
load between the engine and transmission. Hence the slow acceleration.
If Honda isnt the one that can make the most out of a 1955cc engine
that will run forever, then i don't know who is

Your guess is right, but Honda Z1 does nothing to improve
accelleration. Z1 works in a way to reduce the noticable shift shocks
in Honda transmissions at the expense of extended slippage between
gears, and as a result slower acceleration and higher transmission
temperature.

Early Honda automatic transmission had a unique design while adhering
to the then popular GM Dexron II ATF specs. That's a sound
combination, nothing wrong with that!! Automatic Hondas, unlike their
counterparts, would make you feel as if there were a genie that
manually shifts the gears for you. But drivers with no experience in
driving a manual transmission find it extremely odd.

So Honda introduced Z1 to soothe their hearts and ensure future sales
to those who wants to give up sound engineering for a little driving
convenience.

When i bough my car, the trans had Z1 on it. At my first oil change, i
switched to B&M Trick Shift, which is strictly Dexron II formulated
for older GM transmissions. Drained and refilled, 3 times. I've since
got better accelleration and the feel of power shifting. Plus the temp
gauge needle never went pass the half mark again. I like that a lot.

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article
> >,
> ACAR > wrote:
>
>> May I remind you that until recently Honda did not recommend periodic
>> brake fluid replacement and many owners who followed the manual to the
>> letter found themselves with seized calipers.
>
> Define "recently".
>
> I know my 02 Odyssey specifies brake fluid replacement every 3 years,
> and so did my 92 Civic.

89 civic is 2 yrs or 30k miles, which ever comes first.

>
> Not sure what you're smoking there, pal.
>

wrote:
> On Dec 13, 8:37 am, jim beam > wrote:
>> wrote:
>>> Yours is a 4 cyl with AT transmission, no?
>>> My 1989 Accord (242K miles and still running strong) does the same.
>>> Slugglish acceleration through the gears, but after the torque
>>> converter has locked up, i have to hold on to my seat cause it seems
>>> the car is possessed by demons!!!
>> let me guess, you're not using honda z1 atf, just ordinary dexron atf,
>> right? typical symptom. believe it or not, if you change back to the
>> honda fluid, your transmission will become smooth again.
>>
>>
>
> I think Honda Accord are designed to have a perfect balance of work
> load between the engine and transmission. Hence the slow acceleration.

eh???


> If Honda isnt the one that can make the most out of a 1955cc engine
> that will run forever, then i don't know who is
>
> Your guess is right, but Honda Z1 does nothing to improve
> accelleration. Z1 works in a way to reduce the noticable shift shocks
> in Honda transmissions at the expense of extended slippage between
> gears, and as a result slower acceleration and higher transmission
> temperature.

dude, it's not NOTHING to do with acceleration. period.


>
> Early Honda automatic transmission had a unique design while adhering
> to the then popular GM Dexron II ATF specs. That's a sound
> combination, nothing wrong with that!! Automatic Hondas, unlike their
> counterparts, would make you feel as if there were a genie that
> manually shifts the gears for you. But drivers with no experience in
> driving a manual transmission find it extremely odd.
>
> So Honda introduced Z1 to soothe their hearts and ensure future sales
> to those who wants to give up sound engineering for a little driving
> convenience.

what???

>
> When i bough my car, the trans had Z1 on it. At my first oil change, i
> switched to B&M Trick Shift, which is strictly Dexron II formulated
> for older GM transmissions. Drained and refilled, 3 times. I've since
> got better accelleration and the feel of power shifting.

no, you've got a rough-shifting transmission that will prematurely
fatigue engine mounts, drive shafts, transmission shafts, wear
transmission clutches, etc. the transmission fluid has absolutely zero
connection with the power generated by the motor [or the shift ratio],
and thus zero ability to create "better accelleration".


> Plus the temp
> gauge needle never went pass the half mark again. I like that a lot.

that is not a function of the transmission fluid.

bottom line, you're welcome to wreck your own vehicle by not using
correct fluids, but please don't bull**** about transmission fluid
somehow causing better acceleration - it's flat-out incorrect.

Polfus wrote:
>
> "Pszemol" > wrote
>> "Polfus" <nostringscouldsecureyou@thestation> wrote
>
>>>> Yours is a 4 cyl with AT transmission, no?
>>>>
>>>> My 1989 Accord (242K miles and still running strong)
>>>
>>> Holy crap! Thats amazing!
>>
>> You are easily amused... this milleage is not unusuall.
>> I drive toyota camry 4-cyl 1995 with 238k miles on the odometer.
>
> Holy crap! Thats amazing!
>

how old are you?