I'm not flaming anyone.  Nor am I spouting drivel form a group of
technophobes who embrace 30's technology as the peak.  My current daily
driver has a computer controled diesel injection pump.  I'd put an
electronic ignition on a plane in a heartbeat if it were legal and cost
effective.   I'd use synthetic lubricants in the crank case if I felt they
offered an advantage, even if it weren't 100% cost effective.  What
follows
is my reasoning for not using them.  (By the way, I use synthetic gear oil
in the axles of both 3/4 ton pickups and the trans of the manual and am
considering using it in the transmission of the one that's automatic.
Why?
Because of their superior resistance to thermal degredation and better
viscosity properties at low temperatures.  I'd use it in the crankcases,
at
least in the winter, if I lived a little farther north.)

>  In that period of time neither has experienced a single valve sticking
> which had been a problem previously.
I have yet to have a valve sticking problem in some 4000 hours of flying
with mineral based oils and some Shell semi-synthetics (Knock wood).  Most
of my friends that have had problems have engines that are full of carbon
inside from infrequent use, short, cold flights and infrequent oil
changes.
It's good that you're not having the problem now, but you shouldn't have
had
it before either.
> Oil changes (?) have been 200 hrs along with filter change. 
I don't feel that contaminants are consumed as easily as oil, so I would
not
feel comfortable going 200 hours between oil changes.  Also, a lot can
happen in 200 hours.  I like looking at the screen every 25 hours and
seeing
no metal.  That makes me feel good.
> These 2 engines are unbelievably clean inside, 
So are mine.  I've also got a '78 SAAB turbo with 186,000 miles on Castrol
GTX, changed every 2500 or so.  It's clean as a whistle inside.
> The higher time engine developed a leak of the front seal which when
> changed was found to be very brittle due to age. The leak was obviously
> due to loosing the sludge that was acting as a seal.  
This is not obvious to me.  I have heard of increases in oil consumption
when changing to Shell 15w50.  I could believe that it "finds" leaks
better.


> Both engines run mainly on Mogas except for X-countries when only 100LL
is
> available.
This is a good practice, in my mind.  Regardless of oil, these engines
don't
need or want the extra lead, on the plugs, on the valve stems, or in the
oil.

> I've been using Mobil 1 in my cars since it came out, 165,000 miles on
one
> 115,000 on another and 130,000+ on the current.
See SAAB story above.  The only internal engine failure I've ever had, and
I've had my share of high mileage vehicles, was one time in Vermont, when
I
knew I had only one shot at getting it started because of a weak battery.
It was about -25F and I goosed it too much.  1200 miles later I knew that
that tap-tap was not just a tappet.  Ended up with a failed rod bearing.
Interestingly enough, synthetic oil might have protected me from myself,
but
it hadn't been intoduced yet.  A set of jumper cables would have saved me
too.  Lately my plan is to keep each vehicle for 10 years.  This nets out
to
about 120,000.  We recently sold one to a friend.  They got it up to
200,000
and traded it in.
> The real issue is the additional lubrication gives over regular
> non-synthetics. 
There's no arguiing this point.  The question is whether there's a real
benefit.
> Interesting,,,, turbines which run at a bizillion RPM and much higher
> temps 
Turbines are oranges.  Internal combustion engines are apples.  Turbines
use
roller bearings and see temperatures and RPMs that I/C engines don't
(except
in turbochargers).  Turbine oil is NEVER exposed to combustion byproducts.

> Porsche and Corvette both recommend synthetic oil,, Wonder why?  
Me too.  What are the oil change intervals?

> Remember we are dealing with a group of people who are clutching 1930's
> technology to their breasts as though noting could possibly improve over
> this fine technology. 
You're probably referring to me, but that's not the case.

> allowed myself to let personal experience overcome myth and propaganda. 
Me too.
> So unless you have personal experience please don't bombard me with
urban
> legends of problems due to synthetics.
OK.  I was born with a ratchet in my hand, at least that what my dad told
me.  I've been tinkering with cars, trucks, and lately airplanes since
Elvis
was only a prince.  Here's one urban legend I'll share.  In the 70's I was
involved with SAABS.  Mobile ! had just hit the streets.  A number of SAAB
turbo owners fell for the pitch and put it in their cars.  The recommended
change interval was 25,000 miles, if I remember correctly.  Well, there
was
nothing wrong with the oil, but it could not hold up for 25K in the air
(oil) cooled turbo bearings.  The blowers got all coked up and the seals
started leaking.  Those cars would put down a smoke screen when hot that a
Navy destroyer'd be proud of.  If they'd changed the oil at 3000 miles,
everything would probably have been fine.  (See SAAB story above).

So, MY bottom line:
Even though synthetics retain their lubrication properties better than
mineral oils, and even though they hold up better under extreme heat, I am
not comfortable with extended oil change intervals.  And I feel it's
better
to control the heat than use an oil that can put up with it.  My  C-90
never
sees oil temps higher that 190 F(Calibrated gauge).  When I tore it down
at
1800 hours, it was clean inside.  It lasted 1800 hours and 35 years.
Somehow I can't see the benefit of "better" oil, no matter how good it
looks
on paper.  So I'll keep changing the oil every 25 hours, or twice a year,
or
300 miles, or whatever.  I'll use a good quality reasonably priced oil.
And
hopefully I'll continue to see TBO on everything.

Your mileage may vary.
Batteries not included.

John

<<attachment: winmail.dat>>

Reply via email to