Syn Lube products

[95rcobra]

Has anyone used the products made by SynLube company out of las vegas. I was checking out their site at www.synlube.com and was interested in the coolant they are making. its a 50/50 mix coolant but I believe it is all synthetic. I would like to put this in my 95R cooling system and see what its like. anybody with any experience with their products please let me know.

Thanks 95rcobra.

_____________________________
1995 Cobra R model #185
2003 Redfire Cobra Coupe # ????

 

[Cobra'03]

Make sure you turn down your speakers before you visit that site:
www.synlube.com

All coolant is synthetic - ethylene glycol and its cousins are not naturally courring substances. Synthetic is not a guarantee of anything. They also use carboxylates in some of their products- these may or not be compatible with our cars.

Use the Premium Gold Motorcraft fluid and be done woith it. There are no miracles in a bottle.

I visited the website and it looks like a rinky-dinky operations:
Here is a product describtion of the motor oil:

"SynLube™ is a synergetic blend of man-made liquid and solid chemically inert lubricants that are thermally stable from -65°F (-54°C) to over 500°F (260°C). The sub-micronic particles of Graphite, PTFE and MoS2 are colloidally suspended in a mixture of synthetic liquid lubricants."

So they are using molybdenum, Teflon, and Graphite particles in a syn base - not in my car, no way, no how.

Just curious as to why you would consider an almost unknown product from a tiny speck on the oil radar scope for your Cobra? From Sin City, not Oil City, no less....

:shrug:

 

[f4sfed]

:lol: Cobra'03 has spoken! :lol:

...ain't much else for anyone to say, eh?

In case I haven't told you lately....YOU ROCK! :thumbsup:

 

[95rcobra]

I was not interested in their Syn Oil since I use Mobil One in all of my vehicles but I would like to have an extended life antifreeze to use in the Cobra. I do see that the extended life antifreezes like Dexcool are not good to use on pre-1996 vehicles that came from the factory with silicate/phosphate type antifreezes. so they will have no use to me for using in the 95R. Just have to stay with old type coolant.

Later, 95rcobra.

______________________________
1995 Cobra R model #185
2003 Redfire Cobra Coupe #????

 

[Houckster]

Use the Premium Gold Motorcraft fluid and be done woith it. There are no miracles in a bottle.

So they are using molybdenum, Teflon, and Graphite particles in a syn base - not in my car, no way, no how.

One of the things that has constantly surprised me is the unwillingness to consider new ideas by those supposedly in the know about cars and the products they use. I have noticed this on a number of Boards. The response to the SynLube company is a case in point.:shrug: Adding insult to injury is that they have absolutely no hard evidence to support their opposition.

I am not an agent for SynLube, only a customer. I make no money at all from them.

I have found their products superior to any others in the market place. I have several years of experience with their products. When I got my SVT Focus in January, I converted immediately. I won't run anything else in my car. Their products work as advertised. That's saying quite a lot.

SynLube website is awful with regard to a lack of slick presentations. No question. Yes, they have awful music. They are not webmasters they are lubrication specialists. If you want slick websites, go to J-Max or Castrol Syntec. If you want substance turn the volume down and read the information.

With regard to the coolant, it not only protects better against corrosion passing all the applicable ASTM tests but because it doesn't have a cheap additive package that plates off in a couple of years thereby adding solids to the coolant, the water pump is protected. The quote about using Ford's coolant and be done with it is sad. You have to replace the stuff every 2-3 years. With SynLube's coolant, you really are done with it . . . for 10 years.

 

[FX-Man]

Originally posted by Houckster
One of the things that has constantly surprised me is the unwillingness to consider new ideas by those supposedly in the know about cars and the products they use.

I think Cobra'03 is definately in the know on this subject.

 

[Houckster]

Understand, please, I make no comments against the person, only the response. I do not undertake to disparage anyone's intelligence.

It seems to me that the response to the coolant question was without sufficient foundation. He gave no substantive reason why he would not use the product. Maybe it's because the product is called "synthetic" that he became suspicious. I suppose that all coolants are synthetic since they are not made of a naturally occurring substance. I can see that but the performance of the coolant is real enough. I do not recommend it because it is synthetic.

I have used SynLube's products and they work. That will always be a better argument than one which rejects a product because it is unfamiliar. I have seen this kind of response many times. No one has ever offered solid evidence against SynLube. There has never been an FTC complaint, nothing!

It is an unfortunate fact of life that there's no shortage of people willing to fleece others out of their money with products that either hurt the automobile or do nothing to meet the advertised claims. Slick 50, J-Max, STP, etc., Castrol, Tornado etc. have all been hauled before the FTC for deceptive advertising. It is even more unfortunate when this kind of thing encourages people to be so skeptical so that they reject genuine innovation as well as fraudulent products. This is what's happening here. There is no substitute for thoughtful investigation.

 

[Petzuk]

:uh oh: :uh oh: :uh oh: :uh oh:


UH-OH.... I know what's coming......


:uh oh: :uh oh: :uh oh: :uh oh:

 

[FX-Man]

Originally posted by Petzuk
:uh oh: :uh oh: :uh oh: :uh oh:


UH-OH.... I know what's coming......


:uh oh: :uh oh: :uh oh: :uh oh:

:lol: this could get interesting.

 

[Cobra'03]

Originally posted by Houckster
Understand, please, I make no comments against the person, only the response. I do not undertake to disparage anyone's intelligence.

It seems to me that the response to the coolant question was without sufficient foundation. He gave no substantive reason why he would not use the product. Maybe it's because the product is called "synthetic" that he became suspicious. I suppose that all coolants are synthetic since they are not made of a naturally occurring substance. I can see that but the performance of the coolant is real enough. I do not recommend it because it is synthetic.

I have used SynLube's products and they work. That will always be a better argument than one which rejects a product because it is unfamiliar. I have seen this kind of response many times. No one has ever offered solid evidence against SynLube. There has never been an FTC complaint, nothing!

It is an unfortunate fact of life that there's no shortage of people willing to fleece others out of their money with products that either hurt the automobile or do nothing to meet the advertised claims. Slick 50, J-Max, STP, etc., Castrol, Tornado etc. have all been hauled before the FTC for deceptive advertising. It is even more unfortunate when this kind of thing encourages people to be so skeptical so that they reject genuine innovation as well as fraudulent products. This is what's happening here. There is no substitute for thoughtful investigation.

Bit of Argumentum ad hominem , wouldn't you say?

Sure I did - I cited that carboxylates may not be compatible with our coolants - unless you remove every shred of the previous coolant, which tends to gel in the smallest crevices, there is a real possibility of clogging in vital passages, and diminished anti-oxidation properties, or both. Ask any chemical engineer who works with automotive products - I have, and did to confirm my contentions.

Anyone who has followed the exploits of Teflon (PTFE) solids as any kind of engine oil lubricant additive has seen that time and time again, PTFE either has not been shown to work (which is why Petrolon was enjoined from making claims by the Feds) or has been demonstrated to risk engine failure - Nutz and Boltz did an article on a tear down of a car that had a PTFE solid additive placed in the oil and suffered catastrophic bearing failure when the oil pickup tube globbed up. It is available as a reprint.

I did not disparage a "new idea" as a knee-jerk; i never do if you read my posts. The "new idea" of additive solids (forming colloids) you cite is in fact not new - in the case of PTFE it is an old idea that was a success as a commercial product, but a dismal failure as a proved one. The mere mention of it as a valid oil additive in Synlube's luridly self-promoting website is grounds to dismiss the product, and the company, out of hand in my book. The website also gave me a headache.

Plus, burned PTFE creats nitrofluoric acid - a deadly toxin and highly corrosive to metal. The Synlube site nowhere mentions that fact, although it is chock full of impressive educational charts and terminology, most of it disparaging to companies renowned for their products, and at the level of my first semester in Engineering school.

I posted in detail on the "fraud" of PTFE as a boundary lubricant on this Forum - and cited a Dept of Defense study that studied the Slick-50 PTFE product, concluding after exhaustive field studies that the product caused accelerated wear in the cam lobes, and was not recommended for use in any internal combustion engine in the DOD - of course, they could have missed the boat as well. That study was also strangely not referenced in all of the impressive looking shreck on Synlube's synfully over the top site.

In the plant where my Team provides IT support, Teflon products are not allowed anywhere near the consumer products we make - too dangerous when burned.

The anecdotal "I used it and it is great" is a Non causa pro causa / Post hoc ergo propter hoc and proves only that you like the product, in no way invalidating my comments.

Enjoy the Synlube from Sin City - I would not use their oil additive in my lawn mower.

 

[kens03cobra]

:bash: :bash: :gt: I've been using that stuff in my mower for a while now, and the grass is dead :shrug:
:lol: :lol: :lol: :beer:

 

[Houckster]

Bit of Argumentum ad hominem , wouldn't you say?

No.

I cited that carboxylates may not be compatible with our coolants - unless you remove every shred of the previous coolant, which tends to gel in the smallest crevices, there is a real possibility of clogging in vital passages, and diminished anti-oxidation properties, or both.

SynLube's coolant as noted on their website is compatible with conventional coolants. A competently done coolant change is all that's required. Who did you ask about this. Details and specifics are appropriate here.

Anyone who has followed the exploits of Teflon (PTFE) solids as any kind of engine oil lubricant additive has seen that time and time again, PTFE either has not been shown to work (which is why Petrolon was enjoined from making claims by the Feds) or has been demonstrated to risk engine failure - Nutz and Boltz did an article on a tear down of a car that had a PTFE solid additive placed in the oil and suffered catastrophic bearing failure when the oil pickup tube globbed up.

It is possible to misuse PTFE and damage an engine. This was one of the reasons Slick 50 got hauled before the FTC. Properly implemented, it works fine. Both Dupont and Shamrock Technologies produce forms of PTFE optimized for use with automotive lubricants and advertise it as such on their websites. SynLube uses nanoFLON. Your information here is dated.

I did not disparage a "new idea" as a knee-jerk; i never do if you read my posts.

OK, though I didn't use the term I guess that could logically be derived from my comments though I did try to be diplomatic about it.

The "new idea" of additive solids (forming colloids) you cite is in fact not new - in the case of PTFE it is an old idea that was a success as a commercial product, but a dismal failure as a proved one.

As noted above, the implementation is important. Simply because other companies like Slick 50 did it wrong in no way means that SynLube does. You're being a bit unfair here. BTW, studies of Slick 50 have absolutely no relevance to SynLube. That company used a form of PTFE that was never designed for use in lubricants. nanoFLON by Shamrock Technologies was specifically designed for this purpose.

The mere mention of it as a valid oil additive in Synlube's luridly self-promoting website is grounds to dismiss the product, and the company, out of hand in my book.

Well, you show me solid evidence that SynLube's implementation of PTFE (nanoFLON) has caused damage to any engine anywhere and I will admit I'm wrong. I don't think you'll find it. As far as the website being luridly self-promoting, show me a site that doesn't promote it's product. Show me a commercial site with more objective information on it. Mobil 1, not hardly, Redline, possibly but in reading their stuff, they do no different than SynLube. There is a basic form here: "Here's what we do, that why we're good." For a commercial website, this is entirely appropriate.

Plus, burned PTFE creats nitrofluoric acid - a deadly toxin and highly corrosive to metal. The Synlube site nowhere mentions that fact, although it is chock full of impressive educational charts and terminology, most of it disparaging to companies renowned for their products, . . .

For heaven's sake, under what conditions could such a situation occur? I have never found reference to such an occurance. Maybe I could have missed it. Provide a link and I'll read it. I have spent months checking into PTFE to see if and what types of damage could be incurred from its use in an automotive engine. Never have I seen anything remotely akin to this. It seems to me that you employ FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) to bolster your argument, pure and simple.

. . . and at the level of my first semester in Engineering school.

Certainly you don't mean to suggest that the information be presented in the form of a engineering textbook? That level of complexity would narrow down the percentage of the public able to comprehend it to a very small percentage. That makes no sense. Those of us without an engineering background would be left out. It does seem to me that information is accurate, I believe that's more important.

In the plant where my Team provides IT support, Teflon products are not allowed anywhere near the consumer products we make - too dangerous when burned.

Surely this must be irrelevant, the operation of an internal combustion engine does not expose the oil to open flame. This is not a realistic objection.

Non causa pro causa / Post hoc ergo propter hoc

Sorry, I'm too lazy to look up the translation. I probably implies I'm hideously mistaken. I'm crushed. Frankly, my experience does mean something. If I'd been disappointed, even a little bit with SynLube, you would never have seen these posts.

I'm bound to say it, I just don't see any substance to your objections to SynLube's coolant or lubricant.

BTW, I use SynLube in my lawn mower and it works fine, so's the grass. Four out of five lawns prefer SynLube in the mower that cares for them.

 

[Cobra'03]

http://www.msgroup.org/TIP043.html
http://www.tacom.army.mil/tardec/di...e/pubs/jan03/stories/article_coolant_colr.doc
http://www.penray.com/bulletins/esi_cool.htm
http://www.amalgatech.com/technical/compatibility.htm
http://aml.arizona.edu/classes/mse222/1998/teflon/properties.htm
http://www.ford-trucks.com/articles/oil-additives.php
http://neptune.spacebears.com/cave/oilapes.html

I searched the Internet, and the only reference I found to SynLube was from - you guessed it - Synlube. I did find a lot of other products with the same name, so one wonders whether trademark infringement by one or the other is an issue - my guess is that Synlube the oil miracle company is so tiny that the other companies using the name cannot be bothered. Corporate attorneys are pricey.

I do not want to get in a pizzing match. You know what you know, i know what I know. But they say that their oil is a "Fill for Life" and does not need to be changed for what - 100k miles? - at $30/quart I guess so! Of course, any normal oil consumption means make up oil, at another $30/quart.

MOS2 can be an effective lubricant in certain applications, but there are risks and limitations to itds applicability. I will confine my comments to the PTFE and the issue of coolant compatibility. Also, whether Synlube's carboxylate-based formulation has clear benefit over the G-05 formulations (Gold) or the Ford Green coolants.

I have one general question about the additive - does a bottle or can of Synlube say "Shake Well"?

The main Synluber, named Miro, has stated that they only use PTFE to "make the engine quieter". Is that a good reason to use this material one wonders?

If you place it in a clear container, what happens to the particles when exposed to a black light or an intense incandescent one? Are the particles too small to see? Are they small enough to be kept from settling by Brownian Movement? Miro says the particles stay in suspension because of forces at "the molecular level". Well, maybe the MOS2, but PTFE is electrically pretty inert as an insulator (I am an EE), but can pick up charges and I do not see anything in the oil that would keep it from flocculating under those conditions. All the additives (zinc, phosporous, etc) will settle out, but they are not risky like settled out PTFE is. Miro claims their PTFE is less than 1.2 microns, so it should not be filtered, assuming that the charge affinity issue is avoided.

I cited the Nutz and Boltz teardown - it is not up to me to buy it for you, and it is copyrighted material anyway. Ditto the DOD article. Contact Dave Solomon at www.motorminute.com (if he is still publishing). He has researched this topic for years, and is a former Pinkerton automotive investigator.

I have monographs from the Univ of Utah, NASA's Lewis Laboratory, and others that dispute any benefit from adding any kind of PTFE to oil. DuPont sells it with a disclaimer, having been forced to make it available to Petrolon under a "restraint of trade" suit.

Open flame? Absurd. Blowby oil is burned in the combustion chamber, and can pass out the exhaust. It is undeniably caustic to the cats, and highly toxic. PTFE burns at 400 degC. Nutz and Boltz also reported that a technician servicing a car was overcome by the fumes in just such a case and had to be revived in open air.

"It is biologically inert, and has no toxicological effects. PTFE can be disposed of with domestic and industrial waste as long as it is not being incinerated. Teflon has no hazardous components and is only harmful when heated above 400 deg C at which it gives off Tetrafluoroethylene, Hexafluoroethylene, Hexapropylene and other fluoro compounds and toxic fumes which can be protected against by wearing a self breathing apparatus."



Ford's own literature advises against mixing the coolants or switching over, precisely because gelled coolant cannot be flushed - I have read the product monographs for all of the currently used coolant formulas, including carboxylates. I have cited some sources that support the caveats in using carboxylates, including Ford's disavowal. Ford uses the G-05 fromulation currently preferred in Europe, and standard in Audi. Mercedes, etc. - it is the base for Ford's Premium Gold coolant which came in my car.

"Note 2. Ford presented a technical paper years ago that concluded that the conventional ‘green’ factory fill coolant that they used was just as durable as carboxylate-inhibited coolants, like DEX-COOL. Nevertheless, Ford and Daimler-Chrysler both appear to be changing to an advanced hybrid technology in the 2001 or 2002 model year cars. This coolant is easy to identify because it is golden yellow. It offers the same extended life benefits as DEX-COOL, but without the compatibility questions. Further, it meets the new ASTM D6210 specification so it can be used in diesel trucks."


Every miracle oil additive known to me has been FTC'd (Slick50, Duralube, Prolong, etc etc.). They generally only go after big enough companies, and I doubt Synlube's annual sales are in that category. I cannot nor do I need to show it causes harm - rather...

Can you cite any engineering study or entity not financially associated with Synlube that verifies its claims for its oil additive? What is the operating principle - does it claim to uniformly coat the cylinder walls, cam lobes, etc? How does it deal with the polarity affinity issue - the conglomeration as the micro-colloids take on a charge? Or damming at inlets and in sharp angled passages? Or the fact that even micro-colloidal PTFE expands when heated? There are many problems to overcome, and I checked the SAE library and asked the research librarion at our R&D Center to obtain a supporting monograph for the efficacy of this technology in automobile engine oil. No dice.

In fact, one of the enigneers at our R&D center said that "even if it (Synlube) could coat the cylinder walls and ring lands, the COF (coefficient of friction) between PTFE and PTFE is higher than the COF between steels separated by a layer of oil".

Since that is true, the remaining frictional issue is fluid friction - the friction of ther lubricant against itself. No colloid reduces this friction. Don't believe me? Found this at www.oilanalysis.com" in response to a question about using a PTFE additive:

"Please tell me more about why you are considering this and what problems you are having. I would never use such an additive in a turbine application like yours. Most turbine oils are designed to provide long term protection of components from oxidation, rust, water, etc. PTFE is a solid film lubricant commonly known by the Dupont trade name Teflon. Slick 50 and some other engine oil additives contain PTFE. Many of those companies including Slick 50 have been successfully sued by end users and /or the Federal Trade Commission for false claims or damages from component failure. Also, Dupont provided a written statement that said they would not support claims for the use of teflon in these applications."

"I am afraid that you will end up with a mess if you try any solid film lubricant in this situation. A good oil should separate moving metal surfaces with a film of fluid protection once the turbine momentum is begins. Therefore virtually the only friction involved is fluid friction. Solid lubricating additives do not reduce fluid friction. If you need additional help, email me at [email protected]".

The above post, and others of interest, are found here:
http://65.194.234.234/message_boards/message_details_by_list.asp?wordsearch=PTFE&Submit=Search

 

[Petzuk]

Originally posted by Petzuk
:uh oh: :uh oh: :uh oh: :uh oh:


UH-OH.... I know what's coming......


:uh oh: :uh oh: :uh oh: :uh oh:

:rolling: :rolling:

What'd I tell ya..... SVTG rules..... On this forum anyway.

:rolling: :rolling:

 

[Cobra'03]

A Believer!

One other thing - there is some evidence about the longevity of carboxylate formualtions like Dex Cool.
http://www.geocities.com/b_gillie/dexcool_problems.html

GM has issued some service memos to dealers about DC, coming off of their 5yr/150k mile and now saying it is a "max" rating and "varies from application to application". Class actions are in the works in the US, and a Canadian Federal agency is also investigating for possible fraudulent advertising.

So there is Synlube saying that their coolant will last for 300,000 miles or 6000 hours of service if I read it correctly.

 

[Houckster]

I searched the Internet, and the only reference I found to SynLube was from - you guessed it - Synlube. I did find a lot of other products with the same name, so one wonders whether trademark infringement by one or the other is an issue - my guess is that Synlube the oil miracle company is so tiny that the other companies using the name cannot be bothered. Corporate attorneys are pricey.

This is surely beside the point of whether SynLube's lubricant and coolant perform as advertised? All I can say here is that trademark infringment is a serious matter and most corporations have legal facilities on retainer just for such problems. Slapping a small company down wouldn't cost that much. SynLube does indicate that their use of SynLube is trademarked.

I do not want to get in a pizzing match. You know what you know, i know what I know. But they say that their oil is a "Fill for Life" and does not need to be changed for what - 100k miles? - at $30/quart I guess so! Of course, any normal oil consumption means make up oil, at another $30/quart.

Good point about the pizzing match, I did not intend to start one and I would not respond to one. If I had received an unacceptable response, I would simply not have replied.

With regard to the cost of the lubricant, $30 per quart plus $20 for the filter and $18 for the magnets (to trap ferric particles to the sides of the oil filter) might seem like a lot to you. The reality though is that on a per mile basis, SynLube is far cheaper. It cost me about $156.00 to install the lubricant. A Focus has a 4.5 quart oil capacity. When compared to a $25 oil change cost at 3K miles, I will break even at 17K miles approximately. For a conventional dino lube, 3K is about all I would trust it for. The cost of oil between changes is not very great because oil consumption with SynLube is very low. With the ZX3 I had prior to my SVT, I had 18K+ on the oil before I traded it in. Because I was trying to learn as much about the oil as I could, I was very careful to keep track of how much oil I had actually used. During that period, consumption was 9.5 ounces or about 62K miles per quart. I am projecting 90-100K miles before replacement is necessary based on an oil service life of 3K hours. Not having to have 30 oil changes performed is very valuable to me provided the protection of the engine is not compromised.

Naturally, synthetics like Amsoil and Mobil 1 would reduce this disparity considerably but I am still sold on SynLube over the others.

I will confine my comments to the PTFE and the issue of coolant compatibility.

I am assuming that you know that PTFE is not used in the coolant. Correct? OK, the comments you put forward about PTFE continue to be dated (i.e. the Lewis Laboraties Study which did not test a form of PTFE designed for use in lubricants.). The use of PTFE is in lubricants is not only not prohibited but there are product lines especially established by Dupont and Shamrock to cater to this use of PTFE. See the following links:
http://www.dupont.com/teflon/fluoroadditives/about.html
http://www.shamrocktechnologies.com...rock.technologies.specialties.lubricants.html

The Dupont website seems to answer some of your questions about exposure to sunlight and to flame.

I have one general question about the additive - does a bottle or can of Synlube say "Shake Well"?

SynLube is a lyophilic sol. The solids are attracted to the fluids at the molecular level thus there is no settling. Both Dupont and Shamrock sell their products with the appropriate properties to keep them permanently suspended. I do not understand why you put this in. Later on, you pretty much supply the necessary information since you have apparently discussed this with Miro Kefurt at SynLube.

Open flame? Absurd. Blowby oil is burned in the combustion chamber, and can pass out the exhaust. It is undeniably caustic to the cats, and highly toxic. PTFE burns at 400 degC. Nutz and Boltz also reported that a technician servicing a car was overcome by the fumes in just such a case and had to be revived in open air.

At the present time, I have seen no evidence of it and have no personal experience of it. The percentage of PTFE in SynLube is very small and the action of the ring tends to emboss the PTFE into the wall of the cylinder over the length of the ring's travel. It's my belief that the amount of PTFE actually reaching the combustion chamber is certainly an infinitesimally small amount and within the bounds of safe use. If this were a real problem, I think there would be far more information on it. Also, if you are going to use the Nutz and Boltz article to bolster your point, it's up to you to supply enough information so that it is clear that it actually relates to the question at hand.

Again, I must ask do you know for certain that they were testing a product, not just SynLube, that had a proper implementation of PTFE? Remember the question is not whether PTFE can cause harm. I am perfectly willing to admit it can if improperly used. Water can kill you if you drink too much of it.

Apparently you then move on to the coolant:

Ford's own literature advises against mixing the coolants or switching over, precisely because gelled coolant cannot be flushed - I have read the product monographs for all of the currently used coolant formulas, including carboxylates. I have cited some sources that support the caveats in using carboxylates, including Ford's disavowal. Ford uses the G-05 fromulation currently preferred in Europe, and standard in Audi. Mercedes, etc. - it is the base for Ford's Premium Gold coolant which came in my car.

I don't have access to the documents you state. Ford's disavowal of carboxylates may simply reflect that they will not approve or espouse any formulation except their own because they haven't tested it. Such statements also serve the purpose of helping their bottom line. Ford does want their customers using their oil and coolant. Frankly, I believe this is more the point for Ford. They may claim their green coolant is just as durable as a carboxylate coolant but unless the properties of each are defined, it will mean very little to me.

Maybe there could be a problem with some carboxylate implementations. I am willing to consider that possibilty. I am sure that they are not all the same and just because a coolant is based on carboxylate technology does not mean it's good. Maybe, too, there can be a problem switching over if the Ford coolant has been left in long enough to deteriorate to a gell. Fortunately I didn't wait for the problems associated with getting rid of deteriorated coolant. It also seems to me though, that if there was a problem to the extent you indicated, that there would be some warning about this in the driver's manual. Frankly, I believe that SynLube's coolant is properly formulated to work as advertised.

Enough's enough however.

I am growing weary of this post. Frankly, it seems to me (though I could be wrong since I am not objective about this issue either) that your sole concern is justifying your initial response which precludes an objective investigation as a trained engineer which would have been valuable whatever your final decision. Under such a scenario, you might still have rejected the product but then again, you might not have. I would have respected your decision in either case. All I can say now is that I'm a bit disppointed as it appears that you have taken on the role of a prosecuting attorney where SynLube is the defendant.

I don't believe I have anything more to say except that eventually versions of SynLube's products will be the defacto standards for oils and coolants because the growing environmental impact of used automotive fluids is going to force the government to step in and require fluids that permit considerably longer change intervals.

 

[Cobra'03]

I surrender

When SynLube is factory fill in an Aston-Martin, I will publicly state that I was wrong and you were right. Over and out. :beer:

 

[jjksutton]

Cobra 03 earns even more respect for being one of the smartest humans alive and proving it by admitting when he was wrong.

Originally posted by Houckster
I am projecting 90-100K miles before replacement is necessary based on an oil service life of 3K hours. Not having to have 30 oil changes performed is very valuable to me provided the protection of the engine is not compromised.

90-100K miles?!?! Seriously...you have to admit that seems a little over the top. Not saying you're wrong, but damn!

 

[JB]

I will say one thing, you (Houckster) seem to know a lot about this product and the subject in general for someone who is "only a customer"

personally, I'm sticking with mainstream synthetics like Amsoil and Redline, which just so happen to be in line with Cobra'03's recommendations ;-)

 

[Cobra'03]

A bit of zealotry but that is Ok with me. I do not think H's passionate affection for this product makes it an iffy proposition - I think there is ample questionable rationale to do that on its own.

Let's drop the issue of PTFE and MOS2 for now. But the kinetic coefficient of friction of steel separated by a oil film is just about the same as PTFE and steel. (.05 vs. 04), insignificant. That is why the fuel economy claims often made for those products do not materialize.

I visited the Shamrock website and read their stuff, and they mostly make industrial dry coatings and pastes, which unquestionably can benefit from colloids.

But their info on nanoFLON automotive lubricants is long on talk, and short on any supporting info. I could find nothing on the principles of operation.

What was interesting is that they offer to supply the product in water, mineral, or PAO carrier. Let's assume water is not a good choice for our cars. That leaves the mineral oil or PAO.

How do they expect to get 100k miles of service from even a PAO? Oil degrades from volatility, oxidation, and dirt and the depletion of its additives, designed to address those things. Consider oxidation - the highest quality additive packages in the world have a TBN of maybe 12. Over time, oxidation, which is completely independent of any friction reducing colloids, will occur from the effects of oxygen and high temperature. Acidification occurs from the reaction of heat, water, and sulfurs. Over time, and usually no more than 12k miles of normal suburban driving, the TBN gradually reduces. When it is gone, the engine is left will little protection. In fact, some of the automotive systems that determine oil change intervals are indexed against those same parameters: number of starts, length of trips, temperatures, RPM, etc. There are also types that sense the depletion of TBN (or the rise of the TAN) and when ti drops below a safe point (as it inevitably will), they signal for an oil change.

How Synlube or any lubricant used in this environment, with conventional filtering, could possibly go 100k miles is beyond my engineering experience or knowledge. If you were to go to a bypass-flitering system like Amsoil's, you can greatly extend the drain interval because there are less formations of byproducts for the additives to attack. But then what? Yes, you are filtering out those wonderful PTFE's and MOS2's. Ooops. What you then have is a PAO (at best according to what Shamrock provided) oil with unknown residual additives. And you have to have a lot of faith to believe that Shamrock has developed a base oil superior to everything the other major oil companies, and the quality niche companies like NEO, Red Line, and Amsoil have - is is likely that Shamrock buys its PAO stocks from the same outside suppliers as the little guys. It just does not add up.

I would very much like to have someone use the Synlube for 50k miles, and then let me take a sample and have it analyzed.