# Breaking in NEW car



## ukrkoz (Dec 31, 2010)

good article. I am very sorry I missed oil stuff on 2 of my cars.


```
http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/how-to/saturday-mechanic-blog/how-to-break-in-a-new-car
```


----------



## TrapperL (Jul 23, 2011)

I find it hard to believe there was this much misinformation printed in 2010. The writer must have been in a cave for the last 20 years. He made no mention of the low tension rings used today or the moly plasma used on cylinder walls. He mentioned nothing of the ring deck height either, all are important in the early days of an engine. Then he gets REAL stupid and wants to compare synthetic oil and conventional. They are the same hydrocarbons, just processed differently. They all come out of the ground at oil wells in the form of crude. There is ZERO lubricity advantages using a synthetic over a conventional. Making such a statement is about as smart as saying my 2009 F150 is faster than your 2009 f150 which are identical. About the only thing I would agree with this grossly outdated article is that there are benefits to changing the oil early the first time. There will be a lot trash left in the engine from the manufacturing process that will get washed out in the oil. Yeah, the filter is suppose to trap these particulates but an oils function is also to suspend the particulates until he filter gets them filtered out. That may require many cycles before the filter actually captures it. NO oil filter is 100% at any micron level. Most will test AVERAGELY 100% at 40 microns but a particle of 40 microns can do damage to your engine. It's a good idea to get rid of the matter early and I recommend at 1500 miles and then again at 3000. Then, READ the owners manual and follow their recommendation as to when to change and what oil to use. Afterall, when a brand new engine is being designed, it starts with the lubrication.
If you want to "break in" a new car, drive like you normally would. Avoid full throttle for the first 5000 miles and avoid heavy braking for the same period. That's all there is to it anymore folks and frankly, you don't have to follow that to have a long life car. This isn't the 60's and break in is not really required.


----------



## ukrkoz (Dec 31, 2010)

well, well, well... what a venom..

though everyone is entitled to opinion, it may be expressed in politer form. also, just for everyone's information:

*Synthetic oil* is a lubricant consisting of chemical compounds* that are artificially made (synthesized)*. Synthetic lubricants can be manufactured using chemically modified petroleum components rather than whole crude oil, but can also be synthesized from other raw materials. Synthetic oil is used* as a substitute for lubricant refined from petroleum *when operating in* extremes of temperature, because, in general, it provides superior mechanical and chemical properties than those found in traditional mineral oils.* Aircraft jet engines, for example, require the use of synthetic oils, whereas aircraft piston engines do not.


----------



## ukrkoz (Dec 31, 2010)

*Advantages*

The technical advantages of synthetic motor oils include:[_citation needed_]


Measurably better low- and high-temperature viscosity performance at service temperature extremes
Better chemical & shear stability
Decreased evaporative loss
Resistance to oxidation, thermal breakdown, and oil sludge problems
Extended drain intervals with the environmental benefit of less oil waste.
Improved fuel economy in certain engine configurations.
Better lubrication during extreme cold weather starts
Longer engine life
Superior protection against "ash" and other deposit formation in engine hot spots (in particular in turbochargers and superchargers) for less oil burnoff and reduced chances of damaging oil passageway clogging.


----------



## TrapperL (Jul 23, 2011)

Sorry if the truth offended you. I have a degree in Tribology, not advertising hype. Might wanna research what that is.
What the poorly stated definitions that you posted are related to are the Gp IV base oils known as Polyalphaolefins. They are a gas to liquid technology. Ethylene gas is heated, compressed, and condensed on a noble metal, usually nickel to produce them. They can be tailored to need by the amount of heat and compression to the correct Centipoise. They are in fact, the same hydrocarbons as any motor oil out there. At one time, the claims and definitions would have been correct. But this isn't 1990 anymore. The base oil technologies for the conventional base oils has come a long way whereas the Gp IVs have been static for decades. The ethylene gas to make them has become extremely hard to find and there are very few oils that have it in the base anymore. Mobil One, Amsoil, Castrol, and the others you find on the shelves of stores called synthetics are a Gp III conventional synthetic. Some can have a splash of a polyol or an ultra high VI PAO but gone are the Gp IV synthetics. Regardless of base oil group, NONE provide more lubrication and any formulation that provides for better lubrication in a synthetic base can also be made in a conventional base yielding the same exact results.
In regards to performance, any oil wearing the API Starburst and Fords specs is the toughest oil on the market regardless of basestock or formulation. They are double length tested (16 hours) at 304F, something your engine will never see and survive. It is not allowed to shear out of spec and it cannot oxidize out of spec, it must remain in it's perspective VI range. High heat deposits are cut to less than 30mg for the run. But none of these oils, synthetic or conventional will make your engine go one mile farther. A good oil is a balance of base and additive packages. No base oil is a 100% cureall and all have problems that are cured by chemistry in the formulation.

If you'd like to pick one of the characteristics of the things you copied and pasted, we can go over each one and I'll be glad to give you some basic education on what they mean and how they are formed. I teach this stuff for first year Tribology students at our local college. Most of the dealerships have gotten on board with their techs having a clue instead of reading advertising hype provided by the oil companies.


----------



## Jackofall1 (Dec 5, 2010)

I have always held to the idea that the synthetics were all hype, and never use them, my basis for thought on this subject is far from the knowledge you bring to the table, but simply, if synthetics were so good why is it then the manufacturers don't spec it for warranty purposes.

Just my take, but thanks for the back up.

Mark


----------



## polarzak (Dec 1, 2008)

Jackofall1 said:


> I have always held to the idea that the synthetics were all hype, and never use them, my basis for thought on this subject is far from the knowledge you bring to the table, but simply, if synthetics were so good why is it then the manufacturers don't spec it for warranty purposes.
> 
> Just my take, but thanks for the back up.
> 
> Mark


MY thoughts exactly.


----------



## DoctorWho (Jun 21, 2011)

Jackofall1 said:


> I have always held to the idea that the synthetics were all hype, and never use them, my basis for thought on this subject is far from the knowledge you bring to the table, but simply, if synthetics were so good why is it then the manufacturers don't spec it for warranty purposes.
> 
> Just my take, but thanks for the back up.
> 
> Mark





polarzak said:


> MY thoughts exactly.


Are high-performance parts better than el-cheapo stuff from Autozone? Yes? Then why don't they spec top shelf parts for warranty purposes?
Because they can't.
All they can require is what will meet the minimum needs of the vehicle. That does not mean that other products out there aren't vastly better than the ones that meet minimum requirements. I've used both conventional and synthetic oils and synthetic has always performed better for me.


----------



## polarzak (Dec 1, 2008)

DoctorWho said:


> I've used both conventional and synthetic oils and synthetic has always performed better for me.


I would be interested to know what your measuring stick would be to conclude synthetic performed better.
Do you have some measuring tool to scientifically prove your statement or are you envoking Scotty on Star Trek who said in one episode "Jim, the ship just doesn't feel right" (on regular oil) :whistling2:
I too, have used both, and saw no difference other than the price. As a matter of fact, my 88 Regal had 311,000 miles on the clock and running perfectly on regular oil when I drove it to the wreackers, whereas my brand new snow blower seized on the synthetic oil that came with it in the packing carton. I remember returning it and the fellow said he would not use synthetic even if it was free. However, each to their own.


----------



## Jackofall1 (Dec 5, 2010)

DoctorWho said:


> Are high-performance parts better than el-cheapo stuff from Autozone? Yes? Then why don't they spec top shelf parts for warranty purposes?
> Because they can't.
> All they can require is what will meet the minimum needs of the vehicle. That does not mean that other products out there aren't vastly better than the ones that meet minimum requirements. I've used both conventional and synthetic oils and synthetic has always performed better for me.


For warranty purposes *OEM* parts are required, supplied by the dealer representing the manufacturer. 

I to wonder how you measure the improved performance? especially if you use the same product all the time.....what are you comparing it to?.......to each his own......:yes:

Mark


----------



## TrapperL (Jul 23, 2011)

Quite actually Polarzak there is a measuring stick. We use spectroscopy and particle count analysis to determine what the wear metals are and how much have been removed from the engine parts. By analysis, we can determine exactly what metals come from exactly what parts by a simple metallurgy test. That tells you for that change of oil exactly what was going on in the engine and how well the oil performed. Not all engines are created equal and using a blanket statement that synthetic oils are superior is just wrong. Not all engines respond well to synthetic oils, like a lot of GMs V6's. Copper will flash in high numbers on these engines meaning cam bearing wear is being accelerated. To say that synthetic oils provide more protection is oil company advertising hype to part the not so sharp from their money. There is no more protection from a synthetic and in a lot of cases, the blends beat the synthetics at corrosion protection which is important in the northern part of the country where winter condensation in the engine causes a lot of corrosion. But it's hard to make folks understand that when they've been beat to death with the billions of dollars of advertising BS from the oil companies. If you have cold arctic conditions, you need to look at the CCS (Cold Crank Simulator) specs of an oil. That tells you the EXACT cold flow properties of an oil. In some cases, a 10w-30 will actually have better cold flow properties than a 5w-30. Doesn't sound right but you have to know that the oil viscosity nomenclature is an SAE name given to an oil, not it's actual viscosity which is in Kinematic numbers and has a range. For example, a 30 weight oil at temp is 9.30 to 12.49 on the Kinematic scale. Energy Conserving oils will be on the lower end (thinner) and high mileage oils will be on the higher end (thicker) of the range.


----------



## Jackofall1 (Dec 5, 2010)

Thanks TrapperL for the interesting read, as always, but I think polarzak was challenging DrWho to provide his measurement method of improved performance.

Mark


----------



## Marty1Mc (Mar 19, 2011)

Jackofall1 said:


> I have always held to the idea that the synthetics were all hype, and never use them, my basis for thought on this subject is far from the knowledge you bring to the table, but simply, if synthetics were so good why is it then the manufacturers don't spec it for warranty purposes.
> 
> Just my take, but thanks for the back up.
> 
> Mark


Interesting discussion. But, several manufacturers DO require synthetic including most European. GM has required it for the Corvette since 1992 on the LT1. Subaru requires it for it's turbo charged motors. 

I have seen differences in turbo charged motors that use synthetic vs those that use conventional. The conventional motors had more build up in them, probably due high temperatures. The synthetic motors did not.

I think it was said somewhere above that lab tests are very interesting, but there are real world experiences that differ from those results. As well, why would manufacturers require it if their research hadn't shown it was superior?


----------



## concretemasonry (Oct 10, 2006)

I had a 1994 Corvette that came with the synthetic Mobil 1 and I used it because it was the standard.

I bought a used "cherry" 1999 Jimmy 4WD (loaded to the gills) that was owned by GM and the local dealer drove to Detroit to get it, so it had 24,5000 miles on it when I got it. Apparently, it was an executive's car (or his wife's) car. I found some papers and it showed it only used Mobil 1 and the oil was changed every 1,000 miles for the first 3,000 miles and then at 3,000-5,000 miles thereafter at GM (not a dealer). It now has only 150,000 miles on it and has been bullet-proof, with the exception of the front suspension. I have the oil changed every 5,000 miles and my mechanic questions why I do it since the drained oil looks just like the new oil. He told me to go and buy it at Walmart, because he does not want to stock it and goes there for his Corvettes.

There were a few funny things on the old service tickets, like catalytic converter swapped out at 6,000 miles and a new front suspension at 10,000 miles. The replaced converter rattled at at 140,000 miles and my mechanic could not find a direct replacement (experimental?) and went back to the standard factory converter.

The ridiculously expensive Formula 1 race cars only use use synthetic oil (about as thick as water) since they are usually governed at 19,000 rpms. They are not required to do it by regulations, but they feel it is necessary.

Dick


----------



## TrapperL (Jul 23, 2011)

Not exactly Marty1Mc. In regards to the euro cars, they use ACEA standards where we use API standards. ILSAC basically controls what API has as a certification standard. The euro oils are not limited to the amounts of ZDDP in the formulation whereas ZDDP will kill a catalytic converter here should it gas. That means that the auto makers would have to warrant the failed converters considering that they are now required to have a design life of 150,000 miles. You might find this odd but in some remote but civilized areas of Europe like Papenhagen Germany, the base oils are in a drum in the back of the local garage and the mechanic will add the recipe he uses for an additive package and VIOLA- there's yer oil. But considering that ZDDP is a multi function additive that's been fairly cheap, the reduction in API oils certainly limits it's use. If you notice, most oil change intervals in Europe is well above 10,000 miles and it's due to the ZDDP levels. Up until recently, this is what made Amsoil work but none of their oils were API certified.

Another one you're not going to believe but it's fact, GM does not specifiy synthetic in the Corvette- it RECOMMENDS it and even goes so far as to recommend Mobil One. It's a business deal, nothing more. Mobil provides GM with free oil fill caps for the advertising. Kinda like Ford F150 with the BP recommended gas label on the gas cap- it's a business deal. When GM did the deal, M1 was a mostly Gp IV (PAO) base oil. Since they lost their plant when Katrina hit, it's now a Gp III dino oil. They call their Gp III base oil VisCom FYI. But if GM specified Mobil One in it's owners manual, it would be obligated by law to furnish it to the user for free. There's a BIG difference between a recommendation and a specification.And if you just like controversy, research the new GM Dexos. Even the Feds are calling foul on this one. It's meaningless crap that's meant to drain oil companies of royalty rights money, nothing more. In their own manuals they state that if you can't find a Dexos oil, use any 5w-30- now that's an elevated spec!

The turbos do not require a synthetic, what they require is an oil that is not subject to oxidation which causes bearing failures. Any oil that meets the Ford specs on the back of the bottle regardless of 930/929 or the 940 series specifications, the oil is not allowed to oxidize outside of its respect viscosity range on the Kinematic scale. This is for American cars that are required to meet API standards or cars sold in the USA that must meet API standards. You also need to remember that foreign owned car makers are shipping cars all over the world. They will usually have only one owners manual printed in several languages. It's a lot easier to say just use a synthetic rather than a specification that may not be available in another country. But the base oils we use today have become near bulletproof in their ability to stay in viscosity, not oxidize, not shear out of range, and have far superior film strengths that oils of the 1990's couldn't reach even with synthetics.

I'm still on the labs data base and I can tell you that the trending of all engines shows that the blends are the best way to lower wear metals. Turbos, direct injection gas, naturally aspirated, all show reduced wear with the blends. We even have fleet cars that used nothing but Walmart oils and most of the units are over 300,000 miles and still going strong. Pick a brand in the auto makers viscosity,don't pay a lot for it, change per owners manual, sit back and enjoy the ride.

In regards to the race cars- F1 or NASCAR, none of these teams use an off the shelf oil. Most hire formulators to blend an oil for a specific track. I worked for a couple of the name NASCAR teams and we would use a base oil of sometimes a straight 0w oil. The base oil oils are usually a polyol base and the additive packages are a major team secret and do not conform to any API or ACEA standards. Emissions are not an issue with these cars/trucks so the door is open to make an engine last as long as the race with a little to spare and make as much HP as possible. The engine is considered an expendable....after the race, of course.


----------



## 95025 (Nov 14, 2010)

Again, we see lab data versus real life experience, and the two are not always in agreement. 

And honestly, there is really NO WAY to do an apples-to-apples comparison, because everybody's driving experience is different. Period.


No matter what lab data says regarding synthetic versus dino oil performance, synthetic oil WILL perform better in extreme temperatures. 10W-30 synthetic oil WILL allow engines to turn over and start better in extreme cold, than will 10W-30 dino oil.

As far as synthetic versus dino oil in extreme heat, my experience is pretty simple. For several years, we had to replace at least one engine per summer in our lawn-mowing business. I started adding Lucas Synthetic Oil Stabilizer, and never replaced an engine after that. In fact now, 7 years after we stopped the lawn-mowing business, I'm still running one of the mowers. Everything has been rebuilt but the engine. 

This may be anecdotal and circumstantial, but in my book buying a $12 bottle of synthetic oil additive is a heckuva lot cheaper than replacing a $1500 Kohler or Kawasaki engine every year. I'll stick with the former.


Regarding cars & pickups, everyone has their own legitimate opinion. As I said in another thread, I just sold a perfectly-running VW Golf with over 350,000 miles. In the 10 years I drove the car, I always ran either synthetic oil, or added the Lucas Synthetic Oil Stabilizer. I may very well have had the exact same results without ever using anything synthetic, but it's kind of hard to discount the results themselves.


----------



## rusty baker (Feb 13, 2009)

DrHicks said:


> No matter what lab data says regarding synthetic versus dino oil performance, synthetic oil WILL perform better in extreme temperatures. 10W-30 synthetic oil WILL allow engines to turn over and start better in extreme cold, than will 10W-30 dino oil.
> 
> .


Both of those oils of the exact same weight will have the exact same drag on an engine. It will take the same amount of torque to turn it over.


----------



## 95025 (Nov 14, 2010)

rusty baker said:


> Both of those oils of the exact same weight will have the exact same drag on an engine. It will take the same amount of torque to turn it over.


In theory, yes. In real life, no. That's the weird thing about it. 

Had you, like me, lived in Minnesota for nearly 20 years, you would have experienced the difference. 30 below zero, with wind, is a whole lot different than 30 degrees above zero.

All other things being equal, in extreme cold, the engine with the same weight synthetic oil in it will turn over much easier than the engine with dino oil. I cannot explain, using big words, all the reasons why. But I know for a fact that it works that way.


----------



## Clutchcargo (Mar 31, 2007)

rusty baker said:


> Both of those oils of the exact same weight will have the exact same drag on an engine. It will take the same amount of torque to turn it over.


Thats' not exactly true. The pump-ability of the oil is the first number. So at 40°C they are pretty much the same. But once you get the oil down to the single digits or negative °F then the synthetic typically will flow easier than the conventional. Also, on the other end of the spectrum, if you overheat the oil, the dino oil will shear down to nothing while the synthetic will continue to lubricate. If you're intested look at the product data sheets for the various oils. synthetic always has a lower pour point than dino.


----------



## 95025 (Nov 14, 2010)

I cannot verify this as factually true, but I've read (in several places) that all jet engines run synthetic oil, simply because conventional oils will not stand up to the extreme conditions.

Does anybody know whether this is factually true or not?


----------



## Marty1Mc (Mar 19, 2011)

TrapperL said:


> Another one you're not going to believe but it's fact, GM does not specifiy synthetic in the Corvette- it RECOMMENDS it and even goes so far as to recommend Mobil One. It's a business deal, nothing more. Mobil provides GM with free oil fill caps for the advertising. Kinda like Ford F150 with the BP recommended gas label on the gas cap- it's a business deal. When GM did the deal, M1 was a mostly Gp IV (PAO) base oil. Since they lost their plant when Katrina hit, it's now a Gp III dino oil. They call their Gp III base oil VisCom FYI. But if GM specified Mobil One in it's owners manual, it would be obligated by law to furnish it to the user for free. There's a BIG difference between a recommendation and a specification.And if you just like controversy, research the new GM Dexos. Even the Feds are calling foul on this one. It's meaningless crap that's meant to drain oil companies of royalty rights money, nothing more. In their own manuals they state that if you can't find a Dexos oil, use any 5w-30- now that's an elevated spec!


Actually, the manuals state to use an oil that meets or exceeds GM4718M specification. GM has a published list that shows the oils they certify meet this spec. Every one of them is synthetic. Since the online list hasn't been updated since 2008, I went and looked at two different stores. Not one conventional oil states it meets anything higher the GM6094M. Do they? Maybe, but most likely not. The manufacturers won't put it on the bottle and I sure wouldn't want to provide those receipts to a dealer for oil changes that don't meet the stated spec. 

I appreciate your vigor, but I just don't buy it. There is more to these specs than just clever marketing. Kendall at one point even stated their synthetic did not meet GM spec. It does now, but other synthetics don't and no conventional that I have found do.

http://khup.com/download/11_keyword-oil-specifications/gm4718m-registered-products.pdf


----------



## polarzak (Dec 1, 2008)

Well if we all take this down to base level, Glenlivet 18 Scotch ($63.00) is supposed to be far superior to Glenlivet 12. ($41.00) In my opinion, there is not much difference in taste, both get the job done, and I save close to twenty dollars. Both are VERY good in cold weather starts I must say. :yes:

This thread is like discussing religion and politics...good points on both sides...the differences are miniscule.....and no one changes their minds. 
Interesting reading.
Have a good day, folks.


----------



## Clutchcargo (Mar 31, 2007)

polarzak said:


> This thread is like discussing religion and politics...good points on both sides...the differences are miniscule.....and no one changes their minds.
> Interesting reading.
> Have a good day, folks.


So true...
It's like teaching a pig to sing, it frustrates you and annoys the pig.

"My dad used Quaker State so I use Quaker State" is hard reasoning to break.


----------

