> Of course, this
> would not hold true for racing applications. But under normal driving
> conditions with proper oil & filter changes, regular oil is just as
> effective as synthetic oil and, according to CR, provides no
> significant difference except in your wallet.
This subject had come up on the MR2 list along with other lists I am on,
and I would like to make a few distinctions on the CR test. If memory
serves correct, they tested the oils in NYC cabs, what they though would
be a tough testing ground. Now while I will admit that the NYC cabs
don't have it easy, they also don't have to start but once a day. It is
well know that the worst time for a car is during cold startup when
there is bare metal. That is one of the main reasons that the CR
testers did not see signifcant wear, this really had nothing to do with
either oil. Synthetic helps this in some respects here however, by
providing a little bit better pre coat, it is not very significant
however. Also, most of us enthusastis, do not drive under normal
driving conditions. I like the fact that my car has a 7500rpm redline,
and like to use it on a daily basis. I want that protection when I am
at that rpm. Plus when I am crusing at 100mph, I am running a very
lofty 5000rms+ I just like the added protection the oil offers against
"coking" at those engine speeds. And after switching to synthetic in my
"new" 87 MR2, after 92k of regular oil, I could feel a difference in
smoothness. The car just liked to rev better. This advice also plays
heavily to Turbo owners. Turbo owners will praise synthetic for days.
The synthetic oil has a less tendency to "coke" thus making the turbo
bearing, and lines to and from less clogged and provides over all better
protection over regular oil. The turbo bearing is a much different
enviorment when compared to the engine bearings. This was not a flame
against your post, I just wanted to bring up another view point.
Steve N.
|