Motor Up

[Guyver]

My fren always says.....if the car manufacturer knows that adding some oil or whatever will make their engine which they spend millions and millions of dollars to R&D to perform even better.... they would have recommended so.... this makes sense..... right?

[Sky8807]

Thanks.

Actually, I don't use them all together, it was a period of many years and also on different type of car.

[Sky8807]

Just like your fren, I also thought that way. But the fact is there is no such thing as a perfect engine or a perfect oil.

 

A mineral oil is sufficient for most of the need for our car. But why do we used syn. Notice that manufacturer recommended the oil by the viscosity and temperature range and not the oil base.

 

But we know that different oil have different properties and advantages, that is why those who are knowledgeable and daring enough venture the standard norms.

 

Manufacturer have different objective from car owner.

[Guyver]

Cars are made to run in very very adverse condition.... and even if we were to spend on those very very tip top things.... it'll be the law of diminishing returns.... so save the $$..... that's my opinion ..... so all of u out there .... "HOLD YOUR FIRE".............

[Turbobrick]

On the contary, Volvo recommends Synthetic based oil after the inital 1000km oil change

[Sky8807]

OIC, have not own or driven a volvo b4. Ya, all engine except for those that are turbocharged need syn becos of the extreme condition the engine are being subjected to, a normal oil is unable to withstand such extreme.

 

As for volvo, don't know the normal aspirated one also recommended syn engine oil?

Edited May 3, 2002 by Sky8807

[Turbobrick]

Lemme go dig up my owner's manual and see the fine print on oil recommendations

[Sky8807]

IMO, not all car are design to run in very very adverse condition. Some are and some are not.

 

However, all car can run satisfactorily without any addition additives and accessories.

[Turbobrick]

Checked my owner's manual and it stated "Fully Synthetic or Semi-synthetic may be used"

[Guyver]

From what i've gathered so far... Toyota!!

[Fastforward]

Want to know more about these additive, go here.

 

Make your own conclusion

 

http://www.vtr.org/maintain/oil-additives.html

[Seven11]

Interesting ... extracts from that long article:

 

The major oil companies are some of the richest, most powerful and aggressive corporations in world. They own multi- million dollar research facilities manned by some of the best chemical engineers money can hire. It is probably safe to say that any one of them has the capabilities and resources at hand in marketing, distribution, advertising, research and product development equal to 20 times that of any of the independent additive companies. It therefore stands to reason that if any of these additive products were actu ally capable of improving the capabilities of engine lubricants, the major oil companies would have been able to determine that and to find some way to cash in on it.

 

Yet of all the oil additives we found, none carried the name or endorsement of any of the major oil producers.

 

In addition, all of the major vehicle and engine manufacturers spend millions of dollars each year trying to increase the longevity of their products, and millions more paying off warranty claims when their products fail. Again, it only stands to reason that if they thought any of these additives would increase the life or improve the performance of their engines, they would be actively using and selling them - or at least endorsing their use.

 

Instead, many of them advise against the use of these additives and, in some cases, threaten to void their warranty coverage if such things are found to be used in their products.

 

In any story of this nature, absolute "facts" are virtually impossible to come by. Opinions abound. Evidence that points one direction or the other is avail able, but has to be carefully ferreted out, and is not always totally reliable or completely verifiable.

 

In this environment, conclusions reached by known, knowledgeable experts in the field must be given a certain amount of weight. Conclusions reached by unknown, unidentifiable sources must be discounted almost totally. That which is left must be weighed, one side against the other, in an attempt to reach a "reasonable" conclusion.

 

In the case of oil additives, there is a considerable volume of evidence against their effectiveness. This evidence comes from well-known and identifiable expert sources, including independent research laboratories, state universities, major engine manufacturers, and even NASA.

 

Against this rather formidable barrage of scientific research, additive makers offer not much more than their own claims of effectiveness, plus questionable and totally unscientific personal testimonials. Though the purveyors of these products state they have studies from other independent laboratories supporting their claims, they refuse to identify the labs or provide copies of the research. The only test results they will share are those from their own testing departments, which must, by their very nature, be taken with a rather large grain of salt.

[Hattee]

Some people think FTC is always correct in what they say about snake oils. Many others who used these snake oils say differently.

 

Who do you think is correct or nobody is exactly wrong ... life is alot easier if we are correct in the way we draw conclusion like that.