Disabling Cylinders? - Page 3 - Fuelly Forums

Android Users - Coming Soon! - Migrating from aCar 4.8 to 5.0

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 12-18-2007, 02:46 PM   #21
Registered Member
 
JanGeo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,442
Country: United States
Send a message via Yahoo to JanGeo
Quote:
Originally Posted by Improbcat View Post
So you are making money on referrals, which is what he just said. Or is synlube charging you a "fee" to refer people?

I've been reading this discussion (I'm currently at page 5 of 23) and am not impressed with synlube thus far from it. There are a lot of valid issues being raised there, including why synlube is claiming to meet or exceed certain oil standards while never having submitted their oil for testing.
There is a referral fee and it is not that big - about 5% of a referral sale I think, so I have part of my next oil filter paid for - but it is not a pyramid marketing company. I did it to a fellow xB owner because she was interested in getting some better mileage like I was and Miro likes to know how people hear about his products.

All the disscussions about it can go on and on but in my experiance if you get better mileage from less friction then that means less wear and since they have not had any oil related engine failures from people using their product and have been selling the product for MANY years as well as it being used on the Mars and Lunar rovers and the space station I thought it was ready for me to use in my new xB. I have always used various teflon additives in my vehicles since my first car in 1972 and always have gotten mileage improvements. Moly has been used by the military since WWII and its use in this product along with TPFE and Graphite seems to take care of the a few other mechanical and chemical needs that oils have to deal with. Most if not all of the people knocking it have not used it so consider that too. Lets not also remember some of the "oil" tests are made to test "oil" and this stuff is not "oil" it is in fact an engineered lubricant that is better than oil.
Another note is that in about 174 miles I will have 15,000 miles on it in my engine and all I have added was a little "Add Oil" at 10,000 miles to bring the level on the dip stick to the full mark since the initial filling which wasn't quite full and it is still at the full mark at 18,526 miles.

Looking at the article about 1/3 the way down seems to say it all - 0w20 oils will reduce engine life Synlube 5w50 will make it last longer and still provide better fuel economy.

here is a quote in that post which pretty much says it very well . . .

Quote:
Originally Posted by Houckster
Since SynLube has been designed from the start to effectively fight soot, and other forms of contamination, one isn't taking any chance at all using SynLube for the full duration of its service life. Its ability to prevent deterioration in the first place is due to its unsurpassed ring-sealing ability. Many of the problems experienced with oils are a direct result of their reaction to the presence of heat, which causes oil molecules to bind to contaminants thus undermining the oil's ability to protect. Because SynLube's components are inert, deterioration of the lubricant occurs at an extremely slow rate. At the end of the service life of SynLube, it is still more effective than any other oil when new! Additionally, when it's time to replenish oil that's been consumed, SERVICE FILL or ADD OIL are designed to supplement the original additive package, not just replace lost volume. This is a fundamental difference from any other oil on the market I'm aware of.

There is no reason not to use SynLube in a properly functioning engine. None!!!

It still amazes me to see people on board like this that are always looking for the best oil immediately scramble to find some excuse not to use SynLube.

I eagerly await the cries of denial that will follow this post. I love the ones about PTFE. I just have to laugh sometimes.
This next quote is also a good one . . .

Quote:
Originally Posted by Houckster
The function of PTFE (nanoFlon) in SynLube is presented as follows:
quote:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The PTFE colloids that are contained in SynLube Lube-4-Life® reduce the Bearing Clearances, which in turn lower the lubricant side leakage rate. This brings onset of the favorable Hydrodynamic Lubrication regime at lower rotational speeds and results in better fuel efficiency and less Wear. Reduced clearances also reduce vibration and noise generation, SynLube Lube-4-Life® lubricated mechanisms therefore run noticeably quieter sometimes [by] up to several decibels.
__________________

JanGeo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2007, 03:33 PM   #22
Registered Member
 
skewbe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 771
Country: United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by JanGeo View Post
There is a referral fee and it is not that big - about 5% of a referral sale I think
So maybe you should limit your discussion of lubricants to the forsale forum?
__________________

__________________
Standard Disclaimer
skewbe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2007, 04:10 PM   #23
Registered Member
 
Mighty Mira's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 315
Country: United States
"pyramid scheme? Uncertified lubrication product! Jan won't shut up about it, but makes money on referrals."

From my experience with him on the forums, he has actually been pretty reticent about it, only going into detail when prodded. 5% of a referral on a product that is only a couple hundred bucks or so is nothing, considering the (at present) meager advertising power of sites like this. I don't think Yoshi for example is giving up his day job. A proper MLM type scheme would have referral fees being on the order of 30% or more, minimum.

The fact is that there is bugger all money to be made on a lubricant that is only bought once or twice in a vehicle's lifetime. Let's do the math.

Synlube:
150k miles, $200. That's $1.33 per 1000 miles, and molybdenum isn't exactly free, nor is PTFE as far as I know.

Oil industry:
3k miles, $30? (In Australia, supposedly good quality oil is about $50/ 5 litres)
That's $10/ 1000 miles. What is lubricating oil? It's effectively a byproduct, as far as I can tell. Read the wikipedia (yeah I know, it's wikipedia, but often a good first order understanding until shown otherwise) article on fuel oil, especially bunker fuel.

Quote:
Price usually decreases as the fuel number increases. No. 1 fuel oil, No. 2 fuel oil and No. 3 fuel oil are referred to as distillate fuel oils, diesel fuel oils, light fuel oils, gasoil or just distillate. For example, No. 2 fuel oil, No. 2 distillate and No. 2 diesel fuel oil are almost the same thing. Diesel is different in that it also has a cetane number limit which describes the ignition quality of the fuel. Distillate fuel oils are distilled from crude oil. Gas oil refers to the process of distillation. The oil is heated, becomes a gas and then condenses. It differentiates distillates from residual oil (RFO). No. 1 is similar to kerosene and is the fraction that boils off right after gasoline. No. 2 is the diesel that trucks and some cars run on, leading to the name "road diesel". It is the same thing as heating oil. No. 3 is a distillate fuel oil and is rarely used. No. 4 fuel oil is usually a blend of distillate and residual fuel oils, such as No. 2 and 6, however, sometimes it is just a heavy distillate. No. 4 may be classified as diesel, distillate or residual fuel oil. No. 5 fuel oil and No. 6 fuel oil are called residual fuel oils (RFO) or heavy fuel oils.
Quote:
Residual fuel oil is less useful because it is so viscous that it has to be heated with a special heating system before use (hmmm, sound like anything we add to our engines?) and it contains relatively high amounts of pollutants, particularly sulfur, which forms sulfur dioxide upon combustion. However, its undesirable properties make it very cheap. In fact, it is the cheapest liquid fuel available. Since it requires heating before use, residual fuel oil cannot be used in road vehicles, boats or small ships, as the heating equipment takes up valuable space and makes the vehicle heavier. Heating the oil is also a delicate procedure, which is inappropriate to do on small, fast moving vehicles. However, power plants and large ships are able to use residual fuel oil.
So you have something that earns a tenth the revenue, even less profit, and expect that to win out in the marketplace against something that can pour 60% of its earnings into advertising and still be more profitable? Don't think so.

You're not stupid, I suspect that you understand that this is the way the world works with pharmaceuticals, razors, shaving gel, food, transport and clothes. The products that are next to free and work great for a long time (or forever) don't generate profit, and without profit, they can't advertise. Products that advertise something that is inherently cheap at high prices, especially if it does the job, even in a half assed way, will win out. Due to the bell curve, there are always a few idiots out there waiting to be parted from their money, and that money pays for advertising, which brainwashes more people until the vast majority of people have never even heard of, or scoff at the alternative.

That's a separate issue entirely from whether or not this product actually works as claimed, but on the face of it the basic idea seems sound, and we have one knowledgeable member (at least, with electronics stuff) who recommends it. As someone who did well in highschool chemistry, I have no problem with the idea that different chemicals are unstable (e.g. petroleum) at different temperatures, which is the basic idea behind why this lubricant should not degrade. (As I understand it, the presence of colloidal particles in the lubricant act to reduce friction and wear.)

If Miro would get back to me, I'm going to try it, and if it works, I will say so and recommend it. If it doesn't, I will be badmouthing it on every relevant forum I frequent.
Mighty Mira is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2007, 05:15 PM   #24
Registered Member
 
skewbe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 771
Country: United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mighty Mira View Post
From my experience with him on the forums, he has actually been pretty reticent about it, only going into detail when prodded.
I appreciate that perspective, but I count 100 posts by jan in 54 threads where he mentions synlube. Can you say reticent 100 times?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mighty Mira View Post
I'm going to try it, and if it works, I will say so and recommend it. If it doesn't, I will be badmouthing it on every relevant forum I frequent.
That's the rub, testing and certification are expensive, gotta run a lot of engines a long time to get reliable results. Does it mean that you skip it before going to market?
__________________
Standard Disclaimer
skewbe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2007, 05:30 PM   #25
Registered Member
 
skewbe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 771
Country: United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by theclencher View Post
now WHO has deactivated cyls while leaving a valve open?
Guess none, there's a few patents that mention it but you are correct in the implication AFAIK. I was working from memory (not always a good idea).


I can see the smarter engineers at gm really groaning as the current deactivation scheme was taking shape.
__________________
Standard Disclaimer
skewbe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2007, 06:26 PM   #26
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 303
Country: United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by theclencher View Post
i'm sure turning off a few injectors actually drops fe

now WHO has deactivated cyls while leaving a valve open?
I did on a 304 Javelin and it was a mistake. I left the intake valves out. The transfer from cylinder to cylinder sapped the power at high rpm. I gained about 10-15% in mileage. The engine ran fine on 1 barrel of the carb. The intake manifold was completely separated which I thought was a bit unusual.
__________________
usedgeo
usedgeo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2007, 06:37 PM   #27
Registered Member
 
Mighty Mira's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 315
Country: United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by skewbe View Post
I appreciate that perspective, but I count 100 posts by jan in 54 threads where he mentions synlube. Can you say reticent 100 times?
How many of those does he go into detail? I searched his posts looking for detail about synlube, and came up short which was why I asked him directly.
Quote:
That's the rub, testing and certification are expensive, gotta run a lot of engines a long time to get reliable results. Does it mean that you skip it before going to market?
Maybe, especially if the market is tiny. You'd test it enough to satisfy yourself, not a government regulatory body. That is a different issue entirely as to whether it works or not.

e.g. I went ahead with the drag coefficient modifications on my car without testing each one on its own to verify that they all work, and I get a much improved drag coefficient at the end and increased fuel economy. I haven't got the money to book wind tunnel time to certify the improvement either.

I'm willing to risk my car's engine on this stuff because I'm an enthused hobbyist and my car is very inexpensive. I suspect that I'll get a good idea of whether it works or not in 2-3 years, which is 50,000km. I'm sure, being a vocal forum poster, Miro would think twice before selling me something that doesn't function as claimed. It's obvious judging by my car that I care as much about being known as "the sucker who fell for the synlube scam" as I would "the crazy synlube avocate" or "the guy who drives that ridiculous car with the bolted on sheet aluminium, sheet plastic and too-small air intake that looks like it should overheat".
Mighty Mira is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2007, 07:07 PM   #28
Registered Member
 
JanGeo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,442
Country: United States
Send a message via Yahoo to JanGeo
It has been run in a lot of engine for a long time . . . from the Synlube site...

Quote:
Originally Posted by syslube.com
SynLube™ Lube-4-Life ® System
is a result of 22 years of testing and development (1944 to 1966).
It is the first & only truly permanent lubricant suitable for use in all Automotive, Marine and Industrial applications. It replaces conventional Motor Oil in any engine application.
JanGeo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2007, 07:18 PM   #29
Registered Member
 
skewbe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 771
Country: United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by JanGeo View Post
It has been run in a lot of engine for a long time . . . from the Synlube site...
Oh, it said so on the internet! Of course
__________________
Standard Disclaimer
skewbe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2007, 07:29 PM   #30
Registered Member
 
JanGeo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,442
Country: United States
Send a message via Yahoo to JanGeo
Hey watch it Skewbe - you are boarding on personal attacks with these posts you are making.
__________________

JanGeo is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Retire a Vehicle pb Fuelly Web Support and Community News 1 11-11-2008 04:30 PM
Keeping my distance in traffic khurt General Fuel Topics 8 09-07-2008 04:23 AM
PscanGauge Psychoses 2TonJellyBean General Discussion (Off-Topic) 7 08-26-2007 05:06 AM
Escalade Vs. Maserati LiberalLoser Introduce Yourself - New member Welcome 11 10-24-2006 08:06 AM

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:41 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.