Lubrecon - By in large you And I aggree on most stuff as I too am BIG on synthetics. I still disagree on the motor start up procedure though on so called iron built engines. Let me give you a example. A deep crosshatch pattern honing of cylinder walls(used on iron rings) actually traps
oil on the breakin in the grooves well into the firing stroke. Viscosity has nothing to do with it. Mineral based oils have a higher carbon content due to higher carbon based impuritys that synthetics does. That traped
oil burns on the power stroke and leaves residues that temper the cylinder walls amoun'st other things. Synthetics don't do this. There is more, MUCH MORE!
Point is I'm trying to say is this- Synthetics are not the magic cure all bullet you are trying(I am reading anyhow) to portray them to be. Yes they are better in my mind, but you have to temper that with what you are trying to do. There really is a reason why some of us folks do things differently you know, and I sir don't like the blanket wives tale explaintion used to dismiss all replys.
Take the Zink(abbrev.) issue. When synthitics first came out the word was 25,000k
oil changes was the "new" norm. We've came a long way from that logic now haven't we? The new zink formulations are a direct result of manufactures requirements, nothing more. And the manufactures want you to change your the oil now don't they? And by the way, most two cycle engine manufacturers still recommend non detergent mineral based, strait 30 weight oils. Briggs and Stratton comes to mind first.
Wonder what will happen when the oil manufacturers wake up to Moly? It really is much more to it than a funny can of additives that you just throw into your oil.
I, unlike some out there understand what you said in your reply.
A one size fits all reply does not work with me. I welcome change, but temper change with a background measured in past experience. I still disagree with you, on this VERY complex issue. I welcome your reply.
cobrashock