Capthead
Guru
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2013
- Messages
- 956
- Location
- USA
- Vessel Name
- Heads Up
- Vessel Make
- Grand Banks 42 Classic
For me, the discussion ends there. While I'm sure the debate will continue, as far as I'm concerned, and for the engines we run (FL120s), Art's statement is the only one that bears remembering and adhering to.
Bob Smith told me a number of years ago that FL120s in service with the Washington State Ferry System ran in excess of 25,000 hours before needing a core overhaul. And that the same engine, operated, serviced, and maintained properly in recreational boat service is a 12,000 to 14,000 hour engine. In both cases, the engine earned this reputation on conventional oil if for no other reason than viable synthetics were not available back then.
I agree with Eric that while synthetics may have some advantages over conventional oils these advantages are in reality probably minimal to zip when it comes to the kinds of engines most of us run in our boats and the way we run them. Which means that using synthetics, while it may be technically advantageous in some tiny way, really makes no difference in reality other than to one's wallet.
A modern, high-reving, constantly-load-changing, close-tolerance engine in a vehicle is a different situation altogether. For the two new vehicles we own for which synthetic oil is specifically called for in the operators manual, we run the called-for synthetic and I would not put convernional oil in them for love nore money (although the Subaru manual states that conventional oils can be used "in an emergency and only for short periods" after which it must be replaced with the specified synthetic oil).
So while this thread seems to be a lively armchair discussion I think the only thing that's been said in it that's really worth heeding is Art's statement that I started this post with. That's my take on it all, anyway.
I could add, change filters more frequently. But I agree with that statement also.