From: HLS on

"Steve" <no(a)spam.thanks> wrote in message >
> If you believe that particular engines are "not suitable for synthetic
> oil," then there's no use trying to have an intelligent, engineering-based
> discussion.

No, there isnt.. I went back to the distributor on this and they told me
that B&S did not recommend synthetics in this engine, and I shouldnt
have assumed that the Mobil 1 would be a good choice after break-in.

I went into the B&S, honed it, installed new rings, etc, and it lasted a few
hours, but quickly went to hell again. Got rid of it, dont want to hear
technically the synthetic should have been great..
Either the B&S was BS, or the lubricant was unacceptable.

Next mower, I used what B&S recommended, and it worked fine (until it
was stolen a couple of months ago).

I can talk engineering with you all day long, but this is not a case where I
am very open to "shoulda, coulda, and woulda".

From: HLS on

"SMS" <scharf.steven(a)> wrote in message news:92VYk.8434 After a
couple of oil changes the gunk on the engine
> would have been gone, and the synthetic would look just as clean as
> whatever was used before.

This was not a case of gunk, although the oil became black very quickly.
The engine started using oil very badly soon after the Mobil I was used.
That was the reason for the problem, not oil color.

From: HLS on

"Steve" <no(a)spam.thanks> wrote in message
> HLS wrote:
>> "Mark A" <someone(a)> wrote in message news:0clYk.1725
>>> I also had an edger with a Briggs and Stratton engine and the oil turned
>>> black after one use. I knew immediately that the Briggs and Stratton
>>> engine I had then (don't know about newer ones) was not suitably built
>>> for synthetic oil (in the same way those Chevy Caprice and Crown Vic
>>> engines used in NYC taxis are not suitable for synthetic oil).
>> Mine was a B&S too, Mark.. The engine was ruined in short order.
> And I've been using synthetic oil in 2 B&S 6-horsepower lawnmowers and a
> 5-horsepower tiller for over 10 years now. All 3 are good as new, despite
> being air-cooled engines that see most of their operation in near-100
> degree F ambient temperatures.
> Of course the same was true of the 60s B&S engines I had back in the 70s
> and 80s that only got single-grade SAE 30 dino oil, too. I just can't kill
> a B&S, and I sure don't take it easy on them. I've only ever gotten rid of
> a B&S powered mower because the mower deck fell apart around the engine.

These were modern B&S engines, not old ones. The old ones were very likely

From: C. E. White on

"Mark A" <someone(a)> wrote in message
> "larry moe 'n curly" <larrymoencurly(a)> wrote in message
> news:9e83883f-5a7a-46ec-aba1-6a4f585b6b9f(a)
>> I once cut open a used Fram PH2951, and it had metal end caps. I
>> did
>> this because I had dropped the new filter, denting it on the end,
>> and
>> wanted to see if anything inside could have gotten hit.
> Fram makes 4 different "grades" of filters, which range in price
> from about $3 to $11 (they also make filters for OEM use and for
> other companies). Trying to lump them all together as one product,
> would be like comparing a Chevy with a Cadillac, just because they
> are both made by GM.
> Yes, the $3 Fram filter sucks. So do all other $3 filters.

What $3 Fram filer? I checked on-line prices at local auto parts
stores (Advance and AutoZone). The $3.99 Fram (PH2) and the $6.99 Fram
(TG2) equivalents to the Motorcraft FL820S ($3.68) both include the
same glued cardboard end caps and the same mediocre relief valve. The
$6.99 Fram filter does buy you a silicone anti-drain back valve.
However, the CHEAPER Motorcraft FL820S includes the silicone
anti-drain back valve, a very robust pressure relief valve, and potted
metal end caps. There is no comparison, the Fram filters are a rip
off, at least for this application.

Maybe for other applications, the Fram filters are better. I can't say
for sure. I've only cut open Fram filters for a few applications
(FL820S, FL1, a Honda Filter) and they all had the same basic
construction that I don't like.


From: Steve on
SMS wrote:
> Steve wrote:
>> jim wrote:
>>> As far as I know the type of dirt that gets into oil due to
>>> combustion
>>> byproducts is not going to be any different for synthetic oil.
>> That's true, and is a key part of this discussion. Too bad its being
>> discussed in terms of "synthetic" versus "conventional," because that
>> really doesn't matter. What DOES matter is the rest of the oil
>> additive package, in particular the compoenents that maintain the
>> total base number (TBN) and keep the oil from becoming acidic. You can
>> have synthetics with poor TBN control additive, and you can have
>> conventionals with good packages. Now *most* synthetics also happen to
>> be higher-end oils and have decent additive packages... but its not
>> BECAUSE they're synthetic.
> That's why an inexpensive oil analysis is a good idea in order to
> determine the optimal interval. Usually what it finds is that users of
> conventional oil are changing their oil far too often, and those trying
> to extend their oil changes to beyond 10,000 miles, with the use of
> synthetics, have used up the oil additive package, especially in terms
> of acid neutralizers, even though the oil still is lubricating. Perhaps
> that's one of the reasons that Mobil backed down on it's original
> marketing promotion of 25K oil changes.

From where I sit, spending extra for slightly more frequent oil changes
costs about the same as regular UOAs.

It would be different if I were managing a fleet. Well, my wife
considers 3 vintage muscle cars and 3 daily drivers a "fleet," but I
don't... :-)