On Sat, 28 Dec 1996, Toby Erkson wrote:

> If anyone is still unsure about synthetic oil and you think it's just as 
> good as conventional oil then 1) You're wrong, and; 2) If you do some 
> research like I did you will see how much better the stuff really is.  
> Remember, technology is our friend :)

What research ? I'm curious! I would on intuition think synthetics are
recyclable, but as for them being "accross-the-board" *better* than
conventional "cracked" oils ... not necessarily. The specific heat of
synthetics is relatively lower than conventional oils, thus they are not
as good conductors/transducers of (engine) heat. Although the primary
function of oil in an air-cooled engine is lubrication, the secondary is
"cooling" (c.f., oil-coolers popular with older model buses or baja bugs).
Thus an oils heat absorbing properties (e.i., specific heat capacity) are
also a critical component of it's functionality and usefulness in any
vehicle. Synthetics generally lack this functionality (relative to
conventional oils). To be just to synthetics, it's also my understanding
that this "problem"is addressed (to a limited degree) is via the addition
of "heat-absorbing additives" to their synthetic oils.

Two other reasons I refrain from using synthetics are costs ($3-4/qt vs.
$1/quart) and that I change my oil about every 3/4K miles ... not so much
because of conventional oil breakdown, but because of the grim and dirt
that accumulates in our oil. Synthetics don't have this breakdown
"problem" (generally 12K miles/oil change), but I for one wouldn't want
12K/miles worth of grim and grit running through my engine. Conventional
oil is cheap, new engines aren't.

My $0.02

Chris
San Diego, CA