The aviation issue aside, it is a synthetic , and acts like one
All the while, Mabil continued to promote synthetic with an extremely aggressive advertising campaign that made grandiose claims for the product: "a cleaner engine with little or no sludge, a 200-hour oil change interval, up to 30% less oil consumption, 10º-15ºF cooler CHTs, and up to 5% fuel savings." Many knowledgeable engine people considered some of these claims to be exaggerated commercial puffery, and most considered Mobil's suggested 200-hour oil change interval to be insane. But owners lined up to buy the synthetic at eight bucks a quart
Could this be of concern with Synthetics oils in cars
1. first the background as quoted
It's important to understand the mechanism at work here. Synthetic oil is composed of long, smooth polymer molecules that don't have all the little side branches that petroleum polymers do. This makes them extremely slippery and gives them excellent lubricating properties. Synthetic oils also lack the "light ends" of petroleum oils that can break down under extreme heat and create varnish and carbon deposits.
so far so good , but
I quote again :
But it's those same smooth, ultra-slippery molecules that give synthetic oil its Achilles' heel: the inability to hold lead salts and other contaminants in suspension. The synthetic oil molecules are simply too damned slippery to hang onto such contaminants, so they settle out of solution and form sludge deposits, particularly in areas of oil stagnation .
lots of it in some cases (read the article)
And then this about low use engines ,
). The oil film on cylinder walls tends to strip away during periods of disuse, resulting in cylinder wall corrosion and metal-to-metal scuffing at the next engine start. Hence, low-utilization engines tend to wear cylinders faster.
So have the synthetics we use in cars been tested for this kinda stuff >?
(and I do not want to base the result on what one person thinks)
unless you have a phd in oil technology...?
then quote the study to back it up and disprove this...
thats all that I would want.