rfitzpatrick
Well-known member
I went to replenish my oil stock and found those two words on most all brands.
Opinion please about using this 'Blend'
Opinion please about using this 'Blend'
Synthetic Blend
- Thread starter rfitzpatrick
- Start date
Joe K
Well-known member
I would be more concerned about "detergent." The original Model A let all the gunk settle to the bottom. You DON'T want a detergent oil if that is your modus.
Detergent oil would be for those who have an oil filter. Detergent keeps the gunk "in solution" where it can be picked up by the filter.
You don't say your modus.
Now "synthetic" in part or in whole is more likely to be a detergent oil. BUT - the tendency today is to get away from non-detergent oils. AND to incorporate synthetic oil stocks.
It's actually a factor of "majority supply." I.e. what they're making more commonly. Synthetic DOES have an advantage in being more "consistent" in viscosity. "Flatter" viscosity/temperature curve. So when you buy into a certain viscosity with synthetic, you're more likely to GET that viscosity.
This is part of the reason that most modern cars specify synthetic oil - and the viscosity numbers are much "thinner" than might be formerly specified. My wife's Prius is the first car I've owned that uses 0w-20 - which is done for the low friction of low viscosity.
I've actually paid MORE for a non-detergent oil than the equivalent detergent oil.
But I think we need more information before our recommendation.
Joe K
Detergent oil would be for those who have an oil filter. Detergent keeps the gunk "in solution" where it can be picked up by the filter.
You don't say your modus.
Now "synthetic" in part or in whole is more likely to be a detergent oil. BUT - the tendency today is to get away from non-detergent oils. AND to incorporate synthetic oil stocks.
It's actually a factor of "majority supply." I.e. what they're making more commonly. Synthetic DOES have an advantage in being more "consistent" in viscosity. "Flatter" viscosity/temperature curve. So when you buy into a certain viscosity with synthetic, you're more likely to GET that viscosity.
This is part of the reason that most modern cars specify synthetic oil - and the viscosity numbers are much "thinner" than might be formerly specified. My wife's Prius is the first car I've owned that uses 0w-20 - which is done for the low friction of low viscosity.
I've actually paid MORE for a non-detergent oil than the equivalent detergent oil.
But I think we need more information before our recommendation.
Joe K
CWPASADENA
Well-known member
I am not a big fan of using full synthetic our synthetic blend in these old engines. It will lubricate the engine just fine but it has a greater propensity to leak.
My opinion,
Chris W.
My opinion,
Chris W.
ModelA29
Well-known member
The Model A is not rocket science. Any oil of the proper viscosity will work. Since the late 40s early 50s the vast majority of the oil used has been detergent the odds are greatly in your favor that you won't unleash a bunch of crud in the engine by using it. Non detergent oil is considered a niche market for small gas engines.
CWPASADENA
Well-known member
That is fine for a late model F150 but the question was oil for a Model A Ford.
Late model lubrication requirements are different than cars that were built almost 100 years ago.
Chris W.
AzBob
Senior Member
I know that CW, I own a 1930 Sport Coupe and have owned a 1929 Tudor. I come up with 96 years difference. For the record, I use Rotella 15W-40 in my Model A.
Just wanted to point out that there is a difference between synthetic and "synthetic blend."
Last edited:
Bruce of MN
Well-known member
My brother worked in IT at Mobil in the 90's. For some reason he heard a maintenance supervisor say that they didn't use Mobil 1 in their gasoline engine trucks there because it was too expensive. 
rotorwrench
Well-known member
With no filtration, a model A engine is a short time schedule oil change interval engine. This would be 500 miles or 6-months whichever comes first. Using full synthetic is kind of a waste of money since it has to be changed so often.
A fully filtered oil system requires all pressured oil to be filtered prior to delivery to the bearings. A Burtz engine will likely do that, other wise a stock engine will have to be modified to do that. Ford used partial filtration for years which increased the oil change intervals but not by a lot.
Modern cars can go a lot longer due to fuel injection and much better efficiency. The problem now is that the over regulation of economy levels has forced the manufacturers to engeneer them to use such thin viscosity lubricants that they no longer get adequate bearing lubrication. This is why so many new engines are failing well before their specified life interval. The bearings need more clearance to run the higher viscosity but that decreases fuel economy. There is always a tipping point to engine design when too much is expected of it.
Like it or not, a lot of used engine oil is being recycled. Recylers don't care if it's mineral based oil or synthetic. It all goes in the same vats for running through the process of filtering out the contaminants and running it back through refining processes. There is no way to separate synthetic from mineral unless re-fractionation can separate them. I'm not sure how that goes in the end product. Ester based synthetics tend to vaporize under high temperatures where mineral based will catch fire at lower heat ranges than synthetics. This is why they are used in turbo shaft and jet engines exclusively. Air cooled reciprocating engines in aircraft had too many failures with full synthetic lubes so they made the manufacturers blend it or use mineral base oils. Liquid cooled engines can take the full synthetics but I still don't use them in any of my vehicles.
A fully filtered oil system requires all pressured oil to be filtered prior to delivery to the bearings. A Burtz engine will likely do that, other wise a stock engine will have to be modified to do that. Ford used partial filtration for years which increased the oil change intervals but not by a lot.
Modern cars can go a lot longer due to fuel injection and much better efficiency. The problem now is that the over regulation of economy levels has forced the manufacturers to engeneer them to use such thin viscosity lubricants that they no longer get adequate bearing lubrication. This is why so many new engines are failing well before their specified life interval. The bearings need more clearance to run the higher viscosity but that decreases fuel economy. There is always a tipping point to engine design when too much is expected of it.
Like it or not, a lot of used engine oil is being recycled. Recylers don't care if it's mineral based oil or synthetic. It all goes in the same vats for running through the process of filtering out the contaminants and running it back through refining processes. There is no way to separate synthetic from mineral unless re-fractionation can separate them. I'm not sure how that goes in the end product. Ester based synthetics tend to vaporize under high temperatures where mineral based will catch fire at lower heat ranges than synthetics. This is why they are used in turbo shaft and jet engines exclusively. Air cooled reciprocating engines in aircraft had too many failures with full synthetic lubes so they made the manufacturers blend it or use mineral base oils. Liquid cooled engines can take the full synthetics but I still don't use them in any of my vehicles.