Pro's vs Con's...Conventional vs Synthetic
 

I have a 1998 29 scarab with twin 350 mag mpi's with bravo 1's. Interested in opinions on synthetic vs conventional engine oil as well as drive fluid.

Re: Pro's vs Con's...Conventional vs Synthetic
 

I don't think that this has ever come up on this board before. You might try going to www.offshoreonly.com and doing a search on Mobil 1, Amsoil, Redline or maybe KY jelly. Who knows, maybe it has been asked before.

I swear, if I sit through another oil thread I may get a sailboat.

http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/s...ad.php?t=83930

Re: Pro's vs Con's...Conventional vs Synthetic
 

Bern,
Not busting your balls or anything, just saw you joined it July and may not know how to use the features of the board. Use the search function near the top right of the page. You will still not get the answer you want if you are looking for a Y/N.

Re: Pro's vs Con's...Conventional vs Synthetic
 

For the price, quality, and specs 15w-50 Mobil One is tough to beat.

Re: Pro's vs Con's...Conventional vs Synthetic
 

Short version.

Full synthetic is "better". It maintains viscosity longer because it has higher viscosity base stocks with less longchain viscosity enhancers that break down during use due to shear. It can withstand higher temps without breaking down or "coking". It remains fluid at low temps. It also costs more.

Modern conventional oil is good stuff. In a marine application near stock power levels, there should be no internal event that requires a more durable lubricant than good ole conventional stocks.

The usage pattern of boats involves hard running interrupted by long periods of sitting (when compared to the more regular light duty use seen in an automobile). This usage pattern REQUIRES frequent lube changes regardless of what kind, type, or price of lube you run.

Some people think it is a better idea to use conventional stocks and change them very often. Other people think it is an even better idea to use synthetic lubes. But they STILL need changed out just as often due to the fuel dilution and contamination aspects.

Bottom line:
With stock power, conventional is fine if changed frequently - if cost is no object, then synthetic is "better" in all categories.
With heavily modified motors, synthetic lubes and their higher prices can be more easily justified.

Gear lube? Outdrives do NOT hold enough lube. They need changed frequently in performance applications. Synthetic generally runs at cooler temps and provides additional protection against spalling and gear face wear. Synthetics may not tolerate water intrusion as well as the Merc hi perf lube.

That's the short version.

Re: Pro's vs Con's...Conventional vs Synthetic
 

Mike, give us the long version. :)

I was just out in my garage and I thought of a question I wanted to ask you, but I've already forgotten what it is. :(

Re: Pro's vs Con's...Conventional vs Synthetic
 

I agree in that if cost is no object then synthetics across the board. If you need to pinch pennies then use what's on sale. That is what it always comes down to anyways at this point. Synthetics are proven after the break-in period of 20-30 hours. No excuse to not use them except that you don't want to spring for the cost. They are superior to conventionals. Remember, a premium oil filter is said to be more important than a consideration to go synthetic. Do that first.