Better Mileage with Synthetic?
One afternoon a customer emailed us and said he gets better mileage when he’s using synthetic oil. To be honest, we were skeptical. If you’ve been with us long enough, you know we generally think that oil type doesn’t matter. Use Oil A for 5,000 miles and do a sample to check your metals, then use Oil B for the same miles and resample. Most people will find that their engine wears just the same regardless of oil brand. But here is an angle we hadn’t tested — is fuel economy affected by your choice of oil? We decided to try and find out.
Designing the experiment
When we first started talking about a fuel economy experiment, we came up with a lot of questions. How will we know how much fuel we’re actually using? How will we take into account tire pressure and other things that can affect fuel economy? Do we need to take into consideration the natural expansion of gas at different temperatures?
We eventually decided on the following plan. It’s probably not scientific enough for a MythBusters special, but it’s about as good as we could get without installing special pumps and meters, and it should be repeatable if you want to give it a shot in your own vehicle.
Counting miles was the easy part — we just recorded miles at every gas fill-up. Figuring the “per-gallon” was a little trickier, since we don’t really have an accurate way to measure fuel consumption.
In an episode of MythBusters where they were doing something that involved calculating miles/gallon, they took an old clunker, removed the hood, and rigged up a container that measured fuel consumption to the milliliter. That’s a little more involved than we wanted to get, especially since our guinea pigs are analysts Amanda and Alex’s daily driver vehicles.
We ended up recording the number of gallons needed to fill up at the pump. We decided to resist the urge to “top-off” the tank when filling and just stop pumping whenever the pump stopped. Is this a perfect measure of fuel usage? Certainly not. Every pump could be a little different in its stopping point depending on the day, the pump, the volume/speed of fuel dispensed, ambient temperature, and so on…but these things are impossible to control in the real world.
We decided to do ten gas fill-ups on each type of oil. With ten fill-ups, we’d have enough data to take into account some of those variables mentioned above that we can’t control. We also made a note to monitor tire pressure, though that varied so little that we thought it negligible.
Royal Purple vs. Quaker State
Amanda started with Quaker State Advanced Durability 5W/20. The price at O’Reilly Auto Parts was $5.29/quart or $23.99 for a handy 5-quart bottle, which is just perfect for her Kia, which takes 4.8 quarts of oil. She ran that oil in her car from May to June 2013. In ten gasoline fill-ups, she ran 3,703.7 miles and used 131.858 gallons, for a fuel economy of 28.09 miles/gallon.
She decided that 3,703.7 miles was too early to change her oil, so she kept running that oil for a total of 6,333 miles and changed the oil on July 27, 2013. The result was some good wear numbers (see figure 1, F66495).
On to the synthetic! Royal Purple 5W/20 costs $9.79/quart at O’Reilly Auto Parts and does not come in a handy 5-quart jug, so we ended up paying $48.95 for oil on this oil change. Amanda ran this oil from the end of July until October, going 3,829.2 miles and using 137.002 gallons of fuel, for a final fuel economy of 27.95 miles/gallon, a decrease of 0.5% compared to the Quaker State conventional.
| Oil | Price/5 gal. | Miles | Gals. | MPG |
| Quaker State 5W/20 | $23.99 | 3703.70 | 131.89 | 28.08 |
| Royal Purple 5W/20 | $48.95 | 3829.20 | 137.00 | 27.95 |
Amanda ran the Royal Purple a total of 14,277 miles before changing it (we’re all for getting our money’s worth out of an oil change!), and ended up with a little more wear than usual (figure 2, G22246).
The two oils are very close in terms of fuel economy, with the conventional Quaker State slightly edging out the more expensive Royal Purple. But in the spring of that year she was doing a little more highway driving than in the fall, with a few trips between Illinois and Green Bay, Wisconsin, and so on. Even so, the added cost for the oil itself almost certainly defeats any slight improvement in MPG she might have gotten. So let’s look at Alex’s numbers.
Mobil 1 vs. Mobil Super & Advance Auto Parts 5W/30
Alex spent $34.85 for five quarts of Mobil 1 Advanced Fuel Economy 0W/30 at Wal-Mart and ran the oil from January 2013 to May 2013. He traveled 3,061.1 miles, used 91.3 gallons of gas and ended up with a fuel economy of 33.53 miles/gallon.
Then he bought five quarts of Mobil Super 5W/30 conventional oil for $18.10 and ran 3,234.9 miles on 92.0 gallons of fuel from June to October 2013, for an average fuel economy of 35.16 miles/gallon¾a difference of 4.9% in favor of the conventional oil.
| Oil | Price/5 gal. | Miles | Gals. | MPG |
| Mobil 1 AFE 0W/30 | $34.85 | 3061.10 | 91.30 | 33.53 |
| Mobil Super 5W/30 | $18.10 | 3234.90 | 92.00 | 35.16 |
Alex noted that his engine tends to get better fuel economy in general in the warmer months than the colder months, so he repeated the experiment again the following year, using Advance Auto Parts 5W/30 conventional oil from February to March 2014, getting 32.93 MPG.
He then ran Mobil 1 Advanced Fuel Economy 0W/30 from May to August, getting an average fuel economy of 34.46 miles/gallon. In this case, Mobil 1 did beat the conventional oil, but his mileage still wasn’t as good as on the original run of Mobil Super 5W/30 conventional, and the added cost of the oil negates any extra miles-per-gallon.
Alex mentioned that on synthetic oil his engine seemed to burn less oil, but since that wasn’t the point of the experiment, we didn’t get too deep into trying to quantify that.
Synthetic or conventional?
So…which oil to choose? We get asked this question hundreds of times a year on the phone, in e-mails, and written on oil slips. And honestly, from a wear standpoint, we don’t find a lot of difference between conventional and synthetic oils. Some engines may run better on one than the other, or maybe you find that your engine uses less oil on one or the other, but these things are hard to quantify from our end. 
There are so many factors that affect how your engine wears, what kind of mileage you get, and how long your engine will last that we could never issue a blanket one-size-fits-all statement saying “You should use X.”
We did not find that synthetic oil gave us better fuel economy, but that doesn’t mean that you won’t. Feel free to try this experiment at home and let us know what you find. Or, if you’re not experimentally-inclined and you’re wavering about what oil to use, feel free to use whatever fits your wallet. Any API-certified oil is going to be quality oil, and your engine should be happy with whatever you choose.

HyVis 4 Winter
additive in it, just not any that we read. The grade is not listed on the can, but the viscosity came back as a light 20W. With the lack of additive it’s not surprising that the TBN read 0.0. It’s tempting to do an experiment and run this apparent mineral oil for 10,000 miles in the dead of winter, just to see what would happen. If you know of any guinea pigs, send them our way!
the country, and I’ll always associate the blue, red, and white logo with long trips across the country in our green van with the velour bed and hanging beads. But Amoco did more than fill up gas tanks in the 70s–they also sold oil, and this “Long Distance” version is an SAE 10W/40. The additive package looks a lot like the Mobil Special oil we saw: heavy on phosphorus and zinc, lighter on calcium and magnesium (Figure 2). Just the right oil for a couple of bandana-wearing hippies traveling with two little kids from Indiana to Nova Scotia in 1976 in a green van with a sunset painted on the side. Ah, the ’70s.
The viscosity read like what we see today out of a standard 5W/30. Texaco Havoline Super Premium 10W/40, on the other hand, looks a lot like one of today’s diesel-use oils in additives (Figure 4), with a normal 10W/40 viscosity.
only did they not make multi-viscosity oils that long ago, but the can comes from zip code 90017 so it has to be from 1963 or later. According to the can, it’s 100% parrafinic oil with selected additives, which our spectrometer reveals to be your standard line-up of calcium, phosphorus, and zinc (Figure 6). Look at that viscosity though¾it’s higher than we see in today’s 20W/50s. 
Like modern oils, they stress the high quality of the oil with terms like “organo-metallic” that are meant impress those of us who aren’t in the oil business. I don’t know if I’d call this a masterpiece in oil work though: it looks like what we see out of ATFs these days as far as additives go (mostly phosphorus with a little zinc thrown in). Since the word “Racing” is stamped into the top of the can, the thick viscosity (like a 50W) makes sense (Figure 7).
I’ve always had a soft spot in my heart for Sinclair. The can has a picture of a dinosaur on it! This shit came from the ground, no doubt about it! Another 20-20W oil, the oil is light on advertising copy but heavy on additives. In fact, it looks a lot like recent versions of Shell’s Rotella 5W/40, except with a little less calcium. It’s much lighter than Shell’s 5W/40, though, with a viscosity reading like a 30W or a heavy 20W oil. Note the presence of lead (Figure 8). 
Modern Amsoil products tend to be heavy on additives and that was true back in the day as well (Figure 9). Just for fun, we compared this oil with a virgin sample of Amsoil 10W/40 that we ran in February 2012 and they look a lot alike. The only difference is in the older oil there’s less of everything: 500 ppm less calcium, and 100-200 ppm less phosphorus and zinc. They used magnesium in the older oil, while the TBN and viscosities were nearly identical.
over these two old cans. Originally, Penn’s Oil came from an oil field in Pennsylvania and was christened with a Liberty Bell logo to remind users of its Pennsylvania roots. This can of ATF clearly has an earlier generation of logo on it, and Google informs me that Dexron II was introduced in 1972. This may very well have been the transmission oil that kept our green van chugging through the ’70s. There are a lot of different ATFs in stores today, though generally they have about the same additive configurations. This one is a little different in that it has more boron, magnesium, and zinc than most modern ATFs. The viscosity is right where we’d expect it to be though. Pennzoil’s 10W/40 oil can is flashy, a la the
1980s. It’s “The Motor Oil With Z-7” and although they don’t specify what that is, they do specify that “You need no extra oil additive.” So that’s reassuring. It’s rated SF-SC-CC, so I’d place it at about 25 years old. Maybe the magic of Z-7 is copper: that’s something we saw a lot of back in the day, when Blackstone was founded. Interestingly, magnesium is the dominant additive in this one, followed by zinc, phosphorus, copper, and boron (Figure 10). The flashpoint was lower than what we see today from 10W/40s. 
a can like the others. This one was sold in a 5-quart metal jug. I particularly love this one, because the can not only says you’ll “Cut Your Oil Bills In Half,” but the first point of advertising on the side is a “Faster Getaway!” Now, they don’t actually say that this is the choice of oils for bank robbers, but I know if it was 1941 and my hungry Great Depression self was contemplating which oil to put in my Ford Special for bank-robbing time, this is the oil I’d pick. With practically no calcium or magnesium present, the oil’s TBN read 0.0, but it does provide would-be crooks with phosphorus, zinc, and barium as well as a 20W viscosity for the getaway (Figure 11). When you’re busy working a tommy gun, the last think you want to think about is whether or not you’ve made the right choice in oil.

Wolf’s Head SD 10W/40
Wolf’s Head ATF
white, and blue, so you can feel patriotic when you buy it (unless
you’re in Canada. Then you can indulge in justified rage about Americans and how we think we’re the center of the world). Fox Head oil was made by the Tritex Petroleum company out of Brooklyn, NY, and my extensive research (aka first-page Google results) tells me the company still exists and is presently located in Tulsa, Oklahoma. The logo, a sly-looking fox, has nothing on today’s slick oil packages. And the oil itself also has nothing on today’s oils: the oil itself is nearly bereft of additives. Basically a mineral oil, it has a little magnesium, phosphorus, and zinc in it, and not a lot else (Figure 3). This is not necessarily a problem, however. As you’ll recall in the article when Ryan used 30W aircraft oil in his truck, wear went up a little but the engine didn’t fail or anything. Still, I won’t be putting it in my Outback anytime soon.
long they’ve been making this oil and the guy not only could not tell me, but he was unable to tell me who might know. Surely someone at that company has a historical file? If so, they’re not sharing that info with plebeians like us. He did mention that Rotella really made its name in the ’70s, though I’m guessing this can of SF, SE, SC oil was made in the late ’80s. He also said the “S” versions of Rotella were sold internationally, and indeed, this can came from our friendly neighbors to the north (*waves hi to Canada). Suffice it to say that the oil has changed very little over the years. Its main additives are the same as what we see today, but the interesting part of this oil is that it’s a 10W (Figure 4). We often see heavy-duty thin-grade additive packages in tractor-hydraulic fluids, which are used in systems like transmissions and hydraulic systems in off-highway equipment like bulldozers and backhoes. Note the TBN of this oil read higher than most of the others we’re talking about. That’s because of the high calcium level¾the TBN is based on the level of calcium sulfinate and/or magnesium sulfinate. When those compounds aren’t present, you get a low TBN.
Quaker State 30W & 10W
these oils are mostly the same; they’ll throw in a few slight differences in additives and call it good. These cans of Quaker State, however, were mostly pretty different. The Deluxe version looked a lot like their 30W oil (but more calcium–Figure 7). Quaker State Sterling HD 10W/40, on the other hand, went out on a limb with almost 800 ppm sodium, almost no magnesium, and then levels of calcium, phosphorus, and zinc that are comparable with today’s oils. Touted as “Energy Saving Motor Oil,” Quaker State was getting its game on in pushing this brand: it mentions “special friction modifying additives,” the longevity of the company (over 60 years when the can was made), and its suitability for those wishing to follow extended drain intervals. Heck, I’m sold, and I see this stuff all the time.
Mobil is no slouch in the marketing department, but they really outdid themselves with the can we tested, “Mobil Special.” The name alone tells you all you need to know about why to buy this oil. All oil companies like to mess with their additive packages, and Mobil, like the others, changes their oil up fairly frequently. That was the case back in the day too, because the additive package in this “Special” oil is different from what we typically see in today’s oil. Apparently Mobil was an early rider on the ZDDP train, because this oil is chock-full of both phosphorus and zinc. Calcium and magnesium are present too, but at lower levels (Figure 8). We also tested a sample of Mobil Artic oil. The Artic
can is clearly older than the other Mobil can¾the logo is older, and there’s no zip code listed with the address, so it’s pre-1963. A straight 20W, it’s labeled as HD oil, meeting “Car Builders’ Most Severe Service Tests.” While it’s “Artic” and not “Arctic,” we can’t help thinking this oil is meant for cold-weather operation. The can even looks like it’s ready for winter: all white, but with a little color on it so you don’t lose it in the snow when you’re out in the tundra changing your oil. This one definitely has an unusual additive package, relying heavily on barium (maybe it’s got a purpose after all!). Interestingly, less zinc is present than phosphorus (Figure 9). Nowadays it’s the other way around.
see out of modern 15W/40s¾a stout additive package and a relatively thick viscosity (Figure 10). In other words, even though this oil is several decades old, it would be fine to use in your F150 tomorrow. 
and needed some oil for my Passat. It just starting to clatter a little on start up and when I checked the oil, it was down two quarts. The clatter sounded something like “Sell Me” in German.
One thing led to another and before I knew it I had bought 28 cans of old oil and spent almost $1,000. Pretty soon these oils started rolling in and I experienced a little buyers remorse. Did I really need to buy all this? What was I going to do with the cans? Once you open a can of oil, it’s almost impossible to seal up properly. Would there be anything to even see in these samples? And, does oil go bad? We get this last question all the time, and my answer has always been no, but I was dealing with oils from the 1930s,1940s, and 1950s here–really old stuff. Maybe all the additive in there (if any was even used) would settle out and there wouldn’t be anything for us to read. Fortunately, I had bought some oil that would help answer that.
However, that really didn’t get down to answering the question: Is this oil still good to use? For that, I was going to have to run another test.
.
Looking at the results, I’d say this oil is indeed deluxe. The viscosity is pretty strong for a 10W/40, and the additives would be suitable for diesel use. The oil does have a CC rating as well as an SE rating, and those put the date of this oil as being made sometime in the 1970s. The ATF has a standard additive package until you get down to barium. That’s not used much anymore. See figures 5 and 6 for the analyses.
Valvoline SAE 20W – API SB









