 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Maintenance and Repair / November 2006Engine oils test results.
http://www.xs11.com/stories/croil96.htm Consumers reports tested the inexpensive oils, synthetic oils, additives etc in NY taxi cabs. They conclude there is no significant differences and to buy on price. > http://www.xs11.com/stories/croil96.htm > > Consumers reports tested the inexpensive oils, synthetic oils, additives > etc in NY taxi cabs. They conclude there is no significant differences > and to buy on price. Ten years old = obsolete. >> http://www.xs11.com/stories/croil96.htm >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Ten years old = obsolete. Do you think today there is a big difference between brands and these differences did not exist 10 years ago? Based on what? > >> http://www.xs11.com/stories/croil96.htm > >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Do you think today there is a big difference between brands > and these differences did not exist 10 years ago? Based on what? The manufacturers specification for motor oil have changed drastically in the last decade. To say that one should just buy the cheapest API rated oil that meets the manufacturers viscosity requirements is asking for trouble. > The manufacturers specification for motor oil have changed > drastically in the last decade. > > To say that one should just buy the cheapest API rated oil that > meets the manufacturers viscosity requirements is asking for > trouble. Not is someone is driving a 10-year old car, right ? ;-) > To say that one should just buy the cheapest API rated oil that > meets the manufacturers viscosity requirements is asking for > trouble. Several years ago, John M. Feiereisen, a designer of oil additive packages, regularly mentioned that he bought the cheapest motor oil with the highest API quality rating available. I believe the highest API grade for gasoline engines back then was SH or SJ. >>To say that one should just buy the cheapest API rated oil that >>meets the manufacturers viscosity requirements is asking for [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > with the highest API quality rating available. I believe the highest > API grade for gasoline engines back then was SH or SJ. That may not be a good idea, anymore, if you drive an older car. Some of the newer API certifications actually have reduced levels of anti-wear additives for emissions reasons. Personally, I just run "fleet" oils (both Diesel and gasoline rated) in my older cars. It's usually less expensive than generic gasoline-only engine oil and has higher levels of both anti-wear additives and detergents. nate  Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel > http://www.xs11.com/stories/croil96.htm > > Consumers reports tested the inexpensive oils, synthetic oils, additives > etc in NY taxi cabs. They conclude there is no significant differences > and to buy on price. That's OK, I long ago concluded that there's no significant difference between what Consumer Reports prints and what a room of monkeys pounding typewriters prints. Buy THAT on price. >> http://www.xs11.com/stories/croil96.htm >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > between what Consumer Reports prints and what a room of monkeys pounding > typewriters prints. At the end of this thread the above statement will be the only one with any significance. The real world and CR seldom coexist. > > http://www.xs11.com/stories/croil96.htm > > > > Consumers reports tested the inexpensive oils, synthetic oils, additives > > etc in NY taxi cabs. They conclude there is no significant differences > > and to buy on price. > That's OK, I long ago concluded that there's no significant difference > between what Consumer Reports prints and what a room of monkeys pounding > typewriters prints. > > Buy THAT on price. But 10 years prior to that evaluation, CR did another, much less extensive one, of API SF grade oils, where they tested only viscosity, and they found that only 1 brand 10W-40 maintained sufficient viscosty (Castrol, which claimed it maintained viscosity better than others). I believe most 5W-30 oils failed while most 10W-30 oils passed. This roughly corresponded to GM's findings at the time, where they found most 10W-30s to be adequate but failed all 10W-40s. I doubt that monkeys typing randomly would agree with GM's findings. do_not_spam_me@my-deja.com wrote: This > roughly corresponded to GM's findings at the time, where they found > most 10W-30s to be adequate but failed all 10W-40s. I doubt that > monkeys typing randomly would agree with GM's findings. AT THAT TIME, 10W-40 oils failed all automaker tests because of slude and varnish accumulation. Again, at that time, any oil that had the huge variation between cold and hot viscosity would have a huge buildup of junk in the engine. STP used to make a 10W-50 oil and it failed worse than others. > > But 10 years prior to that evaluation, CR did another, much less > > extensive one, of API SF grade oils, where they tested only viscosity, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > most 10W-30s to be adequate but failed all 10W-40s. I doubt that > > monkeys typing randomly would agree with GM's findings > AT THAT TIME, 10W-40 oils failed all automaker tests because of slude > and varnish accumulation. Again, at that time, any oil that had the > huge variation between cold and hot viscosity would have a huge buildup > of junk in the engine. STP used to make a 10W-50 oil and it failed > worse than others. I remember the article referencing the GM statement mentioned higher deposit levels on the piston rings when 10W-40 was used. It also said 10W-40 or 20W-50 had 70% more viscosity improver than 10W-30, while 5W-30 had either 30% or 40% more. I also remember several brands of SE-rated 10W-50 oil in the 1970s, including Phillips Trop Arctic, some of them advertised as being good for 15,000 miles (not synthetic). CR often does not know what they're talking about. The have a bunch of housewives rating products they know nothing about. I do remember years ago CR rating the "King of Sludge formation"-Castrol as the best oil. Funny thing about this is that Castrol isn't really an oil, it's an label since they're likely to buy it from several different sources a month, and have not the ability to formulate it's base. MB > CR often does not know what they're talking about. The have a bunch of > housewives rating products they know nothing about. Consumer Reports employs many automotive engineers, and I assume they handled the technical aspects of their oil evaluation. But at least the vast majority of them have been male, so they would have to be househusbands. > I do remember years ago CR rating the "King of Sludge > formation"-Castrol as the best oil. For their late 1980s article they tested 10 different 10W-40 oils, and of them, only Castrol GTX Multigrade maintained SAE 40 viscosity at 100 Celcius after being sheared several times through a diesel fuel injector. The next closest were Pennzoil Multivis With Z-7 and Texaco Havoline, which dropped to just below 40 weight. The Castrol also showed the smallest drop in hot viscosity, not only for their 10W-40 but also their 10W-30 (but Pennzoil 10W-30 came close). CR admitted that their testing was very limited for this review, but they did also mention that 2 oils failed a cold test. No sludge testing was done, but for their 1996 test (oils were SH grade rather than SF) they found no significant differences in sludge buildup. > Funny thing about this is that Castrol isn't really an oil, it's an label > since they're likely to buy it from several different sources a month, > and have not the ability to formulate it's base. Do you have any test results, or even evidence of what quantity of additives Lubrizol has sold to Castrol per quart of oil? >http://www.xs11.com/stories/croil96.htm > >Consumers reports tested the inexpensive oils, synthetic oils, additives >etc in NY taxi cabs. They conclude there is no significant differences >and to buy on price. The problem with that "study" is that they used taxi's which run pretty much all the time and roll up miles very fast. As a result they don't have nearly as many temperature cycles (warm up,cool down) as a normally driven car would. So they don't get nearly the amount of soot, sludge, etc that is one of the things oils have to protect against. I believe the study is valid if you own/operate a taxi. I quit paying attention to CW reports after they rated the Corvette as "Poor" for body corrosion......Hello?....fiberglass.... Signaturejeffcoslacker http://www.automotiveforums.com > I quit paying attention to CW reports after they rated the Corvette as > "Poor" for body corrosion......Hello?....fiberglass.... These fiberglass panels are attached to metal parts. Maybe these metal parts do not hold well... ? I remember seeing such problems in old Germany car "trabant" which also had fiberglass panels - the problem was that everything else rusted out and the panels did not hold :-) > > I quit paying attention to CW reports after they rated the Corvette as > > "Poor" for body corrosion......Hello?....fiberglass.... [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > which also had fiberglass panels - the problem was that > everything else rusted out and the panels did not hold :-) Its original panels were cotton or cellulose fiber reinforced with phenol resin, and soon after the fall of the Berlin Wall, a news report showed a Trabant sitting horizontally in a dumpster. It was a nearly perfect fit. >> > I quit paying attention to CW reports after they rated the Corvette as >> > "Poor" for body corrosion......Hello?....fiberglass.... [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > showed a Trabant sitting horizontally in a dumpster. It was a nearly > perfect fit. That is a perfect fit for the Corvette, too... > Its original panels were cotton or cellulose fiber reinforced with > phenol resin, and soon after the fall of the Berlin Wall, a news report > showed a Trabant sitting horizontally in a dumpster. It was a nearly > perfect fit. The Traby was an unusual vehicle, for sure. The east Germans are now digging them out of junkyards and refurbishing them, as memorabilia I guess. IIRC, you could tear the whole car down with just a screwdriver and an adjustable wrench. > http://www.xs11.com/stories/croil96.htm > > Consumers reports tested the inexpensive oils, synthetic oils, additives > etc in NY taxi cabs. They conclude there is no significant differences > and to buy on price. I have some issues with Consumer Reports, especially their automotive reviews. Granted, I haven't picked one up in 5 years or so, but at the time that I was reading them I could sit and pick apart their comparisons and show how they seemed to judge based on opinion, uninformation, unproven and/or made up data, along with comparing vehicles that are not even in the same category. YMMV. Correct. Having been an audiophile some years back I remember their recommendation for a budget cascette deck (no one uses them anymore of course) and they based it soley on features not quality. The recommended the hapless Aiwa because it had a bunch of useless features and at $200 (at the time) anyone who knew anything would tell you that the Yamaha was a better $200 deck becuase like the higher models in the line it used the same sendust head and had few creature features but tremendous quality at that price point, which is what anyone would have been looking for. This was the first time (probably around 1984) that I realized that one should listen to people who know, not a general panel trying to rate a broad range of products as is CR. An example of this would be looking at their recommendation for a washer and/or dryer and actually talking to sales/repair people at Sears/Lowes/ Home Cheap-0 and you'll see that the latter group have much more REAL LIFE experience and will come up with a different recommendation. MB > > http://www.xs11.com/stories/croil96.htm > > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > YMMV. > > I have some issues with Consumer Reports, especially their automotive > > reviews. Granted, I haven't picked one up in 5 years or so, but at the > > time that I was reading them I could sit and pick apart their > > comparisons and show how they seemed to judge based on opinion, > > uninformation, unproven and/or made up data, along with comparing > > vehicles that are not even in the same category. > Correct. Having been an audiophile some years back I remember their > recommendation for a budget cascette deck (no one uses them [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > had few creature features but tremendous quality at that price > point, which is what anyone would have been looking for. Did they even test the Yamaha? One problem with Consumer Reports is that they often test models not available in your area or don't test models that are. > This was the first time (probably around 1984) that I realized that one > should listen to people who know, not a general panel trying to rate > a broad range of products as is CR. They generally use panels of experts and panels of regular people and check how their judgments match, not only one another's but also their formal test results. > An example of this would be looking at their recommendation for a washer > and/or dryer and actually talking to sales/repair people at Sears/Lowes/ > Home Cheap-0 and you'll see that the latter group have much more REAL > LIFE experience and will come up with a different recommendation. Are you sure in the case of washers & dryers? Because appliance repair websites, like www.applianceaid.com and www.fixitnow.com, pretty much agree with Consumer Reports' evaluations, and for washers they say that conventional top loader Whirlpool washers are the most reliable, Calpysos have problems, and Maytag has gone downhill. I wouldn't lump repair people and sales people together, especially not the sale people at Lowe's. Because when I shopped for a washer early this year, Lowe's couldn't answer a single technical question and would simply refer me to the factory appliance catalogs. > Did they even test the Yamaha? One problem with Consumer Reports is > that they often test models not available in your area or don't test > models that are. After reading the review that they wrote on my truck, I seriously have doubts that they actually got into a 99 Ranger and drove it. > > Did they even test the Yamaha? One problem with Consumer Reports is > > that they often test models not available in your area or don't test > > models that are. > > After reading the review that they wrote on my truck, I seriously have > doubts that they actually got into a 99 Ranger and drove it. That sentence works, but it's very awkward. Let me try that again: "After reading the review that they wrote on the truck I currently own, I have serious doubts that they actually got into a 1999 Ranger and drove it." Sorry. -phaeton > > Did they even test the Yamaha? One problem with Consumer Reports is > > that they often test models not available in your area or don't test > > models that are. > "After reading the review that they wrote on the truck I currently own, > I have serious doubts that they actually got into a 1999 Ranger and > drove it." They also didn't like the Nissan Frontier pickup for ride or handling, but I like mine. OTOH motor vehicle quality is a lot more subjective than that of stereo equipment. > > > Did they even test the Yamaha? One problem with Consumer Reports is > > > that they often test models not available in your area or don't test [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > but I like mine. OTOH motor vehicle quality is a lot more subjective > than that of stereo equipment. True, but that doesn't explain why they hated the Ranger but loved the Mazda B2000. They even admitted they were "similar", and I'm sure the editors/reviewers know they're the same truck with only cosmetic differences. Personally, I think they just hate Ford. Pure and simple. -phaeton OTOH motor vehicle quality is a lot more subjective >>than that of stereo equipment. You gotta be kidding?!? There is hardly any type of engineered machine, electronics, or other tangible hardware that can be more subjectively judged than stereo equipment! About the only thing more subjective is the quality of the music played through said stereo equipment. > OTOH motor vehicle quality is a lot more subjective > >>than that of stereo equipment. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > judged than stereo equipment! About the only thing more subjective is > the quality of the music played through said stereo equipment. Don't get me started. -phaeton > > OTOH motor vehicle quality is a lot more subjective > > than that of stereo equipment. > You gotta be kidding?!? There is hardly any type of engineered machine, > electronics, or other tangible hardware that can be more subjectively > judged than stereo equipment! Correctly or incorrectly? For example, way back before hi-fi was common, many people thought that hi-fi records sounded were worse than 78s, but it was proved that they were wrong by testing with live musicians playing behind an adjustable barrier. When the barrier was open, test subjects heard the music at full fidelity, but when it was closed, the instruments sounded muffled. Most test subjects preferred the latter -- and were wrong. Similarly, many people now want more bass than the original music had and often don't care whether it's badly distorted or not. Audio equipment performance can be rated almost entirely by distortion, noise, and frequency response, unless you believe quack magazines like Absolute Sound or SterOpus and sellers of tube amplifiers, but with cars there are a lot more factors that determine their quality. >>>OTOH motor vehicle quality is a lot more subjective >>>than that of stereo equipment. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Correctly or incorrectly? Thats just it. You can build a system that has ultra low harmonic distortion, ultra-low intermodulation distortion, and flat-as-a-table frequency response, but about half the people shopping for a stereo will prefer a system with tons of odd harmonic distortion because it sounds "warmer and richer" than the theoretically better system. And in fact, audiophiles will go out and pay premium prices for systems with "terrible" performance according to all the lab instrumentation that you can throw at them. > Thats just it. You can build a system that has ultra low harmonic > distortion, ultra-low intermodulation distortion, and flat-as-a-table [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > "terrible" performance according to all the lab instrumentation that you > can throw at them. Yup. And that's even before we get into the Mojo aspect. -phaeton > "After reading the review that they wrote on the truck I currently own, I > have serious doubts that they actually got into a 1999 Ranger and drove it." [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > differences. Personally, I think they just hate Ford. Pure and > simple. I checked the April 1999 Consumer Reports annual auto issue, and they actually did like the Ranger and considered it among their recommended vehicles (full reviews in Dec. 1998 issue): "Civilized trappings like air conditioning and powr accessories can't disguise the truckiness of the Ranger and similar Mazda B-Series. But among compact pickups, they're the best." They wrote almost the exact same things for the Mazda and said for both that the 4.0L V6 performed adequately and the seats were low and thinly padded. So what do you mean? ;) > So what do you mean? ;) Is there a full review in Dec 98? I can recall some stuff from the article I read, but maybe I'm just high on Xopenex lately. One of the things I remember from the writeup is "The vehicle exhibited muted kicks and minor pitches at cruise". CR uses that same phrase in each issue for at least one car they review. That is why I thought it was CR, but maybe I'm confusing another magazine altogether. I don't have it in front of me, this is a memory going on 8 years now, and my blathering idiocy seems to have recently shot apart any credibility I thought I had in this ng. Please forgive me. If the article you have there doesn't complain about seat belt heights (even though they are adjustable), power seats (which AFAIK don't come on Rangers) and/or vague stuff like "the engine sounds harsh, and not very powerful", "the steering is very heavy" even though it's weighted just fine, "the cab is cramped compared to the F150" which is an over-exaggerated "duh" and a whole pile of other stuff....... Then I'm obviously wrong. Thanks for looking though. -phaeton > Is there a full review in Dec 98? > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Then I'm obviously wrong. Thanks for looking though. Here are the first page of the Dec. 1998 article and the review of the Ranger. They didn't have a separate review for the Mazda B-Series version, contrary to what they indicated in their 1999 annual auto issue, maybe because they said Ford built it for Mazda. http://static.flickr.com/96/261838233_70f5f50e20_o.jpg http://static.flickr.com/35/261838235_2b5d2f75c1_o.jpg I didn't see anything negative about the seatbelt heights. The steering was described as "responsive and provides some road feel". They did call the engine "lethargic" but "headroom and legroom are ample". > Is there a full review in Dec 98? > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Then I'm obviously wrong. Thanks for looking though. Here are the first page of the Dec. 1998 article and the review of the Ranger. They didn't have a separate review for the Mazda B-Series version, contrary to what they indicated in their 1999 annual auto issue, maybe because they said Ford built it for Mazda. http://static.flickr.com/96/261838233_70f5f50e20_o.jpg http://static.flickr.com/35/261838235_2b5d2f75c1_o.jpg I didn't see anything negative about the seatbelt heights. The steering was described as "responsive and provides some road feel". They did call the engine "lethargic" but "headroom and legroom are ample". > Is there a full review in Dec 98? > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Then I'm obviously wrong. Thanks for looking though. Here are the first page of the Dec. 1998 article and the review of the Ranger. They didn't have a separate review for the Mazda B-Series version, contrary to what they indicated in their 1999 annual auto issue, maybe because they said Ford built it for Mazda. http://static.flickr.com/96/261838233_70f5f50e20_o.jpg http://static.flickr.com/35/261838235_2b5d2f75c1_o.jpg I didn't see anything negative about the seatbelt heights. The steering was described as "responsive and provides some road feel". They did call the engine "lethargic" but "headroom and legroom are ample". > > Is there a full review in Dec 98? > http://static.flickr.com/96/261838233_70f5f50e20_o.jpg > http://static.flickr.com/35/261838235_2b5d2f75c1_o.jpg [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > They did call the engine "lethargic" but "headroom and legroom are > ample". Thanks for scanning and posting those, they were an interesting read. However, that is NOT the article I read. So it appears I've misapplied my rant to Consumer Reports. Even though this article is very short and has their trademark vagueness about a lot of important things, it's actually one of the better ones of theirs I've read. But nonetheless, I was wrong! No idea what magazine I read then. :-( -phaeton > True, but that doesn't explain why they hated the Ranger but loved the > Mazda B2000. They even admitted they were "similar", and I'm sure the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > -phaeton Actually they hate all American cars. I really see a bias in CR. At one time one of the most reliable cars you could buy was one/several of the Saturns and they had rated them poorly for quality/reliability despite what other auto magazines had tested etc. I really don't think much of CR. MB > > True, but that doesn't explain why they hated the Ranger but loved the > > Mazda B2000. They even admitted they were "similar", > Actually they hate all American cars. They recommmend these American vehicles: Buick LaCross Buick Rendevous Cadillac CTS Cadillac STS Chevy Avalanche Chevy Impala Chevy Monte Carlo Chevy Suburban/GMC Yukon XL Ford 500/Mercury Montego Ford Crown Victoria Ford Focus Lincoln Town Car Pontiac G6 Some vehicles tested well but weren't recommended because their reliability was either below average or not established yet. These include: Buick Lacerne Cadillac Escalade Cadillac XLR Chevy Corvette Chevy Malibu Ford F-150 Ford Fusion Chevy Tahoe/GMC Yukon So what do you mean they hate American cars? > I really see a bias in CR. At one time one of the most reliable > cars you could buy was one/several of the Saturns and they > had rated them poorly for quality/reliability About ten years ago they rated the Saturns among the most reliable cars, foreign or domestic. They rated well for quality but not quite at the top. I don't think that Saturn's sales have dropped in half because of CR. > despite what other auto magazines had tested etc. Which of those auto magazines accepted no car industry advertising and had no staff members who worked as "consultants" to the manufacturers? > Which of those auto magazines accepted no car industry advertising and > had no staff members who worked as "consultants" to the manufacturers? That's always been their tagline, but despite what they want to think, it doesn't really seem to matter does it? > > About ten years ago they rated the Saturns among the most reliable > > cars, foreign or domestic. They rated well for quality but not quite > > at the top. I don't think that Saturn's sales have dropped in half > > because of CR. > despite what other auto magazines had tested etc. > > Which of those auto magazines accepted no car industry advertising and > > had no staff members who worked as "consultants" to the manufacturers > That's always been their tagline, but despite what they want to think, > it doesn't really seem to matter does it? And all politicians say that campaign contributions have never swayed them. It's amazing how so many commercial car magazines tout the new model from Detroit as the best car, whether it is or not. >> http://www.xs11.com/stories/croil96.htm >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >YMMV. The worst dishwasher and worst refrigerator I've ever owned were both top rated picks of CU. > The worst dishwasher and worst refrigerator I've ever owned were both > top rated picks of CU. Which ones? Early this year, we bought a Whirlpool-made washer because Consumer Reports' survey showed that it was among the best in reliability, but we had to go through three of them before getting one without defects (one had a chipped tub & sharp edge on the lid, the other's timer would make wierd noises between cycles if the lid was opened). OTOH appliance repair techs say that these washers are the most reliable. A long, long time ago, CU's top-rated tire -- and Firestone's first radial, was subject of a huge recall for tread separation. All four of Dad's went bad. >> The worst dishwasher and worst refrigerator I've ever owned were both >> top rated picks of CU. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >radial, was subject of a huge recall for tread separation. All four of >Dad's went bad. Maytag and GE. The GE was a dishwasher and in less then two years the rubber hoses started shedding little tiny black pieces of rubber which stuck to all the dishes. I was able to browbeat GE into covering half the cost of having the hoses replaced. Less then two years after replacing them it was doing the same thing again. Replaced it with a Kenmore (which is really a whirlpool). The Kenmore has been absolutely trouble free and cleans great. The Maytag was a 26' side by side which has had the icemaker replaced four times in 10 years, most of the electric and mechanical parts in the dispenser mechanism one or more times. Luckily I bought an extended warranty on it. My prior refrig was a, drum roll, Whirlpool (which CU didn't like back then) and which worked perfectly for about 20 years including the icemaker. It's now in a rental and still chugging away. Acutally Maytag makes very good washers and dryers but not fridges. They bought Amana a few years back and never really got the hang of refrigerators. Now Maytag has been purchased by Whirlpool so who knows. MB > >> The worst dishwasher and worst refrigerator I've ever owned were both > >> top rated picks of CU. [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > 20 years including the icemaker. It's now in a rental and still > chugging away. >Acutally Maytag makes very good washers and dryers but not fridges. >They bought Amana a few years back and never really got the hang of >refrigerators. Now Maytag has been purchased by Whirlpool so who >knows. Never had any of their washers or dryers but one house I owned came with a Maytag dishwasher. It was the worst dishwasher I have ever used. >MB >> [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] >> 20 years including the icemaker. It's now in a rental and still >> chugging away. > Acutally Maytag makes very good washers and dryers but not fridges. > They bought Amana a few years back and never really got the hang of > refrigerators. Now Maytag has been purchased by Whirlpool so who > knows. I have owned a few Amana products, freezers and refrigerators, and was not satisfied with them at all. Premature compressor failures dogged them all. Maytag used to be considered the best. They no longer have that reputation either. Don't ignore the date it was published, 1996. RH (www.lubedealer.com/hiebert) > http://www.xs11.com/stories/croil96.htm > > Consumers reports tested the inexpensive oils, synthetic oils, additives > etc in NY taxi cabs. They conclude there is no significant differences > and to buy on price. > > http://www.xs11.com/stories/croil96.htm > > > > Consumers reports tested the inexpensive oils, synthetic oils, additives > > etc in NY taxi cabs. They conclude there is no significant differences > > and to buy on price > Don't ignore the date it was published, 1996. > RH > (www.lubedealer.com/hiebert) And don't ignore that the latter URL is for an Amsoil dealer. . > http://www.xs11.com/stories/croil96.htm > > Consumers reports tested the inexpensive oils, synthetic oils, additives > etc in NY taxi cabs. They conclude there is no significant differences > and to buy on price. These findings would not surprise me a heck of a lot, knowing CR, but also I feel that most modern oils are produced to be of similar performance specifications and pricing. They wouldnt be commercial if they were demonstrably bad, but some are hyped to be space age best in class, perhaps without much hard data. I have my prejudices just like everybody else where oil is concerned. And, I am one who changes oil every 3000 miles, and dont worry about it. Synthetics Oil GM Engineer's Opinion (long) http://www.vv.corvair.org/pipermail/virtualvairs/2005-July/028037.html |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.