 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Chevrolet / Chevrolet Trucks / January 2010Mobile 1 synthetic
I have been told that if I switch over to Mobile 1 syn-oil I can get some improvement on my MPG's. Is this true or not? I drive a '98 Chevy C-1500 with a Vortec 350. It has 143,000 miles on it. >I have been told that if I switch over to Mobile 1 syn-oil I can get some >improvement on my MPG's. Is this true or not? [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >expense of wear protection. Manufacturers cooperated by tightening up >bearing clearances to allow 5 weight oil to be used. My 82 Chevy truck averaged 12 on a recent 190 mile camping trip to an Indy car race. After an oil change of 15/40 diesel truck oil . Tires at 75 psi. Up from about 6mpg due to poor maintenance. and retarded timing. Many many years ago I was a Mobil 1 die hard. i ran a couple cars through their life on Mobil one. Im of the opinion now any oil produced now that complies with the SAE rating is worse then the oil that was available over 15 years ago. In other words. A SF oil is better then a SL oil. Due to the EPAs interference. This includes mobil one. The diesel truck oil doesnt comply and is better. Because trucks have flat tappets or solid lifters and cant use the new oils or the tappets wipe out. My opinion, Fire Away. >>I have been told that if I switch over to Mobile 1 syn-oil I can get some >>improvement on my MPG's. Is this true or not? >> I drive a '98 Chevy C-1500 with a Vortec 350. It has 143,000 miles on it. Diesel spewed smoke and wrote: Ive found I get a milage improvement whenever I change my oil. Any brand. >>For the long term. Ive found that thinner oil gets better milage. But at >>the expense of engine wear. These 5 weight / whatever oils are designed [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > My opinion, Fire Away. >I have been told that if I switch over to Mobile 1 syn-oil I can get some >improvement on my MPG's. Is this true or not? > I drive a '98 Chevy C-1500 with a Vortec 350. It has 143,000 miles on it. Probably is true, but the question is how much improvement will you actually see. Reducing friction will always increase efficiency. I think most all claims of lubricants reducing mpg actually do improve it, but so little you often can't measure it with daily driving, unless you specifically drive a route to work daily and keep good records. But if the gain is 1/100 of a mpg, their claim is still true. But with oil changes coming every 3 to 4k miles, do you actually save the cost. My GUESS is no. The link below shows an independent test done on Class 8 trucks yielding an average of 8.2 percent improvement in fuel mileage when AMSOIL lubricants were used in the engine, transmission and third members of the test vehicles. AMSOIL has engine oils developed to perform for up to 35,000 miles on one engine oil change when used with the AMSOIL oil filter. http://www.amsoil.com/redirect.cgi?zo=1690163&page=testimonials/8pt2_morempg Information on AMSOIL Synthetic Nano-Fiber Technology Oil Filters: https://www.amsoil.com/redirect.cgi?zo=1690163&page=storefront/eao  SignatureSteve Spence AMSOIL - The "Once A Year" Oil Change URL: http://synthetic-oil-tech.com/1690163 Email: amsoil1@charter.net | >I have been told that if I switch over to Mobile 1 syn-oil I can get some | >improvement on my MPG's. Is this true or not? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] | mpg, their claim is still true. But with oil changes coming every 3 to 4k | miles, do you actually save the cost. My GUESS is no. I hear ya, and AMSOL is not the only one. Slick 50, Mobile One, and rest of the endless list have similar reports. But what I can't understand, is if all this stuff is all that great, why doesn't everyone already use it, and why don't the automakers insist on it to help meet the standards for mileage and efficiency? I have tried AMSOL, Slick 50, Lucus, several synthetics, in many different type of vehicles, and never witnessed a significant difference. > The link below shows an independent test done on Class 8 trucks > yielding an average of 8.2 percent improvement in fuel mileage when [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > https://www.amsoil.com/redirect.cgi?zo=1690163&page=storefront/eao The difference is in your sig line. You don't sell it :-) If it really could yield "8.2%" improvement, you can bet it would ship in vehicles and be recommended. I don't doubt it is no worse for a vehicle than conventional oil. But I remain unconvinced it is significantly better, and I am reall out on the idea of many of the fantastic claims about some of the lesser known oils. I've used Mobile 1 - simply dupbled the intervals compared to Pennzoil, it was 2x the cost, so a wash on the expense - just did the chagnes 1/2 as often. After 200k on a 4 cyl engine, it was about what you'd expect. Nothing measured new but it was far from worn out. About what I have seen with regular oil changed short (3,000) religiously, oil and filter every time. 'Course I change other fluids short also - and do not believe in "5 year/100k" antifreeze and such either. >I hear ya, and AMSOL is not the only one. Slick 50, Mobile One, and rest of >the endless list have similar reports. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >> >> https://www.amsoil.com/redirect.cgi?zo=1690163&page=storefront/eao > The difference is in your sig line. You don't sell it :-) > > If it really could yield "8.2%" improvement, you can bet it would ship > in vehicles and be recommended. Those big rig manufacturers give a longer warrantee if you use synthetics. >> The difference is in your sig line. You don't sell it :-) >> >> If it really could yield "8.2%" improvement, you can bet it would ship >> in vehicles and be recommended. > >Those big rig manufacturers give a longer warrantee if you use synthetics. OK, I can believe that, but those are intened for far more miles (10 times?) than the average Joe or Jane runs a conventional gas engine. >>> The difference is in your sig line. You don't sell it :-) >>> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > OK, I can believe that, but those are intened for far more miles (10 > times?) than the average Joe or Jane runs a conventional gas engine. And the statement is not true anyway. >>>> The difference is in your sig line. You don't sell it :-) >>>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > And the statement is not true anyway. Tell that to the truckers I know. >>> The difference is in your sig line. You don't sell it :-) >>> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > OK, I can believe that, but those are intened for far more miles (10 > times?) than the average Joe or Jane runs a conventional gas engine. Your point? > I hear ya, and AMSOL is not the only one. Slick 50, Mobile One, and rest of > the endless list have similar reports. > > But what I can't understand, is if all this stuff is all that great, why > doesn't everyone already use it, and why don't the automakers insist on it > to help meet the standards for mileage and efficiency? Why? $$$$$$$ It costs more money to use synthetic than it does to use a 55 gallon drum of cheap oil. Notice, however, the Corvette uses Mobil 1. > I have tried AMSOL, Slick 50, Lucus, several synthetics, in many different > type of vehicles, and never witnessed a significant difference. I have always noticed an improvement in mileage with synthetics and KN air filters. They DO work. Cost recovery is debatable. I now have over 200,000 miles on my Toyota Corolla and, yes, it is burning some oil, but still running strong. Mike D. >> I hear ya, and AMSOL is not the only one. Slick 50, Mobile One, and rest >> of >> the endless list have similar reports. >> >> But what I can't understand, is if all this stuff is all that great, why >> doesn't everyone already use it, It cost too much. For negligable gains. and why don't the automakers insist on it >> to help meet the standards for mileage and efficiency? The EPA defines that requirement now. And dino oil does the trick , according to them. My Toyota , and VW require synthetic oil for the warranty. Has to do with heat, sludge and turbos on too tightly wound engines. > Why? $$$$$$$ It costs more money to use synthetic than it does to use a 55 > gallon drum of cheap oil. Notice, however, the Corvette uses Mobil 1. > >> I have tried AMSOL, Slick 50, Lucus, several synthetics, in many >> different >> type of vehicles, and never witnessed a significant difference. Ive noticed a differencew on any oil change I do. I think its the milage dropped off on the old oil. The new oil brought it back up to normal . > I have always noticed an improvement in mileage with synthetics and KN air > filters. They DO work. Cost recovery is debatable. There is no cost recovery. Extended oil changes or air filters is another business scam to help you decide to buy it. Im pretty sure you negate any gains in engine life by extending out oil synthetic changes. To make it cost effective. You cant tell when your oil filter is plugged and is bypassing . Its stupid to extend oil changes to save 3 bucks a quart. I now have over 200,000 > miles on my Toyota Corolla and, yes, it is burning some oil, but still > running strong. > > Mike D. >>> I hear ya, and AMSOL is not the only one. Slick 50, Mobile One, and rest >>> of [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > It cost too much. For negligable gains. .5 - 1 mile increase in every vehicle I have owned in the last 20 years. > and why don't the automakers insist on it >>> to help meet the standards for mileage and efficiency? [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Ive noticed a differencew on any oil change I do. I think its the milage > dropped off on the old oil. The new oil brought it back up to normal . I haven't noticed any drop from one oil change to the next. >> I have always noticed an improvement in mileage with synthetics and KN air >> filters. They DO work. Cost recovery is debatable. > > There is no cost recovery. Extended oil changes or air filters is another > business scam to help you decide to buy it. On my Suburban, assuming a change from 15 to 15.5 mpg and $2.32/gallon I have a savings of $14.97 at 3,000 miles. Extended oil changes do not affect filter changes. Running for 7,000 miles means no additional oil expense other than makeup oil (what is in the filter when you take it off). That is saving over $30 in fuel. My burb takes 5 quarts at just under $5/qt, so about $25 at an oil change. There are a few $$$ in savings and lots in less wear and tear on reduced friction. > Im pretty sure you negate any gains in engine life by extending out oil > synthetic changes. To make it cost effective. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> >> Mike D. Being a small-time AmsOil dealer for the past 20-years can attest that AmsOil is by far better than any other product being offered on the market. It takes time to change your mind-set to switch over but once you do, you will discover the benefits. It also behooves you to do your own research on all the products being offered. Independent tests show that AmsOil out performs ANY of the products being offered today. The AmsOil web site has a tremendous amount of information, you just have to take the time to check it out. Mike > The link below shows an independent test done on Class 8 trucks > yielding an average of 8.2 percent improvement in fuel mileage when [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > to 4k > | miles, do you actually save the cost. My GUESS is no. Are they API certified oils?? >Being a small-time AmsOil dealer for the past 20-years can attest that >AmsOil is by far better than any other product being offered on the market. [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] >> to 4k >> | miles, do you actually save the cost. My GUESS is no. > Are they API certified oils?? Even if they put the API logo on them now, I'd still not let any Scamsoil product near any of my vehicles given their history and their spamming. >> Are they API certified oils?? > > Even if they put the API logo on them now, I'd still not let any > Scamsoil product near any of my vehicles given their history and their > spamming. The best MPG increase I've seen with my truck was from switching to skinny overinflated tires (LT215/85-R16D's.) They also perform *much* better on slushy roads than the stock P255 tires. The next thing I'm gonna try is adding a half-tonneau cover (back half) to reduce wind resistance. http://www.freepatentsonline.com/4573730.html Oil has gotten so good, I don't think there's much efficiency to be gained there, unless you are still running SA-rated straight 30-weight. (queue the Crazy Scotsman with the dipstick) ;-) Bob > The next thing I'm > gonna try is adding a half-tonneau cover (back half) to reduce wind > resistance. http://www.freepatentsonline.com/4573730.html > > Bob it's already been proven that the wind resistance in the bed is of no consequence. Running with the tailgate down only destroys the back of the bed. The covers are functional only for security or cosmetics. Not for mpg increase. s >> The next thing I'm >> gonna try is adding a half-tonneau cover (back half) to reduce wind [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > s Did you look at the link I posted? (I know tailgate-down doesn't help, even though you'd expect it to) Bob >>> The next thing I'm >>> gonna try is adding a half-tonneau cover (back half) to reduce wind [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Bob Ya, i saw the link. It's wrong. > >> The next thing I'm > >> gonna try is adding a half-tonneau cover (back half) to reduce wind [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Bob If you want improved mileage, draft behind a semi. My new F350 has the aerodynamics of a brick, I get a full 30% increase in MPG drafting behind a semi vs. the exact same road and speed with no vehicle in front of me. How far back does the air cushion go? I found out a while back that if you tailgate a semi about two feet away, there is a vacuum effect. And the semi driver doesn't much like you after that. I never did that one again. SignatureChristopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus www.lds.org . If you want improved mileage, draft behind a semi. My new F350 has the aerodynamics of a brick, I get a full 30% increase in MPG drafting behind a semi vs. the exact same road and speed with no vehicle in front of me. > How far back does the air cushion go? I found out a while > back that if you tailgate a semi about two feet away, there [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > vehicle in front > of me. Mythbusters did a show on this a while back. Pretty impressive savings! 100 ft - 11% 50 ft - 20% 20 ft - 27% 10 ft - 39% 2 ft - 28% About 2/3rd down the page. Search the page for "Drafting For Money" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MythBusters_(2007_season) That's astounding. Thank you. SignatureChristopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus www.lds.org . Mythbusters did a show on this a while back. Pretty impressive savings! 100 ft - 11% 50 ft - 20% 20 ft - 27% 10 ft - 39% 2 ft - 28% About 2/3rd down the page. Search the page for "Drafting For Money" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MythBusters_(2007_season) > > How far back does the air cushion go? I found out a while > > back that if you tailgate a semi about two feet away, there [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > About 2/3rd down the page. Search the page for "Drafting For Money" > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MythBusters_(2007_season) Those numbers aren't direct MPG savings however, they are aerodynamic drag reduction. >> > How far back does the air cushion go? I found out a while >> > back that if you tailgate a semi about two feet away, there [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > Those numbers aren't direct MPG savings however, they are aerodynamic > drag reduction. Did you even look at the link? Those are certainly directly related to MPG/Fuel consumption. There is also a drag portion on the link as well. 7 car lengths - 21% 10 ft - 60% 6 ft - 80% 2 ft - 93% > How far back does the air cushion go? I found out a while > back that if you tailgate a semi about two feet away, there > is a vacuum effect. And the semi driver doesn't much like > you after that. I never did that one again. the trick to doing that is to get on the cb and get permission. I used to do it all the time with permission. You do have to be very very close to get the benefit. And watch the water temp. you won't be getting proper airflow through the radiator. s > > How far back does the air cushion go? I found out a while > > back that if you tailgate a semi about two feet away, there [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > s Not at all, there is very substantial benefit at a very safe 50' following distance. Exactly how much of course varies with the aerodynamics of your vehicle. > How far back does the air cushion go? I found out a while > back that if you tailgate a semi about two feet away, there > is a vacuum effect. And the semi driver doesn't much like > you after that. I never did that one again. 50' is sufficient and safe. >> How far back does the air cushion go? I found out a while >> back that if you tailgate a semi about two feet away, there >> is a vacuum effect. And the semi driver doesn't much like >> you after that. I never did that one again. > > 50' is sufficient and safe. 50' is not drafting and is of NO benefit. That's normal following distance. > >> How far back does the air cushion go? I found out a while > >> back that if you tailgate a semi about two feet away, there [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > 50' is not drafting and is of NO benefit. That's normal following distance. 50' behind a car isn't, but 50' behind a semi certainly is. I drive the same 60 mile each way straight, level 70 MPH highway route regularly and it consistently, repeatedly gives me a 30% MPG improvement on my truck if I draft behind a semi, even 50' back. > > >> How far back does the air cushion go? I found out a while > > >> back that if you tailgate a semi about two feet away, there [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > it consistently, repeatedly gives me a 30% MPG improvement on my truck > if I draft behind a semi, even 50' back. 50 feet behind a semi (or any vehicle) at 70 MPH is egregious TAIL-GATING and while you may save a few precious dollars you will certainly (in this state anyway) earn yourself a very expensive ticket from the highway patrol and you also run the risk of hitting a road hazzard that the truck was able to pass over but will nail your pick- up.(Don't ask how I know about this). My advice; follow at a safe distance and pay the few bucks you would have "saved". > Being a small-time AmsOil dealer for the past 20-years can attest that > AmsOil is by far better than any other product being offered on the market. Okay, attest. Name the OEM approvals that Amsoil meets. GM 6094M? GM 4718M? Ford M2C929-A? Ford M2C930-A? Chrysler MS6395M? Chrysler MS6395Q? Honda HTO-06? VW 503.01? VW504? VW 505? VW 505.01? VW 506? VW 506.01? VW 507? BMW LL-98? BMW LL-01? BMW LL-04? MB 229.1? MB 229.3? MB 229.31? MB 229.5? MB 229.51? How about any ACEA approvals? A1/B1? A3/B3? A3/B4? A5/B5? Too tough? Want easier? Any ILSAC approvals? How about easiest? API? Is Amsoil approved in any meaningful way? (other than by Amsoil and their sales droids who apparently know little if anything about oil approvals) > It takes time to change your mind-set to switch over but once you do, you > will discover the benefits. Not following the OEM warranty requirements is a benefit? > It also behooves you to do your own research on > all the products being offered. It behooves you to follow your own advice. > Independent tests show that AmsOil out > performs ANY of the products being offered today. Ah yes, the meaningless 'four ball wear test." > The AmsOil web site has a > tremendous amount of information, you just have to take the time to check it > out. A tremendous amount of DISinformation. > In article <j5qdnVzX0t3VhZ3WnZ2dnUVZ_o2dnZ2d@earthlink.com>, (snippage of what this AMSoil mouthbreather needs to hear). >> out. > > A tremendous amount of DISinformation. Wasting your time, bud. These people are like radical islamists. Brain has turned to oatmeal once they buy into it. |
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
|
©2010 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.