Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
HomeAnnouncements
Discussion Groups
By Brand
BMWChevroletDodgeFordGMHondaLexusMercedes-BenzNissanPeugeotToyotaVolkswagenOther Brands
By Topic
4x4 CarsRVsDrivingMaintenance & RepairCar AudioCollectible Cars
Country Specific
Australian ForumsUK Forums
ArticlesAuto InsuranceBuyingCars & TechnologyMaintenanceMiscellaneousSafety
DMV Resources
Related Topics
MotorcyclesBoatsMore Topics ...

Car Forum / Ford / Ford Cars / June 2006

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Oil: it's all the same

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
dbltap - 04 Jun 2006 15:39 GMT
Yes this a ten year old article, however is a real world test of four and a
half million miles.
Bottom line: there is no difference in results. One can interpolate that ANY
oil all that meets API standards will be more than satisfactory.

http://www.xs11.com/stories/croil96.htm
Neil Nelson - 04 Jun 2006 16:30 GMT
In article
<_gCgg.1206$lf4.397@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,

> Yes this a ten year old article, however is a real world test of four and a
> half million miles.
> Bottom line: there is no difference in results. One can interpolate that ANY
> oil all that meets API standards will be more than satisfactory.
>
> http://www.xs11.com/stories/croil96.htm 

API is but one standard, and not all manufacturers use it.

Lots has changed in 10 years, use oil that meets the vehicle's
manufacturers specification.

So, no, all oil is not the same.
Spike - 04 Jun 2006 19:36 GMT
>Yes this a ten year old article, however is a real world test of four and a
>half million miles.
>Bottom line: there is no difference in results. One can interpolate that ANY
>oil all that meets API standards will be more than satisfactory.
>
>http://www.xs11.com/stories/croil96.htm

It's not all the same.... try cooking with it. The food just doesn't
taste as good as when using EVOO..... :0)
--

Spike
1965 Ford Mustang Fastback 2+2, Vintage Burgundy
w/Black Std Interior, A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok;
Vintage 40 16" rims w/225/50ZR16 KDWS BF Goodrich
gForce Radial T/As, Cobra drop; surround sound
audio-video...
See my ride at....
Feb 2004- http://207.36.208.198/albums/86810/003_May_21_3004.jpg
Feb 2004- http://207.36.208.198/albums/86810/005_May_21_2004.jpg
Jul 2005- http://207.36.208.198/albums/86810/davescar_7_11_05_002.jpg
Jul 2005- http://207.36.208.198/albums/86810/Engine_rebuild_006.jpg
dbltap - 04 Jun 2006 22:09 GMT
>>Yes this a ten year old article, however is a real world test of four and
>>a
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> It's not all the same.... try cooking with it. The food just doesn't
> taste as good as when using EVOO..... :0)

Thanks for the heads up, now I know why my french fries
don't taste the same the ones at the dinner :))
Kruse - 04 Jun 2006 21:12 GMT
> Bottom line: there is no difference in results. One can interpolate that ANY
> oil all that meets API standards will be more than satisfactory.

While I have no problem using different brands of oil from one oil
change to another, please remember that most people believe that a good
percentage of your engine wear occurs at startup. Most taxi cabs run
all day long or at least never let the engine cool down.

I also believe that conventional oils have made huge improvements in
the last 10 years and I think your test would have more validity if it
wasn't so old.
Jeff - 06 Jun 2006 01:20 GMT
>> Bottom line: there is no difference in results. One can interpolate that
>> ANY
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> the last 10 years and I think your test would have more validity if it
> wasn't so old.

The engines only ran 60,000 mi, which is not that far. I wonder if the
differences in mass of the bearings and the wear and tear were obscured by
differences in the tolerances when the engines were built.

You would really need to test the engines at like 200,000 mi.

Jeff
dbltap - 06 Jun 2006 04:04 GMT
>>> Bottom line: there is no difference in results. One can interpolate that
>>> ANY
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>
> You would really need to test the engines at like 200,000 mi.

For consistency, we used only 1992-93 Chevrolet Caprice cabs. Each received
a precisely rebuilt 4.3-liter V6 at the beginning of its 60,000-mile test.
We started with six rebuilt engines; after each engine was installed in a
cab, the six engines that were removed were rebuilt and installed in six
other cabs-and so on. Using that rotation, we monitored 75 cabs over 4-1/2
million miles of driving in New York City and its environs. Each oil was
tested in three engines.
A local shop completely machined each engine block and crankshaft, rebuilt
the cylinder heads, and installed new bearings, pistons, rings, seals,
gaskets, and oil pump. Though the engines originally had roller lifters and
camshafts, a design that reduces friction, we installed conventional sliding
lifters and camshafts to accelerate wear.

Before the engines were assembled, we measured or weighed the parts most
likely to show wear if the oil wasn't doing its job - the camshafts, valve
lifters, and connecting-rod bearings. Each cab went through a break-in
procedure before hitting the road. During testing, two engine timers
measured the time the engine was running and the time it was in gear.

Over the next 22 months, our engineers paid more than 100 calls - usually
without notice - on the fleet garage. They dropped off test oil and picked
up used-oil samples for ongoing analysis. They also made sure that oil was
being added to the engines when necessary and changed as scheduled.

After each 60,000-mile test, we remeasured the key engine parts. We also
examined combustion-chamber deposits, the color of the valves, scoring of
cylinder walls, and valve-deck deposits for any sign of engine problems.

After each engine ran about 60,000 miles (and through 10 months of seasonal
changes), we disassembled it and measured the wear on the camshaft, valve
lifters, and connecting-rod bearings. We used a tool precise to within
0.00001 inch to measure wear on the key surfaces of the camshaft, and a tool
precise to within 0.0001 inch on the valve lifters. The combined wear for
both parts averaged only 0.0026 inch, about the thickness of this magazine
page. Generally, we noted as much variation between engines using the same
oil as between those using different oils. Even the engines with the most
wear didn't reach a level where we could detect operational problems.

We measured wear on connecting rod bearings by weighing them to the nearest
0.0001 gram. Wear on the key surface of each bearing averaged 0.240 gram -
about the weight of seven staples. Again, all the tested oils provided
adequate protection.
Backyard Mechanic - 04 Jun 2006 21:18 GMT
> Yes this a ten year old article, however is a real world test of four
> and a half million miles.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> http://www.xs11.com/stories/croil96.htm 

BS!

It is NOT all the same unless one is anal, smart-if you prefer, enough to
strictly follow all recommended maintenance procedures.

you can beleive what you want... go  out and buy several cases of Pennzoil,
and drive your car to 200,000. And let us know.

Signature

Yeh, I'm a Krusty old Geezer, putting up with my 'smartass' is the price
you pay..DEAL with it!

dbltap - 04 Jun 2006 22:11 GMT
>> Yes this a ten year old article, however is a real world test of four
>> and a half million miles.
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> Pennzoil,
> and drive your car to 200,000. And let us know.

Thanks for informing me that a valid scientific test is BS

Do you have evidence to the contrary ?
clare at snyder.on.ca - 04 Jun 2006 22:58 GMT
>>> Yes this a ten year old article, however is a real world test of four
>>> and a half million miles.
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>
>Do you have evidence to the contrary ?

Nobody said the test is BS.
It is, however, old and outdated, and somewhat flawed in it's original
form. MUCH has changed in lubrication science in the intervening 10
years, and as pointed out, Taxi service is hardly representative of
most daily driving. You are free to believe whatever you care to
believe, and the last poster's suggestion that you buy a couple cases
of Pennzoil and attempt to get 200,000 miles (or even Km) out of your
engine on it is good advice if you truly believe the published test.

As for evidence, how's 37 years' experience? From a professional auto
mechanic?

Signature

Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

dbltap - 05 Jun 2006 00:07 GMT
>>>> Yes this a ten year old article, however is a real world test of four
>>>> and a half million miles.
[quoted text clipped - 29 lines]
> As for evidence, how's 37 years' experience? From a professional auto
> mechanic?

What I do believe is that the test results although 10 years old show that
at that time there was no significant difference in the performance of the
products tested.

Is a test using NYC taxicabs the same as testing under the conditions that
you or I drive under, NO it is not.
However until someone can point to a valid scientific test under different
conditions that more accurately reflect everyday driving conditions I will
believe the results of the published test as being valid and accurate.

Anecdotal evidence of a single automotive technician even with 50 years
experience is just that, nonscientific and one mans stories.

In the 10 years that have passed since the test much has changed in
lubrication science. That being stipulated I am sure that none of the motor
oil producers has made their product lower in quality, but on the contrary
has improved their product.
clare at snyder.on.ca - 05 Jun 2006 01:59 GMT
>>>>> Yes this a ten year old article, however is a real world test of four
>>>>> and a half million miles.
[quoted text clipped - 47 lines]
>oil producers has made their product lower in quality, but on the contrary
>has improved their product.

Just a few personal experiences - from years past so may not be valid
today.

I used Quaker State's top line oil (supreme??) in my '63 valiant six
antil I had reason to pull the engine down for repairs. The engine was
clean as a whip except - it was totally coated with a waxy substance
that was so thick in places I was afraid it could restrict
lubrication. May not have been a problem, but I've not seen that with
any other oil.

1970 Toyota 1200, never had a problem until little brother took it to
a lubeshop and got cheap 10w30 oil change. Less than a week later the
oil light came on. No problem, says I, the "oil pisser switch" has
failed - normal occurrence - so I replaced the switch. Oil light still
on. Changed the oil to Castrol, which I had been using previously, and
no more problems. The problem oil was ESSO's cheapest, in a green can
at the time.

1986 Dodge Caravan, just off warrantee. I had to deliver some parts.
The oil had just been changed at a Pennzoil quick-lube. Less than 50
miles from home, the oil light came on at cruise. Went off at idle.
Kept getting worse, and at about 65 or 70 miles I called back to the
office to see what had been done service-wise. When I found out, I
went to the closest oil change outlet - a Castrol place, and had the
oil changed, with Castrol GTX. Never had another problem. The "tech"
that dropped the oil said it was thin as water.

That's TWO very premature loss of viscosity occurrences that I've been
involved with on vehicles I had direct personal experience with - and
there were dozens more on customer's vehicles.

The was buildup on the Valiant may not have been a problem, but I was
unwilling to find out.

There is a LOT of difference in quality between oils. Sadly, you
cannot predict by manufacturer's name, or price, but there ARE some
brands that I have learned IO can depend on, and some I choose not to
trust. I also NEVER use the lowest price product from any company.

Signature

Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

dbltap - 05 Jun 2006 02:51 GMT
>>>>>> Yes this a ten year old article, however is a real world test of four
>>>>>> and a half million miles.
[quoted text clipped - 87 lines]
> brands that I have learned IO can depend on, and some I choose not to
> trust. I also NEVER use the lowest price product from any company.

Your experiences are duly noted and I accept them to be truthful.

I have had a number of automobiles in my 51 years of owning autos, some with
mileage as high as 180,000 miles on them. I have never experienced an engine
failure or major problem that was lubrication related. Other problems galore
but nothing attributable lubrication.

This of course does not include the crappie oil lines on my 2001 GMC Jimmy,
but I can't blame the oil for that, just crappie GM design, engineering and
quality control.
clare at snyder.on.ca - 05 Jun 2006 18:57 GMT
>>>>>>> Yes this a ten year old article, however is a real world test of four
>>>>>>> and a half million miles.
[quoted text clipped - 98 lines]
>but I can't blame the oil for that, just crappie GM design, engineering and
>quality control.

180,000miles? Those are just pups!! When you get over 250,000 miles,
you are getting into "high mileage". Heck, I got over 214,000 miles on
a 61 Austin/Morris Mini 850 - with a rebuild (new rings, bearings and
gaskets - no rebore or crank grinding -) at about 200,000 miles.
The most common lubrication related failures have historically been
valve lifters, cam lobe wear, timing chains and tensioners, cyl wear,
and crankshaft bearings, in roughly that order.
A lot of lubrication related failures are also attributable to engine
overheating (sometimes seen as a result, other times seen as a cause).
This is particularly true of cyl wear, and to a lesser extent, bearing
failures.
CURRENT lubrication failure modes lean more to "coking" issues where
oil flow is restricted by deposit buildup, and glycol contamination
where bearings are heading south very quickly after leaky intake
manifold gaskets, etc. let antifreeze, even in relatively minute
quantities, into the crankcase. These are also often seen/regarded as
engine temperature related failures.

Signature

Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

ShoeSalesman - 05 Jun 2006 06:07 GMT
>>>>> Yes this a ten year old article, however is a real world test of four
>>>>> and a half million miles.
[quoted text clipped - 46 lines]
> oil producers has made their product lower in quality, but on the contrary
> has improved their product.

generally I agree. The study is a lot better than NO study or some techs
observations. I think its safe to say that any modern motor oil is
perfectly capable of lubricating MOST engines beyond 100k miles or even
alot more. If changed when it needs it of coarse. And to say that study
isn't valid because its old is IMO stupid because oil formulations get
better over time, not worse, ya know? :) It makes me think of all the
people that don't keep a car over about 2 years anyway, why even change
it all all?  :)
Timothy J. Lee - 08 Jun 2006 22:39 GMT
>Bottom line: there is no difference in results. One can interpolate that ANY
>oil all that meets API standards will be more than satisfactory.
>
>http://www.xs11.com/stories/croil96.htm

Under the cars and conditions of the test...  some cars today now specify
oil ratings other than those that the API puts out.  This might be more
important if the car also specifies a longer oil change interval.

Signature

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy J. Lee
Unsolicited bulk or commercial email is not welcome.
No warranty of any kind is provided with 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.