"high-mileage oil -- real need for rip off
Paul Mahoney
manual, with no mechnical problems. Recently, the Jiffy Lube where I have
my oil changed recommended a "high mileage" oil of a different viscosity (I
think it was 10W40) because the 5W30 is "too thin" for a vehicle with nearly
100k on it.
Is this a scam or a legitimate service approach?
Kevin
has it now since he bought it from me...)
We still use 5W30 Mobil 1. It doesn't use any between changes.
I'd say - If it aint broke, don't fix it -
I had a Mercedes Diesel that had nearly 300k and I used the same OE
weight oil for the entire time (Mobil 1 as well)
If you weren't having any problems before (leaks, blow-by, smoking or
the like) -
Don't change what you were doing...
That's my opinion anyway...
Kevin
C. E. White
Scam.
Ed
Jacob Suter
long as you don't hear the lifters rattling and the oil pressure stays
normal, there is NO problem with the oil type you've been using.
Gotta remember - Jiffy Lube is not ran by mechanics, you're dealing with
high school kids.
JS
"Paul Mahoney" <pmah...@ncahp.org> wrote in message
news:YiHR8.2510$DQ5....@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
bfu...@no-spam.pippinf.com
wrote:
Does this "High Mileage" oil cost more, by any chance?
What, exactly, are the symptoms that would make such a place recommend
thicker oil?
Are you experiencing plug fouling? Blue smoke? Engine miss?
As a (really good) rule, if what you've bneen doing is working well,
and a shop suggests a change, ask what symptoms that change will
address. If there are none, the change is probably for the benefit of
the shop's cash drawer.
DJD
> Does this "High Mileage" oil cost more, by any chance?
>
> What, exactly, are the symptoms that would make such a place recommend
> thicker oil?
> Are you experiencing plug fouling? Blue smoke? Engine miss?
>
> As a (really good) rule, if what you've bneen doing is working well,
> and a shop suggests a change, ask what symptoms that change will
> address. If there are none, the change is probably for the benefit of
> the shop's cash drawer.
When I used to take my '92 Sport to Jiffy Lube they always tried to push
10W-40 on me. But I don't understand why they did it, because 10W-40
doesn't cost anymore at Jiffy Lube (or any shop, for that matter) than
5W-30 cost. These places generally only charge more for a standard oil
change if you ask for a synthetic. If you get a standard multi-weight
like 5W-30 or 10W-40 the price is the same.
--
Dan Driscoll
1992 Sport
4.0L 4x4
C. E. White
DJD wrote:
> When I used to take my '92 Sport to Jiffy Lube they always tried to push
> 10W-40 on me. But I don't understand why they did it, because 10W-40
> doesn't cost anymore at Jiffy Lube (or any shop, for that matter) than
> 5W-30 cost. These places generally only charge more for a standard oil
> change if you ask for a synthetic. If you get a standard multi-weight
> like 5W-30 or 10W-40 the price is the same.
Jiffy Lube is owned by Pennzoil. Maybe they were trying to move an
excess inventory of 10W40 Oil.
Ed
Jim Warman
pricing, anyway....
Cheers,
--
Jim Warman
160,000Km and still using 5W30
mech...@telusplanet.net
"C. E. White" <cewh...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3D17A2E9...@mindspring.com...
Paul L Fisher
miles.
--
Paul L Fisher
'93 Ford Taurus SHO Crimson Clearcoat ATX 165K Build date 11/18/1992
- K&N Panel filter, Tokico Struts, Eibach Springs, Dynomax cat-back, Holley
190lph fuel pump, FPS rebuilt ATX, 26mm rear sway bar, Performance-Plus
Stainless Steel Y-pipe, Delrin sub-frame bushings, Amsoil Series 2000 0W-30
oil, Amsoil Synthetic ATF.
'00 Ford Explorer XLT 5.0L V8 AWD Oxford White Clearcoat 30K Build date
11/19/1999
- Amsoil Series 2000 0W-30 oil, K&N Fuel Injection Performance Kit
'96 Saturn SL2 Silver Plum 5 spd 117K
- Amsoil Synthetic ATF, K&N Panel Filter
SHO Club member http://www.shoclub.com/
Check out my web site http://www.geocities.com/paullfisher/
Amsoil dealer http://www.geocities.com/paullfisher/oil.htm
"Paul Mahoney" <pmah...@ncahp.org> wrote in message
news:YiHR8.2510$DQ5....@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
CR
difference in any vehicle, so I think the "rip off" idea is without much
merit.
I had a non-Ford, 4 cyl engine in which 10W-30 was the recommended oil.
Believing that "thicker is better" as it will adhere to metal parts better,
particularly under high heat conditions (highway speed RPM's), I used 20W-50
instead, except in mid-winter, when I would drop down to 10W-40. I changed
the oil & filter every 7,000 miles. I also used SLICK 50 every 50,000
miles.
I got 193,000 miles out of that original engine, which I think is
respectable for a 2.5L, 4cyl.
Final note: I realize that a higher viscosity oil takes longer to get
distributed on start up, and that a large amount of wear can occur at this
time. Maybe thicker is better also helped a bit by allowing more residual
to stay on metal parts while parked.
There are volumes that can be written on oil. Just wanted to share my views
and experience with one particular engine.
I now believe in Synthetic or Synthetic blends, and still believe in SLICK
50. Regular oil changes will do more than anything to extend engine life,
and I think a little common sense re viscosity will also go a long way, if
tailored to your specific driving applications.
Lots of information in manuals is there because a lot of people want to be
told what to do because they don't want to (or can't) think for themselves.
Don't forget, if there IS a scam, maybe it's on the part of the
manufacturers, who want you to get a reasonable engine life, but also want
to sell PARTS for engines and other components that wear out!!
Just because you're paranoid, it doesn't mean someone isn't really out to
get you. Sometimes it just depends on who stands to profit the MOST.
Ever think of that?
"Paul Mahoney" <pmah...@ncahp.org> wrote in message
news:YiHR8.2510$DQ5....@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
CR
experiences. The message, however was deleted almost immediately upon
posting.
Could it have been because I questioned whether the manufacturers might have
a lot to gain by selling parts for worn-out engines, and that maybe that
their recommendations for oil are somewhat biased in that regard?
I didn't realize this board was subject to CENSORSHIP. If the "powers that
be" don't like your opinion, or if you raise the possibility of less than
honorable intentions of American Big Business!! Nahhhhh....we all KNOW that
would never be true!!
Enron....Xerox....Worldcom....Tyco..................
"Paul Mahoney" <pmah...@ncahp.org> wrote in message
news:YiHR8.2510$DQ5....@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
CR
human error that it was deleted, and that MY paranoia is unfouded!!
Here it is (if it makes it)....
Ever think of that?
"CR" <cre...@icdc.com> wrote in message
news:uhrkrvj...@corp.supernews.com...
CR
How can this board claim ANY credibility, when posts are CENSORED???
IS this the USA???
If anyone is interested in my CENSORED comments, send me an e-mail, and I'll
send them to you via that route.
Have a nice day...Big Brother is Watching!!
Chuck Reaney
"CR" <cre...@icdc.com> wrote in message
news:uhrkrvj...@corp.supernews.com...
JHEM
> Ok.....my paranoia was well-founded. The REPOST was also deleted.
Both of your posts show up just fine.
> How can this board claim ANY credibility, when posts are CENSORED???
There's no censorship of this NG by _anyone_! Perhaps you should check for
operator error?
I'm far more likely to believe that a devotee' of Slick 50 is less than
competent in posting than the NG is censored.
Regards,
James
CR
I don't work for any company which sells, distributes or promotes any oil,
additive, or related product, or for any auto or parts company for that
matter.
I simply atempted to relate what seemed to work well for me with a
particular vehicle, as an FYI. And if you believe that additives can't
enhance performance, or extend engine life, then I have to wonder what your
level of compentence is as well.
Regards,
Chuck Reaney
"JHEM" <James@ESAD_SPAMMERS.thinkpads.com> wrote in message
news:5nlT8.7619$vr5....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
JHEM
> Let's clarify something. I am not a "devotee" of Slick 50 or anything
else.
> I don't work for any company which sells, distributes or promotes any oil,
> additive, or related product, or for any auto or parts company for that
> matter.
I suggest you look up the word in your Funk & Wagnall's.
> I simply atempted to relate what seemed to work well for me with a
> particular vehicle, as an FYI. And if you believe that additives can't
> enhance performance, or extend engine life, then I have to wonder what
your
> level of compentence is as well.
We weren't discussing "additives" in general, but Slick 50 in particular and
your perceived censorship of the NG. FYI, there isn't a motor oil sold
anywhere that doesn't contain additives.
So you believe that the most slippery substance created by man, when simply
suspended in oil, will somehow magically adhere to your engine's innards and
_not_ be removed by your oil filter? And you have the gall to question _my_
competence?
Ever ask yourself, if the Slick 50 concept is so great, why Dupont doesn't
advertise and market the fact?
Regards,
James
Chief Wiggum
they are read, or something like that.
"Big brother" does not have the power to remove your post from hundreds of
thousands of newsserververs around the globe! Also, I was able to read BOTH
of them just fine, and they are STILL there.j
as far as your car goes, We have a company van (Astro) that has 213,000
miles on it and still runs strong! we had the trans replaced at 170,000,
but no engine rebuild.
What's OUR secret for getting such longevity ?
Well, wel mistreat the hell out of it, change the oil about every 8000-10000
miles, take it to whatever lube place has a special at the time, and put
whatever brand cheap shit oil it that they have. no addatives, no
synthetics, nothing special.
Now, I am not suggesting that this is a good idea, nor do I treat my own car
this way, but just illustrating that just because a vehicle survives x
amount of miles, has little to do with the "magic addatives" that you might
have put in.
Oh, and I would not put slick 50 in my lawnmower!
"CR" <cre...@icdc.com> wrote in message
news:uhu04r1...@corp.supernews.com...
CR
which still remains deleted twice, was about driving conditions, viscosity,
temperature, driving habits, and applicability of various viscosities, it
was NOT about additives. You made it about additives, which I mentioned as
an adjunct to the above.
Of course all oils have additives. Why do you assume that everyone else is
as pompous and moronic as you are by needing to point that out?
Regarding filtration of additives...ever hear of a size value called
"microns"? All filters, oil, air, water, etc. are rated to filter a
percentage of particulates down to a stated size in microns. Again you
assume that the people who manufacture a certain additive are also morons,
by not considering that just MAYBE the particle size of the most slippery
substance known to man is smalller than will be filtered out by most oil
filters, allowing it to be somewhat effective. If none of that were
relevant, then nobody would EVER have to CHANGE their oil, especially if
they used synthetics, because the filter would filter out ALL
particles...but it DOESN'T.
As far as compentence, you also raised that issue, not me. Only a
mean-spirited, know it all, pompous ass would pick out a selected incidental
part of an entire post, and use it to justify censorship, and to attack
someone who is commenting on the main topic of VISCOSITY.
So, all of that being said, let's see if you have the balls to post my
CENSORED original message, so that others can also read my comments about
viscosities, manufacturers recommendations, etc., which was the main point
of the post.
I suspect you won't have the balls, as you obviously have a need to make
yourself feel superior by attacking others. This board IS about opinions,
isn't it? And you know what they say about opinions, they're like
assholes...everyone has one, jackoff. So look THAT up in your Funk &
Wagnalls.
Warm personal regards,
Chuck Reaney
"JHEM" <James@ESAD_SPAMMERS.thinkpads.com> wrote in message
news:k0ET8.18471$vr5....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
CR
viscosity issue. I have taken the time to "cleanse" it of any reference to
a particular oil additive, which seems to have created a problem for some
individuals. Let's see if it makes it to the board this time, without being
censored (deleted):
---------------------------------------
I can't see how a slight increase in viscosity would make a noticable
difference in any vehicle, so I think the "rip off" idea is without much
merit.
I had a non-Ford, 4 cyl engine in which 10W-30 was the recommended oil.
Believing that "thicker is better" as it will adhere to metal parts better,
particularly under high heat conditions (highway speed RPM's), I used 20W-50
instead, except in mid-winter, when I would drop down to 10W-40. I changed
the oil & filter every 7,000 miles, and occasionally used an additional
addive.
I got 193,000 miles out of that original engine, which I think is
respectable for a 2.5L, 4cyl.
Final note: I realize that a higher viscosity oil takes longer to get
distributed on start up, and that a large amount of wear can occur at this
time. Maybe thicker is better also helped a bit by allowing more residual
to stay on metal parts while parked.
There are volumes that can be written on oil. Just wanted to share my views
and experience with one particular engine.
I now believe in Synthetic or Synthetic blends, and in the value of
additional additives. Regular oil changes will do more than anything to
extend engine life,
and I think a little common sense re viscosity will also go a long way, if
tailored to your specific driving applications.
Lots of information in manuals is there because a lot of people want to be
told what to do because they don't want to (or can't) think for themselves.
Don't forget, if there IS a scam, maybe it's on the part of the
manufacturers, who want you to get a reasonable engine life, but also want
to sell PARTS for engines and other components that wear out!!
Just because you're paranoid, it doesn't mean someone isn't really out to
get you. Sometimes it just depends on who stands to profit the MOST.
Ever think of that?
> "Paul Mahoney" <pmah...@ncahp.org> wrote in message
C. E. White
CR wrote:
>
> No, we were discussing VISCOSITY, not additives. Most of my CENSORED post,
Honestly, no one is censoring your posts. If we could do that, don't you
think Herb Tarlek would be history?
I have the occasion to connect to this newsgroup through several
different providers. My posts show up at radically different times on
the different providers and sometimes seem to never show up at all. It
is very common for me to see the reply to a post and never see the
original post. I don't know why this happens, but it does. I don't think
it is malicious at all.
Regards,
Ed White
JHEM
> No, we were discussing VISCOSITY, not additives. Most of my CENSORED
post,
> which still remains deleted twice, was about driving conditions,
viscosity,
> temperature, driving habits, and applicability of various viscosities, it
> was NOT about additives. You made it about additives, which I mentioned
as
> an adjunct to the above.
No, I made the discussion about your perception that the NG is censored when
I replied to your rant. Your original post was cogent and lucid. (see below)
and while I don't share your views on viscosity, I can't fault your post of
your experiences.
> Of course all oils have additives. Why do you assume that everyone else
is
> as pompous and moronic as you are by needing to point that out?
Experience?
> Regarding filtration of additives...ever hear of a size value called
> "microns"? All filters, oil, air, water, etc. are rated to filter a
> percentage of particulates down to a stated size in microns. Again you
> assume that the people who manufacture a certain additive are also morons,
> by not considering that just MAYBE the particle size of the most slippery
> substance known to man is smalller than will be filtered out by most oil
> filters, allowing it to be somewhat effective. If none of that were
> relevant, then nobody would EVER have to CHANGE their oil, especially if
> they used synthetics, because the filter would filter out ALL
> particles...but it DOESN'T.
I haven't changed the (synthetic) oil in any of my engines in _years_. I
replace the filters regularly and replenish the oil lost in the filter
change! I do this in everything from the twin 8V71TI prime movers in my fish
killer to my entire fleet of vehicles and aircraft, backed up by analyses.
If the inclusion of PTFE to motor oils were of some benefit, don't you think
DuPont would advertise the fact? Especially as they are a major NASCAR
sponsor? It should be noted that DuPont's official position on the use of
PTFE in engine oils remains carefully aloof and noncommittal, for obvious
legal reasons. DuPont states that though they sell PTFE to oil additive
producers, they have "no proof of the validity of the additive makers'
claims." They further state that they have "no knowledge of any advantage
gained through the use of PTFE in engine oil."
Here's the Federal Trade Commision's take on Slick 50:
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/1996/9607/slick.htm
Or: http://skepdic.com/slick50.html
Or this article: http://www.repairfaq.org/filipg/AUTO/F_Slick_501.html from
TEN years ago.
> As far as compentence, you also raised that issue, not me. Only a
> mean-spirited, know it all, pompous ass would pick out a selected
incidental
> part of an entire post, and use it to justify censorship, and to attack
> someone who is commenting on the main topic of VISCOSITY.
Now we come full circle to what I originally replied to, your rant about
censorship. I see you use Outlook Express to post to the NGs (don't get all
paranoid again, that's easily determined by right clicking on a message and
then clicking properties).
While in RAMFE go to the toolbar and click View> Current View> Show All
Messages. See your original posts now?
You give me far too much credit if you think I have either the desire or
ability to censor your posts.
> So, all of that being said, let's see if you have the balls to post my
> CENSORED original message, so that others can also read my comments about
> viscosities, manufacturers recommendations, etc., which was the main point
> of the post.
Sure:
Begin copied message*******
I can't see how a slight increase in viscosity would make a noticable
difference in any vehicle, so I think the "rip off" idea is without much
merit.
I had a non-Ford, 4 cyl engine in which 10W-30 was the recommended oil.
Believing that "thicker is better" as it will adhere to metal parts better,
particularly under high heat conditions (highway speed RPM's), I used 20W-50
instead, except in mid-winter, when I would drop down to 10W-40. I changed
the oil & filter every 7,000 miles. I also used SLICK 50 every 50,000
miles.
I got 193,000 miles out of that original engine, which I think is
respectable for a 2.5L, 4cyl.
Final note: I realize that a higher viscosity oil takes longer to get
distributed on start up, and that a large amount of wear can occur at this
time. Maybe thicker is better also helped a bit by allowing more residual
to stay on metal parts while parked.
There are volumes that can be written on oil. Just wanted to share my views
and experience with one particular engine.
I now believe in Synthetic or Synthetic blends, and still believe in SLICK
50. Regular oil changes will do more than anything to extend engine life,
and I think a little common sense re viscosity will also go a long way, if
tailored to your specific driving applications.
Lots of information in manuals is there because a lot of people want to be
told what to do because they don't want to (or can't) think for themselves.
Don't forget, if there IS a scam, maybe it's on the part of the
manufacturers, who want you to get a reasonable engine life, but also want
to sell PARTS for engines and other components that wear out!!
Just because you're paranoid, it doesn't mean someone isn't really out to
get you. Sometimes it just depends on who stands to profit the MOST.
Ever think of that?
End copied message*****
> I suspect you won't have the balls, as you obviously have a need to make
> yourself feel superior by attacking others. This board IS about opinions,
> isn't it? And you know what they say about opinions, they're like
> assholes...everyone has one, jackoff.
And everyone is sure that the other guy's stinks! ;-)
I never attacked you Chuck, I merely pointed out that the NG isn't censored
and perhaps your missing posts were due to operator error.
> Warm personal regards,
Same to you Chuck,
James
bfu...@no-spam.pippinf.com
>No, we were discussing VISCOSITY, not additives. Most of my CENSORED post,
>which still remains deleted twice, was about driving conditions, viscosity,
>temperature, driving habits, and applicability of various viscosities, it
>was NOT about additives. You made it about additives, which I mentioned as
>an adjunct to the above.
>
>Of course all oils have additives. Why do you assume that everyone else is
>as pompous and moronic as you are by needing to point that out?
>
>Regarding filtration of additives...ever hear of a size value called
>"microns"? All filters, oil, air, water, etc. are rated to filter a
>percentage of particulates down to a stated size in microns. Again you
>assume that the people who manufacture a certain additive are also morons,
>by not considering that just MAYBE the particle size of the most slippery
>substance known to man is smalller than will be filtered out by most oil
>filters, allowing it to be somewhat effective. If none of that were
>relevant, then nobody would EVER have to CHANGE their oil, especially if
>they used synthetics, because the filter would filter out ALL
>particles...but it DOESN'T.
If you are talking about Teflon, it doesn't work in suspension. It
must be applied to a surface, under a heat process. If the internal
surfaces of an engine got hot enough to apply the teflon, the engine
would be junk.
Graphite, though, does work in suspension, and can be made small
enough to pass the filter.
However, it turns the oil black. This confuses the average motorist,
who thinks the oil has gone bad, and replaces it with regular oil.
Good for the bottom line for a while, but repeat sales really suffer.
>
>As far as compentence, you also raised that issue, not me. Only a
>mean-spirited, know it all, pompous ass would pick out a selected incidental
>part of an entire post, and use it to justify censorship, and to attack
>someone who is commenting on the main topic of VISCOSITY.
>
>So, all of that being said, let's see if you have the balls to post my
>CENSORED original message, so that others can also read my comments about
>viscosities, manufacturers recommendations, etc., which was the main point
>of the post.
I don't see your earlier posts, but they weren't censored, because if
they were, there would be "This message is no longer available"
messages instead of nothing.
This is an unmoderated newsgroup, so there's no central clearinghouse
that could keep the post from appearing.
If, indeed, the posts *were* removed before going out, then the first
place to look would be your local news server.
bfu...@no-spam.pippinf.com
Actually, in the early 80's, Dupont did say that PTFE was useless in
motor oils. I had the announcement (IIRC, I got it from a MC magazine)
on my shop wall for years.
Mike Nelson
>No, we were discussing VISCOSITY, not additives. Most of my CENSORED post,
>which still remains deleted twice, was about driving conditions, viscosity,
Geez, will you learn something about Usenet and quit bitching about
censoring? Complain to your news provider (icdc.com) about retention
and if cancels are honored. In the meantime, do some reading at:
http://www.livinginternet.com/?u/uw.htm
and even better explanation at
http://www.smr-usenet.com/tech/how.shtml
>I suspect you won't have the balls, as you obviously have a need to make
>yourself feel superior by attacking others. This board IS about opinions,
It's a NEWSGROUP, not a board. If you want boards, go to FIDOnet or
AOL. Makes me think it's September again...
DJD
>
> Here, for the third time, is my original response post regarding the oil
> viscosity issue. I have taken the time to "cleanse" it of any reference to
> a particular oil additive, which seems to have created a problem for some
> individuals. Let's see if it makes it to the board this time, without being
> censored (deleted):
Wonderful, we get to see the same message 3 times and, as a bonus, we
get your paranoid rants about censorship with the 2nd and 3rd posting,
just to spice things up. I almost wish it has been censored, it would
have saved some disk space.
You had some nice discussion points going, to bad you blew it just
because you haven't got a clue about usenet.
BTW, <snipped> means I cut off the rest of your post because I didn't
want to subject everyone else in the newsgroup to it a 4th time.
CR
Appreciation & apologies where applicable. I checked all of my settings,
and can not figure out why, for the life of me, that I kept getting a "This
message is no longer available" on my original post(s) on the topic, which
is what led me down the censorship rant road. It's the ONLY message that
this has happened with.
It's also notable that when I deleted the specific reference to the additive
mentioned, and posted it for the third time, it did NOT show up as "no
longer available"...and I changed no settings.
I'm not a novice to computers, the internet, newsgroups, boards, etc., but
on this one I remain totally clueless. So, it still remains a mystery to me
that things happened the way they did.
Thank you all for your comments and suggestions to attempt to help me to
sort out the problem.
I'm not making excuses, but giving you all a deserved explanation of the
events.
Now I'll shut up about it.
Chuck Reaney
"Paul Mahoney" <pmah...@ncahp.org> wrote in message
news:YiHR8.2510$DQ5....@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Paul L Fisher
funny!
--
Paul L Fisher
'93 Ford Taurus SHO Crimson Clearcoat ATX 165K Build date 11/18/1992
- K&N Panel filter, Tokico Struts, Eibach Springs, Dynomax cat-back, Holley
190lph fuel pump, FPS rebuilt ATX, 26mm rear sway bar, Performance-Plus
Stainless Steel Y-pipe, Delrin sub-frame bushings, Amsoil Series 2000 0W-30
oil, Amsoil Synthetic ATF.
'00 Ford Explorer XLT 5.0L V8 AWD Oxford White Clearcoat 30K Build date
11/19/1999
- Amsoil Series 2000 0W-30 oil, K&N Fuel Injection Performance Kit
'96 Saturn SL2 Silver Plum 5 spd 117K
- Amsoil Synthetic ATF, K&N Panel Filter
SHO Club member http://www.shoclub.com/
Check out my web site http://www.geocities.com/paullfisher/
Amsoil dealer http://www.geocities.com/paullfisher/oil.htm
"CR" <cre...@icdc.com> wrote in message
news:uhrljif...@corp.supernews.com...
CR
Thank you.
"Paul L Fisher" <pfis...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:ui8u181...@corp.supernews.com...
bfu...@no-spam.pippinf.com
>I just spent a bit of time replying to this topic, expressing my opinions &
>experiences. The message, however was deleted almost immediately upon
>posting.
>
>Could it have been because I questioned whether the manufacturers might have
>a lot to gain by selling parts for worn-out engines, and that maybe that
>their recommendations for oil are somewhat biased in that regard?
>
>I didn't realize this board was subject to CENSORSHIP. If the "powers that
>be" don't like your opinion, or if you raise the possibility of less than
>honorable intentions of American Big Business!! Nahhhhh....we all KNOW that
>would never be true!!
>
>Enron....Xerox....Worldcom....Tyco..................
I see your previous post about putting heavire oil in an engine.
What makes you think your post was censored?
I mean, what did you actually see that gave you this idea?
bfu...@no-spam.pippinf.com
>Ok.....my paranoia was well-founded. The REPOST was also deleted.
That's strange; I can see the repost. It wasn't deleted.
What makes you think it was deleted?
>
>How can this board claim ANY credibility, when posts are CENSORED???
By whom? There's no moderator for this group.
Dale A. Del Fierro
for sure whether or not they helped my engines. But, what I can say for
sure is that putting them in has made me feel better about the whole oil
change. Some people can claim that I'm simply wasting my cash and I can't
really argue against them.
But, as I freely decided to become pulled in by the marketing schemes and
voted with my own cash... I figure it's a cheap investment for my piece of
mind and I haven't ever found oil additives to actually hurt my engine so I
spend the cash as I see fit.
-DD
"CR" <cre...@icdc.com> wrote in message
news:ui0nsf7...@corp.supernews.com...
bi...@pippinf.com
wrote:
>"Paul L Fisher" <pfis...@charter.net> wrote in
>news:uhrb6pa...@corp.supernews.com:
>
>> Scam. I run 0W-30 year round in my 165K mile SHO. Burns a quart every
>> 4,000 miles.
>>
>snip>
>>> think it was 10W40) because the 5W30 is "too thin" for a vehicle with
>> nearly
>>> 100k on it.
>>>
>>> Is this a scam or a legitimate service approach?
>>>
>>>
>The greater amount of diference between the viscosity levels in the oil,
>for example 5W-40 the worse each level is at lubrication as it's all a
>compromise.
>
>If your tempurature outside stays between 40 degrees and 110 degrees and
>you're not pulling a boat or driving a taxi cab, you should use straight
>30W as this will give you the best lubrication.
I suppoose you should use non-detergent, too?
You are an absolute mine of mis-information.
Jim Warman
just pulling away. I know which locals actually use water paste when they
dip their tanks and you are still a goldmine of dubious information.
--
Jim Warman
mech...@telusplanet.net
"mapanari" <mapa...@coldmail.com> wrote in message
news:_FQ79.47593$nE1....@atlpnn01.usenetserver.com...
> bi...@pippinf.com wrote in news:3d5fb98e....@news.qwest.net:
> Nope, you use the high quality oils that have energy savings and are SAE
> rated; which almost all oils sold in America off the shelf are now; not
> like 15 years ago when energy sav oils where premium priced.
>
> I bet you're the type who only goes to Shell gas stations because you
> believe shell is diferent from Big Al's Discount Gas down the road?
>
> Mine of misinformation? When you're stupid, jealous and not very smart I
> guess people are are educated, intelligent and informed seem like gods to
> you, hence the jealousy and bitterness in your pathetic psychologically
> showing-dirty-underwear comment.
>
> Son, this is all info out there for even drooling morons like you to find.
>
> mapi
>
dstaffor
> The manufacturers plead to the lowest common denominator, the moron who
> never changes their oil and who drives from 0 degrees in North Dakota down
> to Florida and back and hence the 10-40 oil recommended, or the 10-30 or 5-
> 30. It's a compromise for morons, the lazy and the clueless to give you
> all around so-so protection.
Oh, so now you say people are morons because they drive
their vehicles from a cold climate to a hot climate? What are
they supposed to do in your example, change the oil when
they hit the hot climate and then change it back when they
return to the cold climate area? Give me a break.
I'm curious Mapanai, just what oil weight would you recommend
under the above situation???
DS
dstaffor
> In Texas I have no need to use anything except straight 30W because it
> rarely gets below 40 and same for over 100.
What do you do when YOU drive to a really cold climate Mapanari?
And as to your assertion that there's something moronic about using
a multi-weight oil, allow me to share something with you:
Three years ago I had to replace the cylinder heads on the 4.0L
V6 in my '91 Explorer XLT (one had cracked). The vehicle had
97,000 miles on it at the time, 30,000 of which was towing a 2000 lb.
tent trailer (OD always off). While I had the heads off, I carefully
examined the cam, cam followers and cylinder walls. Guess what
Mapanari? These parts looked like new! And get this -- I ran
that engine on Pennzoil 10W-40 or 20W-50 for its entire life; hot
weather, cold weather and everything in between.
The areas I mentioned are high stress parts, Mapanari. Also
that engine never had an oil consumption problem, even after
all of those miles, 1/3 of which was under the higher stress of
towing a trailer.
So, tell me again, what is so moronic about using a multi-weight
oil. Are you an engineer?
DS
bi...@pippinf.com
wrote:
...
>> I suppoose you should use non-detergent, too?
>>
>> You are an absolute mine of mis-information.
>>
>
>Nope, you use the high quality oils that have energy savings and are SAE
>rated; which almost all oils sold in America off the shelf are now; not
>like 15 years ago when energy sav oils where premium priced.
So the makers of the engines know less than you?
>
>I bet you're the type who only goes to Shell gas stations because you
>believe shell is diferent from Big Al's Discount Gas down the road?
You lose. But then, you're a loser, so why not?
>
>Mine of misinformation? When you're stupid, jealous and not very smart I
>guess people are are educated, intelligent and informed seem like gods to
>you, hence the jealousy and bitterness in your pathetic psychologically
>showing-dirty-underwear comment.
Another gem from someone who claims to write psych textbooks.
it has been demonstrated many times that your informatiuon is just
plain wrong. Yet, you claim to know better than everyone else.
I wonder what your supposed textbook says about this?
Does it have a chapter on denial?
>
>Son, this is all info out there for even drooling morons like you to find.
But we already know where to find the REAL info.
>
>mapi
>
SASCHOCH
<mapa...@coldmail.com> writes:
>Water paste???? WTF are you talking about?
>
>Or is this that old houndstooth story about station owners putting water in
>their tanks to make more money?
>He he..
>
>mapi
>
>
mapi:
[teaching mode on]
Water paste ( actually more properly called water indicating paste )is a
product ( generally gray in color )that you dip a long probe into ( to coat the
end of the probe with the water paste ), then you dip the probe into the tank (
gasoline/fuel oil/kerosene ) AND if water is contacted, the paste turns red.
Indicating to you that you should treat the system with a alcohol based water
absorbing product.
[teaching mode off]
HTH
PS, just because you don't understand something, or have not heard of
something, does not make it wrong, stupid, inappropriate or deranged; as per
your usual response.
Please try to maintain a teachable spirit, as the most of us here are trying to
be helpful.
-Steve ('94 EB 4x4)
-Steve
bi...@pippinf.com
wrote:
>bi...@pippinf.com wrote in news:3d610a03...@news.qwest.net:
>I carry my dig camera everywhere I go. Do you want to see a picture of a
>no-name brand tanker leaving a Shell station? he he...
>
>I took it two weeks ago.
>
>
>mapi
>
What a maroon!!
Does your camera tell you what was IN that tanker?
What is iut with you and Shell?
What has your fertile imagination come up with that connects me with
Shell stations?
Jim Warman
words. Add your proclivity for responding to differing opinions with
childish outbursts and you have "hoist yourself upon your own petard". Tuck
your tail 'twixt your legs and go get a few books from the library......
there's a wealth of information out there and it may just open your eyes.
--
Jim Warman
mech...@telusplanet.net
"mapanari" <mapa...@coldmail.com> wrote in message
news:WcU99.73908$pW1....@atlpnn01.usenetserver.com...
> sasc...@aol.commonman (SASCHOCH) wrote in
> news:20020821093851...@mb-fk.aol.com:
> Thanks for the information.
>
> If you hadn't felt like such a cliquish snob with your little buzz words
> that no one in the world except a very few people would undertand, with
> your attempts to make yourself look special and important instead of
> actually communicating with people, I wouldn't have had to ask the
question
> and make fun of you and your little snobby self-important post would I?
>
> mapi
>