@@@@@@@ MOLY BLACK GOLD PRODUCT @@@@@@@
TheObsoElitist
In my 21 years as a professional mechanic I can say that I have never seen
a "miracle chemical" that ever made a noticable difference in the way an
engine runs. Niether has any other experienced mechanic that I know.I have
learned to NEVER believe a chemical salesman.
If your product is as good as you say it is, why dont you supply Consumer
Reports Magazine with 100 identical new engines and your product to be
tested against ALL of your competitors and some with just average oil???
Think of what a great advertisement that it would be to have your product
rated by such a well respected and undeniably impartial consumer
protection testing laboratory.
If you feel that your product can meet the challenge this would be a wise
investment.
Or perhaps the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) could classify
additives and synthetics and set some standards.
I would seriously like to see ratings and statistical evidence by either
of these two Authoritys before I would ever use or recommend anything
other than a good quality mineral oil be put into a crankcase.
Think about it, there may be some very good additives and synthetics out
there,and if proven by either of these labs I would buy lots of them, but
without impartial comparative testing by a credible source, and actual
statistics, it's all just a medicine
show.
I challenge you to PUT UP OR SHUT UP!
The ObsoElitist
Paul Calman
Heather & Joe Way
Consumer Reports. Their recent test of motor oils in New York taxis was
a joke. Millions of people are going to take their advice about oil
change intervals, and millions of people are going to damage their
engines.
SAE specifications and tests would certainly be meaningful, but the oil
change test and other tests have caused me to lose my once considerable
faith in Consumer Reports.
Joe
--
==brake cylinders sleeved with brass== Why be difficult?
==One-Wire conversions and rebuild With a little more effort
kits for GM alternators 1963-85== you can be impossible!!
==Quincy, CA==
Heather & Joe Way
al...@no.spam.com wrote:
>
> Near the end of the millennium, on Wed, 11 Jun 1997 22:49:54 -0700, Heather
> & Joe Way <sier...@psln.com> gave this insight:
>
> >Paul, I agree with you completely--with the exception of your opinion of
> >Consumer Reports. Their recent test of motor oils in New York taxis was
> >a joke. Millions of people are going to take their advice about oil
> >change intervals, and millions of people are going to damage their
> >engines.
>
> Using such severe service, along with the relatively complete
> record-keeping that comes with such an effort surely provided meaningful
> data for such an organization as Consumer Reports!
>
> >
> >SAE specifications and tests would certainly be meaningful, but the oil
> >change test and other tests have caused me to lose my once considerable
> >faith in Consumer Reports.
> >
> >Joe
>
>
New York taxicab service is certainly very severe in many respects. Any
structural components, shocks, tires, etc., are going to be tested very
thoroughly on NYC cabs. BUT, on a per-mile basis, it isn't particularly
severe in terms of engine service. In fact, it's much easier on an
engine (and its oil) to run continously than to drive a few miles in the
morning then a few miles back in the evening as many people do.
Fuel-injected engines do not load up the oil with unburned gas at idle
the way carbed engines used to, so even the curb time isn't too bad on
the engines.
7000 mile change intervals on NYC cabs is probably every month or so.
7000 mile intervals for the average driver is more than six months, and
for the short commuter may be a year or more. My point, which I admit I
didn't make, is that it is unreasonable to compare taxis with normal
people's cars. The average person's usage of their engine and oil is
more severe than NYC taxi service, believe it or not. I am in the
company of a great number of professional auto mechanics (many of whom
don't do oil changes at their shops) and automotive consultants when I
say that the average automobile should get new oil & filter at half the
interval suggested by Consumer Reports.
Joe
I firmly believe that Consumer Reports is, on occasion, guilty of
devising tests specifically designed so that certain cars or trucks will
fail, or tests that any car or truck will fail that are applied to only
one car or truck. I suspect they do this for the same reason 60 minutes
put an incendiary device on the Chevy truck gas tank--to increase sales.
'grandma' (Rosalie Beasley)
al...@no.spam.com wrote:
>Near the end of the millennium, on Fri, 13 Jun 1997 11:00:52 -0700, Heather
>& Joe Way <sier...@psln.com> gave this insight:
>
>
>>New York taxicab service is certainly very severe in many respects. Any
>>structural components, shocks, tires, etc., are going to be tested very
>>thoroughly on NYC cabs. BUT, on a per-mile basis, it isn't particularly
>>severe in terms of engine service.
>snip
>>I am in the
>>company of a great number of professional auto mechanics (many of whom
>>don't do oil changes at their shops) and automotive consultants when I
>>say that the average automobile should get new oil & filter at half the
>>interval suggested by Consumer Reports.
>
>Well, it's the owner's manual, not Consumer Reports that tells you how
>often to change your oil.
>
>And, as you probably know, if you read the owner's manual for your car or
>truck, you'll find that 'normal' short-haul city driving/commuting is
>"severe service" and requires shorter oil change intervals -- 3,000 miles,
>or so.
That's just what these guys have been saying. SHORT-HAUL city
driving/commuting IS severe service. TAXIs do NOT do short-haul
or commuter driving. What makes the driving severe is not the
actual driving in the city, but the starting and stopping of the
car -- as in turning the engine on and off, not as in stopping at
stop lights. Taxis (in NYC) typically do not turn the engines
off. The engine gets up to operating temperature, with the oil
nicely hot, and stays there. Period. It does not get a chance
to cool off like normal people's cars who commute and turn their
cars off while they are at work. Therefore, CU's test was NOT a
good test of oil change intervals, unless you are a NYC taxi
driver.
>So any driver, not to mention Consumer Reports, should be aware of that,
>and do the right thing.
>
>>I firmly believe that Consumer Reports is, on occasion, guilty of
>>devising tests specifically designed so that certain cars or trucks will
>>fail, or tests that any car or truck will fail that are applied to only
>>one car or truck. I suspect they do this for the same reason 60 minutes
>>put an incendiary device on the Chevy truck gas tank--to increase sales.
>
>I absolutely, categorically don't think Consumer Reports does this kind
>of thing.
Well, they did do something similar (although they were
relatively honest about it) in their test of electric cars. They
used an old outdated model with a defective battery pack in the
dead of winter, and then faulted the car for lack of range and
speed. I know, because I've driven various electric cars, that
their report was nonsense, but a normal consumer without such
experience would have no way to know that.
>They may not be perfect, but to say that they would falsify tests for any
>reason is just plain bullshit.
I don't think they actually falsify the tests, but they may be
guilty of having a bias that affects the type of testing they do.
Some of the ratings they do are based on a judgement of what
features are important. If they state their assumptions up
front, and you read the whole article with the assumptions
stated, then you can decide whether what they think is important
is a priority for you. If OTOH their biases are not verbalized,
or if you just cut to the ratings, you will not be able to or may
not find out that their assumptions don't hold water for you.
>
>:-)
>
>
Use your own judgement...then do as I say.
Aaron
In article <TheObsoElitist-...@ac-056.goldrush.com>,
TheObsoElitist,,,obso...@goldrush.com says...
Paul, I feel I must disagree with a lot you have said. I have been a
mechanic for approx 29 years and have seen some great improvements in
chemical addatives during this time. I recently sold a chev that had
348,000 miles on the original engine that was still in top condiction.
I had used PTFE treatments all along. I don't know anything about this
Black Gold product or what it is. I don't sell any type of treatments,
but there are some really good addatives now on the market. I once knew
a guy, who proved to me, anyone could save money by never changing motor
oil in a gasoling passanger car. At 125,000 miles he was adding a quart
of oil ever 2000 miles. Yes, his oil was "black" and he would need a new
engine before long, but he had saved enough money to cover the cost of
the replacement. I still change oil at 3000 miles and always will, but
never say never. I also understand that most new non-american cars now
come with a chemical addative pre-installed in the motor oil. It's all
something to think about. Many years ago I became very interested in
improveing the longivity of gasoline engines and have made some great
findings.
Aaron George
James Therrault
Duh! The incendiary device was the action of NBC news, not 60 Minutes.