From: aarcuda69062 on
In article
<cf435bbe-cb69-4ac5-9fff-bb9e53d2edc3(a)y22g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
"larry moe 'n curly" <larrymoencurly(a)my-deja.com> wrote:

> In a 1996 issue, Consumer Reports said it found no significant
> differences in engine wear between NYC taxicabs that used conventional
> API SH oil

An obsolete standard of an obsolete standard.
Relevance to today?
From: Hachiroku ハチロク on
On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 13:16:24 -0700, larry moe 'n curly wrote:

>
>
> Scott in Florida wrote:
>
>> My 92 Rolla Wagon states 3750 miles between changes under severe
>> driving conditions.
>>
>> Florida is a severe driving environment...
>
> Because of all those senior citizens with Alzheimer's? ;)


No, all the Hispanics with Low Riders and Rice Rockets...


From: Hachiroku ハチロク on
On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 18:36:06 -0500, aarcuda69062 wrote:

> In article
> <cf435bbe-cb69-4ac5-9fff-bb9e53d2edc3(a)y22g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
> "larry moe 'n curly" <larrymoencurly(a)my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>> In a 1996 issue, Consumer Reports said it found no significant
>> differences in engine wear between NYC taxicabs that used conventional
>> API SH oil
>
> An obsolete standard of an obsolete standard.
> Relevance to today?
If that was 1996, and conventional oils have gotten better, then it would
stand to reason that there would be no significant differences in engine
wear between NYC taxicabs that used conventional oil.

Didn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out.

Vg qbrfa'g gnxr n travhf gb xabj gur qvssrerapr orgjrra puvpxra fuvg naq
puvpxra fnynq...


From: SMS on
Mark A wrote:
> "SMS" <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote in message
> news:d4ngk.14770$xZ.10136(a)nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com...
>> That is in fact the problem that the synthetic motor oil manufacturers
>> originally faced. Their products were used in cold climates, in
>> non-automotive applications (snow-mobiles, snow blowers, ORVs, etc.) and
>> in some high performance engines, but not in normal, mass market passenger
>> cars. They created marketing campaigns to convince naive car owners that
>> oil with a synthetic base stock was better for their vehicles than oil
>> with a petroleum base stock. The problem they faced was that there is
>> absolutely no data that shows any benefit, either in fuel economy or
>> engine protection. Fortunately, lack of data is often not an issue in
>> convincing someone to spend more money for no benefit.
>
> Naive? We are talking about spending $10 - $15 more per oil change, twice a
> year on average. You make it sound like we are getting fleeced by scam
> artists.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.
From: Mark A on
"SMS" <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote in message
news:kiRgk.33525$ZE5.2303(a)nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...
> Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.

I suppose you think Ray O. is getting fleeced by scam artists since he uses
synthetic oil in all 3 of his vehicles.