From: "nobody >" on
hls wrote:
>
> "hls" <hls(a)nospam.nix> wrote in message
> news:3_6dnXg8r6MI27fWnZ2dnUVZ_g-dnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>>
>> "C. E. White" <cewhite3remove(a)mindspring.com> wrote in message
>> news:MeqdncXOn4mYXLTWnZ2dnUVZ_hqdnZ2d(a)earthlink.com...
>
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iFOTu2Kimg
>
> Here is that link.. Interesting, but not definitive.

Especially when you do a little research on the "winner" of that test,
Motor Latte.

http://www.scam.com/showthread.php?t=29267
http://wwsnforums.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=99
From: hls on

"nobody >" <usenetharvested(a)aol.com> wrote in message
>
> Especially when you do a little research on the "winner" of that test,
> Motor Latte.
>
> http://www.scam.com/showthread.php?t=29267
> http://wwsnforums.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=99

You can find a number of items which will give spectacular test numbers
on this kind of lubricity unit. Whether they do anything at all inside an
engine, and whether they promote longer and more trouble free engine
life is quite another thing.

I always harp on wanting to see hard data. For something to be of
value and interest, it needs to be tested under relevant protocols, over
a variety of conditions, and with enough population in the test set
to assure that the data is significant.