Oil Consumption 2000 JGC V-8
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Oil Consumption 2000 JGC V-8
I just remember my first car a '48 Hudson, a twenty dollar car that
I carried a gallon of Raylube with it:
http://www.----------.com/hudson.jpg
> Well I will swear on a stack of Bibles the cars I listed were never
> low enough to add oil between changes. There were other cars I drove
> that did, one was the parents '59 Dodge panel 383" that the head oil
> return holes had clogged with slug. And I never owned a VW or Corvair.
> God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
> mailto:--------------------
I carried a gallon of Raylube with it:
http://www.----------.com/hudson.jpg
> Well I will swear on a stack of Bibles the cars I listed were never
> low enough to add oil between changes. There were other cars I drove
> that did, one was the parents '59 Dodge panel 383" that the head oil
> return holes had clogged with slug. And I never owned a VW or Corvair.
> God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
> mailto:--------------------
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Oil Consumption 2000 JGC V-8
The two methods are different ways to arrive at the same place.
Ya know there are a few times when having a specialized Chemistry Degree
comes in handy, those 7 years weren't totally wasted....
The PAO method takes chemicals initially small molecules and chemically
joins them to make molecules of the desired size and shape. It may be of
interest that the esters used to build PAO oils are initially derived from
petroleum. If the next group is referred to as 'dino spit' perhaps this
group may be referred to as 'dino phlegm'
The dino method that you mention starts with Base II oil (conventional
automobile is the inferior BaseII) and chemically or enzymatically cleves
them at specific points in their structure to be the desired size and shape.
What you end up with in either scenario is a collection of molecules that
are the size and shape that the engineers specified.
You might ask why is there two methods..... I am not a chemist for the
petroleum industry so I haven't any inside scoop other than what little my
brother, who works for Exxon, tells me.
Generally there are 3 reasons for multiple pathways.
1. Primary research went down multiple paths
2. Protected by patent.
3. Cost
Is one technology better than the other?
Hmmmm good question, hard to answer. There are some minor differences that
fall within the design specs.
The groupIII derived oils theoretically could have low levels of non design
elements (i.e. contaminants), this would be trumpeted by the PAO supporters
who claim that their favorite is free of these 'dino droppings'
The PAO derived also have minuscule contaminants of their own that are
within their design specs. As you see..... nothing is 100% pure although
some advertising departments spend millions of dollars per year to make you
believe otherwise.
Benefits of synthetic oil?
Synthetic oil lasts two to five times longer than conventional oil; thus,
waste oil generation can be reduced two to five times if synthetic oil is
used.
Synthetic oils have high resistance to changes in viscosity due to
temperature. As a result, they provide a heavier, more stable protective oil
film for engine bearings and piston rings than is provided by similar
SAE-grade mineral oils.
Synthetic oil permits better cold weather performance and longer endurance.
Manufacturers claim that synthetic oil yields better fuel economy,
reductions in friction and wear, decreased oil consumption, improved
performance, and extended drain intervals.
Disadvantages of synthetic oil?
Synthetic oil costs more than conventional oil. However, the higher cost is
typically offset by reduced waste generation.
Since synthetic oil has improved fluidity, oil loss will occur more quickly
through leaks because the thinner fluid will flow through a bad seal or worn
ring.
Some synthetic compounds are not compatible with conventional oils. (no
longer the case with motor oil)
The lower friction resulting from the use of a synthetic lubricant makes
them unsuitable for break-in.
There is, of course, an economic impact that I will be happy to further
discuss as well as study I participated in where the biological effect of a
chemical derived from (basically) the two methods mentioned above were
studied.
"L.W.(Bill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:4531B4E6.44D49319@***.net...
> Hi Bill,
> I would like to remind you that the word synthetic is not used like
> synthetic rubber where the rubber is made from petroleum, rather than
> any part of the rubber tree, as synthetic oil is refined from the same
> petroleum products as you so called "dino" just one more cracker refine
> step to basestocks.
> God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> billy ray wrote:
>>
>> Earle,
>>
>> I liked your wording, it is so precise and misleading someone might
>> mistake
>> you for a shyster or Demoncratic Politician.
>>
>> I will agree that synthetics have limited superiority to dino spit when
>> the
>> dino oil is new, the weather always remains moderate, and the oil and
>> filter
>> are changed promptly at 3k or less mile intervals.
Ya know there are a few times when having a specialized Chemistry Degree
comes in handy, those 7 years weren't totally wasted....
The PAO method takes chemicals initially small molecules and chemically
joins them to make molecules of the desired size and shape. It may be of
interest that the esters used to build PAO oils are initially derived from
petroleum. If the next group is referred to as 'dino spit' perhaps this
group may be referred to as 'dino phlegm'
The dino method that you mention starts with Base II oil (conventional
automobile is the inferior BaseII) and chemically or enzymatically cleves
them at specific points in their structure to be the desired size and shape.
What you end up with in either scenario is a collection of molecules that
are the size and shape that the engineers specified.
You might ask why is there two methods..... I am not a chemist for the
petroleum industry so I haven't any inside scoop other than what little my
brother, who works for Exxon, tells me.
Generally there are 3 reasons for multiple pathways.
1. Primary research went down multiple paths
2. Protected by patent.
3. Cost
Is one technology better than the other?
Hmmmm good question, hard to answer. There are some minor differences that
fall within the design specs.
The groupIII derived oils theoretically could have low levels of non design
elements (i.e. contaminants), this would be trumpeted by the PAO supporters
who claim that their favorite is free of these 'dino droppings'
The PAO derived also have minuscule contaminants of their own that are
within their design specs. As you see..... nothing is 100% pure although
some advertising departments spend millions of dollars per year to make you
believe otherwise.
Benefits of synthetic oil?
Synthetic oil lasts two to five times longer than conventional oil; thus,
waste oil generation can be reduced two to five times if synthetic oil is
used.
Synthetic oils have high resistance to changes in viscosity due to
temperature. As a result, they provide a heavier, more stable protective oil
film for engine bearings and piston rings than is provided by similar
SAE-grade mineral oils.
Synthetic oil permits better cold weather performance and longer endurance.
Manufacturers claim that synthetic oil yields better fuel economy,
reductions in friction and wear, decreased oil consumption, improved
performance, and extended drain intervals.
Disadvantages of synthetic oil?
Synthetic oil costs more than conventional oil. However, the higher cost is
typically offset by reduced waste generation.
Since synthetic oil has improved fluidity, oil loss will occur more quickly
through leaks because the thinner fluid will flow through a bad seal or worn
ring.
Some synthetic compounds are not compatible with conventional oils. (no
longer the case with motor oil)
The lower friction resulting from the use of a synthetic lubricant makes
them unsuitable for break-in.
There is, of course, an economic impact that I will be happy to further
discuss as well as study I participated in where the biological effect of a
chemical derived from (basically) the two methods mentioned above were
studied.
"L.W.(Bill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:4531B4E6.44D49319@***.net...
> Hi Bill,
> I would like to remind you that the word synthetic is not used like
> synthetic rubber where the rubber is made from petroleum, rather than
> any part of the rubber tree, as synthetic oil is refined from the same
> petroleum products as you so called "dino" just one more cracker refine
> step to basestocks.
> God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> billy ray wrote:
>>
>> Earle,
>>
>> I liked your wording, it is so precise and misleading someone might
>> mistake
>> you for a shyster or Demoncratic Politician.
>>
>> I will agree that synthetics have limited superiority to dino spit when
>> the
>> dino oil is new, the weather always remains moderate, and the oil and
>> filter
>> are changed promptly at 3k or less mile intervals.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Oil Consumption 2000 JGC V-8
The two methods are different ways to arrive at the same place.
Ya know there are a few times when having a specialized Chemistry Degree
comes in handy, those 7 years weren't totally wasted....
The PAO method takes chemicals initially small molecules and chemically
joins them to make molecules of the desired size and shape. It may be of
interest that the esters used to build PAO oils are initially derived from
petroleum. If the next group is referred to as 'dino spit' perhaps this
group may be referred to as 'dino phlegm'
The dino method that you mention starts with Base II oil (conventional
automobile is the inferior BaseII) and chemically or enzymatically cleves
them at specific points in their structure to be the desired size and shape.
What you end up with in either scenario is a collection of molecules that
are the size and shape that the engineers specified.
You might ask why is there two methods..... I am not a chemist for the
petroleum industry so I haven't any inside scoop other than what little my
brother, who works for Exxon, tells me.
Generally there are 3 reasons for multiple pathways.
1. Primary research went down multiple paths
2. Protected by patent.
3. Cost
Is one technology better than the other?
Hmmmm good question, hard to answer. There are some minor differences that
fall within the design specs.
The groupIII derived oils theoretically could have low levels of non design
elements (i.e. contaminants), this would be trumpeted by the PAO supporters
who claim that their favorite is free of these 'dino droppings'
The PAO derived also have minuscule contaminants of their own that are
within their design specs. As you see..... nothing is 100% pure although
some advertising departments spend millions of dollars per year to make you
believe otherwise.
Benefits of synthetic oil?
Synthetic oil lasts two to five times longer than conventional oil; thus,
waste oil generation can be reduced two to five times if synthetic oil is
used.
Synthetic oils have high resistance to changes in viscosity due to
temperature. As a result, they provide a heavier, more stable protective oil
film for engine bearings and piston rings than is provided by similar
SAE-grade mineral oils.
Synthetic oil permits better cold weather performance and longer endurance.
Manufacturers claim that synthetic oil yields better fuel economy,
reductions in friction and wear, decreased oil consumption, improved
performance, and extended drain intervals.
Disadvantages of synthetic oil?
Synthetic oil costs more than conventional oil. However, the higher cost is
typically offset by reduced waste generation.
Since synthetic oil has improved fluidity, oil loss will occur more quickly
through leaks because the thinner fluid will flow through a bad seal or worn
ring.
Some synthetic compounds are not compatible with conventional oils. (no
longer the case with motor oil)
The lower friction resulting from the use of a synthetic lubricant makes
them unsuitable for break-in.
There is, of course, an economic impact that I will be happy to further
discuss as well as study I participated in where the biological effect of a
chemical derived from (basically) the two methods mentioned above were
studied.
"L.W.(Bill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:4531B4E6.44D49319@***.net...
> Hi Bill,
> I would like to remind you that the word synthetic is not used like
> synthetic rubber where the rubber is made from petroleum, rather than
> any part of the rubber tree, as synthetic oil is refined from the same
> petroleum products as you so called "dino" just one more cracker refine
> step to basestocks.
> God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> billy ray wrote:
>>
>> Earle,
>>
>> I liked your wording, it is so precise and misleading someone might
>> mistake
>> you for a shyster or Demoncratic Politician.
>>
>> I will agree that synthetics have limited superiority to dino spit when
>> the
>> dino oil is new, the weather always remains moderate, and the oil and
>> filter
>> are changed promptly at 3k or less mile intervals.
Ya know there are a few times when having a specialized Chemistry Degree
comes in handy, those 7 years weren't totally wasted....
The PAO method takes chemicals initially small molecules and chemically
joins them to make molecules of the desired size and shape. It may be of
interest that the esters used to build PAO oils are initially derived from
petroleum. If the next group is referred to as 'dino spit' perhaps this
group may be referred to as 'dino phlegm'
The dino method that you mention starts with Base II oil (conventional
automobile is the inferior BaseII) and chemically or enzymatically cleves
them at specific points in their structure to be the desired size and shape.
What you end up with in either scenario is a collection of molecules that
are the size and shape that the engineers specified.
You might ask why is there two methods..... I am not a chemist for the
petroleum industry so I haven't any inside scoop other than what little my
brother, who works for Exxon, tells me.
Generally there are 3 reasons for multiple pathways.
1. Primary research went down multiple paths
2. Protected by patent.
3. Cost
Is one technology better than the other?
Hmmmm good question, hard to answer. There are some minor differences that
fall within the design specs.
The groupIII derived oils theoretically could have low levels of non design
elements (i.e. contaminants), this would be trumpeted by the PAO supporters
who claim that their favorite is free of these 'dino droppings'
The PAO derived also have minuscule contaminants of their own that are
within their design specs. As you see..... nothing is 100% pure although
some advertising departments spend millions of dollars per year to make you
believe otherwise.
Benefits of synthetic oil?
Synthetic oil lasts two to five times longer than conventional oil; thus,
waste oil generation can be reduced two to five times if synthetic oil is
used.
Synthetic oils have high resistance to changes in viscosity due to
temperature. As a result, they provide a heavier, more stable protective oil
film for engine bearings and piston rings than is provided by similar
SAE-grade mineral oils.
Synthetic oil permits better cold weather performance and longer endurance.
Manufacturers claim that synthetic oil yields better fuel economy,
reductions in friction and wear, decreased oil consumption, improved
performance, and extended drain intervals.
Disadvantages of synthetic oil?
Synthetic oil costs more than conventional oil. However, the higher cost is
typically offset by reduced waste generation.
Since synthetic oil has improved fluidity, oil loss will occur more quickly
through leaks because the thinner fluid will flow through a bad seal or worn
ring.
Some synthetic compounds are not compatible with conventional oils. (no
longer the case with motor oil)
The lower friction resulting from the use of a synthetic lubricant makes
them unsuitable for break-in.
There is, of course, an economic impact that I will be happy to further
discuss as well as study I participated in where the biological effect of a
chemical derived from (basically) the two methods mentioned above were
studied.
"L.W.(Bill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:4531B4E6.44D49319@***.net...
> Hi Bill,
> I would like to remind you that the word synthetic is not used like
> synthetic rubber where the rubber is made from petroleum, rather than
> any part of the rubber tree, as synthetic oil is refined from the same
> petroleum products as you so called "dino" just one more cracker refine
> step to basestocks.
> God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> billy ray wrote:
>>
>> Earle,
>>
>> I liked your wording, it is so precise and misleading someone might
>> mistake
>> you for a shyster or Demoncratic Politician.
>>
>> I will agree that synthetics have limited superiority to dino spit when
>> the
>> dino oil is new, the weather always remains moderate, and the oil and
>> filter
>> are changed promptly at 3k or less mile intervals.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Oil Consumption 2000 JGC V-8
The two methods are different ways to arrive at the same place.
Ya know there are a few times when having a specialized Chemistry Degree
comes in handy, those 7 years weren't totally wasted....
The PAO method takes chemicals initially small molecules and chemically
joins them to make molecules of the desired size and shape. It may be of
interest that the esters used to build PAO oils are initially derived from
petroleum. If the next group is referred to as 'dino spit' perhaps this
group may be referred to as 'dino phlegm'
The dino method that you mention starts with Base II oil (conventional
automobile is the inferior BaseII) and chemically or enzymatically cleves
them at specific points in their structure to be the desired size and shape.
What you end up with in either scenario is a collection of molecules that
are the size and shape that the engineers specified.
You might ask why is there two methods..... I am not a chemist for the
petroleum industry so I haven't any inside scoop other than what little my
brother, who works for Exxon, tells me.
Generally there are 3 reasons for multiple pathways.
1. Primary research went down multiple paths
2. Protected by patent.
3. Cost
Is one technology better than the other?
Hmmmm good question, hard to answer. There are some minor differences that
fall within the design specs.
The groupIII derived oils theoretically could have low levels of non design
elements (i.e. contaminants), this would be trumpeted by the PAO supporters
who claim that their favorite is free of these 'dino droppings'
The PAO derived also have minuscule contaminants of their own that are
within their design specs. As you see..... nothing is 100% pure although
some advertising departments spend millions of dollars per year to make you
believe otherwise.
Benefits of synthetic oil?
Synthetic oil lasts two to five times longer than conventional oil; thus,
waste oil generation can be reduced two to five times if synthetic oil is
used.
Synthetic oils have high resistance to changes in viscosity due to
temperature. As a result, they provide a heavier, more stable protective oil
film for engine bearings and piston rings than is provided by similar
SAE-grade mineral oils.
Synthetic oil permits better cold weather performance and longer endurance.
Manufacturers claim that synthetic oil yields better fuel economy,
reductions in friction and wear, decreased oil consumption, improved
performance, and extended drain intervals.
Disadvantages of synthetic oil?
Synthetic oil costs more than conventional oil. However, the higher cost is
typically offset by reduced waste generation.
Since synthetic oil has improved fluidity, oil loss will occur more quickly
through leaks because the thinner fluid will flow through a bad seal or worn
ring.
Some synthetic compounds are not compatible with conventional oils. (no
longer the case with motor oil)
The lower friction resulting from the use of a synthetic lubricant makes
them unsuitable for break-in.
There is, of course, an economic impact that I will be happy to further
discuss as well as study I participated in where the biological effect of a
chemical derived from (basically) the two methods mentioned above were
studied.
"L.W.(Bill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:4531B4E6.44D49319@***.net...
> Hi Bill,
> I would like to remind you that the word synthetic is not used like
> synthetic rubber where the rubber is made from petroleum, rather than
> any part of the rubber tree, as synthetic oil is refined from the same
> petroleum products as you so called "dino" just one more cracker refine
> step to basestocks.
> God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> billy ray wrote:
>>
>> Earle,
>>
>> I liked your wording, it is so precise and misleading someone might
>> mistake
>> you for a shyster or Demoncratic Politician.
>>
>> I will agree that synthetics have limited superiority to dino spit when
>> the
>> dino oil is new, the weather always remains moderate, and the oil and
>> filter
>> are changed promptly at 3k or less mile intervals.
Ya know there are a few times when having a specialized Chemistry Degree
comes in handy, those 7 years weren't totally wasted....
The PAO method takes chemicals initially small molecules and chemically
joins them to make molecules of the desired size and shape. It may be of
interest that the esters used to build PAO oils are initially derived from
petroleum. If the next group is referred to as 'dino spit' perhaps this
group may be referred to as 'dino phlegm'
The dino method that you mention starts with Base II oil (conventional
automobile is the inferior BaseII) and chemically or enzymatically cleves
them at specific points in their structure to be the desired size and shape.
What you end up with in either scenario is a collection of molecules that
are the size and shape that the engineers specified.
You might ask why is there two methods..... I am not a chemist for the
petroleum industry so I haven't any inside scoop other than what little my
brother, who works for Exxon, tells me.
Generally there are 3 reasons for multiple pathways.
1. Primary research went down multiple paths
2. Protected by patent.
3. Cost
Is one technology better than the other?
Hmmmm good question, hard to answer. There are some minor differences that
fall within the design specs.
The groupIII derived oils theoretically could have low levels of non design
elements (i.e. contaminants), this would be trumpeted by the PAO supporters
who claim that their favorite is free of these 'dino droppings'
The PAO derived also have minuscule contaminants of their own that are
within their design specs. As you see..... nothing is 100% pure although
some advertising departments spend millions of dollars per year to make you
believe otherwise.
Benefits of synthetic oil?
Synthetic oil lasts two to five times longer than conventional oil; thus,
waste oil generation can be reduced two to five times if synthetic oil is
used.
Synthetic oils have high resistance to changes in viscosity due to
temperature. As a result, they provide a heavier, more stable protective oil
film for engine bearings and piston rings than is provided by similar
SAE-grade mineral oils.
Synthetic oil permits better cold weather performance and longer endurance.
Manufacturers claim that synthetic oil yields better fuel economy,
reductions in friction and wear, decreased oil consumption, improved
performance, and extended drain intervals.
Disadvantages of synthetic oil?
Synthetic oil costs more than conventional oil. However, the higher cost is
typically offset by reduced waste generation.
Since synthetic oil has improved fluidity, oil loss will occur more quickly
through leaks because the thinner fluid will flow through a bad seal or worn
ring.
Some synthetic compounds are not compatible with conventional oils. (no
longer the case with motor oil)
The lower friction resulting from the use of a synthetic lubricant makes
them unsuitable for break-in.
There is, of course, an economic impact that I will be happy to further
discuss as well as study I participated in where the biological effect of a
chemical derived from (basically) the two methods mentioned above were
studied.
"L.W.(Bill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:4531B4E6.44D49319@***.net...
> Hi Bill,
> I would like to remind you that the word synthetic is not used like
> synthetic rubber where the rubber is made from petroleum, rather than
> any part of the rubber tree, as synthetic oil is refined from the same
> petroleum products as you so called "dino" just one more cracker refine
> step to basestocks.
> God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> billy ray wrote:
>>
>> Earle,
>>
>> I liked your wording, it is so precise and misleading someone might
>> mistake
>> you for a shyster or Demoncratic Politician.
>>
>> I will agree that synthetics have limited superiority to dino spit when
>> the
>> dino oil is new, the weather always remains moderate, and the oil and
>> filter
>> are changed promptly at 3k or less mile intervals.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Oil Consumption 2000 JGC V-8
I noticed an serious error... the dino derived synthetic oil comes from the
superior Group III base not the inferior Group II that is used for almost
all automotive oil.
">
> The dino method that you mention starts with Base II oil (conventional
> automobile is the inferior BaseII) and chemically or enzymatically cleves
superior Group III base not the inferior Group II that is used for almost
all automotive oil.
">
> The dino method that you mention starts with Base II oil (conventional
> automobile is the inferior BaseII) and chemically or enzymatically cleves
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Oil Consumption 2000 JGC V-8
I noticed an serious error... the dino derived synthetic oil comes from the
superior Group III base not the inferior Group II that is used for almost
all automotive oil.
">
> The dino method that you mention starts with Base II oil (conventional
> automobile is the inferior BaseII) and chemically or enzymatically cleves
superior Group III base not the inferior Group II that is used for almost
all automotive oil.
">
> The dino method that you mention starts with Base II oil (conventional
> automobile is the inferior BaseII) and chemically or enzymatically cleves
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Oil Consumption 2000 JGC V-8
I noticed an serious error... the dino derived synthetic oil comes from the
superior Group III base not the inferior Group II that is used for almost
all automotive oil.
">
> The dino method that you mention starts with Base II oil (conventional
> automobile is the inferior BaseII) and chemically or enzymatically cleves
superior Group III base not the inferior Group II that is used for almost
all automotive oil.
">
> The dino method that you mention starts with Base II oil (conventional
> automobile is the inferior BaseII) and chemically or enzymatically cleves
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Oil Consumption 2000 JGC V-8
"billy ray" <billy_ray@SPAMfuse.net> wrote in message
news:68f89$453245ca$422afc51$20917@FUSE.NET...
---snip---
> The PAO derived also have minuscule contaminants of their own that
> are within their design specs. As you see..... nothing is 100% pure
Uh, so do all dino oils, have "minuscule contaminants of their own that are
within their design specs".
---snip---
> Benefits of synthetic oil?
> Synthetic oil lasts two to five times longer than conventional oil;
> thus, waste oil generation can be reduced two to five times if
> synthetic oil is used.
---snip---
Are you suggesting that this information could be relevant to an automotive
application? Because the last time Mike posted the charter, it sure looked
like an automotive group charter. Well, I am getting roughly 5,000 miles
between changes, mostly highway use in my Wrangler. This says that I could
go 10,000 to 25,000 if I switched to synthetic. I am looking at the part
that says, "waste oil generation can be reduced two to five times", and the
only way you can do that, is to extend the change interval.
Most of the people I know, who have been using synthetic, use a 3,000 mile
change interval. In that case, the fact that, "synthetic oil lasts two to
five times longer than conventional oil", if it does, is of no use to them.
Cheers,
Earle
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Oil Consumption 2000 JGC V-8
"billy ray" <billy_ray@SPAMfuse.net> wrote in message
news:68f89$453245ca$422afc51$20917@FUSE.NET...
---snip---
> The PAO derived also have minuscule contaminants of their own that
> are within their design specs. As you see..... nothing is 100% pure
Uh, so do all dino oils, have "minuscule contaminants of their own that are
within their design specs".
---snip---
> Benefits of synthetic oil?
> Synthetic oil lasts two to five times longer than conventional oil;
> thus, waste oil generation can be reduced two to five times if
> synthetic oil is used.
---snip---
Are you suggesting that this information could be relevant to an automotive
application? Because the last time Mike posted the charter, it sure looked
like an automotive group charter. Well, I am getting roughly 5,000 miles
between changes, mostly highway use in my Wrangler. This says that I could
go 10,000 to 25,000 if I switched to synthetic. I am looking at the part
that says, "waste oil generation can be reduced two to five times", and the
only way you can do that, is to extend the change interval.
Most of the people I know, who have been using synthetic, use a 3,000 mile
change interval. In that case, the fact that, "synthetic oil lasts two to
five times longer than conventional oil", if it does, is of no use to them.
Cheers,
Earle
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Oil Consumption 2000 JGC V-8
"billy ray" <billy_ray@SPAMfuse.net> wrote in message
news:68f89$453245ca$422afc51$20917@FUSE.NET...
---snip---
> The PAO derived also have minuscule contaminants of their own that
> are within their design specs. As you see..... nothing is 100% pure
Uh, so do all dino oils, have "minuscule contaminants of their own that are
within their design specs".
---snip---
> Benefits of synthetic oil?
> Synthetic oil lasts two to five times longer than conventional oil;
> thus, waste oil generation can be reduced two to five times if
> synthetic oil is used.
---snip---
Are you suggesting that this information could be relevant to an automotive
application? Because the last time Mike posted the charter, it sure looked
like an automotive group charter. Well, I am getting roughly 5,000 miles
between changes, mostly highway use in my Wrangler. This says that I could
go 10,000 to 25,000 if I switched to synthetic. I am looking at the part
that says, "waste oil generation can be reduced two to five times", and the
only way you can do that, is to extend the change interval.
Most of the people I know, who have been using synthetic, use a 3,000 mile
change interval. In that case, the fact that, "synthetic oil lasts two to
five times longer than conventional oil", if it does, is of no use to them.
Cheers,
Earle
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com