Mike Romain

Ahh, ok it was just posted by the spamsoil freak.

I have seen this study posted forever and the original author wanted it
gone if I remember right because it means nothing without the proper SAE
tests and without knowing the chemical composition of the filter
element, etc. It was beaten to death as soon as it became public.

In other words a lot to do about nothing.

Mike

"L.W.(ßill) ------ III" wrote:
>
> Hi Mike,
> This is a different thread, and is an old study, that the author
> had taken down, but I think it's good enough that I mirror it myself:
> http://----------.com/mirror/oilfilterstudy.htm
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Mike Romain wrote:
> >
> > John, I think a 'study' sponsored by Spamsoil is total garbage and only
> > a stupid sales spam by the OP. He spammed it all over the auto
> > newsgroups.
> >
> > I didn't think you fell for snake oil studies....
> >
> > Mike
> > 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
> > 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
> >
> > attnews wrote:
> > >
> > > ;thanx for the info. veddy interesting. I saw bad test results for fram
> > > many years ago, and gave up on them then....
> > > "HarryS" <NoSpanharry_1@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > > news:XeadnedTx7L5RRjfRVn-1g@comcast.com...
> > > > http://www.scuderiaciriani.com/rx7/oil_filter_study/
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > >
> > > > HarryS My 2¢
> > > >
> > > >