[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]

Re: Synthetic Oils, very long, per Paul request

On Mon, 5 Jan 1998 avi@cosmoslink.net wrote:

>Here is the poop (per Paul's request):

>while working for an internal combustion mfg. (USA) I performed the
>following tests with synthetic oil);

>full load (1200 RPM 1000 BHP) 165 BMEP (with Delvac 1, Mobil 30W)
>full load (1200 RPM 1000 BHP) 165 BMEP (with Tenneco 30W)
>partial load (1000 RPM 800 BHP) don't recall the BMEP (with Delvac 1, Mobil

>note: continues running (shut down for oil change only)
>oil change was performed at 500 HRS (with filters)

>3 times the acceptable oil consumption (don't recall the acceptable
>quantity) at FULL load
>2 times the acceptable oil consumption (don't recall the acceptable
>quantity) at PART load,
>increased valve train wear (don't remember the detailes)
>increased bearing material residue during oil analysis intervals (every 100

>Conclusion: both oils judged unacceptable
>There was a long report attached to the test, but the above is a very short

>There is more but I think the above gets the point across, DRAW YOUR OWN

Gee, Avi... I think I can speak on behalf of majority of listers that it's
impossible to draw ANY sort of conclusion from this post! From what I see,
this post would make more sense if the word "oil" is replaced with "ice
cream" and the various engine (and parts) are replaced by "farmers" (and
the family), and replace the title with "Studies on Mid-west Farmers'
Efficiencies while on Ice Cream Diet."

Avi, if you want to convince ME on how synth oil does par or worse than
dino oil, you better do a better (in fact, A LOT better) post than this!

------------- clip here with virtual scissors --------------
Keyboard stuck error. Press F1 to continue.
New rates for unsolicited e-mails:
Any unsolicited e-mails will be charged $3000/KB, $5000 min.
Just say "Your lights are on" to DRLs