|
July 1996 edition........ http://www.xs11.com/xs11-info/xs11-info/articles/51-consumer-reportstruth-motor-oils-july-1996.html From: 1962to1965mopars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:1962to1965mopars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Bill Parker Here's another angle on the oil discussion. A few years back there was a lot of discussion about the best filters. Several different people put up their own expose' of various oil filters, and a common thread seemed to be to prove that
Fram filters were inferior to most others. I'm pretty sure that links to some of these treatises were posted on this and other Mopar related lists. The filter investigations primarily consisted of cutting open various brands of filters and pronouncing quality
based on visual observation of the amount of material, etc. It really made me question what I was doing, or rather which oils and filters I was using. However, Consumer Reports magazine did a scientific study on this very topic. Again, its been several
years and I don't know which issue or even which year, but at that time I was subscribing to the mag and read the study myself. Anyway, what CR did was contract with Yellow Cab in New York City to run an experiment with oils and filters on their fleet. If you've been in NYC, you know that would be a bunch of cars. Over a long term, CR serviced all the cabs, changing
the oil and filters, using many different brands of each, then tore down the engines at various intervals and measured wear. They also ran some specific lab tests on oil filters determining what percentage of purposely introduced contaminants was picked up,
and how much could be absorbed before the bypass opened. The best performers were: synthetic oil--Mobil 1; dino oil--Castrol GTX; filter: Fram. I've used Castrol GTX and Fram ever since. Things may be logical and make sense, such as that 10-40 oil, having more additives than 10-30 oil, might have a problem because of the extra additives. I guess since I've used 10-40 on most of my vehicles since multi-vis became widely
available, and haven't had any develop problems, I'm skeptical, but if there is evidence, I'd have to consider it. Our real late model stuff, consisting of my '05 300c 5.7 and my wife's 09 PT Cruiser Ltd (2.4 turbo), specify 05-20 and 05-25 respectively, and I've been going with that since both are relatively low mileage vehicles. Otherwise I pretty
much use 10-40 in cars trucks and motorcycles except 20-50 in the HD.
Bill & Kathi Parker, South Central Indiana, harboring of bunch of old and newer Mopars -- -- -- Please address private email -- email of interest to only one person -- directly to that person. That is, email your parts/car transactions and negotiations, as well as other personal messages, only to the intended recipient. Do not just press "reply" and send your email to everyone using the general '62-'65 Clubhouse public email address. This practice will protect your privacy, reduce the total volume of mail and fine-tune the content signal to Mopar topic. Thanks! 1962 to 1965 Mopar Clubhouse Discussion Guidelines: http://www.1962to1965mopar.ornocar.org/mletiq.html and http://www.1962to1965mopar.ornocar.com/general_disclaimer.html. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The 1962 to 1965 Mopar Mail List Clubhouse" group. http://groups.google.com/group/1962to1965mopars?hl=en. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The 1962 to 1965 Mopar Mail List Clubhouse" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to 1962to1965mopars+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. |
Back to the Home of the Forward Look Network