It's hard to sell magazine ads if you rate your advertisers products poorly.
That's why I don't trust very many of the consumer report type publications.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gordon Glasgow" <gsglasgow@home.com>
To: "Datsun Roadster List" <datsun-roadsters@autox.team.net>
Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2001 8:20 PM
Subject: RE: Oil Testing Results
> Not meaning to diss anyone, and I'm sure the information was provided with
good
> intentions, but I've never considered Consumer Reports to be an
authoritative
> source on things automotive. This is the same bunch that rated the Fiat
X-1/9
> handling "unacceptable" and got in deep yogurt over the faked Suzuki
Samurai
> "rollover" test.
>
> I'll stick with the conventional wisdom on this one.
>
> Gordon Glasgow
> Renton, WA
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-datsun-roadsters@autox.team.net
> [mailto:owner-datsun-roadsters@autox.team.net]On Behalf Of datsunmike
> Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2001 5:11 PM
> To: Rich Glass; Datsun Roadster List; Bill Strohm
> Subject: Oil Testing Results
>
>
> Consumer Reports Oil Testing Results
> =20
> =20
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> =20
> Consumer Reports Oil Testing Results=20
> =20
> Return to Articles Page=20
> =20
> Consumer Reports, with one of the most widely respected =
> product testing laboratories in the world has just released the results =
> of an extensive test on oil brands and oil changes, as well as other =
> issues regarding car care. In the process, the test demolished much of =
> the conventional wisdom regarding car lubrication. The two most =
> surprising results: the frequency with which oil is changed doesn't =
> matter after the first few oil changes on a new engine, and the type or =
> brand of oil used can not be shown to make any difference.
>
> The testers placed freshly rebuilt engines in 75 New York =
> taxis and then ran them for nearly two years, with each cab racking up =
> 60,000 miles, placing different brands and weights in different cars and =
> changing the oil at 3,000 miles in half the cars and 6,000 in the other =
> half. At the conclusion of the test period, the engines were torn down, =
> measured and inspected. The conclusions: Regardless of brand of oil or =
> weight, no measurable differences could be observed in engine wear. =
> Furthermore, there was no difference among cars which had oil changed at =
> the shorter or longer interval.
>
> Does this have any bearing on the enthusiast's car, which is =
> given almost the opposite usage stored for long periods of time then =
> started and driven for short distances? The tests suggested that our =
> type of usage would build up sludge and varnish, indicating that an =
> annual or semi-annual oil change is a good idea regardless of how much =
> mileage the car is driven. But there is little indication that the brand =
> or weight needs to be given serious consideration, and synthetic oil has =
> no discernible advantage over the old stand-bys. More information on the =
> tests and results can be obtained from Consumers Union or the July issue =
> of Consumer Reports available at most libraries.
>
> Source: British Car Magazine, October-November 1996
>
> Related Stories:
>
> More Than You Ever Wanted to Know About Motor Oil
>
> An Excerpt from a SAE Oil Filter Test Oil filter efficency =
> test and a list of filters that fit the Spitfire
>
> Visit the Mopar site for the study of major old filters and =
> the results
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> Return to Articles Page =20
>
> =20
>
> [demime 0.97c removed an attachment of type image/gif which had a name of
> premast.gif]
>
> [demime 0.97c removed an attachment of type image/gif which had a name of
> referbut.gif]
>
> [demime 0.97c removed an attachment of type image/gif which had a name of
> maintbut.gif]
>
> [demime 0.97c removed an attachment of type image/gif which had a name of
> howtobut.gif]
>
> [demime 0.97c removed an attachment of type image/gif which had a name of
> salebut.gif]
>
> [demime 0.97c removed an attachment of type image/gif which had a name of
> clubbut.gif]
>
> [demime 0.97c removed an attachment of type image/gif which had a name of
> funbut.gif]
>
> [demime 0.97c removed an attachment of type image/gif which had a name of
> Magazbut.gif]
>
> [demime 0.97c removed an attachment of type image/gif which had a name of
> otherbut.gif]
>
> [demime 0.97c removed an attachment of type image/gif which had a name of
> siteindex.gif]
>
> [demime 0.97c removed an attachment of type image/gif which had a name of
> returnbut.gif]
>
> [demime 0.97c removed an attachment of type image/gif which had a name of
> back.gif]
|