In a message dated 99-05-24 06:42:34 EDT, toobmany@bigpond.com writes:
> Please, which airlines do those bad things? I'd like to know before I fly!
>
> Castrol may be comparing synthetic to mineral when they made this claim,
> full synthetics are inherently more stable so they don't need as many
> viscosity stabilisers and yes, full synthetics run cleaner and leave less
> deposits.
Airliners aren't as susceptible to failures as the military applications (and
there is redundancy). The throttle transients on the mil jets induce thrust
loads that kill the machines. And the equipment is usually made by 1 of 2
companies, both of whom are now my competitor because I got sick of
substandard products, so it wouldn't be right for me to tell you they are
AlliedSignal and Hamilton Standard (look who's spamming now!).
Regarding the additive claims, I read it in a Road and Track article by
Dennis Siminaitis a few years back, and he backs up what you wrote exactly.
He did say that the Castrol was the only one that used no additives at all.
Regarding Lotus, it has also been said (and you Lotus 7 owners know all about
this!) that Chapman would weld a bunch of tubes together to make a chassis,
then remove them one by one until the car collapsed. Then he would put one
back on.
Thanks for the info,
Ron
|