datsun-roadsters
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: Oil Testing Results

To: "Datsun Roadster List" <datsun-roadsters@autox.team.net>
Subject: RE: Oil Testing Results
From: "Gordon Glasgow" <gsglasgow@home.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 18:20:55 -0700
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]

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>