I haven't seen a copy of Consumer Reports Magazine for a long time - I'm not a
fan, and I get my car info from R&T and a couple of auto industry trade
magazines - but I was under the impression that CR didn't take ads.
Gary McCormick
San Jose, CA
andycost wrote:
> 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]
|