Search results

I have runflats on my BMW, and I think they are much safer than non-runflats and do not have any downsides that I care about. I did have a blowout with them, and it resulted in a much safer situation all around. I wish I could put runflats on my Expedition. But runflat wheels are made...

Michelin's explanation would be believable if they were actually getting better anti-lock test results with their B UTQG traction rated tires than their competitors get with their A rated tires. But at least with their Defender LTX M/S 2 tires they are not. In tests reported by Tire Rack and...

I won first place in a car show when I told the judges that everything on my 30-year-old car was original including the tires. They were Michelin MXMs and still performed well at any speed despite their age.

I am wondering if other things may be playing a part in negative reactions to the symbol, such as After over 20 years of experience to 3PMSF "All weather" tires, the consumer may associate the symbol mostly with tires that have poor duration, poor wet performance, and more noise in contrast to...

Please tell us more. Where and why is the 3MPSF symbol a negative?

Two possibilities: They may have filed it under a different corporate identity such as a subsidiary or their parent company. They may have decided to protect is as a trade secret, thereby avoiding telling their competitors exactly what it is. Or they may want to protect it for more than 20...

So, it looks like I did not find the right patents for this product. But the two patent applications that I did find (both titled "Lubricant for preventing and removing carbon deposits in internal combustion engines") prove that Valvoline has been doing R&D and filing for patents in this area...

I do not know which of the components listed in the 17 claims are Group V. Do all of the 17 claims use a Group V component?

But I do not see any difference in the tables between the two patent applications ...

You may be right. Here are tables from https://patents.google.com/patent/US11078436B2/en, which is probably the newer version: Table I shows four exemplary formulations and physical data. TABLE I OIL COMPONENTS #1 #2 #3 #4 Base Oil #1 Lubrigreen SE7B 50.00 0.00 Base Oil...

Not that old: "2021-08-03 Application granted"

From https://patents.google.com/patent/US20170029734A1/en : Table I shows four exemplary formulations and physical data. TABLE I OIL COMPONENTS #1 #2 #3 #4 Base Oil #1 Lubrigreen SE7B 50.00 0.00 Base Oil #2 Elevance 1119-159 0.00 50.00 Base Oil #3 Priolube 1973...

Note that according to the TDS PUP it does not have a Dexos certification either.

The online specifications for Ultra and Platinum show them meeting WSS-M2C946-A, which was the predecessor for WSS-M2C961-A1. My guess is that the online specs are probably out of date. If this is a source of worry, simply look at the back of the bottle before purchasing to see if the...

Here is an interesting chart on CCS from the German site https://www.ato24.de/pub/media/wysiwyg/ATO24_Oelanalysen_ACEA_C2_0W30.pdf : In the tradeoffs and compromises that go into formulating engine oil, it looks like BMW, recognizing that CCS values inflate over an OCI, decided to go for a...

Your welcome.

I already gave it. Look, it is really very simple. If you choose Mobil 1 ESP 0W30, you are choosing to use an oil that neither Ford nor Mobil recommend for your application. If that bothers you, use Mobil 1 Advanced Fuel Economy 0W30. If not, choose whatever you like.

No. The evidence is against it.

Also you have to think: if meeting WSS-M2C963-A1 is so easy, why wouldn't every 0w30 oil claim to meet it, thereby vastly increasing the size of their market in the US? And why did it take Mobil years to claim it after Ford specified it in their User's Manuals?

But Mobil 1 ESP 0w30 doesn't claim to meet any Ford specifications (other than being SP), which is the topic of this thread.