Originally Posted By: toocrazy2yoo
Originally Posted By: ekpolk
As to the first, yes, I spoiled things a tad by telling her what I'd done. She reported driving as usual (i.e. fast...), and that the car exhibited nothing unusual to her perception. Of course, I doubt she'd notice anything short of huge orange flames erupting from under the hood, but that's another issue...
EK, That's like the warning in the NATOPS manuals: "At the first sign of visible flames, EJECT!". That Avalon have Martin Bakers in it?
Sorry, Marine, we Squids have NO sense of decency, as you well know!
Alas, no Martin-Bakers installed the the Avalon -- waaaay too hard for use in a 'lon... That said, on more than one occasion, I've fantasized about having a James Bond style "passenger eject" feature in the car I'm driving.
===========================================================
Originally Posted By: Patman
I ran GC 0w30 in my wife's Honda for a few years, and when I switched it over to 5w20 I noticed no difference in MPG at all. She still gets a consistent 22-24 MPG in her weekly commute (city type driving, short trips)
I wonder if this apparent discrepancy might not be attributable to the different driving situations. In a city driving context, it would be a lot easier to "use up" any reduced friction gains by inadvertently driving somewhat faster, in effect making the gain go to speed performance instead of mpg performance. By contrast, if one pretty consistently drives the same indicated speed, in my wife's case a tad over 80 mpg, presumably the gain from reduced friction would actually show up as a reduction in fuel consumed.