Originally Posted By: Shannow
The koolaid is strong in this one.
It's sugar free though right?
The koolaid is strong in this one.
It's sugar free though right?
Bitogsters influence
- Thread starter ravenchris
- Start date
- Status
I've tried some oils that I read about here just to see if the koolaid was true and have gone back to what HAS worked for me for many decades.
Never bought a quart of GC...
But it is very interesting how some members here are koolaid drinkers and you ask them why and they just spew the koolaid.
"Never tried anything because every thing else is garbage".
And then we have the closet salesman who are trying to sell more than ALL the site sponsors combined. Dang near EVERY post they have to spew their brand.
Any thread they have to jump in and defend their brand.
Welcome to BITOG...
Bill
Never bought a quart of GC...
But it is very interesting how some members here are koolaid drinkers and you ask them why and they just spew the koolaid.
"Never tried anything because every thing else is garbage".
And then we have the closet salesman who are trying to sell more than ALL the site sponsors combined. Dang near EVERY post they have to spew their brand.
Welcome to BITOG...
Bill
Some of the stuff posted here works for me and some doesnt... I go with what works. If someone has a similar problem or application then I share my experiences. I like Amsoil, ARX, Pennzoil Platinum and EAO filters. They have all worked for me. MMO, Lucas has not and so I don't recommend them.
Originally Posted By: StevieC
Some of the stuff posted here works for me and some doesnt... I go with what works. If someone has a similar problem or application then I share my experiences. I like Amsoil, ARX, Pennzoil Platinum and EAO filters. They have all worked for me. MMO, Lucas has not and so I don't recommend them.
I post from my experiences as well, some people just hate certain products. Then we have people who hate products they never tried based on what they've heard or read. In such cases they should state I never tried the product but....... At least this way we understand the information is based on rumor and not personal experiences. JMO
Some of the stuff posted here works for me and some doesnt... I go with what works. If someone has a similar problem or application then I share my experiences. I like Amsoil, ARX, Pennzoil Platinum and EAO filters. They have all worked for me. MMO, Lucas has not and so I don't recommend them.
I post from my experiences as well, some people just hate certain products. Then we have people who hate products they never tried based on what they've heard or read. In such cases they should state I never tried the product but....... At least this way we understand the information is based on rumor and not personal experiences. JMO
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
Originally Posted By: chevrofreak
I seriously do not understand you Aussies and your desire to use an oil that is many, many times thicker than your engine wants or needs.
What the Aussie's and the USA prove is that viscosity choice, more often than not, doesn't alter utility in most engines over their chassis usable life span. It neither lengthens or shortens it.
Advancements in fuel management have had more impact as have manufacturing and finishing process evolutions.
With the exception of Dr. Haas (and perhaps myself in playing around) owners use what's spec'd by the manufacturers.
The funny thing is, when Porsche or AUDI/VW or MB spec a 40 grade, they're keen geniuses in knowing what works. If a man spec's a 30 weight, they know the engine best, so don't reinvent the wheel...
..but when a manu' spec's a 20 grade, those rules are thrown out the window ..and it's all about CAFE. Even if it is, does that mean they are wrong?
You basically get into a theological debate. One side cites all kinds of bona fide technical date (that higher viscosity produces less wear) ..and the apparent reality that millions of units live long lives on alleged higher wearing lubricants ..which they can't argue with.
The scientist can't have faith
The believer can't deny what he sees.
I seriously do not understand you Aussies and your desire to use an oil that is many, many times thicker than your engine wants or needs.
What the Aussie's and the USA prove is that viscosity choice, more often than not, doesn't alter utility in most engines over their chassis usable life span. It neither lengthens or shortens it.
Advancements in fuel management have had more impact as have manufacturing and finishing process evolutions.
With the exception of Dr. Haas (and perhaps myself in playing around) owners use what's spec'd by the manufacturers.
The funny thing is, when Porsche or AUDI/VW or MB spec a 40 grade, they're keen geniuses in knowing what works. If a man spec's a 30 weight, they know the engine best, so don't reinvent the wheel...
..but when a manu' spec's a 20 grade, those rules are thrown out the window ..and it's all about CAFE. Even if it is, does that mean they are wrong?
You basically get into a theological debate. One side cites all kinds of bona fide technical date (that higher viscosity produces less wear) ..and the apparent reality that millions of units live long lives on alleged higher wearing lubricants ..which they can't argue with.
The scientist can't have faith
The believer can't deny what he sees.
Gary,
I take my CAFE comment back then, that I posted in another thread!
I take my CAFE comment back then, that I posted in another thread!
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
Why? You're right. There would be no evolution toward 20 grades if Ford hadn't wanted to trump/trick the CAFE system.
..but that's like saying that Porsche worked very closely with XOM to achieve the milestones in performance output and came up with 0w-40.
For XOM and Porsche, it's a wonderful technological achievement. For Ford, it's cheating and sacrificing customer value.
..but that's like saying that Porsche worked very closely with XOM to achieve the milestones in performance output and came up with 0w-40.
For XOM and Porsche, it's a wonderful technological achievement. For Ford, it's cheating and sacrificing customer value.
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
For Ford, it's cheating and sacrificing customer value.
LOL:
Gary are you moving to the thick side? LOL
I hope all is well!
Frank D
For Ford, it's cheating and sacrificing customer value.
LOL:
I hope all is well!
Frank D
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
I can swing both ways, Frank
Right now, I'm on the "down low" ..so to speak on wild side distractions
Right now, I'm on the "down low" ..so to speak on wild side distractions
I was messin' with you Gary... I always though CAFE was a scam and we should be using whatever the manual calls for. Why else do we have engineers if BITOG-ers know better? hahaha
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
It's not science. It's a path to universal enlightenment.
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
What the Aussie's and the USA prove is that viscosity choice, more often than not, doesn't alter utility in most engines over their chassis usable life span. It neither lengthens or shortens it.
Advancements in fuel management have had more impact as have manufacturing and finishing process evolutions.
With the exception of Dr. Haas (and perhaps myself in playing around) owners use what's spec'd by the manufacturers.
The funny thing is, when Porsche or AUDI/VW or MB spec a 40 grade, they're keen geniuses in knowing what works. If a man spec's a 30 weight, they know the engine best, so don't reinvent the wheel...
..but when a manu' spec's a 20 grade, those rules are thrown out the window ..and it's all about CAFE. Even if it is, does that mean they are wrong?
You basically get into a theological debate. One side cites all kinds of bona fide technical date (that higher viscosity produces less wear) ..and the apparent reality that millions of units live long lives on alleged higher wearing lubricants ..which they can't argue with.
The scientist can't have faith
The believer can't deny what he sees.
This post needs to be at the end of the "bottom line on 5w-20" thread.
What the Aussie's and the USA prove is that viscosity choice, more often than not, doesn't alter utility in most engines over their chassis usable life span. It neither lengthens or shortens it.
Advancements in fuel management have had more impact as have manufacturing and finishing process evolutions.
With the exception of Dr. Haas (and perhaps myself in playing around) owners use what's spec'd by the manufacturers.
The funny thing is, when Porsche or AUDI/VW or MB spec a 40 grade, they're keen geniuses in knowing what works. If a man spec's a 30 weight, they know the engine best, so don't reinvent the wheel...
..but when a manu' spec's a 20 grade, those rules are thrown out the window ..and it's all about CAFE. Even if it is, does that mean they are wrong?
You basically get into a theological debate. One side cites all kinds of bona fide technical date (that higher viscosity produces less wear) ..and the apparent reality that millions of units live long lives on alleged higher wearing lubricants ..which they can't argue with.
The scientist can't have faith
The believer can't deny what he sees.
This post needs to be at the end of the "bottom line on 5w-20" thread.
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
It's not science. It's a path to universal enlightenment.
Amen Gary! You find the truth in all things somewhere between myth and reality. All truths and myths follow the same rythem, figure out that rythem and you'll have the answers you've been seeking and the meaning of life.
It's not science. It's a path to universal enlightenment.
Amen Gary! You find the truth in all things somewhere between myth and reality. All truths and myths follow the same rythem, figure out that rythem and you'll have the answers you've been seeking and the meaning of life.
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
Originally Posted By: chevrofreak
I seriously do not understand you Aussies and your desire to use an oil that is many, many times thicker than your engine wants or needs.
What the Aussie's and the USA prove is that viscosity choice, more often than not, doesn't alter utility in most engines over their chassis usable life span. It neither lengthens or shortens it.
I have long maintained that the successful use of different viscosities by different people in the same engine demonstrates the robustness of the engine design, not the wisdom of the viscosity choosers.
Originally Posted By: chevrofreak
I seriously do not understand you Aussies and your desire to use an oil that is many, many times thicker than your engine wants or needs.
What the Aussie's and the USA prove is that viscosity choice, more often than not, doesn't alter utility in most engines over their chassis usable life span. It neither lengthens or shortens it.
I have long maintained that the successful use of different viscosities by different people in the same engine demonstrates the robustness of the engine design, not the wisdom of the viscosity choosers.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
Originally Posted By: Whimsey
TallPaul said:Paul you have to admit not all engines work best on thicker oil. It depends on the engine design. I'll keep using 0/5W-20 oils in our 4.6 Fords and 5W-30 blends in my 1996 Contour 2.0 Zetec. I use what works best for me.
All the best,
Whimsey
Well I am an old stick in the mud. I don't want to give up my 4.9L pushrod engine. I suppose those new fangled engines do quite all right on the sewing machine oil (see I just can't help myself). I even went thin as I had been running 10w40 in this old F150, but realized it was a bit of overkill.
Now my previous post, I had second thoughts about going back and changing it to a recommendation for straight 30.
Originally Posted By: chevrofreak
I seriously do not understand you Aussies and your desire to use an oil that is many, many times thicker than your engine wants or needs.
I think it's a macho thing, like when a bunch of young guys have a drinking contest.
I seriously do not understand you Aussies and your desire to use an oil that is many, many times thicker than your engine wants or needs.
I think it's a macho thing, like when a bunch of young guys have a drinking contest.
Originally Posted By: TallPaul
Originally Posted By: chevrofreak
I seriously do not understand you Aussies and your desire to use an oil that is many, many times thicker than your engine wants or needs.
I think it's a macho thing, like when a bunch of young guys have a drinking contest.
Yes, Aussies are a terribly confused bunch. Somehow, they overlook that it's really their wives, not their engines, who are craving something much thicker than is actually necessary to do the job.
Yeah, yeah, I know, that's really close to the line, and as an Admin, I'm supposed to be setting an example. . .
Originally Posted By: chevrofreak
I seriously do not understand you Aussies and your desire to use an oil that is many, many times thicker than your engine wants or needs.
I think it's a macho thing, like when a bunch of young guys have a drinking contest.
Yes, Aussies are a terribly confused bunch. Somehow, they overlook that it's really their wives, not their engines, who are craving something much thicker than is actually necessary to do the job.
Yeah, yeah, I know, that's really close to the line, and as an Admin, I'm supposed to be setting an example. . .
Originally Posted By: Hethaerto
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
..but there's no such frenzy over 0w-20
That's because it sux.
Hmmmmmm, might there be a, ummmm, factual basis for this statement???
Here's a fact: my Camry Hybrid ran beautifully on the stuff. Even at WOT, it displayed no indication of distress. I do suppose I'll have to use it again, and actually do a UOA...
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
..but there's no such frenzy over 0w-20
That's because it sux.
Hmmmmmm, might there be a, ummmm, factual basis for this statement???
Here's a fact: my Camry Hybrid ran beautifully on the stuff. Even at WOT, it displayed no indication of distress. I do suppose I'll have to use it again, and actually do a UOA...
- Status
Similar threads
