Can your oil selection really affect your mpg?

[dustyjoe1]

quote:

---

How about Oregon's pilot program to tax you based on miles driven? I heard the pilot has already been approved. Is that instead of or in addition to the fuel taxes?

---

Hmmm does this mean I can buy used cars there and not have to worry about the odometers having been tampered with...

 

[TooSlick]

I'm talking about the long understood concept of lubricant related, frictional losses. This will be valid about 99% of the time in conventional engines - unless as I mentioned the rings and cylinders are worn.

The results from these two Subes are simply the exceptions that prove the rule...

By the way, you'll also find a few folks who still think the earth is flat, but that doesn't make it so...

TS

 

[buster]

quote:

---

By the way, you'll also find a few folks who still think the earth is flat, but that doesn't make it so...

---

HA! True and that we havn't evolved from our primate ancestors.

Some oils are better friction modified. RL and Amsoil S2k are two of them. Only problem with S2k is as it thickens, you'll loose this increase. RL found this when testing S2000. The POE in RL makes it so stable and fuel efficient over a long drain interval.

 

[n8wvi]

quote:

---

Originally posted by TooSlick:
The results from these two Subes are simply the exceptions that prove the rule...

---

Don't forget the Bimmer and the VeeDub!

I still claim that any allWheelDrive wagon that gets 33MPG and burns MAYBE 16 ounces in 5k miles doesn't have worn rings.

Dave

 

[bulwnkl]

quote:

---

Originally posted by dustyjoe1:

quote:

---

How about Oregon's pilot program to tax you based on miles driven? I heard the pilot has already been approved. Is that instead of or in addition to the fuel taxes?

---

Hmmm does this mean I can buy used cars there and not have to worry about the odometers having been tampered with...

---

That'd be nice, but no. They're installing GPS units to track the cars. The stated intention is that if you're not driving in OR, you won't be taxed for those miles. This is a REALLY bad idea.

 

[bulwnkl]

quote:

---

Originally posted by TooSlick:
I'm talking about the long understood concept of lubricant related, frictional losses. This will be valid about 99% of the time in conventional engines - unless as I mentioned the rings and cylinders are worn.

The results from these two Subes are simply the exceptions that prove the rule...

---

I'm not trying to argue the science nor the results across the new-vehicle fleet with you, TS. I'm just observing that, like with reformulated fuel, even though the segment of the fleet that is the object of the change as a whole may show an improvement, there are vehicles within the WHOLE fleet (as opposed to the segment that the change is aimed at) that respond very, very poorly to the change.

So, while I agree with you in principle and based on the science, the system is far, far more complex than that one principle and therefore, just as the nice principles in economics class don't necessarily apply as stated there to reality, so this principle does not necessarily apply to any given vehicle.