Popular Mechanics article

Status
Not open for further replies.
Are incompatible add packs still around?

I noticed in the article that incompatible additive packages (synthetic vs mineral) were mentioned several times. Specifically, it was mentioned that zinc dithiophosphate that was popularly used in mineral oils of the day, was not compatible with at least some synthetics and was causing severe cam/lifter wear. Could someone unintentionally recreate this problem by mixing a homebrew of different brands, additives, or old/new oils?
 
That article makes me nostalgic for the good old days of Popular Science when my dad and I used to fight to be the first to get our hands on it the day it showed up. Long, thoughtful, in-depth articles, not glitizified and dumbed-down for the gnatlike attention span of the MTV generation. I dropped my subscription to PS 10 years ago. It has gotten even worse since then.

I remember buying M1 in cans like that on the first page picture. I was only too happy to switch the Mustang II (2.3L/4cyl/4spd manual) I had at the time to something that promised better mileage. I remember all too well the daily long lines at every gas station. Yeah, the good old days.

I've been using synthetic oil ever since then.

If my memory serves, quality dino oil in those days (I remember usually buying Quaker State) could be had for $.29 to $.39/qt. I have recollections of M1 going for something like $1.95 and people looking at me like I was from Mars when I'd put something that expensive in the cart.

The Mustang gave way in 1979 to a Rabbit, one of the first made in Westmoreland, PA, and the first car I had with fuel injection. That was a pretty good car, and with M1 in it would routinely turn in 40+MPG in the 80% highway driving I used to do in it. That kind of mileage was a lot higher than most people could get in those, and I always attributed it to the M1. Made me a believer.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top