billt460
Thread starter
Indeed, as Overkill noted the "train wreck" of a thread continues.
This whole thread is like searching in a port-a-potty with your bare hands, and actually expecting to find something that's worth anything.
Indeed, as Overkill noted the "train wreck" of a thread continues.
Yes, that's because Japan is 377,975 square kilometres. Ontario is 1,076,395 in comparison.The Japanese have almost similar driving habits as American suburbanites/city drivers - but they also drive smaller cars, the SUV/pickup craze here hasn’t translated over to Japan. Else Toyota would be selling Tacomas and Tundras like hot cakes back home. The Camry is NLA in Japan. The kei car/truck is popular on the streets of Tokyo/Osaka/Nagoya but bigger cars are found in the suburbs. Add to that taxation around the size and engine of a car and mandatory but very through inspections. The Japanese don’t drive that much - it’s expensive to own a car there, and their public transit/passenger railroad infrastructure just… works.
That’s same very weak argument is made here too for why our public transport also sucks and it’s nonsense here too.Yes, that's because Japan is 377,975 square kilometres. Ontario is 1,076,395 in comparison.
It's a legitimate problem when states/provinces are themselves several times larger than the entire country being discussed. It makes it far more expensive per capita to implement efficient inter-regional public transport.That’s same very weak argument is made here too for why our public transport also sucks and it’s nonsense here too.
Toronto (and the GTA) has excellent public transport, but you can't hop in a high speed train and go to say Thunder Bay, because it's 1,400km, that's almost the entire length of the main island of Japan, comparable to going from Aomori to Hiroshima. The population density along that route simply doesn't support the investment. There has been talk about putting in HSR from the GTA to Montreal, but that has political challenges, since it involves Quebec.It’s just choices. The US and Australia both have high urban density areas, but we made choices that were driven by what the auto industries wanted, not what created functional and enjoyable urban environments.
The classic example is Los Angelas that a century ago had the best public transport system in the world - until it was purchased by a GM/Fifestone/Standard Oil consortium and for obvious reasons quickly dismantled.
I'm getting to the point that I don't know what to believe anymore. I switched to Mobil 1 0W-40 because I thought it was the cats meow, and a first rate European formulated motor oil. Now this guy says it's basically crap, and can shear in just a few hundred miles.
So now what? Should I bump up my oil changes to every other week!
So.... Motor on with no worries?He does not say it is crap. He just kind of does not understand what oil was made for (it is an older formula).
It was an exceptional formula. I used it on track, running it at 300f, and 40k later, at 146,000mls, I still drive my BMW daily and on track.
It can absolutely be used in DI engines, those that are engineered good. Those that have LSPI issues, well, oil is band aid, not solution.
If I needed quickly stout oil to use on track and had to make a choice on the fly, Mobil1 0W440 would always be my first choice.
Absolutely! Again, this oil is used by Porsche racing teams. If I did not have bunch of Motul products available, and had to buy oil, I would be running it right now in BMW.So.... Motor on with no worries?
LOL.That’s same very weak argument is made here too for why our public transport also sucks and it’s nonsense here too.
It’s just choices. The US and Australia both have high urban density areas, but we made choices that were driven by what the auto industries wanted, not what created functional and enjoyable urban environments.
The classic example is Los Angelas that a century ago had the best public transport system in the world - until it was purchased by a GM/Fifestone/Standard Oil consortium and for obvious reasons quickly dismantled.
While technically correct this is fundamentally incorrect. European countries track emissions (ex, grams of CO2, NOX, etc) and iirc consumers also pay a tax based upon the emissions of the vehicle.