Re: RESET Smart car service indicator (was Re: FCC/FCC antitrust, was: T-Mobile roaming with AT&T, was: Virgin Mobile ...)

On Wed, 08 Sep 2010 08:50:31 -0700, in
<4c87b0cf$0$1589$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

>On 9/8/2010 8:34 AM, Larry wrote:

>> By the way, Mitsubishi, who makes the engine/queer tranny, says there's
>> no reason to use the most expensive synthetic lube oil on their engine.
>> The technology of the Mitsubishi engine in the Smart is the same as their
>> own branded motors....as I also expected....another dealer profit
>> booster.
>
>I noticed that the price differential between synthetic and conventional
>oil has narrowed significantly. A 5 quart jug of synthetic is now about
>$20, while a 5 quart jug of conventional is about $12. Still there's
>usually no advantage to synthetic unless you're in a very cold climate
>or have a high performance engine.

Wrong again(tm):

<http://www.jdpower.com/autos/articles/Synthetic-Motor-Oils>

Over time, petroleum-based oils will degrade or break down from the heat
and pressure inside the engine. As this occurs, the chemical composition
of the oil changes and it becomes contaminated. After thousands of
miles, petroleum-based oils are unable to protect the engine and must be
replaced.

Synthetic motor oils have a higher tolerance to heat and aging. The
performance characteristics of these synthetic lubricants can be
custom-designed to exceed the performance limits of petroleum-based
motor oils – and their use can possibly increase the life of your
engine.

What are the advantages of synthetic oil?

Synthetic oil was developed for high-temperature use in jet aircraft
engines decades ago when engineers realized that petroleum-based oils
break down and lose their lubricating capabilities when exposed to high
heat. Over time, petroleum-based oils began to oxidize and create
sludge, leaving damaging residue inside the engine.

Formulated in a laboratory, man-made synthetic oil doesn’t contain the
naturally occurring chemicals that break down at high temperatures. It
is also manufactured without many of the chemical compositions that
contribute to oil oxidation and sludge buildup. Synthetic oil can
tolerate temperatures that would burn up petroleum-based oils.

Synthetic oil performs admirably in heat, but also offers many benefits
in extreme cold. Petroleum-based motor oil thickens in cold
temperatures, requiring the starter and battery to work much harder to
start a cold engine. Synthetic oil is not as affected by low
temperatures, and it will flow much easier at engine start-up. As an
added benefit, the cold temperature properties allow it to be quickly
pumped throughout the engine, offering much improved start-up protection
against friction.

Custom-designed synthetic oils contain many additives. These keep the
inside of the engine clean, and add additional engine protection for
extended periods.

What are the disadvantages of synthetic oil?

Quite simply, the biggest disadvantage of synthetic oil is price. ...

On 9/8/2010 12:31 PM, John Navas wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Sep 2010 08:50:31 -0700, in
> <4c87b0cf$0$1589$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS
> <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 9/8/2010 8:34 AM, Larry wrote:
>
>>> By the way, Mitsubishi, who makes the engine/queer tranny, says there's
>>> no reason to use the most expensive synthetic lube oil on their engine.
>>> The technology of the Mitsubishi engine in the Smart is the same as their
>>> own branded motors....as I also expected....another dealer profit
>>> booster.
>>
>> I noticed that the price differential between synthetic and conventional
>> oil has narrowed significantly. A 5 quart jug of synthetic is now about
>> $20, while a 5 quart jug of conventional is about $12. Still there's
>> usually no advantage to synthetic unless you're in a very cold climate
>> or have a high performance engine.
>
> Wrong again(tm):
>
> <http://www.jdpower.com/autos/articles/Synthetic-Motor-Oils>
>
> Over time, petroleum-based oils will degrade or break down from the heat
> and pressure inside the engine. As this occurs, the chemical composition
> of the oil changes and it becomes contaminated. After thousands of
> miles, petroleum-based oils are unable to protect the engine and must be
> replaced.
>
> Synthetic motor oils have a higher tolerance to heat and aging. The
> performance characteristics of these synthetic lubricants can be
> custom-designed to exceed the performance limits of petroleum-based
> motor oils – and their use can possibly increase the life of your
> engine.
>
> What are the advantages of synthetic oil?
>
> Synthetic oil was developed for high-temperature use in jet aircraft
> engines decades ago when engineers realized that petroleum-based oils
> break down and lose their lubricating capabilities when exposed to high
> heat. Over time, petroleum-based oils began to oxidize and create
> sludge, leaving damaging residue inside the engine.
>
> Formulated in a laboratory, man-made synthetic oil doesn’t contain the
> naturally occurring chemicals that break down at high temperatures. It
> is also manufactured without many of the chemical compositions that
> contribute to oil oxidation and sludge buildup. Synthetic oil can
> tolerate temperatures that would burn up petroleum-based oils.
>
> Synthetic oil performs admirably in heat, but also offers many benefits
> in extreme cold. Petroleum-based motor oil thickens in cold
> temperatures, requiring the starter and battery to work much harder to
> start a cold engine. Synthetic oil is not as affected by low
> temperatures, and it will flow much easier at engine start-up. As an
> added benefit, the cold temperature properties allow it to be quickly
> pumped throughout the engine, offering much improved start-up protection
> against friction.
>
> Custom-designed synthetic oils contain many additives. These keep the
> inside of the engine clean, and add additional engine protection for
> extended periods.
>
> What are the disadvantages of synthetic oil?
>
> Quite simply, the biggest disadvantage of synthetic oil is price. ...

I have to ask. Do you actually have any real world experience with
anything? The significant difference between a jet engine and an
automotive engine is that the jet engine lubrication is never exposed to
any combustion products. So it is very valuable to have a lubricant that
breaks down at a slower rate. On the other hand an automotive engines
lubricant gets contaminated by blow by. So the reason we change it more
frequently is primarily because of contamination not breakdown.

Of course in your reply you directly claimed wrong again to Stevens
statement that the main advantage is cold climate operation and then
provided a reference that you didn't read or understand which states a
benefit is better cold temperature properties.

On 9/8/2010 11:18 AM, George wrote:
> On 9/8/201 0 12:31 PM, John Navas wrote:
>> On Wed, 08 Sep 2010 08:50:31 -0700, in
>> <4c87b0cf$0$1589$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS

<snip>

>> Quite simply, the biggest disadvantage of synthetic oil is price. ...
>
> I have to ask. Do you actually have any real world experience with
> anything? The significant difference between a jet engine and an
> automotive engine is that the jet engine lubrication is never exposed to
> any combustion products. So it is very valuable to have a lubricant that
> breaks down at a slower rate. On the other hand an automotive engines
> lubricant gets contaminated by blow by. So the reason we change it more
> frequently is primarily because of contamination not breakdown.

JWOC®, but he's not alone. A _lot_ of people do not understand why
synthetic oil is usually just a waste of money. This is a good thing for
the manufacturers of synthetic oil! Neither conventional nor synthetic
oil is going to break down in a normal passenger car ICE with oil
changes performed at the recommended intervals. The base stock is
different, but the additives are what prevents the breakdown.

Unfortunately for the synthetic oil industry there is virtually no
advantage to using synthetic oil in a non-high performance engine that
is operated in moderate climates. You _might_ go a bit longer between
oil changes with a synthetic, i.e. following the normal service schedule
even if you fall into the severe service category because in a synthetic
you can have slightly more base stock and slightly less viscosity modifiers.

Synthetic may give you the peace of mind of knowing that you are using
an oil that is far better than necessary for your vehicle, but it won't
reduce wear or extend the life of the engine.

As soon as someone starts up with "synthetics provide 'Peace of Mind,'
or 'Cheap Insurance,'" you know that they actually have no knowledge of
the subject.

Oh, and think about this, synthetic oil has been marketed to the general
public since 1974, that's 36 years already! There has never been any
study, not even one by the manufacturers of synthetic oil, that has
shown an actual benefit in engine longevity from using synthetic oil.
They can make valid claims about how if flows better at cold
temperatures, how it doesn't break down as quickly in high performance
engines, etc., but that's about it.

On Wed, 08 Sep 2010 11:50:20 -0700, in
<4c87daf2$0$1597$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

>On 9/8/2010 11:18 AM, George wrote:
>> On 9/8/201 0 12:31 PM, John Navas wrote:
>>> On Wed, 08 Sep 2010 08:50:31 -0700, in
>>> <4c87b0cf$0$1589$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS
>
><snip>
>
>>> Quite simply, the biggest disadvantage of synthetic oil is price. ...
>>
>> I have to ask. Do you actually have any real world experience with
>> anything? The significant difference between a jet engine and an
>> automotive engine is that the jet engine lubrication is never exposed to
>> any combustion products. So it is very valuable to have a lubricant that
>> breaks down at a slower rate. On the other hand an automotive engines
>> lubricant gets contaminated by blow by. So the reason we change it more
>> frequently is primarily because of contamination not breakdown.
>
>JWOC®, but he's not alone. A _lot_ of people do not understand why
>synthetic oil is usually just a waste of money. This is a good thing for
>the manufacturers of synthetic oil! Neither conventional nor synthetic
>oil is going to break down in a normal passenger car ICE with oil
>changes performed at the recommended intervals. The base stock is
>different, but the additives are what prevents the breakdown.
>
>Unfortunately for the synthetic oil industry there is virtually no
>advantage to using synthetic oil in a non-high performance engine that
>is operated in moderate climates. You _might_ go a bit longer between
>oil changes with a synthetic, i.e. following the normal service schedule
>even if you fall into the severe service category because in a synthetic
>you can have slightly more base stock and slightly less viscosity modifiers.

Wrong again(tm), and the citation I posted makes clear.

--
John

"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea - massive,
difficult to redirect, awe inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind
boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it." --Gene Spafford

On 9/8/10 1:18 PM, in article i68k1e$7fh$1@news.eternal-september.org,
"George" <george@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> On 9/8/2010 12:31 PM, John Navas wrote:
>> On Wed, 08 Sep 2010 08:50:31 -0700, in
>> <4c87b0cf$0$1589$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS
>> <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/8/2010 8:34 AM, Larry wrote:
>>
>>>> By the way, Mitsubishi, who makes the engine/queer tranny, says there's
>>>> no reason to use the most expensive synthetic lube oil on their engine.
>>>> The technology of the Mitsubishi engine in the Smart is the same as their
>>>> own branded motors....as I also expected....another dealer profit
>>>> booster.
>>>
>>> I noticed that the price differential between synthetic and conventional
>>> oil has narrowed significantly. A 5 quart jug of synthetic is now about
>>> $20, while a 5 quart jug of conventional is about $12. Still there's
>>> usually no advantage to synthetic unless you're in a very cold climate
>>> or have a high performance engine.
>>
>> Wrong again(tm):
>>
>> <http://www.jdpower.com/autos/articles/Synthetic-Motor-Oils>
>>
>> Over time, petroleum-based oils will degrade or break down from the heat
>> and pressure inside the engine. As this occurs, the chemical composition
>> of the oil changes and it becomes contaminated. After thousands of
>> miles, petroleum-based oils are unable to protect the engine and must be
>> replaced.
>>
>> Synthetic motor oils have a higher tolerance to heat and aging. The
>> performance characteristics of these synthetic lubricants can be
>> custom-designed to exceed the performance limits of petroleum-based
>> motor oils * and their use can possibly increase the life of your
>> engine.
>>
>> What are the advantages of synthetic oil?
>>
>> Synthetic oil was developed for high-temperature use in jet aircraft
>> engines decades ago when engineers realized that petroleum-based oils
>> break down and lose their lubricating capabilities when exposed to high
>> heat. Over time, petroleum-based oils began to oxidize and create
>> sludge, leaving damaging residue inside the engine.
>>
>> Formulated in a laboratory, man-made synthetic oil doesn¹t contain the
>> naturally occurring chemicals that break down at high temperatures. It
>> is also manufactured without many of the chemical compositions that
>> contribute to oil oxidation and sludge buildup. Synthetic oil can
>> tolerate temperatures that would burn up petroleum-based oils.
>>
>> Synthetic oil performs admirably in heat, but also offers many benefits
>> in extreme cold. Petroleum-based motor oil thickens in cold
>> temperatures, requiring the starter and battery to work much harder to
>> start a cold engine. Synthetic oil is not as affected by low
>> temperatures, and it will flow much easier at engine start-up. As an
>> added benefit, the cold temperature properties allow it to be quickly
>> pumped throughout the engine, offering much improved start-up protection
>> against friction.
>>
>> Custom-designed synthetic oils contain many additives. These keep the
>> inside of the engine clean, and add additional engine protection for
>> extended periods.
>>
>> What are the disadvantages of synthetic oil?
>>
>> Quite simply, the biggest disadvantage of synthetic oil is price. ...
>
> I have to ask. Do you actually have any real world experience with
> anything?

Absolutely NOT!

On 9/8/2010 11:18 AM, George wrote:

<snip>

> Of course in your reply you directly claimed wrong again to Stevens
> statement that the main advantage is cold climate operation and then
> provided a reference that you didn't read or understand which states a
> benefit is better cold temperature properties.

That was pretty funny. You see that a lot, and not just with him. People
rush out to the web so fast to try to find something to contradict the
position of someone without even bothering to read what was written in
the first place.

Sadly, it's not about experience or knowledge in his case. Bottom line
is that by pointing out the facts on various subjects for many years,
I've made him look extremely foolish thousands of times over the years,
though that was never my intent. He bears a grudge. There's nothing I
can do about it.

What he _should_ have done in this case was to Google "motor oil myths"
or "motor oil facts" and then simply have clicked on "I'm Feeling
Lucky." He would have been taken to the #1 web site in the world on the
subject of motor oil (I really should update that site, most links are
broken, but I don't have time and the information there is all still
accurate).

The basic problem he has is that when a subject, any subject, comes up
about which he has no experience or knowledege, and I add something of
value, he desperately rushes to Google and tries to find something,
anything, to contradict the facts. But without having real word
experience on a subject, he's at a distinct disadvantage in any
discussion, having to rely solely on whatever he can quickly dig up on
the web, as well as his famous smarmy one-liners.

On 9/8/2010 3:00 PM, John Navas wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Sep 2010 11:50:20 -0700, in
> <4c87daf2$0$1597$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS
> <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 9/8/2010 11:18 AM, George wrote:
>>> On 9/8/201 0 12:31 PM, John Navas wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 08 Sep 2010 08:50:31 -0700, in
>>>> <4c87b0cf$0$1589$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>> Quite simply, the biggest disadvantage of synthetic oil is price. ...
>>>
>>> I have to ask. Do you actually have any real world experience with
>>> anything? The significant difference between a jet engine and an
>>> automotive engine is that the jet engine lubrication is never exposed to
>>> any combustion products. So it is very valuable to have a lubricant that
>>> breaks down at a slower rate. On the other hand an automotive engines
>>> lubricant gets contaminated by blow by. So the reason we change it more
>>> frequently is primarily because of contamination not breakdown.
>>
>> JWOC®, but he's not alone. A _lot_ of people do not understand why
>> synthetic oil is usually just a waste of money. This is a good thing for
>> the manufacturers of synthetic oil! Neither conventional nor synthetic
>> oil is going to break down in a normal passenger car ICE with oil
>> changes performed at the recommended intervals. The base stock is
>> different, but the additives are what prevents the breakdown.
>>
>> Unfortunately for the synthetic oil industry there is virtually no
>> advantage to using synthetic oil in a non-high performance engine that
>> is operated in moderate climates. You _might_ go a bit longer between
>> oil changes with a synthetic, i.e. following the normal service schedule
>> even if you fall into the severe service category because in a synthetic
>> you can have slightly more base stock and slightly less viscosity modifiers.
>
> Wrong again(tm), and the citation I posted makes clear.
>

What citation? All you did is post an article from a writer like you who
parroted marketing they didn't understand or because they had an agenda.

On Wed, 08 Sep 2010 13:35:28 -0700, in
<4c87f396$0$1609$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

>On 9/8/2010 11:18 AM, George wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> Of course in your reply you directly claimed wrong again to Stevens
>> statement that the main advantage is cold climate operation and then
>> provided a reference that you didn't read or understand which states a
>> benefit is better cold temperature properties.
>
>That was pretty funny. You see that a lot, and not just with him. People
>rush out to the web so fast to try to find something to contradict the
>position of someone without even bothering to read what was written in
>the first place.
>
>Sadly, it's not about experience or knowledge in his case. Bottom line
>is that by pointing out the facts on various subjects for many years,
>I've made him look extremely foolish thousands of times over the years,
>though that was never my intent. He bears a grudge. There's nothing I
>can do about it.

Wrong again(tm): You've got that exactly backwards.

>What he _should_ have done in this case was to Google "motor oil myths"
>or "motor oil facts" and then simply have clicked on "I'm Feeling
>Lucky." He would have been taken to the #1 web site in the world on the
>subject of motor oil (I really should update that site, most links are
>broken, but I don't have time and the information there is all still
>accurate).

Another of your wildly erroneous vanity websites?
Why am I not surprised.

>The basic problem he has is that when a subject, any subject, comes up
>about which he has no experience or knowledege, and I add something of
>value, he desperately rushes to Google and tries to find something,
>anything, to contradict the facts. But without having real word
>experience on a subject, he's at a distinct disadvantage in any
>discussion, having to rely solely on whatever he can quickly dig up on
>the web, as well as his famous smarmy one-liners.

Wrong again(tm): You've got that exactly backwards.

--
John

"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea - massive,
difficult to redirect, awe inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind
boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it." --Gene Spafford

On 9/8/2010 1:49 PM, George wrote:

<snip>

> What citation? All you did is post an article from a writer like you who
> parroted marketing they didn't understand or because they had an agenda.

If people would do an oil analysis, rather than changing oil based on
time or mileage, you'd see 10,000 mile oil changes on many vehicles for
oil with conventional _or_ synthetic base stock. It's got much more to
do with how they drive than it does with the base stock.

Perhaps some people believe that conventional motor oil pumped directly
from the oil well into plastic bottles and rushed to Wal-Mart. In fact,
both conventional and synthetic oils are highly engineered products.
Many "synthetics" like Mobil 1 and Amsoil's XL7500 are made from
hydrocracked petroleum base stock, _not_ synthetic base stock. In the
U.S. they can sell these products as synthetic, but not in Europe. These
oils are often referred to as "fake synthetics." There's nothing wrong
with them, they just aren't really synthetic. They are cheap to
manufacture and they can be sold at a premium price.

Actually there are some non-API certified synthetic oils that probably
do have a measurable advantage over conventional oils and the low-end
synthetics. They gain this advantage by using larger amounts of the
additive ZDDP, but the disadvantage is that they also contribute to
shorter life of the catalytic converter because of the excessive amount
of phosphorus which is why the API won't certify them.

In any case, asking our favorite troll for actual valid citations is a
hopeless cause. He's never provided them and never will.

"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:4c87f396$0$1609$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
>
SMS wrote this about Navas:
> The basic problem he has is that when a subject, any
> subject, comes up about which he has no experience or
> knowledge, and I add something of value, he desperately
> rushes to Google and tries to find something, anything, to
> contradict the facts. But without having real word
> experience on a subject, he's at a distinct disadvantage
> in any discussion, having to rely solely on whatever he
> can quickly dig up on the web, as well as his famous
> smarmy one-liners.

Bingo! I think you identified the issue with Navas. He
acquires a little knowledge on a topic and thinks he knows
everything about it. He will go to any length to justify his
snap conclusions. He is usually correct concerning hard
scientific things but can go quite wrong by finding
something that will support his rigid position. A case in
point is not understanding the Friis path loss equation
during the 1900 MHz PCS discussion. On issues related to
opinions, politics, or personal preferences, he is single
minded. Anyone can find a reference that supports their
viewpoint, no matter what it is. Discussion with Navas on
any topic lacking a physical law to back it up is pointless
and any attempt to do so results in one of those 'smarmy
one-liners'.

David

On 9/8/2010 2:41 PM, David wrote:

<snip>

> Bingo! I think you identified the issue with Navas. He acquires a little
> knowledge on a topic and thinks he knows everything about it. He will go
> to any length to justify his snap conclusions. He is usually correct
> concerning hard scientific things but can go quite wrong by finding
> something that will support his rigid position. A case in point is not
> understanding the Friis path loss equation during the 1900 MHz PCS
> discussion. On issues related to opinions, politics, or personal
> preferences, he is single minded. Anyone can find a reference that
> supports their viewpoint, no matter what it is. Discussion with Navas on
> any topic lacking a physical law to back it up is pointless and any
> attempt to do so results in one of those 'smarmy one-liners'.

The claims about the M900 "bag phone" were classic. He thinks that a 2W
maximum power GSM phone is an anomaly. If he understood how GSM varies
the output power, and if he took the time to look at the FCC database
for several GSM phones, he'd see that even small GSM phones are rated at
close to 2W on 850 MHz.

John Navas wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Sep 2010 13:35:28 -0700, in
> <4c87f396$0$1609$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS
> <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 9/8/2010 11:18 AM, George wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> Of course in your reply you directly claimed wrong again to Stevens
>>> statement that the main advantage is cold climate operation and then
>>> provided a reference that you didn't read or understand which states a
>>> benefit is better cold temperature properties.
>> That was pretty funny. You see that a lot, and not just with him. People
>> rush out to the web so fast to try to find something to contradict the
>> position of someone without even bothering to read what was written in
>> the first place.
>>
>> Sadly, it's not about experience or knowledge in his case. Bottom line
>> is that by pointing out the facts on various subjects for many years,
>> I've made him look extremely foolish thousands of times over the years,
>> though that was never my intent. He bears a grudge. There's nothing I
>> can do about it.
>
> Wrong again(tm): You've got that exactly backwards.
>
>> What he _should_ have done in this case was to Google "motor oil myths"
>> or "motor oil facts" and then simply have clicked on "I'm Feeling
>> Lucky." He would have been taken to the #1 web site in the world on the
>> subject of motor oil (I really should update that site, most links are
>> broken, but I don't have time and the information there is all still
>> accurate).
>
> Another of your wildly erroneous vanity websites?
> Why am I not surprised.
>
>> The basic problem he has is that when a subject, any subject, comes up
>> about which he has no experience or knowledege, and I add something of
>> value, he desperately rushes to Google and tries to find something,
>> anything, to contradict the facts. But without having real word
>> experience on a subject, he's at a distinct disadvantage in any
>> discussion, having to rely solely on whatever he can quickly dig up on
>> the web, as well as his famous smarmy one-liners.
>
> Wrong again(tm): You've got that exactly backwards.
>

How about taking this pissing contest off line?

John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
news:idef86tpfrjlc4rihkivkop7guakl81erq@4ax.com:

> Over time, petroleum-based oils will degrade or break down from the heat
> and pressure inside the engine. As this occurs, the chemical composition
> of the oil changes and it becomes contaminated. After thousands of
> miles, petroleum-based oils are unable to protect the engine and must be
> replaced.
>
> Synthetic motor oils have a higher tolerance to heat and aging. The
> performance characteristics of these synthetic lubricants can be
> custom-designed to exceed the performance limits of petroleum-based
> motor oils - and their use can possibly increase the life of your
> engine.
>

This is why all the over-the-road truckers, who drive their trucks millions
of miles between overhauls all insist on using Rotella T dyno oils because
they make the engines run millions of miles between overhauls.

Synthetic oils are wonderful......and expensive.

SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in news:4c87daf2$0$1597
$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:

> Oh, and think about this, synthetic oil has been marketed to the
general
> public since 1974, that's 36 years already! There has never been any
> study, not even one by the manufacturers of synthetic oil, that has
> shown an actual benefit in engine longevity from using synthetic oil.
> They can make valid claims about how if flows better at cold
> temperatures, how it doesn't break down as quickly in high performance
> engines, etc., but that's about it.
>

We never study anything that may benefit the average joe on the street.
We're too busy worrying about some distant planet noone will ever visit
or some tiny fish noone cares about.

All the studies that may prove the average man is being screwed are
always to be avoided at all costs! Oil is a good example.

I get great fun out of Amsoil. Google Earth now has street level
pictures of the modest Amsoil bottling plant, the only plant they
possess, where this wonderous product sold by a giant pyramid scheme like
Amway comes from in Superior, Wisconsin, alongside the railroad tracks.
They truck it in from REAL oil refineries and this bottling plant puts it
in the little Amsoil plastic bottles for the suckers paying triple.

When asked where the REFINERY is that makes the most wonderful oil on the
planet, you've never seen a better deflection since I asked the bishop if
Jesus ever existed! "What's the address of the Amsoil oil refinery?", is
a taboo question because it doesn't have an answer!

Great fun wherever the fancy Amsoil sales trailer appears......(c;]

Another great fun thing to do is to take the average gasoline expert who
always buys the most expensive brand name gas he can find on a little
tour of an oil tanker here in Charleston Harbor.....It's a real eye-
opener! One look into the tanks where this other wonderous product is
transported will make you wonder how you ever got just gas out of any gas
station, not mixed with a bunch of seawater it floats upon on the way
across the pond from the refinery....The look on Mr Perfect's face is
priceless....All gas is the same, no matter whos gas station chain is
selling it.

On 08/09/10 5:48 PM, Larry wrote:

> We never study anything that may benefit the average joe on the street.
> We're too busy worrying about some distant planet noone will ever visit
> or some tiny fish noone cares about.

It's not "we" that need to study it. You can be pretty sure that Mobil
has done the studies and has not found anything they can use in their
marketing. If they found a difference in engine longevity for passenger
cars then they'd be using that in their marketing. The only studies you
ever see touted by corporations are the ones that prove that their
product is wonderful, the ones that prove otherwise are simply not used.
If a big-rig or a Corvette gets a benefit from synthetic oil, it does
_not_ follow that a Camry or Accord will receive the same benefit.

> I get great fun out of Amsoil. Google Earth now has street level
> pictures of the modest Amsoil bottling plant, the only plant they
> possess, where this wonderous product sold by a giant pyramid scheme like
> Amway comes from in Superior, Wisconsin, alongside the railroad tracks.
> They truck it in from REAL oil refineries and this bottling plant puts it
> in the little Amsoil plastic bottles for the suckers paying triple.

Well nothing wrong with them contracting with an outside company to do
their manufacturing. I would not buy their products because I don't like
the way they do business, but where they manufacture is not a concern.

> Another great fun thing to do is to take the average gasoline expert who
> always buys the most expensive brand name gas he can find on a little
> tour of an oil tanker here in Charleston Harbor.....It's a real eye-
> opener! One look into the tanks where this other wonderous product is
> transported will make you wonder how you ever got just gas out of any gas
> station, not mixed with a bunch of seawater it floats upon on the way
> across the pond from the refinery....The look on Mr Perfect's face is
> priceless....All gas is the same, no matter whos gas station chain is
> selling it.

That's not always the case. In some states, like California, there are
very high standards for gasoline, including additives, and indeed you
won't find a difference between the cheapest Costco gasoline and the
most expensive Chevron "with Techroline" gasoline. That 30 cents or so
per gallon differnce buys you nothing.

However in some states, the fuel sold by the no-name stations may not
have the same detergent additives as the name brand.

When I drove across the country last summer it was interesting to see
higher octane gasoline selling for less than lower octane. After a while
the reason became clear--the lower octane gasoline has no ethanol while
the higher octane did. If you calculated the lower energy content of the
ethanol at the given ratio, there was virtually no difference in the price.

I've never heard of refined gasoline being shipped "across the pond."
It's refined close to the port where the tankers come in with crude. It
is true that one refinery will supply essentially the same product to
several different brands of stations, i.e. in my area the Shell refinery
supplies BP/Arco in a reciprocal agreement. They claim to have different
additives for the different brands, but who knows if this is really true.

On Wed, 08 Sep 2010 13:35:28 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote:

>What he _should_ have done in this case was to Google "motor oil myths"
>or "motor oil facts" and then simply have clicked on "I'm Feeling
>Lucky." He would have been taken to the #1 web site in the world on the
>subject of motor oil (I really should update that site, most links are
>broken, but I don't have time and the information there is all still
>accurate).

Careful with that 'feeling lucky' thing. I tried it and it took me to
a random site created by a guy calling himself oilexpert@hotmail.com.
Pretty funny. Thanks to the web, everyone can be an expert.

--
Paul Miner

On Thu, 09 Sep 2010 00:48:03 +0000, Larry <noone@home.com> wrote:

>Another great fun thing to do is to take the average gasoline expert who
>always buys the most expensive brand name gas he can find on a little
>tour of an oil tanker here in Charleston Harbor.....It's a real eye-
>opener! One look into the tanks where this other wonderous product is
>transported will make you wonder how you ever got just gas out of any gas
>station, not mixed with a bunch of seawater it floats upon on the way
>across the pond from the refinery....The look on Mr Perfect's face is
>priceless....All gas is the same, no matter whos gas station chain is
>selling it.

Out here on the Great Plains we obviously don't have tankers floating
around, but we have gasoline storage and distribution centers where
trucks of every brand and logo line up head to tail to fill up from
the same storage tanks. There's a distribution center a few miles from
the house, and no matter when I drive by there are trucks lined up to
suck on the same hose as the guy in front of them. The only difference
is the logo on the side of the truck: BP, Shell, Chevron, etc.

--
Paul Miner

On Wed, 08 Sep 2010 18:18:34 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote:

>When I drove across the country last summer it was interesting to see
>higher octane gasoline selling for less than lower octane. After a while
>the reason became clear--the lower octane gasoline has no ethanol while
>the higher octane did. If you calculated the lower energy content of the
>ethanol at the given ratio, there was virtually no difference in the price.

You West Coast'ers crack me up every time you 'discover' something
we've been dealing with for years out here in the Midwest. :-)

--
Paul Miner

In <vrog86pkedkujmh5565edqam7ib9dlgsfe@4ax.com> Paul Miner <pminer@elrancho.invalid> writes:

>On Wed, 08 Sep 2010 18:18:34 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
>wrote:

>>When I drove across the country last summer it was interesting to see
>>higher octane gasoline selling for less than lower octane. After a while
>>the reason became clear--the lower octane gasoline has no ethanol while
>>the higher octane did. If you calculated the lower energy content of the
>>ethanol at the given ratio, there was virtually no difference in the price.

>You West Coast'ers crack me up every time you 'discover' something
>we've been dealing with for years out here in the Midwest. :-)

Where do you find out the ethanol percentage for the fuel mix?

The only numbers I've seen are zero, e-10, and e-85.

Thanks
--
__________________________________________________ ___
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dannyb@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]

On 9/8/2010 9:34 PM, Paul Miner wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Sep 2010 18:18:34 -0700, SMS<scharf.steven@geemail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> When I drove across the country last summer it was interesting to see
>> higher octane gasoline selling for less than lower octane. After a while
>> the reason became clear--the lower octane gasoline has no ethanol while
>> the higher octane did. If you calculated the lower energy content of the
>> ethanol at the given ratio, there was virtually no difference in the price.
>
> You West Coast'ers crack me up every time you 'discover' something
> we've been dealing with for years out here in the Midwest. :-)

Yes, in California, _all_ gasoline sold for cars contains ethanol, you
can't buy it without ethanol.

On 9/9/2010 12:31 AM, Paul Miner wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Sep 2010 00:48:03 +0000, Larry<noone@home.com> wrote:
>
>> Another great fun thing to do is to take the average gasoline expert who
>> always buys the most expensive brand name gas he can find on a little
>> tour of an oil tanker here in Charleston Harbor.....It's a real eye-
>> opener! One look into the tanks where this other wonderous product is
>> transported will make you wonder how you ever got just gas out of any gas
>> station, not mixed with a bunch of seawater it floats upon on the way
>> across the pond from the refinery....The look on Mr Perfect's face is
>> priceless....All gas is the same, no matter whos gas station chain is
>> selling it.
>
> Out here on the Great Plains we obviously don't have tankers floating
> around, but we have gasoline storage and distribution centers where
> trucks of every brand and logo line up head to tail to fill up from
> the same storage tanks. There's a distribution center a few miles from
> the house, and no matter when I drive by there are trucks lined up to
> suck on the same hose as the guy in front of them. The only difference
> is the logo on the side of the truck: BP, Shell, Chevron, etc.
>


Thats a common misconception and it is a lot more complicated than that.
Next time you are near one of those fuel depots pay careful attention to
the size of the tanks. You will note there are some large tanks and then
smaller tanks. The large tanks contain the "base" fuel stock and the
other tanks contain additives (recently ethanol has become part of
that). You will see individual lines from the tanks that all go to a
building and then lines from the building to the loading racks. Among
other things in the building there is a PLC and a set of pumps connected
to the manifold. Each pump meters in a different additive. When a tanker
pulls up to the loading rack the operator keys in an account and what he
wants to load. The terminal operator previously loaded the recipe for
the particular product based on what was ordered by that company. When
the pumps start that specific blend is delivered to the transport or
tank truck.


Diesel works the same way. The purchaser can specify how much and what
additives are blended in.

The loading system also tracks things such as if it is a taxable or
nontaxable fuel. If it is taxable diesel the tax is added into the price
and the dye injector pump isn't turned on.

On Wed, 08 Sep 2010 14:15:04 -0700, in
<4c87fcde$0$1629$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

>On 9/8/2010 1:49 PM, George wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> What citation? All you did is post an article from a writer like you who
>> parroted marketing they didn't understand or because they had an agenda.
>
>If people would do an oil analysis, rather than changing oil based on
>time or mileage, you'd see 10,000 mile oil changes on many vehicles for
>oil with conventional _or_ synthetic base stock. It's got much more to
>do with how they drive than it does with the base stock.

Wrong again(tm):

<http://www.autosafety.org/1998-01-mercedes-fss-engine-damage>

In March 2001, Mercedes-Benz sent all vehicle owners a letter that
strongly recommended switching over to pure synthetic oils for all
FSS-equipped vehicles to prevent excessive oil consumption and oil
sludging.

<http://www.mobiloil.com/USA-English/MotorOil/Synthetics/Myths.aspx>

Mobil 1 is original equipment (it is installed at the factory) in:

* Acura RDX
* Aston Martin
* All Bentley Vehicles
* All Cadillac Vehicles
* Chevrolet Corvette C6 and Z06
* Chevrolet TrailBlazer SS
* Chrysler 300C SRT-8
* Cobalt SS S/C Coupe
* Dodge Caliber SRT-4, Charger SRT-8, and Magnum SRT-8
* Jeep Cherokee SRT-8
* Mercedes-Benz AMG Vehicles
* Mercedes SLR
* Mitsubishi Evolution
* Pontiac Solstice GXP
* All Porsche Vehicles
* Saturn Ion Red Line and Saturn Sky Red Line
* Viper SRT-10

<http://www.amsoil.com/storefront/afl.aspx>

AMSOIL AFL is the preferred oil for virtually all European
automobiles, especially turbo-charged models. It is one of the only
oils in North America to be recommended for the latest specifications
of all three major European automakers - Volkswagen (Audi), BMW and
Mercedes-Benz - and the latest North American API specification.

--
John

"Facts? We ain't got no facts. We don't need no facts. I don't have
to show you any stinking facts!" [with apologies to John Huston]

On Wed, 08 Sep 2010 20:00:10 -0400, in
<N7WdnQHOdc4evhXRnZ2dnUVZ_g6dnZ2d@giganews.com>, "Richard B. Gilbert"
<rgilbert88@comcast.net> wrote:

>John Navas wrote:

>> Wrong again(tm): You've got that exactly backwards.
>
>How about taking this pissing contest off line?

How about taking your own off-topic comments off line?

--
John

"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea - massive,
difficult to redirect, awe inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind
boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it." --Gene Spafford

In <p10i86l58u82vg9nukkbav4a04mjqp1cf4@4ax.com> John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> writes:
[snip]

>Wrong again(tm):
.....
><http://www.mobiloil.com/USA-English/MotorOil/Synthetics/Myths.aspx>

> Mobil 1 is original equipment (it is installed at the factory) in:

[snip of car list]

I'd suspect that's kind of like why hospitals prefer to give
out Tylenol brand acetominphen. The manufacturer provides
dirt cheap pricing to get that marketing edge...


--
__________________________________________________ ___
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dannyb@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]

On Thu, 09 Sep 2010 00:35:53 +0000, in
<Xns9DEDD1FA02131noonehomecom@74.209.131.13>, Larry <noone@home.com>
wrote:

>John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
>news:idef86tpfrjlc4rihkivkop7guakl81erq@4ax.com :
>
>> Over time, petroleum-based oils will degrade or break down from the heat
>> and pressure inside the engine. As this occurs, the chemical composition
>> of the oil changes and it becomes contaminated. After thousands of
>> miles, petroleum-based oils are unable to protect the engine and must be
>> replaced.
>>
>> Synthetic motor oils have a higher tolerance to heat and aging. The
>> performance characteristics of these synthetic lubricants can be
>> custom-designed to exceed the performance limits of petroleum-based
>> motor oils - and their use can possibly increase the life of your
>> engine.
>
>This is why all the over-the-road truckers, who drive their trucks millions
>of miles between overhauls all insist on using Rotella T dyno oils because
>they make the engines run millions of miles between overhauls.
>
>Synthetic oils are wonderful......and expensive.

And thus tend to be recommended by manufacturers of high end cars and
high performance cars like Mercedes Benz.

--
John

"Facts? We ain't got no facts. We don't need no facts. I don't have
to show you any stinking facts!" [with apologies to John Huston]

On Thu, 09 Sep 2010 09:05:56 -0700, in
<4c8905ec$0$1588$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

>On 9/9/2010 8:47 AM, danny burstein wrote:
>> In<p10i86l58u82vg9nukkbav4a04mjqp1cf4@4ax.com> John Navas<spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> writes:
>> [snip]
>>
>>> Wrong again(tm):
>> .....
>>> <http://www.mobiloil.com/USA-English/MotorOil/Synthetics/Myths.aspx>
>>
>>> Mobil 1 is original equipment (it is installed at the factory) in:
>>
>As to synthetic oil, there are definitely some vehicles that have
>engines that benefit from the properties of synthetic oil,

Backtracking again -- your stock in trade.

>but it's a
>myth that synthetic provides any benefit at all for most engines that
>are operated in non-extreme climates, and that have the oil changed at
>the interval specified by the manufacturer.

Proof? But of course you don't have any (as usual).

>[alt.cellular.cingular removed, Cingular no longer exists. Please remove
>alt.cellular.cingular from all follow-up posts]

[silly, childish change reversed]

--
John

"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea - massive,
difficult to redirect, awe inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind
boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it." --Gene Spafford

On Thu, 09 Sep 2010 08:29:35 -0400, George <george@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>On 9/9/2010 12:31 AM, Paul Miner wrote:
>> On Thu, 09 Sep 2010 00:48:03 +0000, Larry<noone@home.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Another great fun thing to do is to take the average gasoline expert who
>>> always buys the most expensive brand name gas he can find on a little
>>> tour of an oil tanker here in Charleston Harbor.....It's a real eye-
>>> opener! One look into the tanks where this other wonderous product is
>>> transported will make you wonder how you ever got just gas out of any gas
>>> station, not mixed with a bunch of seawater it floats upon on the way
>>> across the pond from the refinery....The look on Mr Perfect's face is
>>> priceless....All gas is the same, no matter whos gas station chain is
>>> selling it.
>>
>> Out here on the Great Plains we obviously don't have tankers floating
>> around, but we have gasoline storage and distribution centers where
>> trucks of every brand and logo line up head to tail to fill up from
>> the same storage tanks. There's a distribution center a few miles from
>> the house, and no matter when I drive by there are trucks lined up to
>> suck on the same hose as the guy in front of them. The only difference
>> is the logo on the side of the truck: BP, Shell, Chevron, etc.
>>
>
>
>Thats a common misconception and it is a lot more complicated than that.
>Next time you are near one of those fuel depots pay careful attention to
>the size of the tanks. You will note there are some large tanks and then
>smaller tanks. The large tanks contain the "base" fuel stock and the
>other tanks contain additives (recently ethanol has become part of
>that). You will see individual lines from the tanks that all go to a
>building and then lines from the building to the loading racks. Among
>other things in the building there is a PLC and a set of pumps connected
>to the manifold. Each pump meters in a different additive. When a tanker
>pulls up to the loading rack the operator keys in an account and what he
>wants to load. The terminal operator previously loaded the recipe for
>the particular product based on what was ordered by that company. When
>the pumps start that specific blend is delivered to the transport or
>tank truck.
>
>
>Diesel works the same way. The purchaser can specify how much and what
>additives are blended in.
>
>The loading system also tracks things such as if it is a taxable or
>nontaxable fuel. If it is taxable diesel the tax is added into the price
>and the dye injector pump isn't turned on.

Sounds good. The only problem is that 3 of the local major TV networks
have done investigative reporting over the past several years fully
supporting what I reported above. They've talked to people who work
there and people who used to work there, and they've tested samples
from multiple gas stations which are fed from there. Result? It was
the same product all around.

Diesel is another story entirely.

--
Paul Miner

On Thu, 9 Sep 2010 04:39:49 +0000 (UTC), danny burstein
<dannyb@panix.com> wrote:

>In <vrog86pkedkujmh5565edqam7ib9dlgsfe@4ax.com> Paul Miner <pminer@elrancho.invalid> writes:
>
>>On Wed, 08 Sep 2010 18:18:34 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
>>wrote:
>
>>>When I drove across the country last summer it was interesting to see
>>>higher octane gasoline selling for less than lower octane. After a while
>>>the reason became clear--the lower octane gasoline has no ethanol while
>>>the higher octane did. If you calculated the lower energy content of the
>>>ethanol at the given ratio, there was virtually no difference in the price.
>
>>You West Coast'ers crack me up every time you 'discover' something
>>we've been dealing with for years out here in the Midwest. :-)
>
>Where do you find out the ethanol percentage for the fuel mix?
>
>The only numbers I've seen are zero, e-10, and e-85.

It's printed on the side of the pump.

--
Paul Miner

Paul Miner wrote on [Wed, 08 Sep 2010 23:34:29 -0500]:
> On Wed, 08 Sep 2010 18:18:34 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>When I drove across the country last summer it was interesting to see
>>higher octane gasoline selling for less than lower octane. After a while
>>the reason became clear--the lower octane gasoline has no ethanol while
>>the higher octane did. If you calculated the lower energy content of the
>>ethanol at the given ratio, there was virtually no difference in the price.
>
> You West Coast'ers crack me up every time you 'discover' something
> we've been dealing with for years out here in the Midwest. :-)

That's funny, I have never encountered this in Indiana.

On 9/9/2010 1:38 PM, Justin wrote:
> Paul Miner wrote on [Wed, 08 Sep 2010 23:34:29 -0500]:
>> On Wed, 08 Sep 2010 18:18:34 -0700, SMS<scharf.steven@geemail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> When I drove across the country last summer it was interesting to see
>>> higher octane gasoline selling for less than lower octane. After a while
>>> the reason became clear--the lower octane gasoline has no ethanol while
>>> the higher octane did. If you calculated the lower energy content of the
>>> ethanol at the given ratio, there was virtually no difference in the price.
>>
>> You West Coast'ers crack me up every time you 'discover' something
>> we've been dealing with for years out here in the Midwest. :-)
>
> That's funny, I have never encountered this in Indiana.

I saw it in Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, and South Dakota. Maybe it's a
corn thing since they produce a lot of Ethanol. ADM needs to sell more
corn products.