>
> Coincidence is not causality. Did that member also tally the oil used
> in all non-failed engines which participated in the same events? I'd
> hazard to guess that Mobil 1 may be the most commonly used oil by
> performance enthusiasts, and so he might have found it to be the most
> common oil in non-failed engines, too.

Whatever..But not too many cars use Mobil One at the track...As I said in my
original post, I have no double blind testing results, or any other
reasoning that might stand up to someone wanting to argue against my
choosing to shy away from that oil.  I just saw a bunch of motor failures
when the motors were filled with it, including 3 of my own engines of
diverse origin.  Use away, if you want..Not me.

 Given the procedure, I'd bet he
> could also conclude that engine failure is the result of a car being
> driven by a white male.

 You can manipulate data to support any conclusion you choose to forward..
>
> >So yes, almost all of the 928 motor failures were proven to be
> >lubrication-related.
>
> The failure scenario you described is the result of a problem with the
> design of the lubrication system, and does not implicate the oil
> itself.

 You have a point.  Eventually, if these cars were driven hard, like they
were supposedly designed to be driven, they might eventually encounter a
somewhat common failure of the 2/6 bearing..But that informal poll/tally of
oil brand in blown motors and my own experience indicated, to me at least,
that an engine failure was significantly more likely when the vehicles are
track-driven with Mobil One..
  Of course, see my previous insertion about manipulating data..I will say I
have no interest in 'dissing' Mobil One for personal gain or satisfaction..I
just don't trust the stuff, knowing what I know, so I wanted to share my
'doubts' for what they are worth.  Done with this argument..it is like
"Which tire is best"...
  Don Hanson