Dearest Arkady,
Did you mean to post to the list?  If so, give it another shot.
If you meant to send it to me, it seems to be a personal insult, or an
insult to the group in general.
Perhaps you meant to say something humorous.  If so, think a while, sip some
of that good german beir, and try again, because at this point you clearly
indicate that you are a complete jerk.  Oh! An idiot, too.  At this rate of
deterioration of decorum I could be callin' you a doodoo head any minute.

Gee, I'm glad I've gotten that off my chest.... Ahhhh.
Steve

-----Original Message-----
From: ARKADY MIRVIS <HEATERMAN@NAC.NET>
To: S2 <satew@MNINTER.NET>
Date: Friday, March 26, 1999 4:50 PM
Subject: Re: Synthetic oil not worth it (long)

>The man would have been better off seeping good German beer, or reading
foolish
>american book  than writing this for the dudes and confused jackasses-said
my
>old teacher Ieronim Jochen Ioachim Freicherr von Kreuznach und zu Putlitz
in
>heavy German.
>S2 wrote:
>
>> So, the test vehicles were torn down at 60,000 miles?  I have a feeling
that
>> that is too short a test.  You repeated the testers comments that the
>> synthetics flowed better at low temperatures and provided better
protection
>> at high temperatures. That news alone is a good recommendation to use
>> synthetics.   I live in Minnesota where the low can be -40f and the high
can
>> be +95f from season to season.  Also, the aircraft industry uses
synthetics.
>> If you want an example that absolutely requires the best protection ...
Well
>> I don't often get my '82 to 30,000 feet, but I would just as soon my
engine
>> lasted as long as possible.
>>
>> The fact that the oil changes were performed at reasonable intervals that
>> were shorter than those  recommended by the industry weakens the test in
the
>> area of oil characteristics in hard service.  There are a lot of folks
who
>> rarely change their oil.  As tough as taxi service may seem, it's nothing
>> compared to a teenager on a limited budget, or a high mileage salesman
who
>> doesn't care much because he's gonna trade in the car every two years.
The
>> use of fleet vehicles that are professionally maintained and have regular
PM
>> intervals invalidates the oil performance test.
>>
>> I'm guessing that when there is a test that goes over the 100,000 mile
mark,
>> or a maximum - possible mileage test, where the oil is changed every 7000
to
>> 10000 miles, there may be discernible differences in the inspections of
the
>> engines.  60,000 is a VERY young engine.  In my opinion, the referenced
test
>> was prematurely ended, the oil change intervals too short, and the
results
>> are therefor no more useful than anecdotal evidence.
>> Respectfully,
>> Steve
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: The Henrys <jch@VNET.NET>
>> To: vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM <vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM>
>> Date: Thursday, March 25, 1999 8:31 PM
>> Subject: Re: Synthetic oil not worth it (long)
>>
>> >Hello all
>> >
>> ...snip...
>> >One distinction: According to the laboratory tests, Mobil 1 and Pennzoil
>> >Performax synthetics flow better at low temperatures. They also have
>> >the highest viscosity under high-temperature, high-stress conditions,
>> >when a thick oil protects the engine. Thus, the article suggested that
>> these
>> >oils may be a good choice for hard driving in extreme temperatures.
>> ...snip...
>
>