And the EPA isn't helping anyone either when it comes to the small stuff. I use 5w20 in my commuter but I'm pretty picky about what oils and I'm always keeping up to date with who makes what. But with 370K on the clock and its still ticking away, I really cannot complain about anything.
So, exactly where were you ? Not in the womb yet ? Anyhow, the leap from Quaker State 30 weight , which is all we had here, was something. I'm talking about a period where you trade at 40,000 miles or did not get anything for the trade in.
Not autistic. And it is clear you were searching for ways to denigrate and discredit me. So I am a pervert for implying you are one? That is called transference. You have issues.
Not at all. They contradict themselves.
No, they didnt..
You are a pervert for certain. You interjected such things into an argument. Maybe you should go back to church you are also an autistic weirdo for certain, wether diagnosed or not.
I know you are talking about that period. So while the oil you used didnt cause an acute catastrophic failure(they seldom do), the engine didn't last long, so it's nothing to brag about. Although it wasn't just the oil that was a problem with those old clunkers.
Back in the day 100,000 to 130,000 miles was a big deal.
Yep, but the luddites talk about how good those old clunkers were.
Maybe . I have an 81 F150 with a straight six and I have no idea how many miles is on it.
Sadly, if one of those straight six Ford or GM engines were given modern fuel injection and modern oil they would run forever.
You can convert them.
Here is the situation. The pages at Castrol you linked to were written for the general public, not for people who actually understand what viscosity and film strength are. They simplified the discussion rather than use technical rigor. They did not, however, say that viscosity is essentially film strength. What they said is that generally higher viscosity makes it easier to maintain film strength at higher operating temperatures, which is true. However, the use of the word "generally" allows for a less than causal relationship. It all depends on the formulation. As I have pointed out, some low viscosity oils have a higher film strength than some higher viscosity oils. And, of course, different substances such as honey or glycerin can have higher viscosity than engine oils but lower film strength. So, your claim that viscosity is essentially film strength is technically wrong. If what you meant to say is that, within a specific family of motor oils, there is a rough correlation between viscosity and film strength, you would have been correct.
I have a Ford 300ci straight six that's on the bench to rebuild. Not sure if it will run forever as its getting FI and a turbo
What kind of man let others words affect them?
Here is the thing. This board is the general public. Most of the posters are not autistic engineers that get hung up on terminology. So when I said that under hydrodynamic conditions viscosity is basicly film strength I am not wrong and neither is Castrol. Get over it. BTW that statement wasn't mine, it ws communicated to me during a tribology seminar I went to.
it's hard to avoid contentious topics when you're the main poster of virtually every topic. but carry on.
That's not true, but even if it were not every topic is contentious.
