I saw a show once(Dateline, Sixty Minutes, I cant remember) and they cited the
study Arthur refers was their take on the 3K oil change. In the study the 6K
oil change was observed and the study found no difference in engine wear(no
matter what oil was used). IMHO(a shoot from the hip idea really),30 years ago
the formulations were such that many oils had a high content of parafins and
thus sludge was a problem. Thus, the guy who changed his oil more regularly won
the sludge game. Now days, the formulas are such that the sludge is not so
much of a factor(IMHO). You can read the Redline oil breakdown on oils of the
world but I think a good 20w50 oil should easily get you 6-7k miles down the
road.
Besides, by the time you've got that many miles under your belt the car has
leaked out 3/4 of it on the ground and you've inadvertently changed your oil
interim ;-)
--
On Wed, 9 Jun 1999 18:40:26 KTRIUMPH wrote:
>
>In a message dated 6/9/99 4:11:43 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
>ArthurK101@aol.com writes:
>
><< BTW - Consumer Reports did a test regarding oil useage in NYC taxicabs .
> Their conclusion was that because of the progess in Oil formulation and
> filters it is not necessary to change the oil every 3K miles -- as it used
> to be. It was an interesting test and an interesting article. Of course
>the
> oil companies want us to change as often as we can. :-). Cheers.
>
> Art Kelly >>
>
>I read the same article some years back and found it very interesting. As I
>recall the jist was that there was no noticeable (measured) difference in
>engine wear between any of the tested oils, including synthetics, within 3000
>mi oil changes.
>The major benefit of synthetics seemed to be more miles between changes.
>
>Ken Nuelle
>58 TR3A
>62 TR3B
>64 TR4
>
|