sgn1@ra.msstate.edu,Internet writes:
> If memory
>serves correct, they tested the oils in NYC cabs, what they though would
>be a tough testing ground. Now while I will admit that the NYC cabs
>don't have it easy, they also don't have to start but once a day.
I beg to differ. While I am not a cab driver, I do work in law
enforcement, so I see many cab drivers in my patrol. I see many, many
cabbies turn their vehicles on and off every day. So the argument that
these vehicles were not subjected to the same wear and tear that you
and I would put our own vehicles through is moot. Also, my agency has
tried synthetic oils and found it to be more costly without any
significant improvement in vehicle life.
>And after switching to synthetic in my
>"new" 87 MR2, after 92k of regular oil, I could feel a difference in
>smoothness. The car just liked to rev better.
This assessment is purely subjective. And as far as higher RPM's are
concerned I would contend that modern metallurgy allows vehicles to be
run in a fashion that many would not consider "normal." Modern engines
last longer not because people use synthetic oil or because they drive
"normally." It is because the materials from which they are made are
superior.
Considering turbos, I would agree that this would be a case where
synthetic oils would be superior. Oils are subjected to much higher
temps and this is where the advantage of synthetic oil can really be
seen.
Christopher Albers
|