Date:         Thu, 4 Oct 2007 14:56:32 -0400
Reply-To:     Mike S <mikes@FLATSURFACE.COM>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         Mike S <mikes@FLATSURFACE.COM>
Subject:      Re: Mobil I ... negative..(from digest)
Comments: To: Don Hanson <dhanson@GORGE.NET>
In-Reply-To:  <002701c806a9$0f06c240$6cb2d8d1@laptop>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

At 01:07 PM 10/4/2007, Don Hanson wrote...
>928 Mailing list...Rennlist...  One member undertook to document the
>type of
>oil being used at the time of these engine failures, and by far the
>most
>common oil was Mobil One synthetic..To me, that indicates Mobil One
>was
>perhaps the least effective lubricant...Most failures=Least
>effective...

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. 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.

>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.