Date:         Wed, 13 Jan 2010 11:09:05 -0500
Reply-To:     mcneely4@COX.NET
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         Dave Mcneely <mcneely4@COX.NET>
Subject:      Re: Motor Oil (Synthetic)
Comments: cc: Allan Streib <streib@cs.indiana.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed; delsp=no

I found a link, but was denied access:
http://www.xs11.com/stories/croil96.htm

I also found that the report was in 1996.  Wow, how time flies.  I'll
look a bit more, but not forever.  David


On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 9:53 AM, mcneely4@cox.net wrote:

> Yes, the vehicles used in the study were NYC taxicabs.
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 9:12 AM, Allan Streib wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 09:27 -0500, "Dave Mcneely"  wrote:
>>
>>> Well, for what it's worth, when consumer reports, using modern
>>> nonsynthetic oils, ran vehicles under severe conditions in New York
>>> City, and extended the oil change interval long beyond the factory
>>> recommendations, they found no difference in wear compared to
>>> engines
>>> that were treated according to factory recommendations.
>>
>> Was this the taxicab service test?  Remember that NYC taxicabs run
>> pretty much 24x7, or at least for many hours at a time.  That's
>> actually
>> better for the motor and oil than a lot of short trips where the oil
>> is
>> cold half the time.
>>
>> Allan