Date:         Tue, 25 Apr 1995 13:10:26 -0400 (EDT)
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@vanagon.com>
From:         sstones <sstones@io.org>
Subject:      Re: Fuel and Oil for a Vanagon?

On Tue, 25 Apr 1995, Joel Walker wrote:

> 
> so. are synthetics good oils? yeah. i guess. but all my brother and the other
> fellows could figure was that synthetics are very very very small-moleculed
> and WILL find any and all tiny cracks and holes to leak. whereas the dino-oils
> are bigger molecules (or whatever the correct term is) and kinda "clog" them-
> selves against those tiny cracks and holes.

The seals need to absorb a little bit of oil to seal properly,
they seem to do this better with dino-oil.

> 
> also: i think the tendency to want to run the synthetics is mostly the desire
> to go longer mileage between oil changes. i personally think this is a very
> BAD idea. i've read a bunch of stuff in books and articles and had my own
> oil analyzed by a chem lab several times ... and my conclusion is that you
> should change the oil frequently to get out the combustion by-products that
> the filter does NOT get out: stuff like acids and small metal particles and
> carbon particles. the "crud" that is still in your oil is amazing. and the
> filter only gets the big stuff.

100% good advice.
Never try to skimp your way out of having to change the oil.

> 
> so the idea of leaving all that in the engine for 7500 miles really bothers
> me. i've gone to changing oil at 2500 miles (instead of the old 3000) and
> wonder if i ought not to change it every 1500. but 2500 seems to me to be
> a good compromise of money, time, and engine care.
> 

I'd say 2500 is plenty good.

> >     2) How about fuel?  I've always fed my Golf the highest octane available,
> >        but I've been told that this is essentially a waste.  Opinions?
> 
> so far, i cannot detect any difference in mileage or performance between the
> six brands and three octanes that i use. i'm still running my "test" to see
> if there is any long term difference, but so far i can't see any. the higher
> octane is less economic, in terms of miles per dollar. if anybody would like
> to see my results (or the whole data file), i'll be glad to send it to you.
> but right now, there isn't even 0.5 mpg difference in 86,000 miles between
> the 87, 89, or 92/93 octane. nor between the amoco, bp, chevron, exxon, shell,
> or unocal gasolines.

Your golf does not need anything higher than what the gas station sells
as "regular"
If your van is new enough to be made for unleaded, it can use reg. too.
I'm not going to comment on what to run in older busses, I don't want to 
be responsible.


Cheers

<sstones@io.org>
SStones             Toronto,  Ontario.