Better Alternative to Valvoline Maxlife Engine Protector
03-06-2005, 07:02 PM
#1
Moderator
Thread Starter
Better Alternative to Valvoline Maxlife Engine Protector
Folks,
RR has been recommending (seems like forever now) the Valvoline Maxlife Engine Protector. Yes, the nice part about this stuff is that it’s a nice 40wt, so you probably CAN safely add the whole bottle to the crankcase without worrying about your engine oil climbing past a 30wt. However, the additives in Valvoline Maxlife Engine Protector are quite lame compared the VOA of the Valvoline Synpower Oil Additive that I’ve found:
Maxlife Engine Protector/Synpower Oil Treatment
Boron 40/1367
Calcium 240/1719
Magnesium 57/2718
Molybdenum 489/3481
Phosphorus 567/2109
Potassium 11/0
Zinc 625/2626
Viscosity @100C: 15.3/40.6
Yes, the Synpower Oil Treatment is as thick as a brick, but the additives are much stronger. When added at a ratio of 1 ounce per quart, it can be better than the adding a whole pint of Maxlife Engine Protector. After all, they’re both about the same price. Most importantly: DO NOT ADD THE ENTIRE BOTTLE AS INSTRUCTED TO DO SO BY VALVOLINE!
I got this info from:
VOA of Maxlife Engine Protector
VOA of Synpower Oil Treatment
Some real world oil analysis results:
UOA w/Maxlife Engine Protector
UOA w/Maxlife Engine Protector
UOA w/Synpower Oil Treatment
Michael
RR has been recommending (seems like forever now) the Valvoline Maxlife Engine Protector. Yes, the nice part about this stuff is that it’s a nice 40wt, so you probably CAN safely add the whole bottle to the crankcase without worrying about your engine oil climbing past a 30wt. However, the additives in Valvoline Maxlife Engine Protector are quite lame compared the VOA of the Valvoline Synpower Oil Additive that I’ve found:
Maxlife Engine Protector/Synpower Oil Treatment
Boron 40/1367
Calcium 240/1719
Magnesium 57/2718
Molybdenum 489/3481
Phosphorus 567/2109
Potassium 11/0
Zinc 625/2626
Viscosity @100C: 15.3/40.6
Yes, the Synpower Oil Treatment is as thick as a brick, but the additives are much stronger. When added at a ratio of 1 ounce per quart, it can be better than the adding a whole pint of Maxlife Engine Protector. After all, they’re both about the same price. Most importantly: DO NOT ADD THE ENTIRE BOTTLE AS INSTRUCTED TO DO SO BY VALVOLINE!
I got this info from:
VOA of Maxlife Engine Protector
VOA of Synpower Oil Treatment
Some real world oil analysis results:
UOA w/Maxlife Engine Protector
UOA w/Maxlife Engine Protector
UOA w/Synpower Oil Treatment
Michael
03-06-2005, 09:17 PM
#3
Licking Platters Clean
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Richmond, VA
Age: 52
Posts: 645
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I fail to see the advantage. You should really only use any of this stuff in the first oil change and that's it. Why would I care if I only need 1 oz per quart of the Synpower treatment? You're going to throw the rest in the trash anyway!
03-06-2005, 09:19 PM
#4
Moderator
Thread Starter
No, it is also useful in our oil changes. The additive helps boost additive levels to create a more robust oil. The reason that you should start out with 1 ounce per quart is to prevent the oil from thickening to an undesirable viscosity.
Michael
Michael
03-06-2005, 10:05 PM
#5
05 TL NBP Navi
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Cali
Age: 60
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Michael, from the VOA thread, two issues were brought up one:
"The base or carrier is a ethylene/propylene copolymer VII (OCP) or thickerner with some PAO and surfactant. The molecular backbone of this polymer can unzip under extreme pressures and heat and leave unuseable molecules floating around that has the potential to turn into sludge."
and to paraphrase the second was the level of ZDDP could poisen the cat.
Road Rage has written of his concerns regarding additives and cat problems , and the industry is moving toward GF-4 oils.
Others know more than I, so I hope some of them respond in this thread. If 1 oz per qrt. would not have these problems it would seem the perfect answer to all you MADD Mobil 1 users.
"The base or carrier is a ethylene/propylene copolymer VII (OCP) or thickerner with some PAO and surfactant. The molecular backbone of this polymer can unzip under extreme pressures and heat and leave unuseable molecules floating around that has the potential to turn into sludge."
and to paraphrase the second was the level of ZDDP could poisen the cat.
Road Rage has written of his concerns regarding additives and cat problems , and the industry is moving toward GF-4 oils.
Others know more than I, so I hope some of them respond in this thread. If 1 oz per qrt. would not have these problems it would seem the perfect answer to all you MADD Mobil 1 users.
03-06-2005, 10:09 PM
#6
Licking Platters Clean
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Richmond, VA
Age: 52
Posts: 645
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by michaelwan
No, it is also useful in our oil changes. The additive helps boost additive levels to create a more robust oil.
Michael
Michael
03-07-2005, 08:50 AM
#7
Senior Moderator
More fuel for the fire:
Now I'm nervous. I trust Road Rage's advice and qualifications completely.
However.... here is a question I put to Valvoline themselves and their answer to me by email:
To: VWEBMAIL@Ashland
cc:
Subject: Site feedback from Valvoline.com
Q: New car, Acura TL, only has 3,000 miles but is 12 months old. I am
changing the oil although the car's computer says I still have 50% oil life
remaining. Since it has special break-in oil that I am taking out, and
because of low miles, should I add 15 oz. of Max Life Engine Protector to
the fully synthetic 10W-30 to complete the break-in process?
A: Thank you for your question! Valvoline does not recommend that you use the
MaxLife Engine Protector at this time.
What? I already added the MaxLife EP yesterday although I haven't driven the car yet.
Road Rage: Please reassure me that I am not hurting anything or risking my warranty!
However.... here is a question I put to Valvoline themselves and their answer to me by email:
To: VWEBMAIL@Ashland
cc:
Subject: Site feedback from Valvoline.com
Q: New car, Acura TL, only has 3,000 miles but is 12 months old. I am
changing the oil although the car's computer says I still have 50% oil life
remaining. Since it has special break-in oil that I am taking out, and
because of low miles, should I add 15 oz. of Max Life Engine Protector to
the fully synthetic 10W-30 to complete the break-in process?
A: Thank you for your question! Valvoline does not recommend that you use the
MaxLife Engine Protector at this time.
What? I already added the MaxLife EP yesterday although I haven't driven the car yet.
Road Rage: Please reassure me that I am not hurting anything or risking my warranty!
Trending Topics
03-07-2005, 12:43 PM
#8
All very interesting, however...
While all this information on these oil additives is interesting, there's one small detail not covered.
You've not provided any tangible evidence that adding any of this to the oil is either necessary or beneficial. Adding more of anything than is needed or can be utilized is simply a waste of resources.
Of course every oil has a different formulation from the competitors. There wouldn't be much point in having different brands if they were all formulated identically. Each companies research leads them down different paths in this regard.
The impression I get is that you're applying the logic of "if a little is good, a lot is better" in pursuit of some quest for ultimate engine longevity. Quite frankly, there is only a small subset of people who keep a vehicle long enough for any of this to have significance.
This agonizing over oil is getting sort of weird.
I've owned a wide variety of vehicles over the last 30 years, done the maintenance, and never concerned myself with minute details like this. I'm a very average sort of owner and I've yet to ever have a vehicle shell an engine because of lubrication issues.
This just comes across as much ado about nothing, IMHO.
You've not provided any tangible evidence that adding any of this to the oil is either necessary or beneficial. Adding more of anything than is needed or can be utilized is simply a waste of resources.
Of course every oil has a different formulation from the competitors. There wouldn't be much point in having different brands if they were all formulated identically. Each companies research leads them down different paths in this regard.
The impression I get is that you're applying the logic of "if a little is good, a lot is better" in pursuit of some quest for ultimate engine longevity. Quite frankly, there is only a small subset of people who keep a vehicle long enough for any of this to have significance.
This agonizing over oil is getting sort of weird.
I've owned a wide variety of vehicles over the last 30 years, done the maintenance, and never concerned myself with minute details like this. I'm a very average sort of owner and I've yet to ever have a vehicle shell an engine because of lubrication issues.
This just comes across as much ado about nothing, IMHO.
03-07-2005, 04:33 PM
#9
Not a Blowhole
Guys, use your heads....and let's let cool heads prevail, at that.
I do not recommend anything other than the MLEP, for the very, very specific application of finishing the break-in in closest adherence to Honda's OE package (oil, additive and mileage). For those who change the oil out prior to Honda's recommendation, and want to ensure they have similar oil chemistry in their sump, the MLEP+GF-4 spec oil is the closest and easiest to obtain product whose additives match the factory fill. But my recommendation has, and is, that once the 7500 mile point is reached, NO additives other than those intrinsic to the oil be used.
Since I am not interested in providing a recommendation on external oil additives, the issue of whether Valvoline SynPower is "better" than MLEP is moot to me, and I will not weigh in on the topic, other than using some additives may well put your catalytic converter's service life at risk. That may be lame to some, good smarts to others.
As to Valvoline's "not recommending MLEP at this time", there is an obvious lack of context for the question on their part, and given a similar question, I would use the same fall-back answer. Why anyone would expect different is beyond me. They market the product for cars over 60k miles - why would they recommend then, using it in a car with 3K? Answer: they won't. But nowhere did they say it would damage the car - obviously, it will not. Let's use some common sense here, lest I revert to the safer "don't add anything" line myself.
I do not recommend anything other than the MLEP, for the very, very specific application of finishing the break-in in closest adherence to Honda's OE package (oil, additive and mileage). For those who change the oil out prior to Honda's recommendation, and want to ensure they have similar oil chemistry in their sump, the MLEP+GF-4 spec oil is the closest and easiest to obtain product whose additives match the factory fill. But my recommendation has, and is, that once the 7500 mile point is reached, NO additives other than those intrinsic to the oil be used.
Since I am not interested in providing a recommendation on external oil additives, the issue of whether Valvoline SynPower is "better" than MLEP is moot to me, and I will not weigh in on the topic, other than using some additives may well put your catalytic converter's service life at risk. That may be lame to some, good smarts to others.
As to Valvoline's "not recommending MLEP at this time", there is an obvious lack of context for the question on their part, and given a similar question, I would use the same fall-back answer. Why anyone would expect different is beyond me. They market the product for cars over 60k miles - why would they recommend then, using it in a car with 3K? Answer: they won't. But nowhere did they say it would damage the car - obviously, it will not. Let's use some common sense here, lest I revert to the safer "don't add anything" line myself.
03-07-2005, 09:33 PM
#10
Moderator
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by DevTL
Michael, from the VOA thread, two issues were brought up one:
"The base or carrier is a ethylene/propylene copolymer VII (OCP) or thickerner with some PAO and surfactant. The molecular backbone of this polymer can unzip under extreme pressures and heat and leave unuseable molecules floating around that has the potential to turn into sludge."
and to paraphrase the second was the level of ZDDP could poisen the cat.
Road Rage has written of his concerns regarding additives and cat problems , and the industry is moving toward GF-4 oils.
Others know more than I, so I hope some of them respond in this thread. If 1 oz per qrt. would not have these problems it would seem the perfect answer to all you MADD Mobil 1 users.
"The base or carrier is a ethylene/propylene copolymer VII (OCP) or thickerner with some PAO and surfactant. The molecular backbone of this polymer can unzip under extreme pressures and heat and leave unuseable molecules floating around that has the potential to turn into sludge."
and to paraphrase the second was the level of ZDDP could poisen the cat.
Road Rage has written of his concerns regarding additives and cat problems , and the industry is moving toward GF-4 oils.
Others know more than I, so I hope some of them respond in this thread. If 1 oz per qrt. would not have these problems it would seem the perfect answer to all you MADD Mobil 1 users.
The additive, if used at reasonable amounts, will not have this problem, especially if you used it at a ratio of 1 ounce/quart or so. The only time these problems would occur is if the oil actually burned, a lot of it, even then, you wouldn’t have this problem unless you used too much of it.
GF-4 and SM grade oils are much, lets put it this way, lamer. I think the Phosphorus level has now been limited to 600ppm, and Calcium to around 2000ppm hoping to reduce CAT poisoning. Therefore, many of the better oil manufacturers such as Redline and Amsoil are not complying with these standards. The industry has now turned to using alternative additives such as Antimony and perhaps Sodium to compensate for these new regulations, in addition to improving the base oils. Just keep in mind that I'm not really a fan of additives, and you'll see my opinion and my intent later in this thread.
Michael
03-07-2005, 10:11 PM
#11
Moderator
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by kosh2258
While all this information on these oil additives is interesting, there's one small detail not covered.
You've not provided any tangible evidence that adding any of this to the oil is either necessary or beneficial. Adding more of anything than is needed or can be utilized is simply a waste of resources.
Of course every oil has a different formulation from the competitors. There wouldn't be much point in having different brands if they were all formulated identically. Each companies research leads them down different paths in this regard.
The impression I get is that you're applying the logic of "if a little is good, a lot is better" in pursuit of some quest for ultimate engine longevity. Quite frankly, there is only a small subset of people who keep a vehicle long enough for any of this to have significance.
This agonizing over oil is getting sort of weird.
I've owned a wide variety of vehicles over the last 30 years, done the maintenance, and never concerned myself with minute details like this. I'm a very average sort of owner and I've yet to ever have a vehicle shell an engine because of lubrication issues.
This just comes across as much ado about nothing, IMHO.
You've not provided any tangible evidence that adding any of this to the oil is either necessary or beneficial. Adding more of anything than is needed or can be utilized is simply a waste of resources.
Of course every oil has a different formulation from the competitors. There wouldn't be much point in having different brands if they were all formulated identically. Each companies research leads them down different paths in this regard.
The impression I get is that you're applying the logic of "if a little is good, a lot is better" in pursuit of some quest for ultimate engine longevity. Quite frankly, there is only a small subset of people who keep a vehicle long enough for any of this to have significance.
This agonizing over oil is getting sort of weird.
I've owned a wide variety of vehicles over the last 30 years, done the maintenance, and never concerned myself with minute details like this. I'm a very average sort of owner and I've yet to ever have a vehicle shell an engine because of lubrication issues.
This just comes across as much ado about nothing, IMHO.
By the way, if you think oil discussions are weird, wait until you head over to bobistheoilguy.com. I spend at least 2 hours a day there. Now I must be really weird!!!
Michael
03-07-2005, 10:11 PM
#12
Moderator
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by Road Rage
Guys, use your heads....and let's let cool heads prevail, at that.
I do not recommend anything other than the MLEP, for the very, very specific application of finishing the break-in in closest adherence to Honda's OE package (oil, additive and mileage). For those who change the oil out prior to Honda's recommendation, and want to ensure they have similar oil chemistry in their sump, the MLEP+GF-4 spec oil is the closest and easiest to obtain product whose additives match the factory fill. But my recommendation has, and is, that once the 7500 mile point is reached, NO additives other than those intrinsic to the oil be used.
Since I am not interested in providing a recommendation on external oil additives, the issue of whether Valvoline SynPower is "better" than MLEP is moot to me, and I will not weigh in on the topic, other than using some additives may well put your catalytic converter's service life at risk. That may be lame to some, good smarts to others.
As to Valvoline's "not recommending MLEP at this time", there is an obvious lack of context for the question on their part, and given a similar question, I would use the same fall-back answer. Why anyone would expect different is beyond me. They market the product for cars over 60k miles - why would they recommend then, using it in a car with 3K? Answer: they won't. But nowhere did they say it would damage the car - obviously, it will not. Let's use some common sense here, lest I revert to the safer "don't add anything" line myself.
I do not recommend anything other than the MLEP, for the very, very specific application of finishing the break-in in closest adherence to Honda's OE package (oil, additive and mileage). For those who change the oil out prior to Honda's recommendation, and want to ensure they have similar oil chemistry in their sump, the MLEP+GF-4 spec oil is the closest and easiest to obtain product whose additives match the factory fill. But my recommendation has, and is, that once the 7500 mile point is reached, NO additives other than those intrinsic to the oil be used.
Since I am not interested in providing a recommendation on external oil additives, the issue of whether Valvoline SynPower is "better" than MLEP is moot to me, and I will not weigh in on the topic, other than using some additives may well put your catalytic converter's service life at risk. That may be lame to some, good smarts to others.
As to Valvoline's "not recommending MLEP at this time", there is an obvious lack of context for the question on their part, and given a similar question, I would use the same fall-back answer. Why anyone would expect different is beyond me. They market the product for cars over 60k miles - why would they recommend then, using it in a car with 3K? Answer: they won't. But nowhere did they say it would damage the car - obviously, it will not. Let's use some common sense here, lest I revert to the safer "don't add anything" line myself.
I’d have to completely disagree with you here. I’m really not a big fan of any additives that have not been proven to work through analysis; therefore, I only support Auto-RX (seen it work in my friend’s truck) and Lube Control and Fuel Power (helps with TBN retention and greatly reduces insolubles as I have seen in UOAs).
I’m not a fan of Valvoline’s additives at all. I just wanted to prove my point that there is a more robust product in Valvoline’s additive line. No, it would not fry your CAT if you used either one of these additives, especially the Synpower, if you only used it at 1 oz/quart. RR, I think I understand the reasoning behind your recommendation of the MLEP. You wanted a close match to the Honda Factory Fill.
First of all, there is no need to use an additive to obtain a product similar to the factory fill. Adding a pint of MLEP will NOT match the additives of the Factory Fill. The amount that you are adding is not sufficient to completely alter the chemistry of the oil. I’d be glad to see you mix up some MLEP and add it to a 4.5 quarts of oil, pour out 4 ounces, and VOA it for everyone to see. If I’m wrong, I’d be glad to change my opinion. But until then, that is my stand on the subject.
After all, the Havoline Dino 5W/30 or 5W/20 (probably same additive package) is a much better match to the Factory Fill than Castrol, Pennzoil, or any other dino oil with MLEP added. None of these Valvoline additives, when added at safe amounts, will increase the amount of additives enough to what you hope it’ll be.
Look at it this way: the main distinction of the Honda Factory Fill anyway is its moly content, so why not add Schaeffer’s moly additive if you are really insisting on adding an additive to the oil “ to bring it up to factory fill standards.” Havoline already has 360ppm of moly, about the same as the factory fill.
I hope that you folks on Acurazine will understand an alternative point of view.
Michael
03-07-2005, 10:22 PM
#13
05 TL NBP Navi
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Cali
Age: 60
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Michael:
Thanks for the response. After re-reading this thread, (and others), it seems that alot of the responses are just to beat on the person offering information. I can see how people are temped to just stop answering or offer the "don't add anything" response. So hey thanks. It looks like this might fix an otherwise weak add pack with Mobil 1. I am kinda temped to buy a bunch of MADD calendars (to get 1/2 price Mobil 1), some of this, and just follow the MID. Anyway, when will we see your real opnion and intent?
Thanks for the response. After re-reading this thread, (and others), it seems that alot of the responses are just to beat on the person offering information. I can see how people are temped to just stop answering or offer the "don't add anything" response. So hey thanks. It looks like this might fix an otherwise weak add pack with Mobil 1. I am kinda temped to buy a bunch of MADD calendars (to get 1/2 price Mobil 1), some of this, and just follow the MID. Anyway, when will we see your real opnion and intent?
03-08-2005, 07:49 AM
#14
Licking Platters Clean
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Richmond, VA
Age: 52
Posts: 645
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Easy Principal Skinner, I don't see any bruises; nobody is "beating up" anyone here. However, this is a discussion board and these things need to be discussed. New ideas are often challenged and for good reason! One person's post can affect the performance and/or longevity of MILLIONS of dollars worth of fine automobiles. A good presenter will meet those challenges positively and back up his position...and he won't take it personally or feel "beaten up."
03-08-2005, 10:06 AM
#15
Moderator
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by DevTL
Michael:
Thanks for the response. After re-reading this thread, (and others), it seems that alot of the responses are just to beat on the person offering information. I can see how people are temped to just stop answering or offer the "don't add anything" response. So hey thanks. It looks like this might fix an otherwise weak add pack with Mobil 1. I am kinda temped to buy a bunch of MADD calendars (to get 1/2 price Mobil 1), some of this, and just follow the MID. Anyway, when will we see your real opnion and intent?
Thanks for the response. After re-reading this thread, (and others), it seems that alot of the responses are just to beat on the person offering information. I can see how people are temped to just stop answering or offer the "don't add anything" response. So hey thanks. It looks like this might fix an otherwise weak add pack with Mobil 1. I am kinda temped to buy a bunch of MADD calendars (to get 1/2 price Mobil 1), some of this, and just follow the MID. Anyway, when will we see your real opnion and intent?
I just wanted to prove my point that there is a better product and the same price if you really wanted to "attempt" to boost the additive level in your oil. I DON'T recommend this product, I simply wanted to prove my point that there is actually a better product out there for those purposes.
Mobil 1's additive pack is just fine, leave it alone. The best additive you could possibly add to your oil is Lube Control (LC), since it actually keeps your engine cleaner by reducing oxidation and helps extend oil life. Two UOAs side by side, one with and one without, will prove this. At about the same price as MLEP when purchased by the gallon, its much better. I usually recommend that people who use dinos to add LC to increase the "cleaning power" of the oil, since synthetics tend to keep the engine fairly clean already, though they could also use some help from LC.
If you want an oil with a super sized dose of moly already, try the Havoline with some LC (BTW, LC contains ZERO Moly, I'll post a VOA of it later), or Redline, which has at least 500ppm of it. I'm not a big fan of Redline though, not everyone has had good results from it, just to let your know.
Michael
03-08-2005, 01:15 PM
#16
Weird...
The oil discussions aren't weird when they contain factual information, what's gotten weird is the obsessing over the topic that's occuring on this website.
I used to hang out at a different board before I got the TL and the topic of oil and oil changes never came up, to the best of my recollection.
Not one of these threads goes by where there aren't several posts by people who seem panicked regarding what they are, or aren't, doing regarding their oil changes, filters, additives, etc. Some appear to be seeking validation for the way they're doing their oil maintenance, which is fine.
But I still come back to my last post where I'm essentially saying: Yeah, interesting and so what? One is better than the other, and? These additives are necessary or benefical to the average owner how?
To the technically minded the information has context. To the average guy on the street it doesn't, but leaves them with the impression that there's some value add to these products and, in some cases, feeds the paranoia I've mentioned above.
Post facts all you like, but have the wisdom to put the posts into context for the vast majority of readers here who don't have the same technical sophistication you do and don't grasp the meaning of what you're trying to convey.
I used to hang out at a different board before I got the TL and the topic of oil and oil changes never came up, to the best of my recollection.
Not one of these threads goes by where there aren't several posts by people who seem panicked regarding what they are, or aren't, doing regarding their oil changes, filters, additives, etc. Some appear to be seeking validation for the way they're doing their oil maintenance, which is fine.
But I still come back to my last post where I'm essentially saying: Yeah, interesting and so what? One is better than the other, and? These additives are necessary or benefical to the average owner how?
To the technically minded the information has context. To the average guy on the street it doesn't, but leaves them with the impression that there's some value add to these products and, in some cases, feeds the paranoia I've mentioned above.
Post facts all you like, but have the wisdom to put the posts into context for the vast majority of readers here who don't have the same technical sophistication you do and don't grasp the meaning of what you're trying to convey.
03-08-2005, 01:36 PM
#17
Gratis dictum
I guess whatever floats your boat is fair game for discussion. Kosh's comments notwithstanding, I spent six years on a Saab bulletin board, and fully 30% of the posts were directed at lubrication issues. We called them "Oily Wars". I personally find the oil discussions to be interesting and helpful and would encourage their continuation. They are certainly more relevent than the "butt-print" issue which has been beaten to death.
03-08-2005, 01:43 PM
#18
Team Nighthawk MechE
Originally Posted by Repecat
They are certainly more relevent than the "butt-print" issue which has been beaten to death.
AGREED.
03-08-2005, 01:48 PM
#19
Instructor
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Portland,OR
Age: 66
Posts: 135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by kosh2258
The oil discussions aren't weird when they contain factual information, what's gotten weird is the obsessing over the topic that's occuring on this website.
I used to hang out at a different board before I got the TL and the topic of oil and oil changes never came up, to the best of my recollection.
Not one of these threads goes by where there aren't several posts by people who seem panicked regarding what they are, or aren't, doing regarding their oil changes, filters, additives, etc. Some appear to be seeking validation for the way they're doing their oil maintenance, which is fine.
But I still come back to my last post where I'm essentially saying: Yeah, interesting and so what? One is better than the other, and? These additives are necessary or benefical to the average owner how?
To the technically minded the information has context. To the average guy on the street it doesn't, but leaves them with the impression that there's some value add to these products and, in some cases, feeds the paranoia I've mentioned above.
Post facts all you like, but have the wisdom to put the posts into context for the vast majority of readers here who don't have the same technical sophistication you do and don't grasp the meaning of what you're trying to convey.
I used to hang out at a different board before I got the TL and the topic of oil and oil changes never came up, to the best of my recollection.
Not one of these threads goes by where there aren't several posts by people who seem panicked regarding what they are, or aren't, doing regarding their oil changes, filters, additives, etc. Some appear to be seeking validation for the way they're doing their oil maintenance, which is fine.
But I still come back to my last post where I'm essentially saying: Yeah, interesting and so what? One is better than the other, and? These additives are necessary or benefical to the average owner how?
To the technically minded the information has context. To the average guy on the street it doesn't, but leaves them with the impression that there's some value add to these products and, in some cases, feeds the paranoia I've mentioned above.
Post facts all you like, but have the wisdom to put the posts into context for the vast majority of readers here who don't have the same technical sophistication you do and don't grasp the meaning of what you're trying to convey.
03-09-2005, 01:08 PM
#20
Context...
They are certainly more relevent than the "butt-print" issue which has been beaten to death.
With the information I derive for the forum I can decide for myself being an informed consumer what is best for my car.
In this case, I'm still unclear as to what the point of the comparison was or why the information was posted. I see the numbers, but I still don't see the context.
There's nothing inherently wrong with discussing lubrication, but when the same turf is constantly recrossed the discussion starts to get meaningless.
The threads can be summed up pretty simply. Some body asks an oil question, somebody responds with either: Search!, this is what I do/use, I don't follow the MID, I follow the MID, this is good, or that sucks, and some folks, like Michaelwan and Road Rage, go deeper (and credit to them for doing so). Sometimes to good effect, sometimes not.
I'll point out that Road Rage, who apparently is pretty well respected here (I've certain come away with much from his posts), has said as much regarding the oil thread situation. So why you beating on me?
Other than perhaps my being somewhat more blunt about stating it.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
