Skip to main content

Read our primer articles on High Mileage Oil, Synthetic Oil and Kinematic Viscosity

We brought the car back with 1,300 additional miles. At that time I checked the dipstick and noted the oil line was at the very bottom of the dipstick. I personally went to the dealership this time along with my son. The service writer (Randy) did not even look at the car! He told us Volkswagen states that oil consumption up to .85 quarts per 1,000 miles is NORMAL on this car! I asked for a copy of the technical bulletin and after waiting 45 minutes, got a copy of a service bulletin dated 1992 indeed stating the car could "normally consume up to .85 quarts of oil per 1,000 miles. I was also told there was a more recent service bulletin relating to this issue but they could not find it. I told them this was ridiculous and I wanted to talk to the manager. They took my number and promised he would call me but he never did.

The above is a quote from a link supplied by Kirk.
Kirks quote according to my father is pretty much a blanket excuse. Most if not all auto makers claim a qt of oil/1000 miles is normal oil use. No one is happy hearing it if they use that much oil but that's what they will hear.

ALL ENGINES USE OIL, just extend the OCI out far enough and you will know how much oil your engine uses. There is no such thing as a car that doesn't use oil. A more accurate statement about oil use would be I use no oil between changes. So in the case of a 6 month or 6000 mile OCI. If a person used no oil, an accurate statement would be he used no oil during his OCI.

AD
quote:
What was your point with the coil issue,lamont? Obviously your cat,cleaned up the exhaust!

However,everyone else I know with a dead coil issue...fails inspection because the Cat/o2 sensor/bad coil...always triggers the CEL.


The coil was intermittent and the associated plug wire had a boot issue that compounded the miss. I noticed it as a very intermittent miss under moderate load change a year or more ago. It had gotten to be an actual PIA about a month or two ago. The check engine light hadn't yet come on when I went through inspection, so I passed.

As for the cataclysmic perverter, that's not relevant, since NJ only sticks the pipe for older cars that lack the plug-in diagnostic feature, like my '90 Miata.

The cat red herring makes me wonder if you're a real Joisey Bastid or just another wannabe like the cast from Jersey Shore and our new Governor. Or were you not the guy who claimed to be from Joisey? I haven't really been paying close enough attention to the social aspects of this thread.

I have no agenda, except to warn the unsuspecting from those with agendas. On top of that, I'm an unreconstructed Boy Scout. I've often been jealous of those who lie easily and casually, because it's just not in my bag of tricks. I guess that's why they never rotated me through Sales or Marketing.

I'm not clever or devious enough to have come up with my description of my engine miss on my own. If I could, I'd use the writing skill you previously noted to write novels & make real money rather than post my ramblings in internet nooks & crannies like this wasteland.
quote:
Kirks quote according to my father is pretty much a blanket excuse. Most if not all auto makers claim a qt of oil/1000 miles is normal oil use. No one is happy hearing it if they use that much oil but that's what they will hear.


What is my quote...according to common sense!

My quote is a statement of fact!

If the so-called 'defective engines'(not my opinion),receive non-defective oil......the 'defective' engine issues---------GO AWAY!!!

I AM LIVING PROOF WITH MY NON-DEFECTIVE 1.8T-----RUNNING ON SYNLUBE!!

What does your 'father' have to say about that,AD.
Last edited by captainkirk
quote:
The coil was intermittent and the associated plug wire had a boot issue that compounded the miss. I noticed it as a very intermittent miss under moderate load change a year or more ago. It had gotten to be an actual PIA about a month or two ago. The check engine light hadn't yet come on when I went through inspection, so I passed.



If the misfire was not detected by the OBD II and the check engine light is not ON permanently and FLASHING when it is happening, complain to EPA and that is FREE FIX for you (irrespective of the mileage - as that is SYSTEM OBD II failure and the OEM is now subject to $25,000 fine for EVERY VERHICLE THEY SOLD IN USA that as the same "characteristics".

Document what you claim, send it to EPA registered mail and you will be rolling in money soon - alternately contact the MFG and ask to talk to "certification Engineer for EPA maters".

And tell then you will complain if they do not fix your car NOW and FREE of any charge.

While there is a limit on EMISSION PERFOMENCE DUARBLITY (for the useful life of the car) there is no limit on OBD II functionality and it is a very very serious matter - at a minimum a $90 million fine if they sold any more vehicles than the one you have, whatever that is (tried to look back on this another endless thread and could not find any reference to MAKE MODEL or MY.
quote:
Originally posted by Captain Kirk:
quote:
Kirks quote according to my father is pretty much a blanket excuse. Most if not all auto makers claim a qt of oil/1000 miles is normal oil use. No one is happy hearing it if they use that much oil but that's what they will hear.


What is my quote...according to common sense!

My quote is a statement of fact!

If the so-called 'defective engines'(not my opinion),receive non-defective oil......the 'defective' engine issues---------GO AWAY!!!

I AM LIVING PROOF WITH MY NON-DEFECTIVE 1.8T!!

What does your 'father' have to say about that,AD.


READ what I said OK. Lets try another example, a little easier: If a person were to go to a dealer complaining about using a qt of oil in lets say 1500 miles, the dealer would call it normal oil use if there were no leaks. YOU GOT IT NOW? Synlube or not. They've been using 1000 miles/qt for decades now. A blanket excuse.

AD
quote:
Originally posted by ADFD1:
quote:
Originally posted by Captain Kirk:
quote:
Kirks quote according to my father is pretty much a blanket excuse. Most if not all auto makers claim a qt of oil/1000 miles is normal oil use. No one is happy hearing it if they use that much oil but that's what they will hear.


What is my quote...according to common sense!

My quote is a statement of fact!

If the so-called 'defective engines'(not my opinion),receive non-defective oil......the 'defective' engine issues---------GO AWAY!!!

I AM LIVING PROOF WITH MY NON-DEFECTIVE 1.8T...RUNNING ON SYNLUBE!!

What does your 'father' have to say about that,AD.


READ what I said OK. Lets try another example, a little easier: If a person were to go to a dealer complaining about using a qt of oil in lets say 1500 miles, the dealer would call it normal oil use if there were no leaks. YOU GOT IT NOW? Synlube or not. They've been using 1000 miles/qt for decades now. A blanket excuse.

AD



Funny thing,AD,.....I am not one of those-----PERSONS!!! GET IT!! MY ENGINES ARE NOT-------WORN OUT!!

I am not standing in the... 'worn-out-engine-line' at the dealer!!

WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO SAY EXACTLY,AD??
Last edited by captainkirk
Lamont
quote:
As for the cataclysmic perverter, that's not relevant, since NJ only sticks the pipe for older cars that lack the plug-in diagnostic feature, like my '90 Miata.




Lamont,are you sure you live in NJ,like me!

Any converter issues now days in NJ.are far more relevant than the stick test days.

I managed to pass inspection on my cars with the converter off(test-pipe/no mirrors used) with a stick test years ago! Today,the check engine light comes on if the converter is bad/worn/missing.etc.........and you fail inspection---no stick test needed. CATALYTIC CONVERTERS ARE ABSOLUTELY RELEVANT IN NJ. YOU MAKE NO SENSE,LAMONT!

http://www.dmv.org/nj-new-jersey/smog-check.php

Lamont quoted:
The coil was intermittent and the associated plug wire had a boot issue that compounded the miss. I noticed it as a very intermittent miss under moderate load change a year or more ago. It had gotten to be an actual PIA about a month or two ago. The check engine light hadn't yet come on when I went through inspection, so I passed.
.................

That was some miss.........a bad coil----and a bad wire!!! AND NO CEL???

Now I see what you meant by calling your car a grocery getter....and barely that! I would never drive any car with a miss for a year. My buick miss was fixed in two days,and that was too long. Luckily, it was minor/intermittent! BTW........Cars don't run degraded to the point of being a PIA----without the CEL LIT...COME ON,LAMONT---YOU KNOW THAT!

I now also see why you have no sludge in the engine as you claimed---------FUEL DILUTION!!!

Lamont quoted:
The cat red herring makes me wonder if you're a real Joisey Bastid or just another wannabe like the cast from Jersey Shore and our new Governor. Or were you not the guy who claimed to be from Joisey? I haven't really been paying close enough attention to the social aspects of this thread.

---------LAMONT.....SPEAK FOR YOURSELF!!


Lamont,what is your background again????

I am starting to wonder with those stories of yours! They are technically----near impossible!! Car that runs terrible,and no check engine light???--- Any real tech will tell you that the PCM is almost too sensitive at throwing codes and lighting the CEL.......LONG BEFORE ANY DETECTABLE MISS---------LET ALONE,FOR A WHOLE YEAR!! BAD COIL/WIRE/AND MISS-NO CODE/CEL!! GET REAL! NO WAY!!!



THIS QUOTE FROM MIRO....NAILS IT PRETTY ACCURATELY!!!

((If the misfire was not detected by the OBD II and the check engine light is not ON permanently and FLASHING when it is happening, complain to EPA and that is FREE FIX for you (irrespective of the mileage - as that is SYSTEM OBD II failure and the OEM is now subject to $25,000 fine for EVERY VERHICLE THEY SOLD IN USA that as the same "characteristics".)))


Lamont.....just to be clear now-----------YOU'RE CLAIMING THAT THE OBD-II,FAILED....FOR A YEAR???? WAS IT YOUR AVALON(TOYOTA)??


This is the reason the old fashioned stick test is not needed........the OBD II SYSTEM NOW DOES THE JOB OF THE OLD STICK TEST!

http://www.aa1car.com/library/o2sensor.htm

AS YOU CAN SEE,LAMONT.........THE CAT IS VERY RELAVENT----------INCLUDING JOISEY CATS!!!
Last edited by captainkirk
quote:
Originally posted by Captain Kirk:WORN OUT!!

I am not standing in the... 'worn-out-engine-line' at the dealer!!

WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO SAY EXACTLY,AD??


I'll try again Kirk since it seems you aren't grasping what I'm trying to say. A person buys a new car, any brand. He drives 1500 miles and uses a qt of oil. He brings it to the dealer and they check for leaks, NO LEAKS. They tell the person it is normal to use up to a qt of oil per 1000 miles. Simple enough.

It has nothing to do with Synlube or how great you and your cars are. It is a blanket excuse dealers use for oil consumption issues. I can't explain it any other way. Maybe someone else can!


BTW I'm not one of those people with worn out engines, and I don't use Synlube! Smile
AD

PS I'd take Lamont's experiences and word over yours any day of the week! You aren't gaining points here or building any respect. You are entertaining though!
quote:
Originally posted by ADFD1:
quote:
Originally posted by Captain Kirk:WORN OUT!!

I am not standing in the... 'worn-out-engine-line' at the dealer!!

WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO SAY EXACTLY,AD??


I'll try again Kirk since it seems you aren't grasping what I'm trying to say. A person buys a new car, any brand. He drives 1500 miles and uses a qt of oil. He brings it to the dealer and they check for leaks, NO LEAKS. They tell the person it is normal to use up to a qt of oil per 1000 miles. Simple enough.

It has nothing to do with Synlube or how great you and your cars are. It is a blanket excuse dealers use for oil consumption issues. I can't explain it any other way. Maybe someone else can!


BTW I'm not one of those people with worn out engines, and I don't use Synlube! Smile
AD

PS I'd take Lamont's experiences and word over yours any day of the week! You aren't gaining points here or building any respect. You are entertaining though!


Your point,Ad, really has no real relevance on this thread since most oil burners have some wear/sludge issues that have developed long after the break-in period. Most engines,once the rings seat, don't burn any significant oil until significant damage/wear/sludge has occurred many,many miles later-----using low grade, overworked/oxidized lubricant!!!

The so-called blanket statement you're referencing alludes to factory 'lemons' assuming the car never stops burning a quart/1000 miles of driving-----that is another issue altogether,and yes- it could apply to a much older high mileage engine---we know that,old news!!

The whole point of any oil thread,not-withstanding a defective engine.....is to preserve the 'like new' qualities of a sound engine for as long as possible. That is always the point in any oil forum,and my point as well----- So,AD,again...........WHAT WAS YOUR POINT?? That there are defective engines out there?--Really! WHO KNEW!!! Yes,deales/mfg's have a CYA clause that allows for a poor engine spec/flaw/whatever- to be "acceptable" when and where needed,so as to avoid billions in monetary losses over replacement engines. Gee,who woulda thunk they'd do that!
-----------------

AD QUOTED:
PS I'd take Lamont's experiences and word over yours any day of the week! You aren't gaining points here or building any respect. You are entertaining though![/QUOTE]

Really,AD?---ENLIGHTEN ME!---- SO FAR,LAMONT HAS NOT! What has he taught you to date...you didn't already know?? Let's see,so far Lamont has said that catalytic converters are irrelevant(In NJ)!!! I never knew that(still don't)--did you??
quote:
Document what you claim, send it to EPA registered mail and you will be rolling in money soon - alternately contact the MFG and ask to talk to "certification Engineer for EPA maters".


Or, keep driving until the barely noticeable, extremely sporadic miss becomes enough of a concern to actually light the light. (For months, I wasn't sure if it was really happening or it was the somewhat harsh shifting of the tranny in my F-150.) Then fix it and go on with my life.

I guess you can only do that if your vehicle is a tool rather than the central aspect of your existence.

I'm turning off my notifications on this thread. Kirk has never been close to clear, but he's become about as coherent as a bunch of paint-ball splatters, and makes about as much sense. Heck, he might even be agreeing with me, for all I can tell.
Lamont-
quote:
'm turning off my notifications on this thread. Kirk has never been close to clear, but he's become about as coherent as a bunch of paint-ball splatters, and makes about as much sense. Heck, he might even be agreeing with me, for all I can tell.



The issue you have with me, Lamont----is that, I've been all too clear!!! That would be why you're out-a-here!! Can't handle the truth!! Yes,sunshine is the best disinfectant-----it burns all the lies. Sound familiar. That's your signature line!


'All of the lies you've heard about me are true'


I've never seen an intelligible and factual rebuttal from you,Lamont---so instead you make a feeble 'attempt' to smear me....how typical when one is losing in a debate!! Still waiting for the converter rebuttal. That was a real foot-in-mouth gaffe!
Last edited by captainkirk
quote:
Originally posted by Captain Kirk:

I've never seen an intelligible and factual rebuttal from you,Lamont---so instead you make a feeble 'attempt' to smear me....how typical when one is losing in a debate!! Still waiting for the converter rebuttal. That was a real foot-in-mouth gaffe!


Something you and your two buddies excell at.
Not a single rebuttal that is either intelligible, or factual. Many smear attempts that are worse than feeble.

Losing a debate indeed.
quote:
Originally posted by Trajan:
quote:
Originally posted by Captain Kirk:

I've never seen an intelligible and factual rebuttal from you,Lamont---so instead you make a feeble 'attempt' to smear me....how typical when one is losing in a debate!! Still waiting for the converter rebuttal. That was a real foot-in-mouth gaffe!


Something you and your two buddies excell at.
Not a single rebuttal that is either intelligible, or factual. Many smear attempts that are worse than feeble.

Losing a debate indeed.




By the way,Trajan........You lost a long time Ago!! Notice how there is no longer any debating with you---as you have nothing to offer--never did! When you do,I will be happy to banter with you!

Until then,Trajan.........you're on the side-lines.....'Old boy'
Last edited by captainkirk
AD:
quote:
As far as enlightening you about Lamont, use the search function you'll see the man is quite knowledgeable.


Knowledge is only useful when put to good use! So far,I am not that impressed,AD-the way you are!

Have you actually put to use any of this so-called knowledge AD? Any of this 'tech' info he may have discussed is on the net to be looked up if needed! BTW,AD...are you now using a different oil filter based on Lamont's input regarding oil filters--I bet not!
quote:
Originally posted by ADFD1:

READ what I said OK. Lets try another example, a little easier: If a person were to go to a dealer complaining about using a qt of oil in lets say 1500 miles, the dealer would call it normal oil use if there were no leaks. YOU GOT IT NOW? Synlube or not. They've been using 1000 miles/qt for decades now. A blanket excuse.

AD


Jeese, you guys and your endless replies without deleting repetitious stuff. I wish you guys would learn how to highlight and delete. It's not that tough.

Anyway, if I came in to a service salesperson and complained about burning a quart/liter of oil in 800 miles, I bet they would say, "that's normal." Those guys are just parroting what head office tells them. They don't have the stones to tell you the truth, or to go to bat for you. It's not like the "old days" where they had some leeway, and could actually make a decision that would cost the company some money. Some of those younger guys have "attitude."
quote:
Originally posted by inHaliburton:

Anyway, if I came in to a service salesperson and complained about burning a quart/liter of oil in 800 miles, I bet they would say, "that's normal." Those guys are just parroting what head office tells them. They don't have the stones to tell you the truth, or to go to bat for you. It's not like the "old days" where they had some leeway, and could actually make a decision that would cost the company some money. Some of those younger guys have "attitude."


Seems you got what I was saying. Unless oil is dripping from the engine or blue smoke bellowing from the tail pipe good luck with the dealer!

Kirk in a beater I use dino oil. That echos what my father said and I think Lamont would agree. No point in $32/qt oil in a beater that will be sold off due to NY pot holes and rust when I lived back east.

Then again there is no point in using $32/qt oil in any car, especially buying from a company with no address or license.

Kirk I'm not sure what filters Lamont uses I use either Pure 1 or Mobil 1 filters. No complaints with either. I've also used the Purolator classic filters, I leave Fram in the stores.

AD
You run Synlube in everything you own, don't you? Then here you told Lamont this:

In sum.........if you want your..."grocery getter" towed to the junk yard......... then run mineral oil in the engine! NOT ME! NO THANK YOU!

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Captain Kirk, Fri July 09 2010 05:23 PM

----------------------------------------

You really think dino is going to send his grocery getter to the junk heap? Read through your 650+ posts. You claim dino oil is no good, causes engines to fail and sludge up. There are quite a few people here who beg to differ.


AD
quote:
Originally posted by ADFD1:
You run Synlube in everything you own, don't you? Then here you told Lamont this:

In sum.........if you want your..."grocery getter" towed to the junk yard......... then run mineral oil in the engine! NOT ME! NO THANK YOU!



----------------------------------------


AD



Come on AD,that's Lamont's catch-phrase(grocer-getter)..so I used his catch phrase,big deal!!

You are correct----I run synlube in everything I own.......and none of them are beaters. If I had purchased a used beater just for fun to drive on the beach or something.....that would be a different story!

However,I really don't care about anyone as you say---"begging to differ" ---I go by the facts,science,and history and I have found that the 'crowd' is usually wrong much of the time. All those sludged up engines prove my point--------they(the crowd) were mostly running dino oil.

I hate to say this AD---but,what was your point--again!! I know I made mine..... loud and clear! I gave tons of links providing tons of proof.

If you don't agree.......then you are denying the facts,science,and history!

You may state that you won't change your ways,however-----I on the other hand,unlike you---look forward to new and better things. Synlube was just one of them!! No big deal---at least not for me! For you,that's another story!
One of his own links, that he posted more than once, states that one way to combat sludge is to use oil of the correct viscosity.

IIRC, a reasonable oci helps as well.

This "synlube" he boasts of using is not the correect viscosity of any vehicle in his sig. And "never chasnge the oil" does nothing to help.

Now, since he likes to present sites such as that as fact to support his claims, only one conclusion can be reached.

The cars in his sig are sludged.
quote:
Originally posted by Captain Kirk:

Come on AD,that's Lamont's catch-phrase(grocer-getter)..so I used his catch phrase,big deal!!

You are correct----I run synlube in everything I own.......and none of them are beaters. If I had purchased a used beater just for fun to drive on the beach or something.....that would be a different story!

However,I really don't care about anyone as you say---"begging to differ" ---I go by the facts,science,and history and I have found that the 'crowd' is usually wrong much of the time. All those sludged up engines prove my point--------they(the crowd) were mostly running dino oil.

I hate to say this AD---but,what was your point--again!! I know I made mine..... loud and clear! I gave tons of links providing tons of proof.

If you don't agree.......then you are denying the facts,science,and history!

You may state that you won't change your ways,however-----I on the other hand,unlike you---look forward to new and better things. Synlube was just one of them!! No big deal---at least not for me! For you,that's another story!


I go by facts and science. In my GF's Jeep I'm running Edge 0W20 and a Mobil 1 filter. A good Synthetic, using newer technology, Liquid titanium. Edge 0w20 is the only oil in the Edge line up using it IIRC. I'd have no problems running RL, PU, PP in it either. In my older Ford I run Penn YB dino.

Dino doesn't sludge engines, poor maint and poor design sludge engines. What oil do I prefer? Synthetic oil, because IMO it has advantages over dino, that is in an application worth using it in. That is how I've been taught, and how I've always felt.

There are probably millions if not over a billion cars in the world running problem free using dino oil. You make it sound that anyone using dino oil is driving an oil burning sludge monster, and that isn't so.

Trajan brings out a good point, from one of your links. Proper viscosity is very important to an engines well being. Very few newer cars call for a 50 grade oil.

AD
One of the problems, as more than one poster, Robert C in paticular, has pointed out, is that kirk has only ever posted anecdotes, not data.

Never has data been posted that shows that mineral oil is a cause of sludge. mineral oil is still made and sold by "big oil". New cars, such as the Mustang with the 5.0 Coyote engine, are factory filled with it.

We've seen links he has posted that showed, not "defective oil" as he claimed, but the results of running way over mfg recommended OCIs, or defective engines, or even using the wrong oil, or a combination of all three.

All this nonsense is because of the agenda that his own sig states, Pushing synlube.

Like AD says, synth is a better oil. I've said it as well. But in most cases, it's overkill.
Darn it, Trajan, you stole my thunder.

I was gonna remind kirk that anecdotes STILL don't constitute data!

Never have, never will.

No amount of shilling will make it so.

Look, I can screw up a little and it can cost millions.

Hell, I've screwed up and spent a half mill in a weekend.

But I LEARN from that. I don't hitch myself to an idea to the exclusion of all others.

Sure, sometimes it may be possible to do better. Sometimes I am really pushing the envelope trying to do better.

Hell, I'm working on an issue now that could save or cost billions if I am right or screw it up instead. Yeah, with a B.

But it takes DATA to make the decisions.
It takes testing. No matter how much I like the way the sales engineers talk or how much sense their spiel makes.

Data. Nothing else will do.

A complete discarding of pre-conceived notions and careful thought to eliminate confirmation bias are required to evaluate that data correctly.

Now, excuse me, it's been a long week and it's time to go drain and fill my Ultra Limited with proper synthetic oil and gear lubes of the correct viscosity and service class before this weekends road trip.

(It's nice when the kids are old enough to tend to themselves...)
RC-
quote:
I was gonna remind kirk that anecdotes STILL don't constitute data!



Have you read any of the links I pasted that were based on F-A-C-T ??????



Let's start from the top------------A-G-A-I-N!!!!!!! You guy's are slow learners,so we can now call this SUMMER SCHOOL!!!

FACTUAL LINK: AGAIN!!

http://www.schleeter.com/oil-sludge.htm

http://www.carbibles.com/engineoil_bible.html

http://webcache.googleusercont...=us&client=firefox-a

http://www.machinerylubricatio...udge-varnish-turbine


SYNTHETIC VS CONVENTIONAL......

http://www.autotropolis.com/wi...tic_vs._Mineral_Oils

http://www.carcraft.com/techar...ional_oil/index.html



THAT'S JUST FOR STARTERS,ROBERT C !!!! The only anecdotes I see are coming from you,Rob!!
Last edited by captainkirk
quote:
Originally posted by Trajan:
quote:
Originally posted by Captain Kirk:


http://www.schleeter.com/oil-sludge.htm



The very link I refered to.

■On any vehicle, if you can't afford synthetic oil, check your owner's manual and insist on the correct weight of quality oil.
synlube isn't it.



This is also from the link,and it is the crux of the matter you seem to be avoiding!!

in the struggle to pass tougher federal emissions specifications, car manufacturers have raised engine operating temperatures and increased exhaust gas recirculation (EGR). In 1996, tighter federal emissions standards were enacted. Fuel mixtures have to run leaner, and leaner mixtures cause higher combustion temperatures. When nitrogen in the air is raised to higher temperatures it is converted into new contaminant cocktails. By 1997, sludge is appearing as a major problem.

After 1996, tighter emissions standards added pressure to the oiling system, and problems appeared.


The above statements from the link nails it. Yes,some people neglect changing their cheap mineral oil further compound a pre-existing condition and sludge up their engines that much faster-----but the majority of sludge is from using low tech oil in high tech engines,and that is a fact! That'S why sludge issues suddenly went up exponentially,yet the number of motorists/cars remained basically static.


This is also from the link and nails it again--just some more facts!!


Federal pressures for more fuel economy in cars and trucks led car manufacturers to design engines for lower viscosity motor oils. Lighter oils tend to break down faster under urban driving conditions.


I recommend synthetic motor oil to all my customers to prevent sludge. Why?

Synthetic lubricants cost just slightly more than conventional oils, but offer the best engine protection because: * synthetics remain stable at high temperatures (conventional oils break down faster at today's higher engine temps) * synthetics remain fluid at very low temperatures (conventional oils thicken) * additive packages are formulated with special chemicals for top cleaning and anti-oxidant protection
-----------------------------------------------------------

However,I use synlube,don't change it,and I don't have any sludge---including my cut open oil filters that are flawless and clean!
Aeration induced sludge information.

http://www.machinerylubricatio...oil-analysis-varnish

Take note to the references in the above link!

The so-called 'dirt' in motor oil(mineral/dino/G-III) did not come from the outside of your engine!! The source of dirt/insolubles is---the OIL ITSELF!! This is not new information! These particles are sludge/carbon are in fact-----ABRASIVE(cause wear),among other things!

quote:

The result envisioned is the creation of a submicron, carbonaceous resin particle at each location previously occupied by an air bubble. The degradation is a thermal-oxidative decomposition of the oil. These tar-like particles accumulate in the oil

because they are insoluble suspensions, they have a tendency to seek a more stable domicile. As they move about in the oil they make random contact with cool machine surfaces. The cooler oil at surface boundaries draws the particles near, to condense and adhere. One theory suggests that the particles migrate out of the oil by Van der Waals forces (weak attractive chemi-absorptive energy) while another considers electromechanical forces such as dielectrophoresis. Whatever the attraction, these polar microscopic specks of carbon matter will eventually adhere and populate the exposed metal walls. Initially the carbon residue may be gum-like and sticky but over time they can become thermally cured and form hard, enamel-like films.

-----------------------------------------------------


In case your wondering---Synlube does have anti-foam agents,unlike some other motor oils that do not,and yet needs it in the worst way!
Last edited by captainkirk
quote:
Originally posted by Trajan:
Anecdotes still do not constitute data.



So, give us some data then,Trajan, instead of your usual ANECDOTES!

Now that you understand the definition of data as displayed by your above post-----I assume data is just around the corner from you??

Nah,who am I kidding! Your not capable of providing data--like I have been,and will continue doing! You just don't have it---never did---never will!! Go back to the sidelines........'old boy'..where you belong!!!!!
quote:
Originally posted by Trajan:
quote:
Originally posted by Captain Kirk:

I've never seen an intelligible and factual rebuttal from you,Lamont---so instead you make a feeble 'attempt' to smear me....how typical when one is losing in a debate!! Still waiting for the converter rebuttal. That was a real foot-in-mouth gaffe!


Something you and your two buddies excell at.
Not a single rebuttal that is either intelligible, or factual. Many smear attempts that are worse than feeble.

Losing a debate indeed.


Data, not feeble smears are wanted.
Last edited by trajan
The info, references, in the above posts make sense, Kirk. It's obvious that Synlube is doing a good job keeping your engine(s) clean. You are using products in your various machines that represent a lot of money. I'm certain that if you suspected that you were doing any harm to your various machines, you would stop using Synlube in a heartbeat. Your record keeping is very systematic and accurate. I'm not buying into the "viscosity issue." How many random samples were tested? How many different labs did the testing over how many samples? I may be wrong, but one or two samples tested by one or two labs may not be very very meaningful. I put more weight on your on-going, long-term "successful" usage. Tearing down those various pieces of machinery would be meaningful, too, but whose got the time and money for such extensive tests?
inHaliburton-
quote:
Tearing down those various pieces of machinery would be meaningful, too, but whose got the time and money for such extensive tests?


I agree inhaliburton, an engine tear down/'mike' up will reveal everything!

However,most engines-good or bad, don't get torn down unless there is a desire to fix vs trade in the car.

In my case,both now, and in the past with the older cars,the engines all ran like a tops. A tear down just for fun would be crazy,unless one is in the racing circuit!

There would also be tell-tale signs if an engine is getting worn,such as-burning oil,power loss,fuel economy drop,noise,smoke,etc. If none of those issues ever arise,life is good,and so is the oil!

I should also mention that cutting open the oil filters for inspection is very telling as well.

Using those filter mags isn't a bad idea either,especially during oil filter inspections-whether using Synlube oil,or another lubricant.

Well guy's... have a great weekend!
Last edited by captainkirk
quote:
Originally posted by Captain Kirk:


In case your wondering---Synlube does have anti-foam agents,unlike some other motor oils that do not,and yet needs it in the worst way!


Name some oils that don't contain anti-foam agents. Facts please, not your speculation.

I think the major oil companies know how to blend oil. They don't go the Wal-Mart buy a qt of oil, rebottle it, tweak it, and call it their own, like some companies w/o addresses and business licenses do. Then plant shills on message boards trying to push product.

AD
quote:
Originally posted by ADFD1:
quote:
Originally posted by Captain Kirk:


In case your wondering---Synlube does have anti-foam agents,unlike some other motor oils that do not,and yet needs it in the worst way!


Name some oils that don't contain anti-foam agents. Facts please, not your speculation.

I think the major oil companies know how to blend oil. They don't go the Wal-Mart buy a qt of oil, rebottle it, tweak it, and call it their own, like some companies w/o addresses and business licenses do. Then plant shills on message boards trying to push product.

AD


Must be something new for synlube, anti foam agents. Meeting it's advertised viscosity in a pair of VOAs would be new too. And a valid business address.

Synlube shills are a perfect example of LOPSOD. (Long on promise, short on delivery.)
A good buddy of mine emailed this to me this morning, he read it over at BITOG.

Wow, glad I own a Ford. My dad told me about blanket statements dealers use. Here is one such statement.

Enjoy it guys. Talk about covering themselves! I'd be willing to guess other automakers use similar excuses/blanket statements.

AD


Here is some excerpts from the GM bulletin on oil consumption:
Quote:

Subject: Information on Engine Oil Consumption Guidelines


Models: 2009 and Prior GM Passenger Cars and Gasoline-Powered Light Duty Trucks Under 8500 LB GVW (Including Saturn)

2009 and Prior HUMMER H2, H3

2009 and Prior Saab 9-7X



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This bulletin is being revised to update the warranty information on vehicles and add model years. Please discard Corporate Bulletin Number 01-06-01-011E (Section 06 -- Engine/Propulsion System).


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All engines require oil to lubricate and protect the load bearing and internal moving parts from wear including cylinder walls, pistons and piston rings. When a piston moves down its cylinder, a thin film of oil is left on the cylinder wall. During the power stroke, part of this oil layer is consumed in the combustion process. As a result, varying rates of oil consumption are accepted as normal in all engines.

Oil Consumption
The accepted rate of oil consumption for engines used in the vehicles referenced is 0.946 liter (1 qt) in 3200 km (2000 mi).

Important: This rate only applies to personal use vehicles, under warranty, that are driven in a non-aggressive manner and maintained in accordance with the appropriate maintenance schedule, with less than 58,000 km (36,000 mi), or driven at legal speeds in an unloaded (for trucks) condition.


Important: This rate does not apply to vehicles that are driven in an aggressive manner, at high RPM, high speeds, or in a loaded condition (for trucks). Oil consumption for vehicles driven under these conditions will be more.

Many factors can affect a customer's concern with oil consumption. Driving habits and vehicle maintenance vary from owner to owner. Thoroughly evaluate each case before deciding whether the vehicle in question has abnormal engine oil consumption.


Aggressive Driving, High Speed or High RPM Driving
Aggressive driving and/or continuous driving at high speeds/high RPMs will increase oil consumption. Because this may not always be an everyday occurrence, it is hard to determine exactly how much the oil economy will be affected.

A higher rate of oil consumption is normal for vehicles equipped with manual transmissions that are driven aggressively. By "aggressive," we mean operation at high RPM (3,000 RPM to redline), with frequent use of engine braking (using the engine to slow the vehicle). Vehicles that are driven aggressively may consume engine oil at a rate of up to 0.946 L (1 quart) every 805 km (500 mi). This is normal for a vehicle that is driven aggressively. No repair is necessary. This characteristic does, however, require the owner to check the engine oil level at sufficiently frequent intervals, especially when driving aggressively, to assure the oil level remains within the recommended operating range. As the Owner’s Manual recommends, you should check the oil level every time you get fuel.
quote:
Originally posted by ADFD1:

Oil Consumption
The accepted rate of oil consumption for engines used in the vehicles referenced is 0.946 liter (1 qt) in 3200 km (2000 mi).


"Accepted rate" my arse.

Acceptable to GM when some poor sap who paid tens-of-thousands of dollar for a Good Money car tell his woes to a Service Salesperson who tells the poor sap, "That's normal oil consumption. Enjoy paying for a quart/liter of oil every 2000 miles, or sooner, for the rest of this car's life. Next!"

Behind the poor sap is a Good Money company executive to tells the same Good Money Service Salesperson the same story and gets, "Sure, we'll fix it under warranty."
quote:
Originally posted by inHaliburton:
quote:
Originally posted by ADFD1:

Oil Consumption
The accepted rate of oil consumption for engines used in the vehicles referenced is 0.946 liter (1 qt) in 3200 km (2000 mi).


"Accepted rate" my arse.

Acceptable to GM when some poor sap who paid tens-of-thousands of dollar for a Good Money car tell his woes to a Service Salesperson who tells the poor sap, "That's normal oil consumption. Enjoy paying for a quart/liter of oil every 2000 miles, or sooner, for the rest of this car's life. Next!"

Behind the poor sap is a Good Money company executive to tells the same Good Money Service Salesperson the same story and gets, "Sure, we'll fix it under warranty."



Hello,inHaliburton. I totally agree with you. I was once one of those 'saps' at the dealer many years ago. Those mechanics/reps talk down to the customers all the time thinking the customers are clueless.

This could be a factor in the downfall of many of the dealerships today!
Last edited by annieoakley
quote:
Originally posted by ADFD1:
quote:
Originally posted by Captain Kirk:


In case your wondering---Synlube does have anti-foam agents,unlike some other motor oils that do not,and yet needs it in the worst way!


Name some oils that don't contain anti-foam agents. Facts please, not your speculation.

I think the major oil companies know how to blend oil. They don't go the Wal-Mart buy a qt of oil, rebottle it, tweak it, and call it their own, like some companies w/o addresses and business licenses do. Then plant shills on message boards trying to push product.

AD



I wouldn't be so sure about that AD.

Let's focus on engine oil foam issues for a while...

Some proof of oil foam in the link below....just for starters!!! In this case it looks like Redline is better at foaming than the other oils in this one example,just to make the case that foaming is an issue with many brands of lube.

http://www.kawasakimotorcycle....bout-engine-oil.html

If the oil is already prone to sludging---the foaming only agravates that issue further causing increased oxidation...besides all the other foam related issues!!!
I'm new on this forum so, Hello everybody.

On the subject of "MFG approved" oil.

On of my brother is in charge of the "replacement parts department" in a quite big OPEL dealer (I live in europe).
A few years back (5 or 6 he remember) they began to have customers having trouble with some of their engines loosing power after a few thousand Km. Everything was running fine except that the power was gradualy disappearing more and more every day.

Guess what it was ? The camshaft was almost totally worn out due to friction with the tappets!!!!
Yes, an almost round camsaft!!

He reported the failures to OPEL as did the other OPEL dealers he knows of, who had the same problem (my guess is that it must have been in other country too).

OPEL investigated the problem and solved it by sending to the dealers.....a different oil!!!! The original "MFG approved" oil that my brother bought for the servicing in their garage was apparently not so appropriate.

My point is that manufacturers don't necessarily knows what's best for their cars. They don't test everything, in every way possible because it would cost them too much.
Of course, this is an extreme example but I think it illustrates well the point.

When discussing "MFG approved" oil and "OEM original parts", lets not forget that the main goal of nearly every industry is to MAKE MONEY RIGHT KNOW !
Of course, long-term reputation is still (hopefully) a small part of the equation but, thanks to the very pressing stock exchange market we live in, this is becoming less of a concern for them. And if you think that "big oil" isn't contaminated, well, welcome in wonderland.

We are responsible too for this state of affair (not all of us hopefully): people don't want to keep their car, TV, computer,phone, camera, etc...forever. They want the newest.
So, the industry responded kindly with products that last just long enough for their "expected live-span".

I'm not saying that there isn't any "good" products out there, but they are vanishing more and more every day.

Caillou
quote:
Originally posted by inHaliburton:
The oil came out of an unmarked steel drum fitted with a hand pump. This was around 1964. It was either SAE 40 or SAE 30. No W !

Nope, not yet. Truck still under warranty. Would have to change oil every 5000 km.



That is some vinatge oil.

According to Kirk/Miro there are no worries using Synlube in a new car under warranty. The dealer would have to prove the oil caused a problem. Honestly I wouldn't touch the stuff with a 10 foot pole so don't go by me. But according to them you'll have no problems.

I wonder if they'll back you up if you did use it and have a problem? Smart move on your part sir waiting it out!


AD
inHaliburton
Level 4 - 251 to 500 posts
Posted Jun 20, 6:22 PM Hide Post
Beats me how those who have no experience with a product can argue with those who have.

kirk/miro say synlube is the best oil there is. By not using a product he has defended over and over he is doing the opposite of the above statement. Hypocrit much?

But then again, those two have yet to provide any data. Verifiable, trustworty data.

And yet.............
What I find odd about some people and new cars under warranty is this. Because of fear and doubt, they stick with mfg approved oil, follow the book, then when the warranty is up they switch to "The Best Oil". Many times it is a non-approved oil not meeting mfg specs and certifications. I laugh because if I had a new car I'd want the so called "The Best Oil" in that engine first chance I got. Only in my case the best oil IMO meets the mfg specs, so no worries here.

The whole argument makes no sense, if someone is so confident in a product GO FOR IT in the beginning. Besides the oil mfg has your back, maybe that is. Or is that possible fear of having an oil related problem and possible a fight what holds them back because it is not approved oil? I think so, for those people maybe "The Best Oil" isn't really the best after all? LOL

No names mentioned here just general observations. I was talking to some Shipmates about this and a few that are car guys mentioned this, and I see the same logic on message boards. Confusing to me!

AD
bmwtechguy said it best I think.

"API license and starburst means the oil meets the minimum requirements for the spec, such as chemical limits to protect emissions systems, lower viscosity for energy conserving, Noack volitility limits, cold cranking, HTHS, wear protection, shear stability etc. Also, oil companies pay dearly to have their oils licensed, tested, etc. and pay some type of royalty per gallon or quart over a certain amount sold. Non-licensed oils may be better than the spec in some or every way or worse. You have to decide if you trust the company blending/selling the non-licensed oil."

Can also be said of mfg approved oil.

I sure as hell don't trust synlube. They've gone out of their way to make sure I don't.
quote:
Originally posted by ADFD1:


The whole argument makes no sense, if someone is so confident in a product GO FOR IT in the beginning. Besides the oil mfg has your back, maybe that is. Or is that possible fear of having an oil related problem and possible a fight what holds them back because it is not approved oil? I think so, for those people maybe "The Best Oil" isn't really the best after all? LOL

AD


That's a good point. If you have an oil related problem using a non spec oil under warranty, you're going to pay for it.

If you have the same problem after the warranty, you're still going to pay for it.

So why would it matter since you pay for it either way?
To quote one SargeGTO on this synlube.

"Here are my thoughts....take em or leave em....
You betcha...the very idea of a better lube for our cars is something we all want, desire. The problem is there have been so many snake oils that credibility becomes an issue almost immediately. Then you throw in all the marketing hype posted here void of any real analytical data and you get skeptics. Of course a manufacturer is going to tell us their product is great. The web site looks like my grandson did it. No I take that back....he could do a better job.
Bottom line is this for me. They have been pimping SynLube in the United States since 1969.....and this how far they have gotten with it after almost 40 years? If it was even a fraction of what it is hyped to be any rational thinking person ( educated or uneducated) would conclude after 40 years and a company or technology is still in the "start up" mode....something is wrong.....with either the product or the folks running the business."
LOL. Remember it costs next to nothing to host a website. Then like Sarge said, even his grandson could have done a better job building the site, so no real cost there either. Go to your local Walmart pick an oil that's on sale, tweak it, rebottle it, there you have it. Magioil, Swiloil, ADoil, Trajoil, you name it.

AD
How to make an informercial for a bogus product.

Step 1: "Educate" the consumer.
Step 2: Introduce product

disclaimer: step 1 must not involve factual information and must not be on a subject that the average individual is well versed in. Step 2 must introduce a product that solves a problem that only exists in the fictional educational "step 1."
Last edited by trajan
quote:
Originally posted by Trajan:
How to make an informercial for a bogus product.

Step 1: "Educate" the consumer.
Step 2: Introduce product

disclaimer: step 1 must not involve factual information and must not be on a subject that the average individual is well versed in. Step 2 must introduce a product that solves a problem that only exists in the fictional educational "step 1."



So, should I drain the now(according to you) 'fictional' lubricant out of my $40,000 Jeep G.Cherokee,Trajan!

Trajan,what subject matter are you well versed in?----just curious! Still waiting for that one!

Hey,what ever happened to your BMW? Is it still in the shop?
Last edited by captainkirk
quote:
Originally posted by ADFD1:
quote:
Originally posted by Captain Kirk:


In case your wondering---Synlube does have anti-foam agents,unlike some other motor oils that do not,and yet needs it in the worst way!


Name some oils that don't contain anti-foam agents. Facts please, not your speculation.

I think the major oil companies know how to blend oil. They don't go the Wal-Mart buy a qt of oil, rebottle it, tweak it, and call it their own, like some companies w/o addresses and business licenses do. Then plant shills on message boards trying to push product.

AD


This is more of a generalized issue,with plenty of evidence to back the foaming issues! Just for starters!

http://www.machinerylubrication.com/Read/255/oil-foam
quote:
AD-They don't go the Wal-Mart buy a qt of oil, rebottle it, tweak it, and call it their own,


Ever try cooking walmart oil Ad, I have----this is what it looks like(the black test tube is a hint). Don't believe me........try it yourself. Synlube when cooked--------HAS ZERO SLUDGE/VARNISH,BECAUSE I DID THE EXPERIMENT!!

http://www.enhancedsyntheticoi...%20results.10.05.jpg


The above link is from Amsoil,but it gets the point across!!
Synlube shills/defenders make a number of claims that one would think many, if not most experts in the field would just laugh at.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence to back them, and they have yet to produce them.

We get no hard data. All we get is claims and worthless testimonials. More than their word is necessary. Especially when it goes against established theory/facts in motor oil. We need more than diatribes about flat earth and other such nonsense.

A constant theme with synlube is "We're smart, everyone else is stupid." Trying to paint your skeptics as narrow minded and stupid is the marketing technique of the fraudulent in order to stop one from thinking and just accept their claims. And on some, it works.

The warranty is a sham. There are many reasons to offer a warranty. And the reason is not always because the stuff is good, but to make people think it is. To me, the way it is written, it excludes just about anyone from making a claim.

Not that they could afford to pay anything anyway.
Last edited by trajan
quote:
Originally posted by Captain Kirk:
RC-
quote:
I was gonna remind kirk that anecdotes STILL don't constitute data!



Have you read any of the links I pasted that were based on F-A-C-T ??????



Let's start from the top------------A-G-A-I-N!!!!!!! You guy's are slow learners,so we can now call this SUMMER SCHOOL!!!

FACTUAL LINK: AGAIN!!

http://www.schleeter.com/oil-sludge.htm

http://www.carbibles.com/engineoil_bible.html

http://webcache.googleusercont...=us&client=firefox-a

http://www.machinerylubricatio...udge-varnish-turbine


SYNTHETIC VS CONVENTIONAL......

http://www.autotropolis.com/wi...tic_vs._Mineral_Oils

http://www.carcraft.com/techar...ional_oil/index.html



THAT'S JUST FOR STARTERS,ROBERT C !!!! The only anecdotes I see are coming from you,Rob!!


Be specific. Where are the FACTS about Synlube?

Those are all general knowledge.

you are providing anecdotes about the wonders of synlube.

Facts are what count, and none have been forthcoming from any reliable source.
quote:

AD--
Dino doesn't sludge engines, poor maint and poor design sludge engines.



DINO OIL ABSOLUTELY CAN SLUDGE UP AN ENGINES!--POOR MAINTENANCE SIMPLY EXACERBATES THE PROCESS!


Have you been reading all the proof I gave?


I have done this E-X-A-C-T experiment BELOW----------Have you,AD. I know how to make sludge/varnish........USE DINO OIL!!

http://www.outboardmotoroilblo...conventional_oil.jpg



The above sludged up beaker on the right cannot be replicated using Synlube...........I tried,and could not even make slight Varnish,and I cooked the synlube to well over 500-F-----I ignited it at one point from the intense heat I put to it!!

I challenge any of the so-called Tribologist experts on this thread to Try it!


Just a reminder of this link too!

http://www.enhancedsyntheticoi...%20results.10.05.jpg


Notice that even the Amsoil test tube has at least some sludge/varnish,the synlube heat/cook test I performed yielded no sludge/varnish!

If you changed your 'DINO' oil 'every day',you would still have some sludge/varnish in the rings and ring lands.!! The oil is cooked and baked in that region and the carbonized deposits are abrasive and will cause increased wear---you won't see with Synlube!
Last edited by captainkirk
Kirk, because you say it's so, means it's so? LOL

No one here is going to waste $32 to buy a qt of your oil to test it. Is this some new sales technique?

Imagine someone cooking your oil? You'll tell them they used the wrong stove or heat source. I can get any good synthetic oil that will protect as well, or better than yours and have a company with an address to back it up. Oh yea, and not be using a 50 wt oil in the process. My ride calls for a 30 grade the GF's ride a 20 grade. 50 grade no thanks, especially come winter time.

BTW Mobil cooked their oil in a frying pan to demo a point, nothing new there.

Dino oil hasn't let me or any of my family down. My father and uncle are at this close to 40 years now. If there was a problem they'd have found it. Proper care is the key, and use what the mfg says to use. What could be easier?

AD
And, furthermore. If dino oil was so bad, the oil companies would not make it as no one would buy it. And auto makers would not spec it.

This back door attempt to sell synlube is inane. None of the more knowledgable/respected posters here are buying into it. Even one of its staunch defenders isn't using it.

This swill didn't fly at BITOG. No idea why it's still trying here.

Maybe because they're hoping that if they repeat the same undocumented dribble long enough, we'll all buy it just to shut them up?

And it isn't up to me or anyone else to test this swill. That onus is on the ones who push it.

The repeated failure to come up with any extraordinary evidence to back the extraordinay claims can only mean that they know it's junk oil. But can't admit it.

We want data. Not anecdotes or testimonials. The proof that NASA uses it. The proof that the Oakland PD used it. The proof the US military uses it. The proof that it doesn't sludge even known sludger engines.

All those claims have been made. And no evidence to back them.
Last edited by trajan
quote:
And, furthermore. If dino oil was so bad, the oil companies would not make it as no one would buy it. And auto makers would not spec it.



Sure Trajan---That's why you ran (dino)oil in your BMW?? Remember,you only ran the factory approved lube(G-III syn) in your BMW,and look how that turned out! Your car is now toast because of it!

KEEP DRINKING THE KOOL-AID!


A little education for Ya! The oil companies cannot 'stop' making dino oil as long as we have a need for fuel. Dino oil is a by-product of the refining process of crude into various fuels and all the other fractionated by-products that result from the distillation process!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_refinery

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cracking_%28chemistry%29


Bottom line. All the end products get sold and used up in the market place---PERIOD!
quote:
Trajan--Shoddy maintainenence leads to sludge. (Includig not changing oil. Overlong oci's.)


We already are aware that nelect is never good, Trajan. Abuse/neglect is not the only thing that causes sludge.

http://www.myvwlemon.com/ubb/Forum2/HTML/000532.html


I suppose you could say I am neglecting my car more than anyone out there who had sludge and perhaps didn't change their oil often enough,unlike myself-------WHO NEVER CHANGES THE OIL!....and yet I have no sludge/issues!

According to you Trajan,I should have nothing but sludge due to all the neglect.....so why don't I have at least some sludge??

Well......


What's up with your BMW?

Well........
Your own links kid indicate you have sludge by not using the correct viscosity.

Where are the facts about synlube?

Where is the evidence supporting the claims made?

All you have produced, all any of you have produced, is either anecdotes or general knowledge.

The former is worthless. All the latter does is show that buying a $32 bottle of synlube is no better than buying a $6 bottle of M1 0w-40.

Piss poor salesmanship to say the least.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence to back them up.

Like RobertC says "Anecdotes still do not constitute data. Never have, never will. No amount of shilling will make it so."

Marketing hype is no subsitute for analytical data.

Misdirection and smokescreens are no subsitute for analytical data.

Testimonials are no subsitute for analytical data.

Such data is sorely lacking when it comes to synlube.
Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×