Oil

"Steve Taylor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Huw wrote:
>
>> You're my kind of woman Lizzy ;-)
>
> Actually,She's exactly MY kind of woman.
>
> Slippery or not.
>

Oh well. You can't blame a man for trying. We'll just have to be content
discussing the relative merits of lubricants.
I use Fuchs Turbolene HPE 15w/40 mostly. John Deere
http://www.deere.com/en_GB/parts_accessories/plus50.html have recently
launched an oil that meets the same [diesel] specifications AFAICS yet they
claim 33 to 47% less engine wear or greater longevity when their product is
used. All of their highlighted points are common to all such oils apart from
their reduced engine wear claim which is specifically a comparison to oils
of similar specification Should I believe that their oil is so much better
than other oils meeting the same standards? AFAICS they do not claim a
higher official specification is met by their oil than my Turbolene and
neither is it synthetic, so what's up?

Huw

On or around Wed, 20 Apr 2005 22:11:20 +0100, "Huw"
<hedydd[nospam]@tiscali.co.uk> enlightened us thusly:

>In other words they are crap engines.

actually, I reckon for an engine designed in about 1960 it was pretty
advanced, and the basic design can't be that bad or it'd not have survived
so long.

Bear in mind that in 1960 a car that did 100,000 miles without a rebuild was
rare... and the buick/rover V8 will, if serviced regularly and properly,
manage more than that before it dies.

Designers in 1960 were probably looking at an average engine life of 50,000
miles... and more to the point, average use patterns that meant that most
drivers would take probably between 5 and 10 years to do that mileage.

However, doesn't alter the fact that the engine was designed originally when
20W50 was normal oil, and thinner ones were only for specialists and racers.
My BMW bike engine dates from the same period and that too is only supposed
to run on 20W50 - and, indeed, it doesn't like thinner stuff, quite
noticeably.

But the point abut temperature ranges is relevant. In this country it's
rare for the ambient temp. to go over 25C, and that makes a difference to
the engine operating temp. as well, or rather, to the oil temp. - in
temperatures of 35+, the oil is not going to cool so well, even with an oil
cooler.

--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.fsnet.co.uk my opinions are just that
"Quos deus vult perdere, prius dementat" Euripedes, quoted in
Boswell's "Johnson".

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 00:36:13 +0100, "Huw"
<hedydd[nospam]@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:

>> Slippery or not.
>>
>
>Oh well. You can't blame a man for trying. We'll just have to be content
>discussing the relative merits of lubricants.
>I use Fuchs Turbolene

I always thought that name was a joke when we used to do work for R J
Mellor (who sold out to Fuchs).

"Bob Hobden" wrote >
> Oh damn! Must have misread it, why don't they say Longlife BMW and
> Longlife Vag, using 1 and 11 sounds just like an update.
> I wonder what the difference is, I'll ring Castrol Tech Help tomorrow and
> ask that and what to do. Mind you I only used a litre at the most so I
> can't think it can do any harm. Only a couple of thousand miles to a full
> oil change too.
>

Had a good look at the can and none of the numbers/letters you all mention
is on it as far as I can see. The BMW handbook is vague, indeed I had to
search for the correct oil to use and found it in the service book.

Just spoken to Castrol Tech Help and they said it would be fine under the
circumstances "any oil is better than no oil" was one comment.
They also mentioned they are bringing out a SLX Longlife 04 very shortly
which is an update on 1.

--
Regards
Bob
In Runnymede, 17 miles West of London

"Bob Hobden" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Bob Hobden" wrote >
>> Oh damn! Must have misread it, why don't they say Longlife BMW and
>> Longlife Vag, using 1 and 11 sounds just like an update.
>> I wonder what the difference is, I'll ring Castrol Tech Help tomorrow and
>> ask that and what to do. Mind you I only used a litre at the most so I
>> can't think it can do any harm. Only a couple of thousand miles to a full
>> oil change too.
>>
>
> Had a good look at the can and none of the numbers/letters you all mention
> is on it as far as I can see. The BMW handbook is vague, indeed I had to
> search for the correct oil to use and found it in the service book.
>
> Just spoken to Castrol Tech Help and they said it would be fine under the
> circumstances "any oil is better than no oil" was one comment.
> They also mentioned they are bringing out a SLX Longlife 04 very shortly
> which is an update on 1.
>

There are already two versions of BMW Longlife specification suffixed by a
year date code. The proposed new specification is likely for further
extended service intervals of between 20,000 and 30,000 miles similar to
VW/Audi, Mercedes and Vauxhall's existing specs.

Huw

"Huw" <hedydd[nospam]@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> In other words they are crap engines.
>
> Huw

Methinks this might not be the right newsgroup to be saying that......

FWIW, it's not a particularly powerful engine (as standard), it isn't
particularly fuel efficient, isn't noted for longevity, BUT it IS a good
all-round package in terms of weight/size/power.
Anyway, this is irrelevant to the discussion on oil!

--
Badger.
B.H.Engineering,
Rover V8 engine specialists.
www.bhengineering.co.uk
www.roverv8engines.com

In message <[email protected]>
"Badger" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> "Huw" <hedydd[nospam]@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > In other words they are crap engines.
> >
> > Huw
>
> Methinks this might not be the right newsgroup to be saying that......
>
> FWIW, it's not a particularly powerful engine (as standard), it isn't
> particularly fuel efficient, isn't noted for longevity, BUT it IS a good
> all-round package in terms of weight/size/power.
> Anyway, this is irrelevant to the discussion on oil!
>

It also worth remebering that when it was "Roverised" it
in the days when Land Rovers were expected to run on any
old oil and fuel, anywhere in the world, not just outside
flashy hotels etc..... ;-)

Richard
--
www.beamends-lrspares.co.uk [email protected]
Running a business in a Microsoft free environment - it can be done
Powered by Risc-OS - you won't get a virus from us!!
Helping keep Land Rovers on and off the road to annoy the Lib Dems

"Huw" wrote ...
>
> There are already two versions of BMW Longlife specification suffixed by a
> year date code. The proposed new specification is likely for further
> extended service intervals of between 20,000 and 30,000 miles similar to
> VW/Audi, Mercedes and Vauxhall's existing specs.
>
I wonder if those service periods will be retrospective or just for new
engines.

--
Regards
Bob
In Runnymede, 17 miles West of London

"Badger" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Huw" <hedydd[nospam]@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> In other words they are crap engines.
>>
>> Huw
>
> Methinks this might not be the right newsgroup to be saying that......
>
> FWIW, it's not a particularly powerful engine (as standard), it isn't
> particularly fuel efficient, isn't noted for longevity, BUT it IS a good
> all-round package in terms of weight/size/power.
> Anyway, this is irrelevant to the discussion on oil!
>

Well I can only go from your previous description of the engine and it is
the only conclusion anyone can deduct from it ;-)

Huw

"Bob Hobden" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Huw" wrote ...
>>
>> There are already two versions of BMW Longlife specification suffixed by
>> a year date code. The proposed new specification is likely for further
>> extended service intervals of between 20,000 and 30,000 miles similar to
>> VW/Audi, Mercedes and Vauxhall's existing specs.
>>
> I wonder if those service periods will be retrospective or just for new
> engines.
>

New engines only, partly because they will need new service computer logic
mapping and partly because the filtration capacity will probably need
improving on at least some models.

Huw

"Huw" <hedydd[nospam]@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> Well I can only go from your previous description of the engine and it is
> the only conclusion anyone can deduct from it ;-)

Whatever makes you happy.

On or around Thu, 21 Apr 2005 09:55:37 +0100, Mother <"@ {m} @"@101fc.net>
enlightened us thusly:

>On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 00:36:13 +0100, "Huw"
><hedydd[nospam]@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>> Slippery or not.
>>>
>>
>>Oh well. You can't blame a man for trying. We'll just have to be content
>>discussing the relative merits of lubricants.
>>I use Fuchs Turbolene
>
>I always thought that name was a joke when we used to do work for R J
>Mellor (who sold out to Fuchs).

"Dr Fuchs off to the Antarctic"

--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.fsnet.co.uk my opinions are just that
Satisfying: Satisfy your inner child by eating ten tubes of Smarties
from the Little Book of Complete B***ocks by Alistair Beaton.