I did try the new Z-Max and the first I did noticed was the black soot that
was quite evidence for the next few hundred miles. After that, no mileage
gains what so-ever.
---------------------------------------------------
Steve St.Laurent
2000 Dakota 4.7L, CC, Soon to be Supercharged
1999 Chebby gone in 2003
1993 Suzuki Tracker (Geo) 1.6L
COMING SOON
2003 Aspiring for a V-10 GTS-R
2003 Dodge Dakota 5.7 Hemi R/T
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-dakota-truck@buffnet.net
[mailto:owner-dakota-truck@buffnet.net]On Behalf Of David A
Sent: Monday, October 09, 2000 8:57 AM
To: dakota-truck@buffnet.net
Subject: Re: DML: Dura Lube Hype (Real long but recommended reading)
If u want to make your engine last longer,in my opinion(and others too)stick
with Mobil 1 synthetic...
I had 87,000 miles use in my 1994 Caravan,with no engine problem.
Opened the oil filler cap,it was so clean,u could eat off of it..
(No Kidding)
STAY AWAY FROM ALL THAT STUFF...EVEN THE NEW STUFF..."Z-MAX"
>From: DICEMAN469@aol.com
>Reply-To: dakota-truck@buffnet.net
>To: dakota-truck@buffnet.net
>Subject: DML: Dura Lube Hype (Real long but recommended reading)
>Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2000 11:08:31 EDT
>
>In a message dated 10/9/00 10:10:55 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
>sedwards@SUNGARDRS.COM writes:
>
> > What is the recommended break in period for an engine (4.7l) prior to
>adding
> > sometype of additive such as Dura Lube or Slick 50?
>
>DO NOT ADD THAT TO YOUR ENGINE! About two weeks ago I read a website
>dedicated to oil additives and their advantages and disadvantages. They
>came
>to the conclusion that it's all a gimmick, same as the splitfire fiasco of
>a
>few years ago. In fact all those companies are currently facing large
>lawsuits due to unsubstantiated claims of performance.
> Even an engine company decided to do it's own test, much like they do in
>those infomercials. They took several engines straight off of thier
>assembly
>line, and ran them for 24 hours apiece. One with standard dino oil, the
>others oil with the additives mentioned above. Then they drained the oil
>and
>ran the engines until they seized. When inspected, all engines had the
>expected wear and scoring on the cylinder walls. The engines with the
>additives however had serious score marks on the rod bearings, and various
>other places of contact. The company's conclusion was that the additives
>were
>totally ineffective, and possibly even detrimental to engine performance.
> The way I see it, the more additives you have in an oil, the less oil
>you
>have. And it's the oil that does the work of protecting your engine
>regardless of what other crap you put into it.
> As far as Teflon in the oil, that's useless as well. The company that
>produces teflon (3M I believe) publicly states that not only do they
>believe
>teflon is ineffective as an oil additive, but that it may even hurt the
>oil's
>ability to do it's job, and has refused to sell it's product to the oil
>market.
> Which leaves oil companies buying teflon from other sources, usually
>overseas companies that did not intend for their product to be used as an
>oil
>additive. The size of the teflon particles are usually large, so large in
>fact that sometimes the filter catches them, and clogs up immediately. Now
>you just paid for teflon that's not only no longer in your oil, but is
>clogging up the filter and restricting the oil from where you need it.
>Double
>whammy.
> I wish I remember the name of the site because I believe it's
>invaluable
>information. I'll see if I can hunt around for it today.
> I was considering one of those additives until I read this site. I
>hope
>you guys follow suit. Standard oil had been used to lubricate engines for
>100
>years, it can't possibly be so bad that we need to throw an additional $50
>worth of crap into it.
>
>-Austin
>Vipertruck
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 11:55:55 EDT