Marvel Mystery Oil

"TeGGeR®" wrote:
>
> shawn > wrote in
> :
>
> > On 28 Jan 2006 02:00:59 GMT, "TeGGeR®" > wrote:
> >
> >>"butch burton" > wrote in
> groups.com:
> >>
> >>> At least one of the major car companies - DC I think sez in the owners
> >>> manual that using crank case additives will void the warranty. Back in
> >>> the days of lose engines - a increase in viscosity may have been a good
> >>> thing
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>And when was this day of "lose" engines?
> >
> > I would guess back in 70s and earlier. Tolerances on the parts going
> > into engines have gotten much tighter over the years.
>
> Hmmm... Some examples:
> 2003 Acura RSX crank journal to bearing clearance: .0007"-.0020"
> 1991 Honda B18A1 crank journal to bearing clearance: .0009"-.0020"
> 1975 Toyota 2T-C crank journal to bearing clearance: .0006"-.0039"
> 1956 Chevrolet six or V8 crank journal to bearing clearance: .0007"-.0028".
>
> The tight tolerance is essentially the same from 1956 to 2003, but the
> older engines were permitted to get a lot looser before being considered
> out-of-spec. I'd suspect metallurgy is a lot better now, so they can afford
> to specify tighter tolerances and still get adequate life out of the
> engine.
>
> Also, oils back in 1956 or 1975 were not what they are now. Sort of with
> poyethylene, back then you had to make it thick to get the film strength.
> Now they can do it by making the polymer chains longer and stronger. I
> think that and metallurgy have more to do with the lightness of modern oils
> than viscosity requirements.
>
> --
> TeGGeR®
>


Informative post TeGGer... As a hobbyist who plays with old
Studebakers, I know that all of the factory tolerances were to four
decimal points. That said, the engines did not have the long lived
characteristics of today's designs probably from the standpoint of
lubricants. Certainly, the materials (used by Studebaker) were up to
snuff to modern variety and included virtually no plastic. OTOH, some
of the seals don't approach the reliability of modern design but a plus
is that many components when rebuilt include modern seals.

One other consideration is that earlier American engines never had to
endure the revs that modern Japanese engines thrive on. RPM's topped
out at about 5K unless the engines were modified.

Oh, I do own a Honda, a 1983 Civic FE project that is getting close to
bearing fruit in the form of gas savings...

JT

Why does Honda now use 5W-20 oil? It's so obscure and it's difficult to
find it in stores. Is it recommended that I switch to Mobil 1 or just
stick with Honda Oil? What are the differences?

Thus spake adamh > :

>I've seen no problems adding MMO to the fuel every fill up (only 4 oz, I use an old Lucas Fuel Injector 5.25 oz. bottle), and to the oil every oil change - typically 1 pint for my 4 and a half qt sump.....no problems thus far.
>
>No fouled catalytic converer or o2 sensors thus far....only speculation I've heard is that MMO may lower the octane rating of your fuel.....which is why you only add maximum 4 oz. per 10 gallons of fuel, and you'll be fine.
>
>On every "pre owned" vehicle I pull under my wing, I do 2 back to back 3000 mile OCIs with conventional oil (usually SuperTech or PYB) and a pint (that's half a quart) of MMO. Those first 2 OCIs, the oil usually comes out extremely thick and dark/black.....

What's the value? I used to use STP, but that was back in the 70s and
early 80s. I also used 104 octane unleaded for a while. But that's
because I also believed in voodoo and my ability to cut .000 lights.
Well, at least I could do .050 lights and one of my horrible profs
died just before finals.

(I can still do better than .095 on a regular basis, but I don't cut
chickes any more.)
--

- dillon I am not invalid

"You idiots, it's rape, pillage,THEN BURN!!!"
--- chief of the Aggie Vikings