Scott Gardner wrote:
>
> > As the owner of my very first British car I find it peculiar, surprised,
> > that the MG requires such heavy, thick, oil weight. The only
> > explanation I can come up with that anything thinner would probably find
> > cracks and crevices to creep through thereby increasing oil
> > consumption. For sure this will rule out using the slippery synthetic
> > oils. A shame cause they provide less friction and better wear and tear
> > control.
> >
> > '74 BGT
> > Peter
>
> I may get in trouble for believing an oil company's literature, but I
> remember reading a pamphlet from Mobil regarding their Mobil 1
> synthetic oil that said one of the benefits of synthetic oil
> was that it was comprised almost entirely of longer-chain molecules,
> and was actually LESS likely to leak out of small nooks and crannies.
> (or get past worn rings/valve guides). Has anyone had any
> experience with both synthetic and conventional oils OF THE SAME
> VISCOSITY with regards to "leakiness"?
> As for why MG recommends such a heavy weight oil compared to modern
> cars, could it have something to do with the larger manufacturing
> clearances of the time period compared to modern engines? Maybe the
> new cars need a thinner oil to get it through the microscopically
> small bearing clearances.
> Scott
My transportation vehicle, 4runner, requires only 5-30W oil. Before
that my other cars required 10-40W oils. Naturally, 20-50W oil does
appear to me as deviation from the "norm". I did over look the fact
that synthetic oils come in heavier weights then the one I am currently
using. Perhaps I'll try one of the heavy grade synthetics. With so
many listers being faithful to the Castrol brand I'll take the hint for
my own use.
Peter Landy
'74 BGT
|