My thinking is that there is nothing wrong with any decent oil except the
reduced zinc level. The EOS product has around 50% more zinc so you can use
less of it to get to the desired level. Also, STP claims to modify viscosity.
If I have the correct weight oil for my application and change it before it
breaks down, why would I want to modify the viscosity with an additive.
I have never had a high opinion of oil additives in general. If whatever is
in them had all the magic properties the makers claim, why wouldn't the oil
companies put it in the oil to start with? Remember that "Slick 50" teflon
based crap? In the case of the zinc additive, however, it is not some "snake
oil" with wild claims. The additive is just to get back to the formulation of
oil you could buy last year.
Also, I believe there are at least 2 formulations of the Valvoline VR1. If it
is rated SAE SM, or has the dreaded "energy saver" logo, I wouldn't use it.
Larry Daniels <ladaniels@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
This isn't a reason not to use STP, per se, but I think GM's EOS is a better
product for raising ZDDP levels. It was designed and marketed as a break in
additive but a lot of car enthusiasts use it at every change in older, flat
tappet motors.
=======================================
Brian, upon what facts are you saying that the GM additive is better than
the STP additive. Is it just because of the way the GM product was marketed
or are there some imperial facts that you don't mention that make it better
than STP?
I want to use the best product, but would prefer that the best product not
be determined by the best marketing department.
Larry Daniels
_______________________________________________
Edit your replies
Mgs@autox.team.net
http://autox.team.net/mailman/listinfo/mgs
|