Yes, can't disagree with that. Once again, the only thing I was
trying to do was explain how a manufacturer could claim two API
specifications without "making a mockery of the system". As for my
actual opinion on the ZDDP issue, which I have not actually stated
yet, I look at it like this. Maybe there is a problem with low ZDDP
oils and maybe not. I have read dozens of opinions and I still don't
know. My personal decision is to use Castrol Syntec 20W-50,
"formulated for classic cars". Castrol states "The level of Zinc in
the new Syntec 20W-50 is a minimum of 1200 ppm, which will provide
excellent anti-wear protection for the cam and lifters in a
flat-tappet cam engine." The only downside to this seems to be that
it costs a lot more than the Castrol GTX I was using. And it was
hard to find. Maybe there's a real issue here, maybe not. Risking
major engine damage (whether the risk is real or imagined) versus a
few extra dollars, it seemed foolish to just ignore the issue. As a
wise fellow named Paul Hunt once said, we are on our own, and have to
make our own decisions.
-Steve Trovato
strovato@optonline.net
At 04:12 AM 9/24/2009, Paul Hunt wrote:
>
>The whole point is that there are many claims out there, some are
>undoubtedly correct, some are confused, some are incorrect and some
>are downright lies. How are we to know which are which if not for
>actual experience? We are on our own, and have to make our own decisions.
_______________________________________________
Support Team.Net http://www.team.net/donate.html
Mgs@autox.team.net
http://autox.team.net/mailman/listinfo/mgs
http://www.team.net/archive
|