John
Cost is always a factor, but I look at it from a slightly different
point of view. My car is probably worth $9,000 on the local market
and costs around $500 in registration and insurance charges per annum
(converted to US$ as you did below).
If I can get a little bit more protection and performance from a high
quality oil; leading perhaps to a slightly longer engine life, then
the relatively small additional cost is worth it. Admittedly, I can
get Mobil 1 for $25 for 5 litres (compared with $10 for Castrol GTX)
and a good quality oil filter for $7. At one oil change per year
(2000 km), $32 is not too much to pay.
Trevor Jordan
74 TR6 CF29281U
At 11:09 PM +0100 28/8/00, John Macartney wrote:
>For every post against the use of Mobil 1, I guess there must be one
>in its favour. I
>support Adrian Dix-Dyer's comment but oriented totally towards its
>rejection on the
>grounds of sheer cost. A price check this morning shows the 0W-40
>version of Mobil 1
>selling in the UK for $50 for a 4 litre can. This has to be the
>biggest single argument
>for not using this lube type when Castrol GTX or Duckhams 'Classic'
>20/50 is freely
>available, a whole lot cheaper and IMHO entirely suited to an engine
>who's origins are not
>too far removed from a pre-war side-valve unit. For a car that
>probably does a maximum
>annual mileage of no more than 5k (typical for most UK classics)
>with up to three oil and
>filter changes in a season and with fuel at almost $6 a gallon, is
>it cost-effective? A
>tankful of gas and a sump of Mobil 1 will set me back $135. Rocket
>science technology in
>my engine is not something I think it really needs - but I'm open to
>persuasion.
>
>Jonmac
|