Trevor Jordan wrote:
>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.
I would not disagree with your philosophy at all. What I meant to say (but
didn't in my
last post) was that even when the cars were current and in production, mileages
in excess
of 250,000 were commonplace before an engine swap, major rebuild or disposal was
undertaken. These distances were completed by many well-laden police cars and
some 2000
saloons used by the Army and Air Force. My argument is that as these distances
were
completed using entirely mineral based oils with the specs and additives of 25+
years ago,
the continuing use of an 'old fashioned' oil is not likely to be to the general
disadvantage of a six pot Triumph engine. Of course, on the assumption that a
modern
synthetic even further prolongs engine life, I suppose we could push out that
rebuild date
to 350,000? Are many people looking at that sort of mileage? It's all down to
personal
preference and cost. Canley Girl had completed 218000 at the time of her rebore
and
resleeve and she'd run mineral throughout. The DPO had not reworked the head at
that point
and I know the rocker shaft was the original one when I removed it. Careful
examination of
the wear on the shaft and rockers showed that where there were bad elipses on
the rockers
and corresponding wear on the shaft, this was largely attributable to
incorrectly adjusted
valves. I've nothing against Mobil 1 - apart from its crippling cost in the UK
and I know
many are of the same view.
Jonmac
|