Michael Pardee wrote:
> "bob zee" <bobzee1@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1178939655.321771.37680@w5g2000hsg.googlegrou ps.com...
>
>>On May 11, 9:45 am, Grumpy AuContraire <Gru...@ExtraGrumpyville.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In my forty plus years of fiddlin' with cars, I have found Castrol to
>>>cut consumption by as much as 50% regardless of the type of car involved
>>>in ever case.
>>>
>>>Just like in politics, it's a case of, "Follow the money."
>>>
>>>It's just that simple...
>>
>>cut consumption by 50%? maybe /you/ need to cut the consumption
>>before posting on the internet.
>>
>>bob z.
>>
>>
>>
>
> J.T. is a good source of info on a wide range of cars (not just Hondas.) How
> is it not possible he is right about this? I haven't had cars that consume
> significant oil for quite a while so I couldn't say myself, but I have to
> credit his observation as "could be."
>
> Mike
>


In my varied experience, I've found Castrol to be the best and Quaker
State/Penzoil to be the worst.

Of course, seal condition etc. plays a greater role when it comes to
leakage.

OTOH, if one of my vintage Studebakers were to suddenly stop leaking,
i.e., no drip marks on the pavement... I would become very concerned
that it might be empty..

JT

 

Grumpy AuContraire wrote:
<snip>
>
> OTOH, if one of my vintage Studebakers were to suddenly stop leaking,
> i.e., no drip marks on the pavement... I would become very concerned
> that it might be empty..
>
lol!

 

Grumpy AuContraire wrote:
<snip>
>
> OTOH, if one of my vintage Studebakers were to suddenly stop leaking,
> i.e., no drip marks on the pavement... I would become very concerned
> that it might be empty..
>
lol!

 

"Grumpy AuContraire" <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote in message
news:kes1i.139980$VU4.136855@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
>
>
> In my varied experience, I've found Castrol to be the best and Quaker
> State/Penzoil to be the worst.
>

My motorhead brother tells me to stay away from Havoline, that he's seen too
many engines with carbon deposits in its wake....

Mike

 

"Grumpy AuContraire" <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote in message
news:kes1i.139980$VU4.136855@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
>
>
> In my varied experience, I've found Castrol to be the best and Quaker
> State/Penzoil to be the worst.
>

My motorhead brother tells me to stay away from Havoline, that he's seen too
many engines with carbon deposits in its wake....

Mike

 

Michael Pardee wrote:
> "Grumpy AuContraire" <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote in message
> news:kes1i.139980$VU4.136855@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
>>
>>
>>In my varied experience, I've found Castrol to be the best and Quaker
>>State/Penzoil to be the worst.
>>
>
>
> My motorhead brother tells me to stay away from Havoline, that he's seen too
> many engines with carbon deposits in its wake....
>
> Mike
>


Generally, I've found that most major oil company brands to be mediocre.

Castrol and probably the less promoted Valvoline are pretty near equal
on the high end with Penzoil and Quacker (pun intended) State rounding
out the bottom.

As for synthetics, I'm strictly RedLine which I use in trannies and
differentials...

JT

 

Michael Pardee wrote:
> "Grumpy AuContraire" <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote in message
> news:kes1i.139980$VU4.136855@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
>>
>>
>>In my varied experience, I've found Castrol to be the best and Quaker
>>State/Penzoil to be the worst.
>>
>
>
> My motorhead brother tells me to stay away from Havoline, that he's seen too
> many engines with carbon deposits in its wake....
>
> Mike
>


Generally, I've found that most major oil company brands to be mediocre.

Castrol and probably the less promoted Valvoline are pretty near equal
on the high end with Penzoil and Quacker (pun intended) State rounding
out the bottom.

As for synthetics, I'm strictly RedLine which I use in trannies and
differentials...

JT

 

Thanks, Tegger, I went to the Wikipedia link, which led to another link, and
the resulting consensus seems to be:

1) Where possible, post to only one group, but

2) If there is a reason, it's OK to post to two and not more than three
groups, and

3) If I post to more than one group, I should take care to NOT "double post"
(what I did) but rather to "crosspost" such that the resulting messages will
show both groups in the header, and such that replies from either group will
go to both groups..

I understand the traffic problems that result from posting in more than one
group, especially if replies then go to more than one group.

But there is a special problem here: There are two Honda groups, not one.
And both get a lot of traffic. If I only post to one, 1/3 or more of the
Honda community won't see my post. Tegger, are you suggesting I should pick
just one group (maybe the one with the most traffic, or the one with the
least spam, or the one with the fewest unpleasant people) and limit my posts
to that one?

I do wish the two groups would combine into one, but as there is no
administrative mechanism to accomplish that, posting to two (in whatever is
the least objectionable way) seems the next best solution.

- Don

"Tegger" <tegger@tegger.c0m> wrote in message
news:Xns992CD9589DF8Etegger@207.14.116.130...
> "Don Enderton" <Enderton@nosuchaddress.duh> wrote in
> news:sOI0i.5504$yM2.3404@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
>
>
>
> Ah, I see we have yet another multi-posting newbie!
>
> Identical message posted independently to at least two groups.
>
> I have already supplied a sublime and penetrating response in the other
> group you posted to. Go find it. You know where it is (but nobody else
> does!).
>
> Oh, and you may wish to educate youself as to certain Usenet etiquette
> conventions, here:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossposting
>
> --
> Tegger
>
> The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
> www.tegger.com/hondafaq/

 

Thanks, Tegger, I went to the Wikipedia link, which led to another link, and
the resulting consensus seems to be:

1) Where possible, post to only one group, but

2) If there is a reason, it's OK to post to two and not more than three
groups, and

3) If I post to more than one group, I should take care to NOT "double post"
(what I did) but rather to "crosspost" such that the resulting messages will
show both groups in the header, and such that replies from either group will
go to both groups..

I understand the traffic problems that result from posting in more than one
group, especially if replies then go to more than one group.

But there is a special problem here: There are two Honda groups, not one.
And both get a lot of traffic. If I only post to one, 1/3 or more of the
Honda community won't see my post. Tegger, are you suggesting I should pick
just one group (maybe the one with the most traffic, or the one with the
least spam, or the one with the fewest unpleasant people) and limit my posts
to that one?

I do wish the two groups would combine into one, but as there is no
administrative mechanism to accomplish that, posting to two (in whatever is
the least objectionable way) seems the next best solution.

- Don

"Tegger" <tegger@tegger.c0m> wrote in message
news:Xns992CD9589DF8Etegger@207.14.116.130...
> "Don Enderton" <Enderton@nosuchaddress.duh> wrote in
> news:sOI0i.5504$yM2.3404@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
>
>
>
> Ah, I see we have yet another multi-posting newbie!
>
> Identical message posted independently to at least two groups.
>
> I have already supplied a sublime and penetrating response in the other
> group you posted to. Go find it. You know where it is (but nobody else
> does!).
>
> Oh, and you may wish to educate youself as to certain Usenet etiquette
> conventions, here:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossposting
>
> --
> Tegger
>
> The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
> www.tegger.com/hondafaq/

 

"Don Enderton" <Enderton@nosuchaddress.duh> wrote in
news:Mi42i.150733$VU4.123282@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:

> Thanks, Tegger, I went to the Wikipedia link, which led to another
> link, and the resulting consensus seems to be:
>
> 1) Where possible, post to only one group, but
>
> 2) If there is a reason, it's OK to post to two and not more than
> three groups, and


You can post to more than three if there are more groups possibly relevant
to your post (some computer groups are like that).


>
> 3) If I post to more than one group, I should take care to NOT "double
> post" (what I did) but rather to "crosspost" such that the resulting
> messages will show both groups in the header, and such that replies
> from either group will go to both groups.


That's right.


>
> I understand the traffic problems that result from posting in more
> than one group, especially if replies then go to more than one group.
>
> But there is a special problem here: There are two Honda groups, not
> one.


Three, if you count alt.autos.acura.


> And both get a lot of traffic. If I only post to one, 1/3 or
> more of the Honda community won't see my post. Tegger, are you
> suggesting I should pick just one group (maybe the one with the most
> traffic, or the one with the least spam, or the one with the fewest
> unpleasant people) and limit my posts to that one?


If I'm unfamiliar with the group category I wish to post to, I scan the
relevant groups briefly to see 1) which has the most traffic, and 2) which
appears to have knowledgeable posters. I then (cross)post as necessary.

Occasionally people will remove the crossposting, so I have to manually
check each group I post to, just in case. It's a bit of a hassle.


>
> I do wish the two groups would combine into one, but as there is no
> administrative mechanism to accomplish that, posting to two (in
> whatever is the least objectionable way) seems the next best solution.


This is a puzzle, yes. And I too wish the two groups would consolidate.
There appears to be no reason both should exist. The presence of the two
just splits the messages and prevents complete communication.

I tend to stick with rec.autos.makers.honda just because it has the most
traffic, but I scan this one as well. And if I have something I think is
important, such as an update to the Unofficial FAQ, I'll crosspost to the
three Honda groups.

One other problem is that not all providers carry all groups, so posting to
both Honda ones catches everybody.

Finally, in re-reading my original post to you, I see I was kind of snarky,
Apologies for that.


--
Tegger

The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/

 

"Don Enderton" <Enderton@nosuchaddress.duh> wrote in
news:Mi42i.150733$VU4.123282@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:

> Thanks, Tegger, I went to the Wikipedia link, which led to another
> link, and the resulting consensus seems to be:
>
> 1) Where possible, post to only one group, but
>
> 2) If there is a reason, it's OK to post to two and not more than
> three groups, and


You can post to more than three if there are more groups possibly relevant
to your post (some computer groups are like that).


>
> 3) If I post to more than one group, I should take care to NOT "double
> post" (what I did) but rather to "crosspost" such that the resulting
> messages will show both groups in the header, and such that replies
> from either group will go to both groups.


That's right.


>
> I understand the traffic problems that result from posting in more
> than one group, especially if replies then go to more than one group.
>
> But there is a special problem here: There are two Honda groups, not
> one.


Three, if you count alt.autos.acura.


> And both get a lot of traffic. If I only post to one, 1/3 or
> more of the Honda community won't see my post. Tegger, are you
> suggesting I should pick just one group (maybe the one with the most
> traffic, or the one with the least spam, or the one with the fewest
> unpleasant people) and limit my posts to that one?


If I'm unfamiliar with the group category I wish to post to, I scan the
relevant groups briefly to see 1) which has the most traffic, and 2) which
appears to have knowledgeable posters. I then (cross)post as necessary.

Occasionally people will remove the crossposting, so I have to manually
check each group I post to, just in case. It's a bit of a hassle.


>
> I do wish the two groups would combine into one, but as there is no
> administrative mechanism to accomplish that, posting to two (in
> whatever is the least objectionable way) seems the next best solution.


This is a puzzle, yes. And I too wish the two groups would consolidate.
There appears to be no reason both should exist. The presence of the two
just splits the messages and prevents complete communication.

I tend to stick with rec.autos.makers.honda just because it has the most
traffic, but I scan this one as well. And if I have something I think is
important, such as an update to the Unofficial FAQ, I'll crosspost to the
three Honda groups.

One other problem is that not all providers carry all groups, so posting to
both Honda ones catches everybody.

Finally, in re-reading my original post to you, I see I was kind of snarky,
Apologies for that.


--
Tegger

The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/

 

In article
<Mi42i.150733$VU4.123282@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"Don Enderton" <Enderton@nosuchaddress.duh> wrote:

> 3) If I post to more than one group, I should take care to NOT "double post"
> (what I did) but rather to "crosspost" such that the resulting messages will
> show both groups in the header, and such that replies from either group will
> go to both groups..
>
> I understand the traffic problems that result from posting in more than one
> group, especially if replies then go to more than one group.
>
> But there is a special problem here: There are two Honda groups, not one.
> And both get a lot of traffic. If I only post to one, 1/3 or more of the
> Honda community won't see my post. Tegger, are you suggesting I should pick
> just one group (maybe the one with the most traffic, or the one with the
> least spam, or the one with the fewest unpleasant people) and limit my posts
> to that one?

No. He's saying to cross post, just like what you outlined in 3) above.

 

In article
<Mi42i.150733$VU4.123282@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"Don Enderton" <Enderton@nosuchaddress.duh> wrote:

> 3) If I post to more than one group, I should take care to NOT "double post"
> (what I did) but rather to "crosspost" such that the resulting messages will
> show both groups in the header, and such that replies from either group will
> go to both groups..
>
> I understand the traffic problems that result from posting in more than one
> group, especially if replies then go to more than one group.
>
> But there is a special problem here: There are two Honda groups, not one.
> And both get a lot of traffic. If I only post to one, 1/3 or more of the
> Honda community won't see my post. Tegger, are you suggesting I should pick
> just one group (maybe the one with the most traffic, or the one with the
> least spam, or the one with the fewest unpleasant people) and limit my posts
> to that one?

No. He's saying to cross post, just like what you outlined in 3) above.

 

On May 11, 9:45 am, Grumpy AuContraire <Gru...@ExtraGrumpyville.com>
wrote:
> In my forty plus years of fiddlin' with cars, I have found Castrol to
> cut consumption by as much as 50% regardless of the type of car involved
> in ever case.
>
> Just like in politics, it's a case of, "Follow the money."
>
> It's just that simple...
>
> JT
>
>
>
> Howard wrote:
> > Here in the southeast Mobil is the distributor for Honda motor oil. I'm not
> > sure about the rest of the country. The Honda branded oil is formulated by
> > Mobil to Honda specs. There's not much better for your car. As for Castrol,
> > it's a fine motor oil. Probably no better or worse than any other major
> > motor oil manufacturer, except for some of the premium and/or racing oils or
> > synthetics.
> > What Castrol is best for is marketing. There is no oil company that spends
> > more time and money on marketing and promoting its product than Castrol.
> > They spend millions on promoting and the result is what many people
> > including yourself think that it is better and consequently it pays them
> > back in sales. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't better. But there is not much
> > difference between equivalent spec Mobil or Castrol or most other major
> > brands for that matter.
> > If you want superior, use Amsoil or Royal Purple, but be prepared to pay a
> > handsome price for something that will make little or no difference in a
> > well maintained properly oil changed vehicle.
> > Howard
> > "Don Enderton" <Ender...@nosuchaddress.duh> wrote in message
> >news:sOI0i.5504$yM2.3404@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> >>My local Honda dealer, where I get my oil changed, switched from Castrol
> >>to Mobil oil. Also, the paperwork and windshield sticker no longer
> >>indicate the grade or weight (should be API service SJ "energy conserving"
> >>oil, SAE 5-30 viscosity, for my particular year and model).
>
> >>I had an impression from years ago that Castrol was considered a superior
> >>brand. Is that still true, and if so, why?
>
> >>The service manager at Mel Rapton Honda in Sacramento, CA, says one reason
> >>he switched is price. Mobil is cheaper. And he assures me it meets all
> >>the factory specs, although I can't verify that because I can't see the
> >>label for what they put in my car.
>
> >>He also says that all Hondas come with Mobil oil in the crankcase from the
> >>factory, whether in the US or Japan. Is that true?
>
> >>OK, so Mobil is cheaper. Assuming the product is marked as meeting the
> >>factory specs for my car, is it good enough?
>
> >>I am not asking here about synthetic oil; please limit responses to
> >>conventional oil products only.
>
> >>And please, I hope to hear informed and expert knowledge here, not
> >>speculation and guesses. Thank you.
>
> >>- Don- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

In the most recent oil test, Consumer Reports famously/infamously
didn't see any differences. But..... in the test before that, decades
ago, Castrol came out on top, followed by Valvoline Turbo (the top
Valvoline at the time). This ranking matched what most of the serious
car guys I knew ranked them as. I was kind of surprised at the time, i
assumed the big names like Quaker State must be the best. Har har har,
I was young then.

 

On May 11, 9:45 am, Grumpy AuContraire <Gru...@ExtraGrumpyville.com>
wrote:
> In my forty plus years of fiddlin' with cars, I have found Castrol to
> cut consumption by as much as 50% regardless of the type of car involved
> in ever case.
>
> Just like in politics, it's a case of, "Follow the money."
>
> It's just that simple...
>
> JT
>
>
>
> Howard wrote:
> > Here in the southeast Mobil is the distributor for Honda motor oil. I'm not
> > sure about the rest of the country. The Honda branded oil is formulated by
> > Mobil to Honda specs. There's not much better for your car. As for Castrol,
> > it's a fine motor oil. Probably no better or worse than any other major
> > motor oil manufacturer, except for some of the premium and/or racing oils or
> > synthetics.
> > What Castrol is best for is marketing. There is no oil company that spends
> > more time and money on marketing and promoting its product than Castrol.
> > They spend millions on promoting and the result is what many people
> > including yourself think that it is better and consequently it pays them
> > back in sales. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't better. But there is not much
> > difference between equivalent spec Mobil or Castrol or most other major
> > brands for that matter.
> > If you want superior, use Amsoil or Royal Purple, but be prepared to pay a
> > handsome price for something that will make little or no difference in a
> > well maintained properly oil changed vehicle.
> > Howard
> > "Don Enderton" <Ender...@nosuchaddress.duh> wrote in message
> >news:sOI0i.5504$yM2.3404@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> >>My local Honda dealer, where I get my oil changed, switched from Castrol
> >>to Mobil oil. Also, the paperwork and windshield sticker no longer
> >>indicate the grade or weight (should be API service SJ "energy conserving"
> >>oil, SAE 5-30 viscosity, for my particular year and model).
>
> >>I had an impression from years ago that Castrol was considered a superior
> >>brand. Is that still true, and if so, why?
>
> >>The service manager at Mel Rapton Honda in Sacramento, CA, says one reason
> >>he switched is price. Mobil is cheaper. And he assures me it meets all
> >>the factory specs, although I can't verify that because I can't see the
> >>label for what they put in my car.
>
> >>He also says that all Hondas come with Mobil oil in the crankcase from the
> >>factory, whether in the US or Japan. Is that true?
>
> >>OK, so Mobil is cheaper. Assuming the product is marked as meeting the
> >>factory specs for my car, is it good enough?
>
> >>I am not asking here about synthetic oil; please limit responses to
> >>conventional oil products only.
>
> >>And please, I hope to hear informed and expert knowledge here, not
> >>speculation and guesses. Thank you.
>
> >>- Don- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

In the most recent oil test, Consumer Reports famously/infamously
didn't see any differences. But..... in the test before that, decades
ago, Castrol came out on top, followed by Valvoline Turbo (the top
Valvoline at the time). This ranking matched what most of the serious
car guys I knew ranked them as. I was kind of surprised at the time, i
assumed the big names like Quaker State must be the best. Har har har,
I was young then.