Return-Path: Sender: "Marvin Kaye" To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 22:03:23 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from lakermmtao04.cox.net ([68.230.240.35] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.3c3) with ESMTP id 829320 for lml@lancaironline.net; Tue, 29 Mar 2005 21:33:55 -0500 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=68.230.240.35; envelope-from=Walter@advancedpilot.com Received: from [10.0.1.3] (really [68.227.132.71]) by lakermmtao04.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.04.00 201-2131-118-20041027) with ESMTP id <20050330023309.ZWIU11124.lakermmtao04.cox.net@[10.0.1.3]> for ; Tue, 29 Mar 2005 21:33:09 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v619.2) In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-4-698803594 X-Original-Message-Id: From: W Atkinson Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Alternative Engines X-Original-Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 20:33:09 -0600 X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.619.2) --Apple-Mail-4-698803594 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Craig: I am very interested in your opinion on the following: Would it be correct to assume that based on your experience, you would=20= choose a straight 50 weight over Phillips 20W50 for a big bore TCM=20 engine run at above 85% power? Walter On Mar 29, 2005, at 8:19 PM, Craig Berland wrote: "What is your understanding of the automotive experience with the multi-viscosity oils ???=A0 Regards,=A0 George" =A0 George, the multi-vis oils are/were a necessity for fuel economy=20 ratings and cold starts (below=A00 deg F). They are not so good for WOT testing. All max load and valve train=20 tests were run on straight 30w oil.=A0 Oil consumption and engine=20 durability all improve with straight weight oil. I might add I have not=20= seen tests run with the new synthetics such as Mobile 1. With that=20 said, I just put the new "Purple ??" synthetic oil in my new truck.=A0=20= But my truck sees <10% power 90% of the time.=A0In 1987 I left GM=A0and=20= started a company manufacturing aerospace parts. My wife calls it my=20 momentary loss of sanity.=A0 Oh, I do like the LS1 a lot...I just=20 finished a customized '72 Chevy truck with the LS1 and 4L60E=20 trans....very nice and very fast.=A0 My youngest son's project with dad. Craig Berland --Apple-Mail-4-698803594 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/enriched; charset=ISO-8859-1 Craig: I am very interested in your opinion on the following: Would it be correct to assume that based on your experience, you would choose a straight 50 weight over Phillips 20W50 for a big bore TCM engine run at above 85% power? Walter On Mar 29, 2005, at 8:19 PM, Craig Berland wrote: Times New Roman"What is your understanding of the automotive experience with the Times New Romanmulti-viscosity oils ???=A0 Regards,=A0 George" =A0 Times New RomanGeorge, the multi-vis oils are/were a necessity for fuel economy ratings and cold starts (below=A00 deg F). Times New RomanThey are not so good for WOT testing. All max load and valve train tests were run on straight 30w oil.=A0 Oil consumption and engine durability all improve with straight weight oil. I might add I have not seen tests run with the new synthetics such as Mobile 1. With that said, I just put the new "Purple ??" synthetic oil in my new truck.=A0 But my truck sees <<10% power 90% of the time.=A0In 1987 I left GM=A0and started a company manufacturing aerospace parts. My wife calls it my momentary loss of sanity.=A0 Oh, I do like the LS1 a lot...I just finished a customized '72 Chevy truck with the LS1 and 4L60E trans....very nice and very fast.=A0 My youngest son's project with dad. Times New RomanCraig Berland --Apple-Mail-4-698803594--