rustystud
Well-known member
- 9,280
- 2,988
- 113
- Location
- Woodinville, Washington
Well it appears that a number of people here still have trouble believing in adding an oil additive to the deuce engine oil. Several people have contacted me with questions again.
This time I talked with my best friend who also is a master mechanic (we both went to trade school together and took our "ASE" certifications together also) and has been an "owner/operator" of a service station in Ballard for the last 40 years. He gave me this report from the "Auto Services Operator Magazine" dated 6-28-2004.
In it, it talks about "backwards" compatibility with older engines. The problem is the modern GF-4 oils only have to meet 2005 specifications and the oldest engines tested where from 1990. Well that leaves out a whole lot of "tappet" cam engines doesn't it. According to my friend the whole thing revolves around money.
Who is liable for damages. That is why you will not find any vehicle manufacturer talking bad about the new oils. They do not want the liability. Also the oil companies will not come out and say the older engines need a supplement to their oils. They don't want the liability. So who gets hurt here ? We do, the owners of these older engines. That is why there is so many companies selling "phosphorus and sulfur and Zinc" additives. That is also why the cam manufacturer's recommend their "Zinc" rich additives.
I posted an additive recommended by "Crane Cams" earlier this week. Right now there is a major campaign to call into doubt all these "rumors" and "myths" about GF-4 engine oils not meeting the needs of older engines. Their saying if you believe in adding additives your basically a fool.
These people are not our friends.
It all comes from liability (money). Who is going to pay. If people found out the truth there would be a lot more lawsuits. All the oil companies need is more time.
Pretty soon all these older engines will be gone and they will have no more worries. So now hopefully we can finally put this issue to bed (or bury it) once and for all.
View attachment Scan0215.pdf
This time I talked with my best friend who also is a master mechanic (we both went to trade school together and took our "ASE" certifications together also) and has been an "owner/operator" of a service station in Ballard for the last 40 years. He gave me this report from the "Auto Services Operator Magazine" dated 6-28-2004.
In it, it talks about "backwards" compatibility with older engines. The problem is the modern GF-4 oils only have to meet 2005 specifications and the oldest engines tested where from 1990. Well that leaves out a whole lot of "tappet" cam engines doesn't it. According to my friend the whole thing revolves around money.
Who is liable for damages. That is why you will not find any vehicle manufacturer talking bad about the new oils. They do not want the liability. Also the oil companies will not come out and say the older engines need a supplement to their oils. They don't want the liability. So who gets hurt here ? We do, the owners of these older engines. That is why there is so many companies selling "phosphorus and sulfur and Zinc" additives. That is also why the cam manufacturer's recommend their "Zinc" rich additives.
I posted an additive recommended by "Crane Cams" earlier this week. Right now there is a major campaign to call into doubt all these "rumors" and "myths" about GF-4 engine oils not meeting the needs of older engines. Their saying if you believe in adding additives your basically a fool.
These people are not our friends.
It all comes from liability (money). Who is going to pay. If people found out the truth there would be a lot more lawsuits. All the oil companies need is more time.
Pretty soon all these older engines will be gone and they will have no more worries. So now hopefully we can finally put this issue to bed (or bury it) once and for all.
View attachment Scan0215.pdf
Last edited by a moderator: