Re: Royal Purple or Mobil1 Synthetic
08-03-2003 | 01:25 AM
#61
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Royal Purple or Mobil1 Synthetic
In news:Ar_Wa.127076$R92.90585@news2.central.***.net,
Noway <noway@nospam.com> jubilantly posted:
>> Your "bet" is hollow since you don't know the cold driving habits
>> of
>> 99.99% of your fellow drivers.
>
> Sure I do, I see them every day on the road, parking lots,
> everywhere. Its not hard to figure out, open your eyes.
Let me phrase it differently. The whole world is a LOT bigger than what
you can see. LOL
--
~~Philip
cantankerous | kan-TANG-kruss | adjective: difficult or irritating to
deal with.
Example: Philip was always cantankerous in the morning, given to snapping
and snarling until he'd had his first cup of coffee and a soothing hot
shower.
Noway <noway@nospam.com> jubilantly posted:
>> Your "bet" is hollow since you don't know the cold driving habits
>> of
>> 99.99% of your fellow drivers.
>
> Sure I do, I see them every day on the road, parking lots,
> everywhere. Its not hard to figure out, open your eyes.
Let me phrase it differently. The whole world is a LOT bigger than what
you can see. LOL
--
~~Philip
cantankerous | kan-TANG-kruss | adjective: difficult or irritating to
deal with.
Example: Philip was always cantankerous in the morning, given to snapping
and snarling until he'd had his first cup of coffee and a soothing hot
shower.
08-03-2003 | 01:25 AM
#62
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Royal Purple or Mobil1 Synthetic
In news:3F2C816F.C6508151@kinez.net,
Bill Putney <peva@kinez.net> jubilantly posted:
> default wrote:
>>
>> FWIW, I've been using M1 5W-30 and Mobil 1 filters in a '99 Camry
>> V6 since 5K miles. I have 64K miles now.
>> I stopped using M1 filters after I noticed that each time I
>> parked the car for 3 weeks or longer, on startup I would hear a
>> disconcerting mechanical whap-whap-whap noise from the innards of
>> the engine for about 5 seconds with very shaky idling for 20 sec
>> . Didn't happen when I parked the car for 2 weeks, but it would
>> at 3 weeks.
>
> Even a perfect filter/anti-drainback valve won't prevent at least
> one
> valve lifter (lash adjuster) from leaking down over time if the
> engine stops with valve spring pressure on that lifter. It takes
> a few cycles of the engine to pump a collapsed lifter, so a perfect
> anti-drainback valve and completely full oil galleys won't prevent
> that first few seconds of tapping. IOW - I don't know that I'd
> blame the oil filter in that situation.
>
> Bill Putney
Bill ... 1999 Camry V6 does not have hydraulic valve lifters so your
explanation is invalid. Has EVERYBODY hammered you yet? LOL
--
~~Philip
cantankerous | kan-TANG-kruss | adjective: difficult or irritating to
deal with.
Example: Philip was always cantankerous in the morning, given to snapping
and snarling until he'd had his first cup of coffee and a soothing hot
shower.
Bill Putney <peva@kinez.net> jubilantly posted:
> default wrote:
>>
>> FWIW, I've been using M1 5W-30 and Mobil 1 filters in a '99 Camry
>> V6 since 5K miles. I have 64K miles now.
>> I stopped using M1 filters after I noticed that each time I
>> parked the car for 3 weeks or longer, on startup I would hear a
>> disconcerting mechanical whap-whap-whap noise from the innards of
>> the engine for about 5 seconds with very shaky idling for 20 sec
>> . Didn't happen when I parked the car for 2 weeks, but it would
>> at 3 weeks.
>
> Even a perfect filter/anti-drainback valve won't prevent at least
> one
> valve lifter (lash adjuster) from leaking down over time if the
> engine stops with valve spring pressure on that lifter. It takes
> a few cycles of the engine to pump a collapsed lifter, so a perfect
> anti-drainback valve and completely full oil galleys won't prevent
> that first few seconds of tapping. IOW - I don't know that I'd
> blame the oil filter in that situation.
>
> Bill Putney
Bill ... 1999 Camry V6 does not have hydraulic valve lifters so your
explanation is invalid. Has EVERYBODY hammered you yet? LOL
--
~~Philip
cantankerous | kan-TANG-kruss | adjective: difficult or irritating to
deal with.
Example: Philip was always cantankerous in the morning, given to snapping
and snarling until he'd had his first cup of coffee and a soothing hot
shower.
08-03-2003 | 01:25 AM
#63
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Royal Purple or Mobil1 Synthetic
In news:3F2C816F.C6508151@kinez.net,
Bill Putney <peva@kinez.net> jubilantly posted:
> default wrote:
>>
>> FWIW, I've been using M1 5W-30 and Mobil 1 filters in a '99 Camry
>> V6 since 5K miles. I have 64K miles now.
>> I stopped using M1 filters after I noticed that each time I
>> parked the car for 3 weeks or longer, on startup I would hear a
>> disconcerting mechanical whap-whap-whap noise from the innards of
>> the engine for about 5 seconds with very shaky idling for 20 sec
>> . Didn't happen when I parked the car for 2 weeks, but it would
>> at 3 weeks.
>
> Even a perfect filter/anti-drainback valve won't prevent at least
> one
> valve lifter (lash adjuster) from leaking down over time if the
> engine stops with valve spring pressure on that lifter. It takes
> a few cycles of the engine to pump a collapsed lifter, so a perfect
> anti-drainback valve and completely full oil galleys won't prevent
> that first few seconds of tapping. IOW - I don't know that I'd
> blame the oil filter in that situation.
>
> Bill Putney
Bill ... 1999 Camry V6 does not have hydraulic valve lifters so your
explanation is invalid. Has EVERYBODY hammered you yet? LOL
--
~~Philip
cantankerous | kan-TANG-kruss | adjective: difficult or irritating to
deal with.
Example: Philip was always cantankerous in the morning, given to snapping
and snarling until he'd had his first cup of coffee and a soothing hot
shower.
Bill Putney <peva@kinez.net> jubilantly posted:
> default wrote:
>>
>> FWIW, I've been using M1 5W-30 and Mobil 1 filters in a '99 Camry
>> V6 since 5K miles. I have 64K miles now.
>> I stopped using M1 filters after I noticed that each time I
>> parked the car for 3 weeks or longer, on startup I would hear a
>> disconcerting mechanical whap-whap-whap noise from the innards of
>> the engine for about 5 seconds with very shaky idling for 20 sec
>> . Didn't happen when I parked the car for 2 weeks, but it would
>> at 3 weeks.
>
> Even a perfect filter/anti-drainback valve won't prevent at least
> one
> valve lifter (lash adjuster) from leaking down over time if the
> engine stops with valve spring pressure on that lifter. It takes
> a few cycles of the engine to pump a collapsed lifter, so a perfect
> anti-drainback valve and completely full oil galleys won't prevent
> that first few seconds of tapping. IOW - I don't know that I'd
> blame the oil filter in that situation.
>
> Bill Putney
Bill ... 1999 Camry V6 does not have hydraulic valve lifters so your
explanation is invalid. Has EVERYBODY hammered you yet? LOL
--
~~Philip
cantankerous | kan-TANG-kruss | adjective: difficult or irritating to
deal with.
Example: Philip was always cantankerous in the morning, given to snapping
and snarling until he'd had his first cup of coffee and a soothing hot
shower.
08-03-2003 | 02:23 AM
#64
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Royal Purple or Mobil1 Synthetic
"Philip®" wrote:
> > nothing than have it misinterpreted. Please tell me what ACEA or a
> > mfr's spec tells me? Other than the oil meets the ~minimum~
> > requirements for that testing sequence?
> Time for you to use the net and find out how much better ACEA is at
> grading oils to specific applications and how they go about doing so
Philip,
Your lack of reading comprehension is astounding. I really don't give a
rat's backside about what any individual testing sequence involves. Nor
do I care that ACEA is "better" than API, or that you prefer MB's
testing sequence. I could add a buttload of other testing sequences just
from the jug of Delo 400 sitting in my garage, maybe some more from a
Castrol container and perhaps some from some miscellaneous container,
but that doesn't change my original point.
Regardless of whether the container says it meets API, ACEA, or even
"XYZ-Zoom-Zoom" specs or any others ever used in the world, all we KNOW
is the MINIMUM quality of the oil: it's passed the tests necessary to be
able to use that spec on the container or in advertising. Perhaps it
exceeds those specs. Some claim they do. But we don't know by HOW MUCH.
If a test sequence is 100 hours, and the oil still met the spec at 100
hrs and 10 minutes, it's legitimate to say it "exceeds" the spec but
such a claim is relatively meaningless in the real world. We can suspect
whatever we'd like about which one's better, but all the rest of the
claims are advertising hype. Period.
There are people here who've been reading oil cans far longer than the
almost half century I've been looking at them, and I'm sure they'll
recognize some of these claims such as "reduces wear" or "keeps engines
cleaner" and all that as being virtually timeless. I remember seeing
such claims in the mid-50's and still do today, but only a fool would
claim a 1955 oil would be in any way similar to one today in its ability
to protect an engine. Yet the advertising has hardly changed.
If you wish to continue to argue that one spec's better than another, or
that one oil's better than another because it has a different set of
specs listed, knock yourself out. But you've missed my point
completely--twice--and it's time you carry on without me. Enough said.
Rick
> > nothing than have it misinterpreted. Please tell me what ACEA or a
> > mfr's spec tells me? Other than the oil meets the ~minimum~
> > requirements for that testing sequence?
> Time for you to use the net and find out how much better ACEA is at
> grading oils to specific applications and how they go about doing so
Philip,
Your lack of reading comprehension is astounding. I really don't give a
rat's backside about what any individual testing sequence involves. Nor
do I care that ACEA is "better" than API, or that you prefer MB's
testing sequence. I could add a buttload of other testing sequences just
from the jug of Delo 400 sitting in my garage, maybe some more from a
Castrol container and perhaps some from some miscellaneous container,
but that doesn't change my original point.
Regardless of whether the container says it meets API, ACEA, or even
"XYZ-Zoom-Zoom" specs or any others ever used in the world, all we KNOW
is the MINIMUM quality of the oil: it's passed the tests necessary to be
able to use that spec on the container or in advertising. Perhaps it
exceeds those specs. Some claim they do. But we don't know by HOW MUCH.
If a test sequence is 100 hours, and the oil still met the spec at 100
hrs and 10 minutes, it's legitimate to say it "exceeds" the spec but
such a claim is relatively meaningless in the real world. We can suspect
whatever we'd like about which one's better, but all the rest of the
claims are advertising hype. Period.
There are people here who've been reading oil cans far longer than the
almost half century I've been looking at them, and I'm sure they'll
recognize some of these claims such as "reduces wear" or "keeps engines
cleaner" and all that as being virtually timeless. I remember seeing
such claims in the mid-50's and still do today, but only a fool would
claim a 1955 oil would be in any way similar to one today in its ability
to protect an engine. Yet the advertising has hardly changed.
If you wish to continue to argue that one spec's better than another, or
that one oil's better than another because it has a different set of
specs listed, knock yourself out. But you've missed my point
completely--twice--and it's time you carry on without me. Enough said.
Rick
08-03-2003 | 02:23 AM
#65
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Royal Purple or Mobil1 Synthetic
"Philip®" wrote:
> > nothing than have it misinterpreted. Please tell me what ACEA or a
> > mfr's spec tells me? Other than the oil meets the ~minimum~
> > requirements for that testing sequence?
> Time for you to use the net and find out how much better ACEA is at
> grading oils to specific applications and how they go about doing so
Philip,
Your lack of reading comprehension is astounding. I really don't give a
rat's backside about what any individual testing sequence involves. Nor
do I care that ACEA is "better" than API, or that you prefer MB's
testing sequence. I could add a buttload of other testing sequences just
from the jug of Delo 400 sitting in my garage, maybe some more from a
Castrol container and perhaps some from some miscellaneous container,
but that doesn't change my original point.
Regardless of whether the container says it meets API, ACEA, or even
"XYZ-Zoom-Zoom" specs or any others ever used in the world, all we KNOW
is the MINIMUM quality of the oil: it's passed the tests necessary to be
able to use that spec on the container or in advertising. Perhaps it
exceeds those specs. Some claim they do. But we don't know by HOW MUCH.
If a test sequence is 100 hours, and the oil still met the spec at 100
hrs and 10 minutes, it's legitimate to say it "exceeds" the spec but
such a claim is relatively meaningless in the real world. We can suspect
whatever we'd like about which one's better, but all the rest of the
claims are advertising hype. Period.
There are people here who've been reading oil cans far longer than the
almost half century I've been looking at them, and I'm sure they'll
recognize some of these claims such as "reduces wear" or "keeps engines
cleaner" and all that as being virtually timeless. I remember seeing
such claims in the mid-50's and still do today, but only a fool would
claim a 1955 oil would be in any way similar to one today in its ability
to protect an engine. Yet the advertising has hardly changed.
If you wish to continue to argue that one spec's better than another, or
that one oil's better than another because it has a different set of
specs listed, knock yourself out. But you've missed my point
completely--twice--and it's time you carry on without me. Enough said.
Rick
> > nothing than have it misinterpreted. Please tell me what ACEA or a
> > mfr's spec tells me? Other than the oil meets the ~minimum~
> > requirements for that testing sequence?
> Time for you to use the net and find out how much better ACEA is at
> grading oils to specific applications and how they go about doing so
Philip,
Your lack of reading comprehension is astounding. I really don't give a
rat's backside about what any individual testing sequence involves. Nor
do I care that ACEA is "better" than API, or that you prefer MB's
testing sequence. I could add a buttload of other testing sequences just
from the jug of Delo 400 sitting in my garage, maybe some more from a
Castrol container and perhaps some from some miscellaneous container,
but that doesn't change my original point.
Regardless of whether the container says it meets API, ACEA, or even
"XYZ-Zoom-Zoom" specs or any others ever used in the world, all we KNOW
is the MINIMUM quality of the oil: it's passed the tests necessary to be
able to use that spec on the container or in advertising. Perhaps it
exceeds those specs. Some claim they do. But we don't know by HOW MUCH.
If a test sequence is 100 hours, and the oil still met the spec at 100
hrs and 10 minutes, it's legitimate to say it "exceeds" the spec but
such a claim is relatively meaningless in the real world. We can suspect
whatever we'd like about which one's better, but all the rest of the
claims are advertising hype. Period.
There are people here who've been reading oil cans far longer than the
almost half century I've been looking at them, and I'm sure they'll
recognize some of these claims such as "reduces wear" or "keeps engines
cleaner" and all that as being virtually timeless. I remember seeing
such claims in the mid-50's and still do today, but only a fool would
claim a 1955 oil would be in any way similar to one today in its ability
to protect an engine. Yet the advertising has hardly changed.
If you wish to continue to argue that one spec's better than another, or
that one oil's better than another because it has a different set of
specs listed, knock yourself out. But you've missed my point
completely--twice--and it's time you carry on without me. Enough said.
Rick
08-03-2003 | 03:00 AM
#66
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Royal Purple or Mobil1 Synthetic
In news:3F2CAA5F.FC88649D@iname.com,
Rick Courtright <rcourtright@iname.com> jubilantly posted:
>
> If you wish to continue to argue that one spec's better than
> another, or that one oil's better than another because it has a
> different set of specs listed, knock yourself out. But you've
> missed my point completely--twice--and it's time you carry on
> without me. Enough said.
>
> Rick
You point is the difference between "meets" vs. "exceeds." You want the
total performance specs sheet on the oil bottle label. Such a pedigree
is wasted on anybody short of a lubrication engineer. I have pointed out
a middle ground such as the MB and ACEA which seem to only to be at odds
with your prejudice. So be it. Be a grouch.
--
~~Philip
cantankerous | kan-TANG-kruss | adjective: difficult or irritating to
deal with.
Example: Philip was always cantankerous in the morning, given to snapping
and snarling until he'd had his first cup of coffee and a soothing hot
shower.
Rick Courtright <rcourtright@iname.com> jubilantly posted:
>
> If you wish to continue to argue that one spec's better than
> another, or that one oil's better than another because it has a
> different set of specs listed, knock yourself out. But you've
> missed my point completely--twice--and it's time you carry on
> without me. Enough said.
>
> Rick
You point is the difference between "meets" vs. "exceeds." You want the
total performance specs sheet on the oil bottle label. Such a pedigree
is wasted on anybody short of a lubrication engineer. I have pointed out
a middle ground such as the MB and ACEA which seem to only to be at odds
with your prejudice. So be it. Be a grouch.
--
~~Philip
cantankerous | kan-TANG-kruss | adjective: difficult or irritating to
deal with.
Example: Philip was always cantankerous in the morning, given to snapping
and snarling until he'd had his first cup of coffee and a soothing hot
shower.
08-03-2003 | 03:00 AM
#67
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Royal Purple or Mobil1 Synthetic
In news:3F2CAA5F.FC88649D@iname.com,
Rick Courtright <rcourtright@iname.com> jubilantly posted:
>
> If you wish to continue to argue that one spec's better than
> another, or that one oil's better than another because it has a
> different set of specs listed, knock yourself out. But you've
> missed my point completely--twice--and it's time you carry on
> without me. Enough said.
>
> Rick
You point is the difference between "meets" vs. "exceeds." You want the
total performance specs sheet on the oil bottle label. Such a pedigree
is wasted on anybody short of a lubrication engineer. I have pointed out
a middle ground such as the MB and ACEA which seem to only to be at odds
with your prejudice. So be it. Be a grouch.
--
~~Philip
cantankerous | kan-TANG-kruss | adjective: difficult or irritating to
deal with.
Example: Philip was always cantankerous in the morning, given to snapping
and snarling until he'd had his first cup of coffee and a soothing hot
shower.
Rick Courtright <rcourtright@iname.com> jubilantly posted:
>
> If you wish to continue to argue that one spec's better than
> another, or that one oil's better than another because it has a
> different set of specs listed, knock yourself out. But you've
> missed my point completely--twice--and it's time you carry on
> without me. Enough said.
>
> Rick
You point is the difference between "meets" vs. "exceeds." You want the
total performance specs sheet on the oil bottle label. Such a pedigree
is wasted on anybody short of a lubrication engineer. I have pointed out
a middle ground such as the MB and ACEA which seem to only to be at odds
with your prejudice. So be it. Be a grouch.
--
~~Philip
cantankerous | kan-TANG-kruss | adjective: difficult or irritating to
deal with.
Example: Philip was always cantankerous in the morning, given to snapping
and snarling until he'd had his first cup of coffee and a soothing hot
shower.
08-03-2003 | 08:06 AM
#68
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Royal Purple or Mobil1 Synthetic
"Philip®" wrote:
>
> In news:3F2C816F.C6508151@kinez.net,
> Bill Putney <peva@kinez.net> jubilantly posted:
> > default wrote:
> >>
> >> FWIW, I've been using M1 5W-30 and Mobil 1 filters in a '99 Camry
> >> V6 since 5K miles. I have 64K miles now.
> >> I stopped using M1 filters after I noticed that each time I
> >> parked the car for 3 weeks or longer, on startup I would hear a
> >> disconcerting mechanical whap-whap-whap noise from the innards of
> >> the engine for about 5 seconds with very shaky idling for 20 sec
> >> . Didn't happen when I parked the car for 2 weeks, but it would
> >> at 3 weeks.
> >
> > Even a perfect filter/anti-drainback valve won't prevent at least
> > one
> > valve lifter (lash adjuster) from leaking down over time if the
> > engine stops with valve spring pressure on that lifter. It takes
> > a few cycles of the engine to pump a collapsed lifter, so a perfect
> > anti-drainback valve and completely full oil galleys won't prevent
> > that first few seconds of tapping. IOW - I don't know that I'd
> > blame the oil filter in that situation.
> >
> > Bill Putney
>
> Bill ... 1999 Camry V6 does not have hydraulic valve lifters so your
> explanation is invalid. Has EVERYBODY hammered you yet? LOL
LOL! No - only you and default (bastards! - just kidding).
Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
>
> In news:3F2C816F.C6508151@kinez.net,
> Bill Putney <peva@kinez.net> jubilantly posted:
> > default wrote:
> >>
> >> FWIW, I've been using M1 5W-30 and Mobil 1 filters in a '99 Camry
> >> V6 since 5K miles. I have 64K miles now.
> >> I stopped using M1 filters after I noticed that each time I
> >> parked the car for 3 weeks or longer, on startup I would hear a
> >> disconcerting mechanical whap-whap-whap noise from the innards of
> >> the engine for about 5 seconds with very shaky idling for 20 sec
> >> . Didn't happen when I parked the car for 2 weeks, but it would
> >> at 3 weeks.
> >
> > Even a perfect filter/anti-drainback valve won't prevent at least
> > one
> > valve lifter (lash adjuster) from leaking down over time if the
> > engine stops with valve spring pressure on that lifter. It takes
> > a few cycles of the engine to pump a collapsed lifter, so a perfect
> > anti-drainback valve and completely full oil galleys won't prevent
> > that first few seconds of tapping. IOW - I don't know that I'd
> > blame the oil filter in that situation.
> >
> > Bill Putney
>
> Bill ... 1999 Camry V6 does not have hydraulic valve lifters so your
> explanation is invalid. Has EVERYBODY hammered you yet? LOL
LOL! No - only you and default (bastards! - just kidding).
Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
08-03-2003 | 08:06 AM
#69
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Royal Purple or Mobil1 Synthetic
"Philip®" wrote:
>
> In news:3F2C816F.C6508151@kinez.net,
> Bill Putney <peva@kinez.net> jubilantly posted:
> > default wrote:
> >>
> >> FWIW, I've been using M1 5W-30 and Mobil 1 filters in a '99 Camry
> >> V6 since 5K miles. I have 64K miles now.
> >> I stopped using M1 filters after I noticed that each time I
> >> parked the car for 3 weeks or longer, on startup I would hear a
> >> disconcerting mechanical whap-whap-whap noise from the innards of
> >> the engine for about 5 seconds with very shaky idling for 20 sec
> >> . Didn't happen when I parked the car for 2 weeks, but it would
> >> at 3 weeks.
> >
> > Even a perfect filter/anti-drainback valve won't prevent at least
> > one
> > valve lifter (lash adjuster) from leaking down over time if the
> > engine stops with valve spring pressure on that lifter. It takes
> > a few cycles of the engine to pump a collapsed lifter, so a perfect
> > anti-drainback valve and completely full oil galleys won't prevent
> > that first few seconds of tapping. IOW - I don't know that I'd
> > blame the oil filter in that situation.
> >
> > Bill Putney
>
> Bill ... 1999 Camry V6 does not have hydraulic valve lifters so your
> explanation is invalid. Has EVERYBODY hammered you yet? LOL
LOL! No - only you and default (bastards! - just kidding).
Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
>
> In news:3F2C816F.C6508151@kinez.net,
> Bill Putney <peva@kinez.net> jubilantly posted:
> > default wrote:
> >>
> >> FWIW, I've been using M1 5W-30 and Mobil 1 filters in a '99 Camry
> >> V6 since 5K miles. I have 64K miles now.
> >> I stopped using M1 filters after I noticed that each time I
> >> parked the car for 3 weeks or longer, on startup I would hear a
> >> disconcerting mechanical whap-whap-whap noise from the innards of
> >> the engine for about 5 seconds with very shaky idling for 20 sec
> >> . Didn't happen when I parked the car for 2 weeks, but it would
> >> at 3 weeks.
> >
> > Even a perfect filter/anti-drainback valve won't prevent at least
> > one
> > valve lifter (lash adjuster) from leaking down over time if the
> > engine stops with valve spring pressure on that lifter. It takes
> > a few cycles of the engine to pump a collapsed lifter, so a perfect
> > anti-drainback valve and completely full oil galleys won't prevent
> > that first few seconds of tapping. IOW - I don't know that I'd
> > blame the oil filter in that situation.
> >
> > Bill Putney
>
> Bill ... 1999 Camry V6 does not have hydraulic valve lifters so your
> explanation is invalid. Has EVERYBODY hammered you yet? LOL
LOL! No - only you and default (bastards! - just kidding).
Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
08-03-2003 | 08:45 AM
#70
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Royal Purple or Mobil1 Synthetic
Carl 1 Lucky Texan wrote:
>
> The Purolator pureOne pl14459 I just had installed on my '03 OBW claims
> it has a silicone ADBV.
>
> don't know about the OEM or other Purolator lines.
>
> Carl
> 1 Lucky Texan
>
> Bill Putney wrote:
> > "Philip®" wrote:
> >
> >
> >>You may be happy to know that the new engines have an adaptor that
> >>repositions the oil filter with the threaded end straight up which makes
> >>an anti-drain valve unnecessary and changing the filter less messy.
> >
> >
> > I have a "dumb" question for you: Since a liquid will seek its own level
> > without special means to guarantee otherwise (such as an anti-drainback
> > valve), without an anti-drainback valve, what's to prevent the oil
> > galleys from emptying out when the vehicle sits overnight (assuming
> > there's enough clearance somewhere in the upper lube system to let air
> > in as gravity pulls the oil downward)? 8^)
> >
> > I will admit that at least the filter will not have to be filled at
> > startup if it's not tilted, but the galleys will still need to be
> > filled. An anti-drainback will prevent even that.
> >
> > Curiously, the Purolator (and I assume the OEM, which I believe *is*
> > made by Purolator) for the new engines do not have an anti-drainback
> > valve (one of the few filters of any brand or application that doesn't),
> > but all other brands (including Fram!!!!) for that application do have
> > anti-drainback valves. Saves the Purolator and Subaru $0.05 per filter
> > with only slightly increased dry run-at-startup time over having the ADB
> > valve. Probably no big deal over the life of the engine, but the purist
> > will want an ADB valve even for that application.
> >
> > Bill Putney
> > (to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
> > address with "x")
> >
> >
> > -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> > http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> > -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
>
> --
> to reply, change ( .not) to ( .net)
I just did a Google search for where this was discussed back in Jan and
February . You are correct - the one that has the ADV is the 14459.
The one without the ADV for certain Subaru applications is the 14460
(t'would be interesting to look in the apps. books and see what
models/engines that one is for and try to figure out why - Ed Hayes
posted that the 14460 is listed for his 2.5 Forester, and another
poster, one JerryO, said that the 14459 was for the Justy and the
H-6's). I actually went to my local Advance Auto Parts and looked at
several brands and models of those filters to determine that. I do not
recall if, say, the low end Purolator (the Premium Plus™) and the Pure
One™ were the same regarding the ADV for a given part number (last 5
digits), but I believe they were - would have to go look again to be
sure. But I do remember that the Fram for even the 14460 equivalent
*had* the ADV. Hmmm - does that mean that Frams are better than
Purolators? (just kidding).
Also, I'm not sure if the labeling on the boxes always agreed with
reality in my "study" in the Advance store. Purolator may label *all*
their boxes the same way even for the one (that I've seen so far)
exception. I do know that their web site says that a feature of the
Pure One™ is the silicone ADV, so technically that isn't 100% true with
the exception.
Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
>
> The Purolator pureOne pl14459 I just had installed on my '03 OBW claims
> it has a silicone ADBV.
>
> don't know about the OEM or other Purolator lines.
>
> Carl
> 1 Lucky Texan
>
> Bill Putney wrote:
> > "Philip®" wrote:
> >
> >
> >>You may be happy to know that the new engines have an adaptor that
> >>repositions the oil filter with the threaded end straight up which makes
> >>an anti-drain valve unnecessary and changing the filter less messy.
> >
> >
> > I have a "dumb" question for you: Since a liquid will seek its own level
> > without special means to guarantee otherwise (such as an anti-drainback
> > valve), without an anti-drainback valve, what's to prevent the oil
> > galleys from emptying out when the vehicle sits overnight (assuming
> > there's enough clearance somewhere in the upper lube system to let air
> > in as gravity pulls the oil downward)? 8^)
> >
> > I will admit that at least the filter will not have to be filled at
> > startup if it's not tilted, but the galleys will still need to be
> > filled. An anti-drainback will prevent even that.
> >
> > Curiously, the Purolator (and I assume the OEM, which I believe *is*
> > made by Purolator) for the new engines do not have an anti-drainback
> > valve (one of the few filters of any brand or application that doesn't),
> > but all other brands (including Fram!!!!) for that application do have
> > anti-drainback valves. Saves the Purolator and Subaru $0.05 per filter
> > with only slightly increased dry run-at-startup time over having the ADB
> > valve. Probably no big deal over the life of the engine, but the purist
> > will want an ADB valve even for that application.
> >
> > Bill Putney
> > (to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
> > address with "x")
> >
> >
> > -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> > http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> > -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
>
> --
> to reply, change ( .not) to ( .net)
I just did a Google search for where this was discussed back in Jan and
February . You are correct - the one that has the ADV is the 14459.
The one without the ADV for certain Subaru applications is the 14460
(t'would be interesting to look in the apps. books and see what
models/engines that one is for and try to figure out why - Ed Hayes
posted that the 14460 is listed for his 2.5 Forester, and another
poster, one JerryO, said that the 14459 was for the Justy and the
H-6's). I actually went to my local Advance Auto Parts and looked at
several brands and models of those filters to determine that. I do not
recall if, say, the low end Purolator (the Premium Plus™) and the Pure
One™ were the same regarding the ADV for a given part number (last 5
digits), but I believe they were - would have to go look again to be
sure. But I do remember that the Fram for even the 14460 equivalent
*had* the ADV. Hmmm - does that mean that Frams are better than
Purolators? (just kidding).
Also, I'm not sure if the labeling on the boxes always agreed with
reality in my "study" in the Advance store. Purolator may label *all*
their boxes the same way even for the one (that I've seen so far)
exception. I do know that their web site says that a feature of the
Pure One™ is the silicone ADV, so technically that isn't 100% true with
the exception.
Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
08-03-2003 | 08:45 AM
#71
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Royal Purple or Mobil1 Synthetic
Carl 1 Lucky Texan wrote:
>
> The Purolator pureOne pl14459 I just had installed on my '03 OBW claims
> it has a silicone ADBV.
>
> don't know about the OEM or other Purolator lines.
>
> Carl
> 1 Lucky Texan
>
> Bill Putney wrote:
> > "Philip®" wrote:
> >
> >
> >>You may be happy to know that the new engines have an adaptor that
> >>repositions the oil filter with the threaded end straight up which makes
> >>an anti-drain valve unnecessary and changing the filter less messy.
> >
> >
> > I have a "dumb" question for you: Since a liquid will seek its own level
> > without special means to guarantee otherwise (such as an anti-drainback
> > valve), without an anti-drainback valve, what's to prevent the oil
> > galleys from emptying out when the vehicle sits overnight (assuming
> > there's enough clearance somewhere in the upper lube system to let air
> > in as gravity pulls the oil downward)? 8^)
> >
> > I will admit that at least the filter will not have to be filled at
> > startup if it's not tilted, but the galleys will still need to be
> > filled. An anti-drainback will prevent even that.
> >
> > Curiously, the Purolator (and I assume the OEM, which I believe *is*
> > made by Purolator) for the new engines do not have an anti-drainback
> > valve (one of the few filters of any brand or application that doesn't),
> > but all other brands (including Fram!!!!) for that application do have
> > anti-drainback valves. Saves the Purolator and Subaru $0.05 per filter
> > with only slightly increased dry run-at-startup time over having the ADB
> > valve. Probably no big deal over the life of the engine, but the purist
> > will want an ADB valve even for that application.
> >
> > Bill Putney
> > (to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
> > address with "x")
> >
> >
> > -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> > http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> > -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
>
> --
> to reply, change ( .not) to ( .net)
I just did a Google search for where this was discussed back in Jan and
February . You are correct - the one that has the ADV is the 14459.
The one without the ADV for certain Subaru applications is the 14460
(t'would be interesting to look in the apps. books and see what
models/engines that one is for and try to figure out why - Ed Hayes
posted that the 14460 is listed for his 2.5 Forester, and another
poster, one JerryO, said that the 14459 was for the Justy and the
H-6's). I actually went to my local Advance Auto Parts and looked at
several brands and models of those filters to determine that. I do not
recall if, say, the low end Purolator (the Premium Plus™) and the Pure
One™ were the same regarding the ADV for a given part number (last 5
digits), but I believe they were - would have to go look again to be
sure. But I do remember that the Fram for even the 14460 equivalent
*had* the ADV. Hmmm - does that mean that Frams are better than
Purolators? (just kidding).
Also, I'm not sure if the labeling on the boxes always agreed with
reality in my "study" in the Advance store. Purolator may label *all*
their boxes the same way even for the one (that I've seen so far)
exception. I do know that their web site says that a feature of the
Pure One™ is the silicone ADV, so technically that isn't 100% true with
the exception.
Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
>
> The Purolator pureOne pl14459 I just had installed on my '03 OBW claims
> it has a silicone ADBV.
>
> don't know about the OEM or other Purolator lines.
>
> Carl
> 1 Lucky Texan
>
> Bill Putney wrote:
> > "Philip®" wrote:
> >
> >
> >>You may be happy to know that the new engines have an adaptor that
> >>repositions the oil filter with the threaded end straight up which makes
> >>an anti-drain valve unnecessary and changing the filter less messy.
> >
> >
> > I have a "dumb" question for you: Since a liquid will seek its own level
> > without special means to guarantee otherwise (such as an anti-drainback
> > valve), without an anti-drainback valve, what's to prevent the oil
> > galleys from emptying out when the vehicle sits overnight (assuming
> > there's enough clearance somewhere in the upper lube system to let air
> > in as gravity pulls the oil downward)? 8^)
> >
> > I will admit that at least the filter will not have to be filled at
> > startup if it's not tilted, but the galleys will still need to be
> > filled. An anti-drainback will prevent even that.
> >
> > Curiously, the Purolator (and I assume the OEM, which I believe *is*
> > made by Purolator) for the new engines do not have an anti-drainback
> > valve (one of the few filters of any brand or application that doesn't),
> > but all other brands (including Fram!!!!) for that application do have
> > anti-drainback valves. Saves the Purolator and Subaru $0.05 per filter
> > with only slightly increased dry run-at-startup time over having the ADB
> > valve. Probably no big deal over the life of the engine, but the purist
> > will want an ADB valve even for that application.
> >
> > Bill Putney
> > (to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
> > address with "x")
> >
> >
> > -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> > http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> > -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
>
> --
> to reply, change ( .not) to ( .net)
I just did a Google search for where this was discussed back in Jan and
February . You are correct - the one that has the ADV is the 14459.
The one without the ADV for certain Subaru applications is the 14460
(t'would be interesting to look in the apps. books and see what
models/engines that one is for and try to figure out why - Ed Hayes
posted that the 14460 is listed for his 2.5 Forester, and another
poster, one JerryO, said that the 14459 was for the Justy and the
H-6's). I actually went to my local Advance Auto Parts and looked at
several brands and models of those filters to determine that. I do not
recall if, say, the low end Purolator (the Premium Plus™) and the Pure
One™ were the same regarding the ADV for a given part number (last 5
digits), but I believe they were - would have to go look again to be
sure. But I do remember that the Fram for even the 14460 equivalent
*had* the ADV. Hmmm - does that mean that Frams are better than
Purolators? (just kidding).
Also, I'm not sure if the labeling on the boxes always agreed with
reality in my "study" in the Advance store. Purolator may label *all*
their boxes the same way even for the one (that I've seen so far)
exception. I do know that their web site says that a feature of the
Pure One™ is the silicone ADV, so technically that isn't 100% true with
the exception.
Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
08-03-2003 | 12:19 PM
#72
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Royal Purple or Mobil1 Synthetic
Bill Putney wrote:
> Also, I'm not sure if the labeling on the boxes always agreed with
> reality in my "study" in the Advance store. Purolator may label *all*
> their boxes the same way even for the one (that I've seen so far)
Bill,
You're probably right that all the boxes are so labeled. Was there maybe
an exception in tiny print? I haven't read a Purolator box for a while,
but I looked at a Fram box the other day in my own "study" similar to
yours and under the picture it said "Exact component locations may vary
according to manufacturing requirements." Saves printing a zillion box
formats?
Rick
> Also, I'm not sure if the labeling on the boxes always agreed with
> reality in my "study" in the Advance store. Purolator may label *all*
> their boxes the same way even for the one (that I've seen so far)
Bill,
You're probably right that all the boxes are so labeled. Was there maybe
an exception in tiny print? I haven't read a Purolator box for a while,
but I looked at a Fram box the other day in my own "study" similar to
yours and under the picture it said "Exact component locations may vary
according to manufacturing requirements." Saves printing a zillion box
formats?
Rick
08-03-2003 | 12:19 PM
#73
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Royal Purple or Mobil1 Synthetic
Bill Putney wrote:
> Also, I'm not sure if the labeling on the boxes always agreed with
> reality in my "study" in the Advance store. Purolator may label *all*
> their boxes the same way even for the one (that I've seen so far)
Bill,
You're probably right that all the boxes are so labeled. Was there maybe
an exception in tiny print? I haven't read a Purolator box for a while,
but I looked at a Fram box the other day in my own "study" similar to
yours and under the picture it said "Exact component locations may vary
according to manufacturing requirements." Saves printing a zillion box
formats?
Rick
> Also, I'm not sure if the labeling on the boxes always agreed with
> reality in my "study" in the Advance store. Purolator may label *all*
> their boxes the same way even for the one (that I've seen so far)
Bill,
You're probably right that all the boxes are so labeled. Was there maybe
an exception in tiny print? I haven't read a Purolator box for a while,
but I looked at a Fram box the other day in my own "study" similar to
yours and under the picture it said "Exact component locations may vary
according to manufacturing requirements." Saves printing a zillion box
formats?
Rick
08-03-2003 | 12:25 PM
#74
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Royal Purple or Mobil1 Synthetic
Rick Courtright wrote:
>
> Bill Putney wrote:
>
> > Also, I'm not sure if the labeling on the boxes always agreed with
> > reality in my "study" in the Advance store. Purolator may label *all*
> > their boxes the same way even for the one (that I've seen so far)
>
> Bill,
>
> You're probably right that all the boxes are so labeled. Was there maybe
> an exception in tiny print? I haven't read a Purolator box for a while,
> but I looked at a Fram box the other day in my own "study" similar to
> yours and under the picture it said "Exact component locations may vary
> according to manufacturing requirements." Saves printing a zillion box
> formats?
>
> Rick
I'll try to remember to take the time to check again next time in in the
store.
Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
>
> Bill Putney wrote:
>
> > Also, I'm not sure if the labeling on the boxes always agreed with
> > reality in my "study" in the Advance store. Purolator may label *all*
> > their boxes the same way even for the one (that I've seen so far)
>
> Bill,
>
> You're probably right that all the boxes are so labeled. Was there maybe
> an exception in tiny print? I haven't read a Purolator box for a while,
> but I looked at a Fram box the other day in my own "study" similar to
> yours and under the picture it said "Exact component locations may vary
> according to manufacturing requirements." Saves printing a zillion box
> formats?
>
> Rick
I'll try to remember to take the time to check again next time in in the
store.
Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
08-03-2003 | 12:25 PM
#75
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Royal Purple or Mobil1 Synthetic
Rick Courtright wrote:
>
> Bill Putney wrote:
>
> > Also, I'm not sure if the labeling on the boxes always agreed with
> > reality in my "study" in the Advance store. Purolator may label *all*
> > their boxes the same way even for the one (that I've seen so far)
>
> Bill,
>
> You're probably right that all the boxes are so labeled. Was there maybe
> an exception in tiny print? I haven't read a Purolator box for a while,
> but I looked at a Fram box the other day in my own "study" similar to
> yours and under the picture it said "Exact component locations may vary
> according to manufacturing requirements." Saves printing a zillion box
> formats?
>
> Rick
I'll try to remember to take the time to check again next time in in the
store.
Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
>
> Bill Putney wrote:
>
> > Also, I'm not sure if the labeling on the boxes always agreed with
> > reality in my "study" in the Advance store. Purolator may label *all*
> > their boxes the same way even for the one (that I've seen so far)
>
> Bill,
>
> You're probably right that all the boxes are so labeled. Was there maybe
> an exception in tiny print? I haven't read a Purolator box for a while,
> but I looked at a Fram box the other day in my own "study" similar to
> yours and under the picture it said "Exact component locations may vary
> according to manufacturing requirements." Saves printing a zillion box
> formats?
>
> Rick
I'll try to remember to take the time to check again next time in in the
store.
Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----