"Bruce L. Bergman" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 05:25:26 -0800 (PST), Andrew VK3BFA
wrote:

On Jan 2, 10:32 pm, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 00:24:59 -0800, Bruce L. Bergman

wrote:
On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 15:39:45 +1100, "Grumpy"
wrote:

Gunner


Wow - you guys are discussing oils like the wine snobs do - about the
only subtlety you havent touched is if it should be Californian or
French....................g......

Andrew VK3BFA

As long as it was refined right, the appellation on the feed stock
are totally irrelevant.

Though I would take pains to not give Hugo Chavez a single dime if I
can help it. No CITGO or Petrobras.

The guy who insists that you have to be totally authentic and run
vintage correct non-detergent straight 30-weight oil in a vintage
engine... Isn't the guy that has to pay for the rebuild when it fails
after 100 hours runtime instead of the usual 2,000 to 4,000.

Modern oils are a whole lot more slippery than the old stuff, and
protect a lot better even when they are thinner.

Oh, and note that I said *bypass* filter element, they are a whole
different animal made of packed cellulose or cotton fiber in the can -
if you rig a full-flow paper cartridge element up as a bypass filter,
the engine won't have enough oil pressure left to lube the bearings as
it all goes around the bypass and back to the crankcase.

-- Bruce --

This pre-dates the engine in question, but I recall the instructions for
lubricating one of the pioneer cars -- from around 1901 - 1904, IIR, that
Ken Purdy published in one of his classic car books. You were supposed to
melt lamb fat and pour it in the engine, and then start it before the fat
congealed. Then you were to drain it when you stopped the car for the day,
into your melting pot. g

Oil changes were to be conducted every 50 miles.

--
Ed Huntress