At almost 6 USD per quart does that include the filter and a very attractive
young lady to watch me put the oil in my crankcase?$ 100usd oil change, wow.
All kidding aside; IF it must be changed at the same intervals as regular
oils due to the built-up of acids and other nasties that is very expensive.
The new oil technologies since the 50’s has got to give the current oils a
real leg up on the older lubricants and the longevity of an engine using the
same.
Mad Ludwig
ML & all;
The theory is when using a synthetic oil the change interval is
increased to something like 6000 miles.
MHO is; originally most engines of the '50’s were “set-up” rather
loose, thus the oil burning and the general lack of owner “break-in” period.
Engines that I have rebuilt are set-up a bit tighter to allow a
“wear factor” during break-in…thus the need to change the oil a the
arbitrary 1000 mile mark to flush any fine metal bits.
I set-up several XK engines with .003" clearance between piston and
cyl wall…a gentle break-in period followed…they never consumed ANY oil
between the 2500 mile changes.
While the oils may have changed over the last 40+ years, the '50’s
engines have not.
The “new” techno-whizbang econo box engines that are being produced
today are, in my opinion, crap…they run hotter than our '50’s cars…and
heat is what breaks down the oil. When I worked for VW/Subaru in the '80’s,
the engines were of such poor quality,(no cam bearings in the Subaru…just
a line-bored alum block) the mechanics refered to them as 50,000 mile
disposable cars!! I have seen more '80’s and '90’s cars belching oil smoke
going down the road while my 37 year old Volvo, my 30 year old Datsun, my 22
year old Merc Marquis and my 28 year old Chevy Laguna do not consume one
drop of oil between changes…they might leak a bit, but they don’t burn
it!! Note: all of the above cars are 100,000+ mile cars except the Datsun
with 305,000 and the Volvo at over 300,000 that I know of.
The idea of the properties of the oil are to lubricate the internals,
of course, but they also suspend any contaminates that may not be removed by
the oil filter—then drained from said engine at a regular (2500/3000 mile)
interval. If you want that crud floating around in your engine for 6000 or
more miles, go ahead…that’s what keeps mechanics like me in business…and
I appreciate you listening to the “hype” put out by Madison Ave.
The synthetics are more resistant to temp break down, but they still
carry the crud!
Like the ad says: Pay me now…or pay me later…it’s your choice!
I’ll stick with Castrol made from real dinosaurs and change it and
the filter every 2500 miles, thank you…
One man’s opinion and over 20 years as a heavy line mechanic and a
total of near 40 years mechanical experience!
Charles #677556----- Original Message -----
From: Fhc12001@aol.com
To: xk@jag-lovers.org
Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 1999 4:09 PM
Subject: [xk] Synthetic Oils
At almost 6 USD per quart does that include the filter and a very
attractive
young lady to watch me put the oil in my crankcase?$ 100usd oil change,
wow.
All kidding aside; IF it must be changed at the same intervals as
regular
oils due to the built-up of acids and other nasties that is very
expensive.
The new oil technologies since the 50’s has got to give the current oils a
real leg up on the older lubricants and the longevity of an engine using
the
same.
Mad Ludwig
In a message dated 10/12/1999 5:55:28 PM EST, BISHOP-13@att.net writes:
<< The “new” techno-whizbang econo box engines that are being produced
today are, in my opinion, crap… >>
Charles, I think you are being a little strong in your criticism here, or
maybe you make exceptions for Toyota. My wife’s 1991 Toyota Previa has
180,000 miles on it, does not burn oil, still gets 25 mpg, and starts every
day. Can’t do much better than that. What’s more, I have never even looked
at the engine – it is hidden somewhere in the bowels of the thing! Lift up
the driver’s seat (nearside, in this case), lift off a cover, and check oil.
That’s about all I have done for 8 years. I put 260,000 miles on a 1972
Volvo, but had to get real intimate with the workings of that engine, I’ll
tell you!
Once I get my Jaguar running, I expect to have a full time job keeping it
running; meanwhile my wife will continually drive one of those “crappy
econoboxes.”
Carl Hanson
1951 XK120 FHC
Bedford, MA
Ataboy Carl----- Original Message -----
From: CHansonjag@aol.com
To: xk@jag-lovers.org
Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 1999 7:31 AM
Subject: Re: [xk] Synthetic Oils
In a message dated 10/12/1999 5:55:28 PM EST, BISHOP-13@att.net writes:
<< The “new” techno-whizbang econo box engines that are being produced
today are, in my opinion, crap… >>Charles, I think you are being a little strong in your criticism here, or
maybe you make exceptions for Toyota. My wife’s 1991 Toyota Previa has
180,000 miles on it, does not burn oil, still gets 25 mpg, and starts
every
day. Can’t do much better than that. What’s more, I have never even
looked
at the engine – it is hidden somewhere in the bowels of the thing! Lift
up
the driver’s seat (nearside, in this case), lift off a cover, and check
oil.
That’s about all I have done for 8 years. I put 260,000 miles on a 1972
Volvo, but had to get real intimate with the workings of that engine, I’ll
tell you!
Once I get my Jaguar running, I expect to have a full time job keeping it
running; meanwhile my wife will continually drive one of those “crappy
econoboxes.”Carl Hanson
1951 XK120 FHC
Bedford, MA
Carl;
Yes; I will agree that I’m “being a little strong in (my)
criticism…” I will admit to being downright prejudiced in my
opinions…I base those opinions on several factors that I believe to be
true…The emissions produced by these “new” cars are higher than our “old
clunkers” (IMR-240) in that the “new” cars produce five toxic gasses to the
two that a pre-emission car produces (something Al Gore and the EPA don’t
want you to know!!)…the fact the I see a lot of these “econo-boxes” dead
along the side of the road…(usually computer related that stops the
works). Having worked for several dealerships, I have my seen my share of
what I would call early failures…worn out low miliage engines,electrical
problems, etc. usually due to, IMO, inferior construction/materials etc.
I will also admit that my experience is based on “new cars” of the
late '70’s to the mid-'80’s. Maybe the more modern ones have “worked out the
glitches” by now…but I still see a lot of ‘90’s cars burning oil, hear
them running on less that the total number of cylinders, rattling, chugging
and wheezing while going down the road…the acrid smells emitting from the
tailpipes
I will also admit that ANY car, properly maintained will give
years/miles of trouble free service…it is unfourtunate that the bulk of
todays’ driver/owners have a “do nothing till it dies” attitude about their
$20,000 “economy car”…I think you will have to admit, the folks on the
XK-List are a bit of a different breed…maybe because we own and drive
Jaguars and other classics, we have gotten in the habit of, at a minimum,
doing “walk arounds” “a’la pilots” to our everyday cars and catch minor
problems before they become big ones.
Based on those prejudices, I will never buy a new car again (last one I
bought was a '74 Toyota LandCruiser…did five valve jobs in the first four
years…fixed that problem…installed a '67 Cadillac 429cid engine in
it…no major problems since!! In fact, in 100,000 miles I only had to
replace the Accel pump diaphram on the Holley carb!)…I can take the price
of todays “econo-boxes” and put it into a mid-'50’s Chevy and have a vehicle
100 times better and safer than what is being produced by the “international
cartel” in Detroit!
Granted, not everybody has the ability or inclination to do that…
Opinions expressed above are not meant to anger, inflame or upset
anybody…just my opinions!!!
Charles #677556----- Original Message -----
From: CHansonjag@aol.com
To: xk@jag-lovers.org
Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 1999 7:31 AM
Subject: Re: [xk] Synthetic Oils
In a message dated 10/12/1999 5:55:28 PM EST, @Charles_E_Bishop writes:
<< The “new” techno-whizbang econo box engines that are being produced
today are, in my opinion, crap… >>Charles, I think you are being a little strong in your criticism here, or
maybe you make exceptions for Toyota. My wife’s 1991 Toyota Previa has
180,000 miles on it, does not burn oil, still gets 25 mpg, and starts
every
day. Can’t do much better than that. What’s more, I have never even
looked
at the engine – it is hidden somewhere in the bowels of the thing! Lift
up
the driver’s seat (nearside, in this case), lift off a cover, and check
oil.
That’s about all I have done for 8 years. I put 260,000 miles on a 1972
Volvo, but had to get real intimate with the workings of that engine, I’ll
tell you!
Once I get my Jaguar running, I expect to have a full time job keeping it
running; meanwhile my wife will continually drive one of those “crappy
econoboxes.”Carl Hanson
1951 XK120 FHC
Bedford, MA
" '74 Toyota LandCruiser…did five valve jobs in the first four
years…fixed that problem…installed a '67 Cadillac 429cid engine in
it…no major problems since!! In fact, in 100,000 miles I only had to
replace the Accel pump diaphram on the Holley carb!"
WOW! I wonder, would an engine like that fit in my XK140? Maybe the 289 out
of my '65 Mustang…
Joke - it’s only a joke 
I agree with all you say about new cars (with a little grace for Toyota - my
son has 200K on his 4WD Corolla wagon).
Jim Reminga-----Original Message-----
From: owner-xk@jag-lovers.org [mailto:owner-xk@jag-lovers.org]On Behalf
Of Charles E. Bishop
Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 1999 10:24 AM
To: xk@jag-lovers.org
Subject: Re: [xk] Synthetic Oils
Carl;
Yes; I will agree that I’m “being a little strong in (my)
criticism…” I will admit to being downright prejudiced in my
opinions…I base those opinions on several factors that I believe to be
true…The emissions produced by these “new” cars are higher than our “old
clunkers” (IMR-240) in that the “new” cars produce five toxic gasses to the
two that a pre-emission car produces (something Al Gore and the EPA don’t
want you to know!!)…the fact the I see a lot of these “econo-boxes” dead
along the side of the road…(usually computer related that stops the
works). Having worked for several dealerships, I have my seen my share of
what I would call early failures…worn out low miliage engines,electrical
problems, etc. usually due to, IMO, inferior construction/materials etc.
I will also admit that my experience is based on “new cars” of the
late '70’s to the mid-'80’s. Maybe the more modern ones have “worked out the
glitches” by now…but I still see a lot of ‘90’s cars burning oil, hear
them running on less that the total number of cylinders, rattling, chugging
and wheezing while going down the road…the acrid smells emitting from the
tailpipes
I will also admit that ANY car, properly maintained will give
years/miles of trouble free service…it is unfourtunate that the bulk of
todays’ driver/owners have a “do nothing till it dies” attitude about their
$20,000 “economy car”…I think you will have to admit, the folks on the
XK-List are a bit of a different breed…maybe because we own and drive
Jaguars and other classics, we have gotten in the habit of, at a minimum,
doing “walk arounds” “a’la pilots” to our everyday cars and catch minor
problems before they become big ones.
Based on those prejudices, I will never buy a new car again (last one I
bought was a '74 Toyota LandCruiser…did five valve jobs in the first four
years…fixed that problem…installed a '67 Cadillac 429cid engine in
it…no major problems since!! In fact, in 100,000 miles I only had to
replace the Accel pump diaphram on the Holley carb!)…I can take the price
of todays “econo-boxes” and put it into a mid-'50’s Chevy and have a vehicle
100 times better and safer than what is being produced by the “international
cartel” in Detroit!
Granted, not everybody has the ability or inclination to do that…
Opinions expressed above are not meant to anger, inflame or upset
anybody…just my opinions!!!
Charles #677556
----- Original Message -----
From: CHansonjag@aol.com
To: xk@jag-lovers.org
Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 1999 7:31 AM
Subject: Re: [xk] Synthetic Oils
In a message dated 10/12/1999 5:55:28 PM EST, BISHOP-13@att.net writes:
<< The “new” techno-whizbang econo box engines that are being produced
today are, in my opinion, crap… >>Charles, I think you are being a little strong in your criticism here, or
maybe you make exceptions for Toyota. My wife’s 1991 Toyota Previa has
180,000 miles on it, does not burn oil, still gets 25 mpg, and starts
every
day. Can’t do much better than that. What’s more, I have never even
looked
at the engine – it is hidden somewhere in the bowels of the thing! Lift
up
the driver’s seat (nearside, in this case), lift off a cover, and check
oil.
That’s about all I have done for 8 years. I put 260,000 miles on a 1972
Volvo, but had to get real intimate with the workings of that engine, I’ll
tell you!
Once I get my Jaguar running, I expect to have a full time job keeping it
running; meanwhile my wife will continually drive one of those “crappy
econoboxes.”Carl Hanson
1951 XK120 FHC
Bedford, MA
Charles
Do the “newer” engines really develop three new noxious types of emission
products or has the instrumentation in use today been improved to the extent
that we can detect and quantify more than the original two culprits.
Just a curious blacksmith asking…
Regards
Klaus
Jim
…just in case you were to carry out the dastardly deed, what would you
call the end product…a Cadduar…or Jaggilac? Nahh!
Regards
Klaus
Klaus;
According to the IMR-240 seminar I attended about five years ago,
the new cars produce the five gasses…IMR-240 is a style/type/brand of
emissions tester that was being “pushed” to be used by the State of Texas
(and possibly others…Calif I know). IMR-240 is the pet of the EPA…or was
about five years ago.
The IMR-240 tests for HC, CO and NOX…the “promoters” of the
machine admit the machine cannot test for the Hydrogen Sulfide and Ozone
being produced in the cars with cat converters. Apparently they have/had
some way to have determine these gasses are being produced…of course we
all have smelled the “rotten egg” smell coming from some car…that’s the
Hydrogen Sulfide…highly toxic!! The instructor of the seminar allowed,
after I questioned him, that “pre-emission control cars” do not produce the
last three of the five gasses. Additional note…NOX cannot be adjusted,
only tested…if your car fails, you get to go buy a new car!!
It is also interesting to note that in tests they ran on the IMR-240
machine showed the “gas-guzzling,pollution-belching” cars of the '50’s and
early '60’s had lower CO and HC emissions than many newer cars…I would
assume the “older cars” were in excellent condition and tune, the “new” ones
were furnished by local dealers off the showroom floors.
For those of you who receive Hemmings, go to the back of the book in
the “letters” section…there are always letters about the various “laws”
that are trying to be pushed thru the US and states congress…these
usually are aimed at the “junker bills”…Al Gore wants a mandatory law
requiring ALL cars over ten years to be sent to the crusher…the idea of a
“classic” car is something like the rare Dusenburgs that are in
musumes…cars like the XK 120 OTS would not qualify for exemption because
so many were originally built!!! Same with the '55-56-57 Chevys and other
classics and antiques!!!
I guess that’s another reason I’m so opinionated…
Charles #677556----- Original Message -----
From: Cnie104131@cs.com
To: xk@jag-lovers.org
Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 1999 11:03 AM
Subject: Re: [xk] Synthetic Oils
Charles
Do the “newer” engines really develop three new noxious types of emission
products or has the instrumentation in use today been improved to the
extent
that we can detect and quantify more than the original two culprits.
Just a curious blacksmith asking…
Regards
Klaus
Klaus;
Was going to call it a Toyillac…Cadota just didn’t ring…
I took all the “Toyota” emblems off my 4wd and replaced them with
“Cadillac” emblems instead…even have the “V and Crest” on the nose of the
hood.
The sides read “Cadillac Landcruiser” and on the rear it says
“Cadillac 4WD”
When I did this conversion in 1979, it turned a lot of heads…the
“beast” will pull the front wheels off the pavement if I “tromp” the accel
pedal…
I used the Caddy Turbo 400 trans and bolted it to the Toyota
transfer case…it’s still a four wheel drive!!
Charles #677556----- Original Message -----
From: Cnie104131@cs.com
To: xk@jag-lovers.org
Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 1999 11:08 AM
Subject: Re: [xk] Synthetic Oils
Jim
…just in case you were to carry out the dastardly deed, what would you
call the end product…a Cadduar…or Jaggilac? Nahh!
Regards
Klaus
Carl Hanson writes:
…My wife’s 1991 Toyota Previa has 180,000 miles on it, does not burn oil,
Lift up the driver’s seat (nearside, in this case), lift off a cover, and check
oil…
Why do you have to check the oil. It has a reservoir and a pump to refill the
oil itself, if needed, and at least our Previa never has needed any.
BTW, please inform me, why isn�t the original oil (Mobil sae 30) recommended by
Jaguar good enugh for the car. I use that in my 150 and believe it or not, it
doesn�t need any refill between two oil changes (about 2000 miles). So it
doesn�t even leak oil!
Tomi
XK 150 FHC-60
MK VII -52
Dunno what you’d call the car, but I’d call the guy who did it a cad …
John
Cnie104131@cs.com wrote:>
Jim
…just in case you were to carry out the dastardly deed, what would you
call the end product…a Cadduar…or Jaggilac? Nahh!
Regards
Klaus
–
This mail is a natural product. The slight variations in spelling and
grammar enhance its individual character and beauty and in no way are to
be considered flaws or defects.
John;
That’s Cad with a capital “C”…
Besides Jim was “what if-ing”…I did the Toyota/Cadillac
conversion…I know better than to do something like that to an XK!!
Isn’t that why they call them “lumps?”
Charles #677556----- Original Message -----
From: John Littler john.littler@ibm.net
To: xk@jag-lovers.org
Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 1999 8:32 PM
Subject: Re: [xk] Synthetic Oils
Dunno what you’d call the car, but I’d call the guy who did it a cad …
John
Cnie104131@cs.com wrote:
Jim
…just in case you were to carry out the dastardly deed, what would
you
call the end product…a Cadduar…or Jaggilac? Nahh!
Regards
Klaus–
This mail is a natural product. The slight variations in spelling and
grammar enhance its individual character and beauty and in no way are to
be considered flaws or defects.
Charles
Hat’s off, Sire…no mean task you completed.
Regards
Klaus
Klaus;
Thank you…it’s always nice to be appreciated…
Charles #677556----- Original Message -----
From: Cnie104131@cs.com
To: xk@jag-lovers.org
Sent: Thursday, October 14, 1999 12:03 AM
Subject: Re: [xk] Synthetic Oils
Charles
Hat’s off, Sire…no mean task you completed.
Regards
Klaus