My first car was a 53 Buick Special 2 door hardtop, a lovely green. It burned 17 gallons of Blue Eagle recycled 10-30 over 700 miles, headed West in 1966. The engine finally sort of exploded, blew out the valve cover gasket. Two cylinders with holes in the piston tops. I had to take the head and pan off and got two pistons and rods from a junk yard, put them in, old rings and all, used the old gaskets, too, and drove it from Ohio to Colorado, used 2 quarts of oil. Now, that was an oil burning problem, but I fixed it.
Had a couple of flat heat 6s that did not have oil filters. As they aged got about 100 miles per quart. Lots of blue smoke!
Yep, they donât build âem like they used to!
And just where are you getting this information ?
Well, 50% less than about zero is still about zero. Iâve never known of oil evaporation causing any noticeable drop in oil level.
3 Likes
Itâs about the chemicals and composition of the different oils, at least thatâs what the commericials say. However I think it might be true though
Methanol injected turbo engines in 1962. Engines burning oil. There truly is nothing new under the sun.
And, in 1902 the Baker Electric Co. was producing cars powered by rechargeable nickel-iron batteries!
@Scrapyard_John GM built some interesting cars back in the early 1960s. The Chevrolet Corvair came along in 1960 with its air cooled rear engine and independent rear suspension.In 1961, the Buick Skylark made its debut with an aluminium V-8 engine. A similar car was offered in the Oldsmobile lineup which used the same V-8 engine. This car was called the F-85. Pontiac introduced the Tempest in 1961 with a four cylinder engine which was made from a V-8 block. The Tempest also offered a V8 engine. The Tempest had the transaxle with independent rear suspension. In 1962, the Buick Skylark could be had with a V6 engine as well as the aluminum V8. By 1964, much of the innovative ideas were dropped. However, Pontiac did offer an overhead camshaft engine in the mid sixties with the camshaft driven by a rubber cogbelt. As mentioned earlier, there was the Oldsmobile Jetfire with its turbocharged V8. The innovative ideas didnât sell. By the mid1960s, the cars were back to dullsville. On the other hand, the Ford Mustang, introduced in 1964, was built on a Ford Maverick chassis with off the shelf parts was a sales success. Innovative engineering didnât sell cars back then.
Lots of Oil Life Monitors donât drop to 0% till after 10000 miles, and some of the synthetics claim 15000 miles or more is okay.
My neighborâs Prius passed 300K miles a while back, and I donât think he ever scheduled an oil change till the OLM said zero.
That little aluminum V8 went on to a long life with Rover.
Styling my man, styling. The reason the Mustang was a success was because of the styling. It looked sporty, looked fast, and was a poor manâs sports car instead of the higher priced Thunderbird. Bucket seats, shift on the floor, the whole package. But I believe it was on the Falcon platform not the Maverick. The Maverick didnât come around until maybe 67 or so. Stuff sells that looks good and impresses the girl friend. Something the car makers today could learn. It had nothing to do with MPG so why is everyone today concerned only with MPG? Good question. They arenât, they just think they are until something nice comes along.
2 Likes
@bing You are exactly correct. The Mustang was on the Ford Falcon chassis. I donât know what I was thinking when I said it was on a Maverick chassis, and I even owned a Maverick.
One interesting point about the early Mustangs: Consumer Reports noted the number of defects in each new car it tested. The Mustang had one of the fewest defects in all the new cars it tested that year.
Synthetic motor oils experience less âboil offâ than conventional motor oils . A good synthetic will lose only about four percent of its weight when run at 400 degrees for six hours, compared to a 30% loss for a conventional petroleum based oil . The lower evaporation rate means less oil consumption between changes.
Engine oil doesnât acheive 400 degrees. If it does, the engine wonât hold any oil, the seals will melt. So how does that affect your statement?
Actually, it does, but only for short periods of time. An oil film is getting deposited on the cylinder walls, the temperature during combustion is way above 400.
IMHO, oil evaporation rate (NOACK) is an important oil spec, but typically it is within 7-15%, not 4-30% as @JG46 states.
My own experience demonstrated substantial oil burn reduction in 2007 Subaru 2.5 liter engine when using oil with NOACK=9% versus NOACK=14.5%: it allowed me to go full 5K miles OCI with no oil added and volume drop under 1 quart versus 1-1.5 quarts added withing that 5K miles.
1 Like
Yes, I understand and agree but it was not in JGâs explanation. I was fishing a bit.
Sorry to spoil your fishing trip 
1 Like
Didnât Jeep, pre-AMC, use it in Jeepster models too? My memory may be faulty and too lazy this AM to google.
Not the V8, the rights to that were long sold. AMC-Jeep did use the cast iron 225 cid V6 which was based off the 215 aluminum V8 in CJ-5, 7âs and others. Sold to Jeep in the 60âs.
GM bought the engine back from Jeep for the 1975 Monza/Skyhawk/Sunfire/Starfire H-Special cars. That evolved into the 3.8 V6 successfully used in GM cars in the 80âs, 90âs and 2000âs.
Thatâs right. Memory was foggy.