Gmorg, I agree with your theory about the addative caused sludge maybe not showing up in UOA's. Why no discussion???
No discussion about sludge.
No discussion about cost per oil change.
No discussion about the foaming demonstrated in the experiment, but not seen when the oil was drained hot.
No discussion about the VOA or MSDS of the product. I keep hearing the term brightstock? and the hint (without proof) that it is the primary Lucas ingredient and why this might be bad.
No discussion of a new experiment that might better reflect real world conditions.
No effort to perform an Amsoil type wear test with a proper 20% ratio of Lucas and oil.
No discussion of the new Lucas synthetic addative and how it might be better (thinner, better ingredients?) for modern 5-30W engines than the original Lucas.
No nothing. Just ignore it and hope it goes away while we continue to push FP and LC.
I have an uncle who used Lucas at a 33% ratio in his last truck (Dodge Cummins) with Walmart 15-40 with over 200,000 miles. Why didn't the aeration do the engine in at that ratio/thickness??
Why won't the big wigs take this discussion on in a professional manner, whether it proves Lucas is a good or a poor product. I'd like to hear what people who do this for a living say about this - not just us hobbyists. But all the experts work for some other company, so knowledge goes nowhere. Aren't we tired of talking about the same old thing? There is plenty of new ground to be covered, but we keep talking about the same old stuff.
Von
