|
golly, I hope i'm not the opinionated one, as I expressed no opinion in my post, just identified discrepancies in the referenced 'publication'. truly, if that were the best response one could bring to my arguments then can I consider my cause as won? my read of the original post was to discuss the merits of the article, not just the implications.
otherwise, by design there is less non-bearing metal-on-metal action in an overhead cam engine than in a conventional pushrod engine, with the exception of the chains (considered a wear item). and the chain failure we see in the m96 is associated with (a) stretching, (b) plastic deterioration, and (c) the gosh-darned ims, none of which is related to the performance characteristics tested in the 'study'. not fascinating, just factual.
I love a good discussion! but make it a discussion based on the facts (or lack thereof) presented and not do-away with troublesome arguments with a blanket label of 'opinion' or 'faith' and consider it a valid rebuttal. really, i am of the opinion that it takes a lot of faith to assume that the testing as presented has any application in a real-life engine environment. however, if all that is expected is a bunch of people to line up and say that they are going to use 10w30 from now on because they read it on the internet, then i'll stow my arguments (opinions?).
|