GF-4 Based Oil vs. GF-3 - What is the difference?

Page 2 of 3  
Mark STILL misuses the word "wrong." Huw had no *intention* to deceive. Such is the difference between "wrong" and "incorrect." Oh well. Be an
ignoramus by choice, Mark.
Mark A wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Please elaborate:
http://groups-beta.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&num &q=+you+are+wrong+group%3Aalt.autos.toyota.*+author%3Aphilip&safe=off&qt_s=Search
wrote in message news:3EPfe.160

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
What is the question? Looks like you located a lot of threads where my screen name, "wrong" and "you" surface. Look at the individual authors. Learn how to perform a keyword search.
Default wrote:

http://groups-beta.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&num &q=+you+are+wrong+group%3Aalt.autos.toyota.*+author%3Aphilip&safe=off&qt_s=Search
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
ONE author. Results 1 - 10 of 485 for you are wrong group:alt.autos.toyota.* author:philip.
wrote in message

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Now your next project is to judge the context of each post (means you'll have to read much of each thread) to see if "wrong" was used to identify intentional deception or if there was an unintentional error in fact. :^)
Default wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Phillip, since you have a computer, you should be able to search the web for a free dictionary and find the definition of "wrong." There are multiple meanings of the word and I used one of the accepted meanings:
"the state, position, or fact of being or doing wrong: as a : the state of being mistaken or incorrect"
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=wrong
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mark A wrote:

I make the distinction in order to limit condemnation to the statement, rather than condemning the man for his statement ... which was not intended to mislead. The word "wrong" is commonly abused in this way in American English. I also know Huw to be MUCH better versed on matters lubrication oils than what I have read thusfar from you. Do make every effort to catch up to Huw. :^)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I did not condemn the man for his statement. But pretty soon I am going to condemn you for ignoring the accepted definition of "wrong" (at least one of the accepted definitions). Given that there are multiple accepted definitions, and given the context of this forum, it was obvious which definition I was using. There is not much relationship between morality and ones knowledge of oil (although there are few slimy people who post here).
I may not be an expert on oil like you city slickers, but I am pretty good in English.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
>

Oh please!
John
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Then the lower 'w' rating to qualify must be 10w not 5w. This is not an issue in Europe because consumers have enough sense to realise that lighter viscosity oils are more fuel efficient without a starburst to tell them. After all, economy is a rather higher priority this side of the pond.
Huw
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Huw wrote:

Thanks Huw. :^)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
>

Huw, you do not have your facts straight on this.
The energy conserving label is a function of meeting certain tests and is not automatic for a given viscosity range. You will find, for example, that most of the "High Mileage Engine" oils such as Valvoline Maxlife are generally not labelled Energy Conserving even in the 5W-30 weight.
As far as the Europeans being so much more environmentally aware, can you explain why all of the 12 cylinder automobiles made in the world today (which get horrible fuel economy) come from English, German and Italian factories?
John
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
John Horner wrote:

You turn a blind eye to Ford and Chrysler V10s in trucks (looser emission levels than cars) and Vipers? Fact is, the Europeans and Asians have been more fuel consumption conscious than We, predating WWII. You might also look at who has made small high speed diesels workable and increasingly clean. Wasn't GM !!
--

- Philip






Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Philip wrote:

Actually I think GM has built some nice Diesels - in Europe. They are nice enough that Honda is swapping V-6s in the US for Diesels in Europe.
And I am not sure what you mean by "looser" emissions standards for trucks. There are all sors of categories for trucks, but they all have to meet standards. The light-duty truck standards are pretty much the same as for cars. The heavy light-duty truck standards are somewhat looser, but at least the Ford V-10 qualify for LEV certification (see https://www.fleet.ford.com/UserData/emissions/2005_0030hdv02.pdf ).
Other References:
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/cert/veh-cert/b00001a.pdf http://www.epa.gov/otaq/cert/veh-cert/b00001b.pdf http://www.gm.com/automotive/gmpowertrain/tech/pdf/advanced_diesel_technology.pdf http://www.autonews.com/files/05WorldCongress/cfreese.ppt
Ed
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
C. E. White wrote:

The context was historic ... not currently.

snip
Trucks and SUVs have been NOT been held to emission standards as stringent as passenger cars.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
----- Original Message -----
Newsgroups: alt.autos.gm,alt.autos.toyota,alt.autos.toyota.camry Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 11:10 AM Subject: Re: GF-4 Based Oil vs. GF-3 - What is the difference?

It seems to me that you like to cut out any supporting information or text that might contradict your declarations. It is certainly not as simple as you like to make it seem. California has different rules than the Feds and different manufacturers have different levels of achievement. The Ford V-10 has very good emisson numbers. In fact i think it can be argued that it is more enviromentally friendly than certain Toyota engines. The EPA Green Vehicle rating for many Toyota is not all that outstanding. Certain 4 cylinder and 6 Camrys are particualrly bad, although some others are very good. See http://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/E-TOYOTA-Camry-05.htm . Compare this to a midpsized US SUV, the Saturn Vue - http://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/E-SATURN-Vue-05.htm . Of course some small SUVs are bad, like http://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/E-TOYOTA-RAV4-05.htm .
http://www.epa.gov/oms/cert/veh-cert/b00001h.pdf http://www.epa.gov/oms/cert/veh-cert/b00001a.pdf http://www.epa.gov/oms/cert/veh-cert/b00001d.pdf
You might as well add that cars of various years have been held to different standards as well.
As for Diesels, I would suggest the Europeans are probably the leaders in small enviromentally friedly diesels.
Ed
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
C. E. White wrote:

SNIP
The statement I was responding to (if you care to scroll back) was a comment about how Europe was the only portion of the world still building multi-multi cylindered engines for passenger cars in spite of Europe building most of it's cars with an sharper eye on fuel consumption than American manufacturers. To this I brought up a couple of V10s "We" make currently and their applications. I stand by the emission standards being more lax for truck versions than cars. That there are some exceptions does not disprove the rule.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

For export mainly. The vast majority of European cars are less than 2litre with fuel efficient diesel engines taking around 50% of the market in several regions. If you travel in Europe you will know that the price of fuel forces economy to be a high priority notwithstanding the sales of large SUV's. In fact I own several of these and my latest Range Rover travels 30 miles on each Imperial gallon of diesel which is better than I used to get from a Ford Fiesta 1300 thirty years ago and as good as a Golf GTi in the mid Eighties. Most petrol family cars now average 40mpgUK with diesels, even large ones by our standards, such as Ford Mondeo 2litre or GM/Vauxhall Vectra with the new Fiat built diesels, averaging more than 50mpgUK. Cash millionaires may run V12 engined cars if they choose but they are very few in number.
Huw
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Huw wrote:

Please forgive John Horner ... he's been sittin' in a corner for a long time.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Typical of Europe. The lucky few royalty and hyper-wealthy live large while the masses struggle under opressive taxes and believe that in so doing they are being morally superior.
Yes Europe has far more diesel vehicles on the road ... because European vehicle emissions standards continue to be looser than US standards as they have been since the 1960s when emissions standards first came on the scene.
John
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.