Re: Pep Boyz

[Scott Fisher <sefisher@cisco.com>]

John Cunningham wrote:
> 
> scott - think you had a renegade '0' slip in between the 7 and the 4, which
> actually supports the protection-over-mileage argument better anyway...

100,000 / 20   = 5000
100,000 / 20.3 = 4296
5000 - 4296    =  704

Unlike most of the oil-related rants one sees on the Net, I really did
not know in advance and was really not trying to arrange a set of
dubious facts to suit a predetermined position. :-)  The 704 is
unequestionably correct; the number I question is the .3, whether 1.5%
fuel economy is way too low or way too high to expect from going up or
down a grade in oil.  I can't defend where I read the 1 to 2% figure, so
if anyone has an SAE paper to cite, I'd love to know.

--Scott "up to 40% less spurious data than the leading brand" Fisher