Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83 based; site houxa.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!hao!hplabs!tektronix!uw-beaver!cornell!vax135!houxm!houxa!tca
From: tca@houxa.UUCP (T.ADDISON)
Newsgroups: net.auto
Subject: Factory non-recommendation of synthetic oil
Message-ID: <549@houxa.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 11-Oct-84 11:12:28 EDT
Article-I.D.: houxa.549
Posted: Thu Oct 11 11:12:28 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 13-Oct-84 03:33:38 EDT
Organization: Bell Communications Research, Inc.
Lines: 24

[Oil for the bug to slip on]


Car manufacturers downplay synthetics for two very simple reasons--

	1)  Due to the extended drain intervals (~25K miles), profitable
	    shop time for dealers is lost.  They would much rather have
	    cars in for 3000 mile oil changes, at which time they may
	    find other "necessary" work to make money on.  Cars that come
	    in once a year do not generate much revenue.  My AMSOIL sponsor
	    ran into this fact at every garage he tried to sell.  Mechanics
	    privately acknowledge (and use) the stuff, but wouldn't dream
	    of selling it.  I think the factories take the stand they do
	    to support the dealer's shop revenue flow.

	2)  Cars would last too long.  (only 1/2 :-) ).  I'm convinced
	    Chrysler nearly went under because it built its cars too
	    well during the mid- to late 60's.  (My '66 Charger has 162K
	    and still going strong.)  Buyers are often loyal to
	    one brand, and if their cars don't wear out, they don't buy new
	    ones.  

Tom Addison
{allegra, ihnp4, harpo}!houxa!tca