njboy

iTrader: (1)

I agree with most of this very practical information. Not sure I agree with the anti-Mobil 1 sentiment. Mobil 1 was first developed for its anti-coking properties with turbo and turbo jet engines in mind. Also I would think a cut out would be much louder than all TBE's at WOT.
The stock IX fuel pump is ok to 350hp. AMS did a pretty in depth study of fuel flow comparing the Evo VIII, IX, and Walbro pumps. If your not going over that keep the stock pump because the Walbro is noisy and some have complained of pump failure. However this could be caused by not installing the pre-filter correctly.

Michael @ FP

iTrader: (1)

7-8 years ago Mobil 1 was a great oil, but after Mobil 1 became GF-4 compliant it stopped being the oil it was and turned into the oil that it is today. That being an emissions based oil that removes additives that are harmful to catalytic converters but are good for turbos and other components.

There is still some Mobil 1 that isn't GF-4 compliant that is perfectly fine, but if it has GF-4 on the bottle it's not a good match for any journal bearing turbocharger or you 100HP per cylinder car.

-Michael

djdnav

iTrader: (7)

Saying that mobile one was developed with jet engines in mind is like saying "the Porsche 933 is made by the same company as the 996, therefore it must be the ultimate performance machine". Coming from a pilot, Mobil 254/387/jet oil II isn't even close to mobile 1, even though its sold by the same company.

www001510565

iTrader: (1)

Knowledge learned!! so useful.

njboy

iTrader: (1)

My point is that all the talk about oils is bull **** without scientific data really.
I've had my Mobil 1 oil sent out for analysis and they routinely say that I could go 4000 mile intervals with no problems.
I got 200k miles out of my WRX with no engine work using Castrol GTX unsynthetic and *gasp* Fram oil filters!
A lot of what you read on the Internet is guerrilla marketing like Bob Is the Oil guy. I don't trust that site.