Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ut-ngp.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!ittatc!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!hplabs!qantel!lll-lcc!lll-crg!mordor!ut-sally!ut-ngp!mberns From: mberns@ut-ngp.UUCP (Mark Bernstein) Newsgroups: net.auto,net.auto.tech Subject: Re: Oil filters - Summary Message-ID: <3056@ut-ngp.UUCP> Date: Wed, 12-Mar-86 09:31:25 EST Article-I.D.: ut-ngp.3056 Posted: Wed Mar 12 09:31:25 1986 Date-Received: Sat, 15-Mar-86 21:12:04 EST References: <29@ur-tut.UUCP> <3031@ut-ngp.UUCP> <337@hropus.UUCP> Organization: Univ of TX at Austin, Speech Lines: 34 Xref: watmath net.auto:9797 net.auto.tech:905 ** Xref: ut-sally net.auto:8469 net.auto.tech:925 > It's my impression that the bypass valve in an oil filter not only > serves to keep the oil flowing when the filter is clogged ... .... > Yes, I agree that tires etc. are more important, but > discussion of "minor" parts is networthy. ^^^^^^^^^^ ^^ ^^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^ ^^^^^^^^^ -- > Jerry Natowitz Since this is apparently in reaction to my posting on this subject, let me reply briefly: I did not in any way mean to suggest that discussion of "minor" parts (and I'm not sure I'd call an oil filter by that term, in any case) is not networthy. Only that perhaps a person can (should?) pick and choose which aspects of maintaining or equipping a car should be of MAJOR concern, worry, research, and agony. And that, in my view, one needn't worry very much about the potential for disaster for the engine if one uses a *regular brand-name* filter rather than the dealer's, and changes it regularly. In short, my response was intended to say "...not to worry", rather than to suggest that this wasn't worth discussing on the net. Sorry for any misunderstanding. -- Mark Bernstein, Univ of Texas at Austin, Speech Communication, Austin 78712 ARPA: mberns@ngp.UTEXAS.EDU UUCP: ihnp4!ut-ngp!mberns allegra!ut-ngp!mberns gatech!ut-ngp!mberns seismo!ut-sally!ut-ngp!mberns harvard!ut-sally!ut-ngp!mberns