|
Re: Determining oil change intervals via analysis
In article <gIQAg.53$z12.35@trndny02>,
Brian Nystrom <brian.nystrom@verizon.net> wrote: > >> Well, but parts can easily fail due to infrequent oil changes. > > > > > > Which parts and how do they fail? > > This should be interesting. I can't wait to see his reply... ;-) http://www.tegger.com/hondafaq/sludg...ng_sludge.html |
Re: Determining oil change intervals via analysis
In article <WKPAg.218$Db4.20494@news1.epix.net>,
Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote: > > "Cheap insurance"? ABSOLUTELY. There is no cheaper insurance for an > > engine than oil changes. > > But it is wasted money, no matter how cheap. Not if it takes the most expensive part of your car easily from 100K miles to 200K miles. Of course, since most people switch out cars every 36K miles anymore, most people don't think that's important. |
Re: Determining oil change intervals via analysis
In article <WKPAg.218$Db4.20494@news1.epix.net>,
Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote: > > "Cheap insurance"? ABSOLUTELY. There is no cheaper insurance for an > > engine than oil changes. > > But it is wasted money, no matter how cheap. Not if it takes the most expensive part of your car easily from 100K miles to 200K miles. Of course, since most people switch out cars every 36K miles anymore, most people don't think that's important. |
Re: Determining oil change intervals via analysis
In article <WKPAg.218$Db4.20494@news1.epix.net>,
Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote: > > "Cheap insurance"? ABSOLUTELY. There is no cheaper insurance for an > > engine than oil changes. > > But it is wasted money, no matter how cheap. Not if it takes the most expensive part of your car easily from 100K miles to 200K miles. Of course, since most people switch out cars every 36K miles anymore, most people don't think that's important. |
Re: Determining oil change intervals via analysis
In article <WKPAg.218$Db4.20494@news1.epix.net>,
Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote: > > Figure out how much you want to pay for that insurance, and set your > > intervals accordingly. > > I prefer to not pay for things I don't need. So you have no homeowner's insurance? No car insurance? After all, your house will never burn down and you don't ever plan on getting into an accident, therefore you don't need those things. |
Re: Determining oil change intervals via analysis
In article <WKPAg.218$Db4.20494@news1.epix.net>,
Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote: > > Figure out how much you want to pay for that insurance, and set your > > intervals accordingly. > > I prefer to not pay for things I don't need. So you have no homeowner's insurance? No car insurance? After all, your house will never burn down and you don't ever plan on getting into an accident, therefore you don't need those things. |
Re: Determining oil change intervals via analysis
In article <WKPAg.218$Db4.20494@news1.epix.net>,
Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote: > > Figure out how much you want to pay for that insurance, and set your > > intervals accordingly. > > I prefer to not pay for things I don't need. So you have no homeowner's insurance? No car insurance? After all, your house will never burn down and you don't ever plan on getting into an accident, therefore you don't need those things. |
Re: Determining oil change intervals via analysis
In article <WKPAg.218$Db4.20494@news1.epix.net>,
Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote: > I keep my cars a long, long time at 5K and 10K intervals. My minivan > had 178,000 when it was totaled and it was doing fine on 10K changes. > The reality is that you have absolutely no evidence that more frequent > changes extend engine life, because no such evidence exists, > unfortunately. I've looked for years. http://www.tegger.com/hondafaq/sludg...ng_sludge.html |
Re: Determining oil change intervals via analysis
In article <WKPAg.218$Db4.20494@news1.epix.net>,
Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote: > I keep my cars a long, long time at 5K and 10K intervals. My minivan > had 178,000 when it was totaled and it was doing fine on 10K changes. > The reality is that you have absolutely no evidence that more frequent > changes extend engine life, because no such evidence exists, > unfortunately. I've looked for years. http://www.tegger.com/hondafaq/sludg...ng_sludge.html |
Re: Determining oil change intervals via analysis
In article <WKPAg.218$Db4.20494@news1.epix.net>,
Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote: > I keep my cars a long, long time at 5K and 10K intervals. My minivan > had 178,000 when it was totaled and it was doing fine on 10K changes. > The reality is that you have absolutely no evidence that more frequent > changes extend engine life, because no such evidence exists, > unfortunately. I've looked for years. http://www.tegger.com/hondafaq/sludg...ng_sludge.html |
Re: Determining oil change intervals via analysis
Matt Whiting wrote:
> jim beam wrote: >> Matt Whiting wrote: >> >>> Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote: >>> >>>> In article <J3HAg.15775$Ju.2709@trndny09>, >>>> Brian Nystrom <brian.nystrom@verizon.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> I was referring more to the people who are absolutely convinced >>>>> that they must change their oil more frequently than the >>>>> recommended 7500 mile intervals. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> "must"? No. >>>> >>>> "Cheap insurance"? ABSOLUTELY. There is no cheaper insurance for >>>> an engine than oil changes. >>> >>> >>> But it is wasted money, no matter how cheap. And with synthetic oil >>> it isn't all that cheap. >>> >>> >>>> Figure out how much you want to pay for that insurance, and set your >>>> intervals accordingly. >>> >>> >>> I prefer to not pay for things I don't need. I change at 5K miles >>> now because it is easy to remember. I change at 10K when the >>> warranty runs out. >>> >>> >>>> If you want to keep the car a long, long time, then 3K intervals (or >>>> even 5K if you bought the car new and are using good oil) are >>>> extremely cheap yet very effective insurance. >>> >>> >>> I keep my cars a long, long time at 5K and 10K intervals. My minivan >>> had 178,000 when it was totaled and it was doing fine on 10K changes. >>> The reality is that you have absolutely no evidence that more >>> frequent changes extend engine life, because no such evidence exists, >>> unfortunately. I've looked for years. >>> >>> We call make decisions that make us comfortable, but none are based >>> on data. >> >> >> what is this? a stupidity contest? data abounds all over the place. >> and have you ever examined a stripped motor under a microscope? i >> have. wear is directly proportional to contaminant content of the >> lubricant. seals don't exactly thrive when oil chemistry gets too >> hostile either. > > Yes, and you are currently winning. > > >> bottom line: if you're trying to in some way assert that modern lubes >> are better than the old stuff of our forefathers, you'd be absolutely >> correct. but saying that contamination levels make no difference to >> wear rates and therefore engine life is dead wrong. > > OK, show me the data. Show me the graphs of contaminant levels vs. > engine life in miles. Show me that oil changes at 3,000 miles vs. > 10,000 make a difference. Put up or shut up. > > Matt no matt - you're the one making the assertion that it makes no difference. i know it does because i've done fleet testing. i think where you're getting confused is reading glib little articles on the net that cleverly avoid the distinction between phrases like: "wear is reduced" and "wear is within acceptable limits". the difference is huge. sure, wear at extended intervals /can/ be within acceptable limits, but that doesn't mean that sorter intervals don't reduce wear rates to a lower level. |
Re: Determining oil change intervals via analysis
Matt Whiting wrote:
> jim beam wrote: >> Matt Whiting wrote: >> >>> Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote: >>> >>>> In article <J3HAg.15775$Ju.2709@trndny09>, >>>> Brian Nystrom <brian.nystrom@verizon.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> I was referring more to the people who are absolutely convinced >>>>> that they must change their oil more frequently than the >>>>> recommended 7500 mile intervals. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> "must"? No. >>>> >>>> "Cheap insurance"? ABSOLUTELY. There is no cheaper insurance for >>>> an engine than oil changes. >>> >>> >>> But it is wasted money, no matter how cheap. And with synthetic oil >>> it isn't all that cheap. >>> >>> >>>> Figure out how much you want to pay for that insurance, and set your >>>> intervals accordingly. >>> >>> >>> I prefer to not pay for things I don't need. I change at 5K miles >>> now because it is easy to remember. I change at 10K when the >>> warranty runs out. >>> >>> >>>> If you want to keep the car a long, long time, then 3K intervals (or >>>> even 5K if you bought the car new and are using good oil) are >>>> extremely cheap yet very effective insurance. >>> >>> >>> I keep my cars a long, long time at 5K and 10K intervals. My minivan >>> had 178,000 when it was totaled and it was doing fine on 10K changes. >>> The reality is that you have absolutely no evidence that more >>> frequent changes extend engine life, because no such evidence exists, >>> unfortunately. I've looked for years. >>> >>> We call make decisions that make us comfortable, but none are based >>> on data. >> >> >> what is this? a stupidity contest? data abounds all over the place. >> and have you ever examined a stripped motor under a microscope? i >> have. wear is directly proportional to contaminant content of the >> lubricant. seals don't exactly thrive when oil chemistry gets too >> hostile either. > > Yes, and you are currently winning. > > >> bottom line: if you're trying to in some way assert that modern lubes >> are better than the old stuff of our forefathers, you'd be absolutely >> correct. but saying that contamination levels make no difference to >> wear rates and therefore engine life is dead wrong. > > OK, show me the data. Show me the graphs of contaminant levels vs. > engine life in miles. Show me that oil changes at 3,000 miles vs. > 10,000 make a difference. Put up or shut up. > > Matt no matt - you're the one making the assertion that it makes no difference. i know it does because i've done fleet testing. i think where you're getting confused is reading glib little articles on the net that cleverly avoid the distinction between phrases like: "wear is reduced" and "wear is within acceptable limits". the difference is huge. sure, wear at extended intervals /can/ be within acceptable limits, but that doesn't mean that sorter intervals don't reduce wear rates to a lower level. |
Re: Determining oil change intervals via analysis
Matt Whiting wrote:
> jim beam wrote: >> Matt Whiting wrote: >> >>> Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote: >>> >>>> In article <J3HAg.15775$Ju.2709@trndny09>, >>>> Brian Nystrom <brian.nystrom@verizon.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> I was referring more to the people who are absolutely convinced >>>>> that they must change their oil more frequently than the >>>>> recommended 7500 mile intervals. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> "must"? No. >>>> >>>> "Cheap insurance"? ABSOLUTELY. There is no cheaper insurance for >>>> an engine than oil changes. >>> >>> >>> But it is wasted money, no matter how cheap. And with synthetic oil >>> it isn't all that cheap. >>> >>> >>>> Figure out how much you want to pay for that insurance, and set your >>>> intervals accordingly. >>> >>> >>> I prefer to not pay for things I don't need. I change at 5K miles >>> now because it is easy to remember. I change at 10K when the >>> warranty runs out. >>> >>> >>>> If you want to keep the car a long, long time, then 3K intervals (or >>>> even 5K if you bought the car new and are using good oil) are >>>> extremely cheap yet very effective insurance. >>> >>> >>> I keep my cars a long, long time at 5K and 10K intervals. My minivan >>> had 178,000 when it was totaled and it was doing fine on 10K changes. >>> The reality is that you have absolutely no evidence that more >>> frequent changes extend engine life, because no such evidence exists, >>> unfortunately. I've looked for years. >>> >>> We call make decisions that make us comfortable, but none are based >>> on data. >> >> >> what is this? a stupidity contest? data abounds all over the place. >> and have you ever examined a stripped motor under a microscope? i >> have. wear is directly proportional to contaminant content of the >> lubricant. seals don't exactly thrive when oil chemistry gets too >> hostile either. > > Yes, and you are currently winning. > > >> bottom line: if you're trying to in some way assert that modern lubes >> are better than the old stuff of our forefathers, you'd be absolutely >> correct. but saying that contamination levels make no difference to >> wear rates and therefore engine life is dead wrong. > > OK, show me the data. Show me the graphs of contaminant levels vs. > engine life in miles. Show me that oil changes at 3,000 miles vs. > 10,000 make a difference. Put up or shut up. > > Matt no matt - you're the one making the assertion that it makes no difference. i know it does because i've done fleet testing. i think where you're getting confused is reading glib little articles on the net that cleverly avoid the distinction between phrases like: "wear is reduced" and "wear is within acceptable limits". the difference is huge. sure, wear at extended intervals /can/ be within acceptable limits, but that doesn't mean that sorter intervals don't reduce wear rates to a lower level. |
Re: Determining oil change intervals via analysis
Matt Whiting wrote:
> jim beam wrote: > >> Brian Nystrom wrote: >> >>> Matt Whiting wrote: >>> >>>> Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote: >>>> >>>>> In article <gdr6d25l6q81rg35lo413cj8v9ff7pfhfn@4ax.com>, >>>>> Bob Adkins <bobad@charter.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> "Cheap insurance"? ABSOLUTELY. There is no cheaper insurance >>>>>>> for an engine than oil changes. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> You're right to a point. >>>>>> >>>>>> However, engine failures are seldom directly oil-related. An >>>>>> engine usually >>>>>> fails from part failure or abuse long before they wear out from >>>>>> infrequent >>>>>> oil changes. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Well, but parts can easily fail due to infrequent oil changes. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Which parts and how do they fail? >>> >>> >>> This should be interesting. I can't wait to see his reply... ;-) >> >> >> so you've never worked in a repair shop then? what makes the ignorant >> want to stand about and mock when they could get their asses on down >> to a library and do some freakin' homework? "tribology" is your word >> of the day. look it up. > > Just as I thought. No data, just smoke screen. > > Matt t-r-i-b-o-l-g-y matt. read about it. |
Re: Determining oil change intervals via analysis
Matt Whiting wrote:
> jim beam wrote: > >> Brian Nystrom wrote: >> >>> Matt Whiting wrote: >>> >>>> Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote: >>>> >>>>> In article <gdr6d25l6q81rg35lo413cj8v9ff7pfhfn@4ax.com>, >>>>> Bob Adkins <bobad@charter.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> "Cheap insurance"? ABSOLUTELY. There is no cheaper insurance >>>>>>> for an engine than oil changes. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> You're right to a point. >>>>>> >>>>>> However, engine failures are seldom directly oil-related. An >>>>>> engine usually >>>>>> fails from part failure or abuse long before they wear out from >>>>>> infrequent >>>>>> oil changes. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Well, but parts can easily fail due to infrequent oil changes. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Which parts and how do they fail? >>> >>> >>> This should be interesting. I can't wait to see his reply... ;-) >> >> >> so you've never worked in a repair shop then? what makes the ignorant >> want to stand about and mock when they could get their asses on down >> to a library and do some freakin' homework? "tribology" is your word >> of the day. look it up. > > Just as I thought. No data, just smoke screen. > > Matt t-r-i-b-o-l-g-y matt. read about it. |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:19 AM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands