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
 

In article <LNRAg.222$Db4.20620@news1.epix.net>,
Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote:

> Show me that oil changes at 3,000 miles vs.
> 10,000 make a difference.

http://www.tegger.com/hondafaq/sludg...ng_sludge.html

Re: Determining oil change intervals via analysis
 

In article <LNRAg.222$Db4.20620@news1.epix.net>,
Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote:

> Show me that oil changes at 3,000 miles vs.
> 10,000 make a difference.

http://www.tegger.com/hondafaq/sludg...ng_sludge.html

Re: Determining oil change intervals via analysis
 

In article <LNRAg.222$Db4.20620@news1.epix.net>,
Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote:

> Show me that oil changes at 3,000 miles vs.
> 10,000 make a difference.

http://www.tegger.com/hondafaq/sludg...ng_sludge.html

Re: Determining oil change intervals via analysis
 

"jim beam" <nospam@example.net> wrote in message
news:TfGdnTu5w4PdfU7ZnZ2dnUVZ_rednZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...

>
> 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.

Correct. But again Jim, this is a red herring. None of the participants in
this discussion have denied the fundamental and quite obvious truth of your
statement above. All have only talked about the intervals that can
realistically - based on real world experiences, be achieved. There is a
lot that can be hyped in the name of Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt (FUD), but
time tested truths stand up every time.

>
> 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.

No one said that so it becomes irrelevant to the conversation. Time has
consistently proven that the change schedules and the oil and filter
combinations talked about here, do indeed work. People are not reporting
engine failures. Quite the contrary, people are reporting engine lives
approaching or exceeding 200,000 miles. For most cars manufactured here or
across either ocean that's plenty good enough. Other parts of the cars wear
out by then, making them targets for junk yards or winter rats, or the
owners simply feel they've gotten enough out of the car and it's time for a
new one. What more could anyone really ask for?

--

-Mike-
mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net

Re: Determining oil change intervals via analysis
 

"jim beam" <nospam@example.net> wrote in message
news:TfGdnTu5w4PdfU7ZnZ2dnUVZ_rednZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...

>
> 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.

Correct. But again Jim, this is a red herring. None of the participants in
this discussion have denied the fundamental and quite obvious truth of your
statement above. All have only talked about the intervals that can
realistically - based on real world experiences, be achieved. There is a
lot that can be hyped in the name of Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt (FUD), but
time tested truths stand up every time.

>
> 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.

No one said that so it becomes irrelevant to the conversation. Time has
consistently proven that the change schedules and the oil and filter
combinations talked about here, do indeed work. People are not reporting
engine failures. Quite the contrary, people are reporting engine lives
approaching or exceeding 200,000 miles. For most cars manufactured here or
across either ocean that's plenty good enough. Other parts of the cars wear
out by then, making them targets for junk yards or winter rats, or the
owners simply feel they've gotten enough out of the car and it's time for a
new one. What more could anyone really ask for?

--

-Mike-
mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net

Re: Determining oil change intervals via analysis
 

"jim beam" <nospam@example.net> wrote in message
news:TfGdnTu5w4PdfU7ZnZ2dnUVZ_rednZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...

>
> 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.

Correct. But again Jim, this is a red herring. None of the participants in
this discussion have denied the fundamental and quite obvious truth of your
statement above. All have only talked about the intervals that can
realistically - based on real world experiences, be achieved. There is a
lot that can be hyped in the name of Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt (FUD), but
time tested truths stand up every time.

>
> 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.

No one said that so it becomes irrelevant to the conversation. Time has
consistently proven that the change schedules and the oil and filter
combinations talked about here, do indeed work. People are not reporting
engine failures. Quite the contrary, people are reporting engine lives
approaching or exceeding 200,000 miles. For most cars manufactured here or
across either ocean that's plenty good enough. Other parts of the cars wear
out by then, making them targets for junk yards or winter rats, or the
owners simply feel they've gotten enough out of the car and it's time for a
new one. What more could anyone really ask for?

--

-Mike-
mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net

Re: Determining oil change intervals via analysis
 

jim beam wrote:
> 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.

duh, i should learn to spell

t-r-i-b-o-l-o-g-y

Re: Determining oil change intervals via analysis
 

jim beam wrote:
> 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.

duh, i should learn to spell

t-r-i-b-o-l-o-g-y

Re: Determining oil change intervals via analysis
 

jim beam wrote:
> 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.

duh, i should learn to spell

t-r-i-b-o-l-o-g-y

Re: Determining oil change intervals via analysis
 

Mike Marlow wrote:
> "jim beam" <nospam@example.net> wrote in message
> news:TfGdnTu5w4PdfU7ZnZ2dnUVZ_rednZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
>
>> 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.
>
> Correct. But again Jim, this is a red herring. None of the participants in
> this discussion have denied the fundamental and quite obvious truth of your
> statement above. All have only talked about the intervals that can
> realistically - based on real world experiences, be achieved. There is a
> lot that can be hyped in the name of Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt (FUD), but
> time tested truths stand up every time.
>
>> 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.
>
> No one said that so it becomes irrelevant to the conversation. Time has
> consistently proven that the change schedules and the oil and filter
> combinations talked about here, do indeed work. People are not reporting
> engine failures. Quite the contrary, people are reporting engine lives
> approaching or exceeding 200,000 miles. For most cars manufactured here or
> across either ocean that's plenty good enough. Other parts of the cars wear
> out by then, making them targets for junk yards or winter rats, or the
> owners simply feel they've gotten enough out of the car and it's time for a
> new one. What more could anyone really ask for?
>
a motor that burns less oil and is more fuel efficient, that's what! a
motor that barely runs at 200k is a whole lot more expensive compared
with one that runs /well/ at 200k.

Re: Determining oil change intervals via analysis
 

Mike Marlow wrote:
> "jim beam" <nospam@example.net> wrote in message
> news:TfGdnTu5w4PdfU7ZnZ2dnUVZ_rednZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
>
>> 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.
>
> Correct. But again Jim, this is a red herring. None of the participants in
> this discussion have denied the fundamental and quite obvious truth of your
> statement above. All have only talked about the intervals that can
> realistically - based on real world experiences, be achieved. There is a
> lot that can be hyped in the name of Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt (FUD), but
> time tested truths stand up every time.
>
>> 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.
>
> No one said that so it becomes irrelevant to the conversation. Time has
> consistently proven that the change schedules and the oil and filter
> combinations talked about here, do indeed work. People are not reporting
> engine failures. Quite the contrary, people are reporting engine lives
> approaching or exceeding 200,000 miles. For most cars manufactured here or
> across either ocean that's plenty good enough. Other parts of the cars wear
> out by then, making them targets for junk yards or winter rats, or the
> owners simply feel they've gotten enough out of the car and it's time for a
> new one. What more could anyone really ask for?
>
a motor that burns less oil and is more fuel efficient, that's what! a
motor that barely runs at 200k is a whole lot more expensive compared
with one that runs /well/ at 200k.

Re: Determining oil change intervals via analysis
 

Mike Marlow wrote:
> "jim beam" <nospam@example.net> wrote in message
> news:TfGdnTu5w4PdfU7ZnZ2dnUVZ_rednZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
>
>> 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.
>
> Correct. But again Jim, this is a red herring. None of the participants in
> this discussion have denied the fundamental and quite obvious truth of your
> statement above. All have only talked about the intervals that can
> realistically - based on real world experiences, be achieved. There is a
> lot that can be hyped in the name of Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt (FUD), but
> time tested truths stand up every time.
>
>> 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.
>
> No one said that so it becomes irrelevant to the conversation. Time has
> consistently proven that the change schedules and the oil and filter
> combinations talked about here, do indeed work. People are not reporting
> engine failures. Quite the contrary, people are reporting engine lives
> approaching or exceeding 200,000 miles. For most cars manufactured here or
> across either ocean that's plenty good enough. Other parts of the cars wear
> out by then, making them targets for junk yards or winter rats, or the
> owners simply feel they've gotten enough out of the car and it's time for a
> new one. What more could anyone really ask for?
>
a motor that burns less oil and is more fuel efficient, that's what! a
motor that barely runs at 200k is a whole lot more expensive compared
with one that runs /well/ at 200k.

Re: Determining oil change intervals via analysis
 

"jim beam" <nospam@example.net> wrote in message
news:nv6dnQergNMmck7ZnZ2dnUVZ_rmdnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...

>
> duh, i should learn to spell
>
> t-r-i-b-o-l-o-g-y

Don't worry about it. This is the internet Jim. If you make a spelling
mistake someone will surely come along and let you know about it. And of
course, since it obviously so important, they'll surely offer up the
suggested proper spelling as well. Just to help out, of course...

--

-Mike-
mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net

Re: Determining oil change intervals via analysis
 

"jim beam" <nospam@example.net> wrote in message
news:nv6dnQergNMmck7ZnZ2dnUVZ_rmdnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...

>
> duh, i should learn to spell
>
> t-r-i-b-o-l-o-g-y

Don't worry about it. This is the internet Jim. If you make a spelling
mistake someone will surely come along and let you know about it. And of
course, since it obviously so important, they'll surely offer up the
suggested proper spelling as well. Just to help out, of course...

--

-Mike-
mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net