Re: Determining oil change intervals via analysis
 

jim beam wrote:

> 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

Yes, and then learn about relevance.

Matt

Re: Determining oil change intervals via analysis
 

jim beam wrote:

> 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.

My minvan ran as good as new at 178,000 miles, used the same amount of
oil as it did when I got it and had basically the same MPG (I compute
every single tank and keep it in a log book).

Next...


Matt

Re: Determining oil change intervals via analysis
 

jim beam wrote:

> 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.

My minvan ran as good as new at 178,000 miles, used the same amount of
oil as it did when I got it and had basically the same MPG (I compute
every single tank and keep it in a log book).

Next...


Matt

Re: Determining oil change intervals via analysis
 

jim beam wrote:

> 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.

My minvan ran as good as new at 178,000 miles, used the same amount of
oil as it did when I got it and had basically the same MPG (I compute
every single tank and keep it in a log book).

Next...


Matt

Re: Determining oil change intervals via analysis
 

Mike Marlow wrote:

> "jim beam" <nospam@example.net> wrote in message
> news:zLidnYxB6u0ub07ZnZ2dnUVZ_tOdnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
>
>
>>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.
>
>
> Hey Jim - I'm not ragging on you, but this is the kind of thing that is very
> frustrating in a discussion. Many have talked about long term experiences
> gaining exactly that - a 200,000 mile engine that runs well. When you throw
> a red herring out there about engines that are barely running, it's just a
> noise level in the discussion. A statement like the one above really only
> discredits your position because it not only ignores the evidence of
> experience but it attempts to cloud the discussion with irrelevant clutter.
>
> I'm kind of hoping you can and do produce something a bit more factual and
> relevant to support your position. Maybe it won't cause me to change my
> habits but it would be worth seeing something factual, if for no other
> reason than the knowledge gain. I don't think you're full of hot air, or
> that your ideas are all wet. Rather, I still don't see the real world value
> they would add to what I already do.
>
> It may be that I decide there is no sufficient benefit to your ideas and
> that I'll continue with my own practices. That all by itself does not
> discredit what you do or what you support - it only says it doesn't offer
> enough for me. It may also be that if this discussion actually reached a
> level where some sort of empirical evidence was put forth, it might be
> obvious that the incremental value of more frequent changes, oil analysis,
> etc. simply do not offer a statistically significant benefit.

Mike, as you and I know, there is no credible scientific data out there
either for or against any given oil change frequency. The closest I've
seen to a real-world test is the one that CR did many years ago with a
taxi fleet. They found no measurable wear in engines changed at 6,000
miles (if memory serves) running plain old dino oil.

Now, there were several shortcomings in their test, in my opinion, such
as taxis don't really represent how most people drive as they rarely get
thermally cycled and there is reason to believe that cold starts are
one of the highest wear activities an engine sees. And, again if memory
serves, they ran the engines for only 60,000 miles. This is hardly a
stress test for a modern engine.

However, imperfect as it was, this is about the only test I've seen that
was even close to scientifically conducted.


Matt

Re: Determining oil change intervals via analysis
 

Mike Marlow wrote:

> "jim beam" <nospam@example.net> wrote in message
> news:zLidnYxB6u0ub07ZnZ2dnUVZ_tOdnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
>
>
>>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.
>
>
> Hey Jim - I'm not ragging on you, but this is the kind of thing that is very
> frustrating in a discussion. Many have talked about long term experiences
> gaining exactly that - a 200,000 mile engine that runs well. When you throw
> a red herring out there about engines that are barely running, it's just a
> noise level in the discussion. A statement like the one above really only
> discredits your position because it not only ignores the evidence of
> experience but it attempts to cloud the discussion with irrelevant clutter.
>
> I'm kind of hoping you can and do produce something a bit more factual and
> relevant to support your position. Maybe it won't cause me to change my
> habits but it would be worth seeing something factual, if for no other
> reason than the knowledge gain. I don't think you're full of hot air, or
> that your ideas are all wet. Rather, I still don't see the real world value
> they would add to what I already do.
>
> It may be that I decide there is no sufficient benefit to your ideas and
> that I'll continue with my own practices. That all by itself does not
> discredit what you do or what you support - it only says it doesn't offer
> enough for me. It may also be that if this discussion actually reached a
> level where some sort of empirical evidence was put forth, it might be
> obvious that the incremental value of more frequent changes, oil analysis,
> etc. simply do not offer a statistically significant benefit.

Mike, as you and I know, there is no credible scientific data out there
either for or against any given oil change frequency. The closest I've
seen to a real-world test is the one that CR did many years ago with a
taxi fleet. They found no measurable wear in engines changed at 6,000
miles (if memory serves) running plain old dino oil.

Now, there were several shortcomings in their test, in my opinion, such
as taxis don't really represent how most people drive as they rarely get
thermally cycled and there is reason to believe that cold starts are
one of the highest wear activities an engine sees. And, again if memory
serves, they ran the engines for only 60,000 miles. This is hardly a
stress test for a modern engine.

However, imperfect as it was, this is about the only test I've seen that
was even close to scientifically conducted.


Matt

Re: Determining oil change intervals via analysis
 

Mike Marlow wrote:

> "jim beam" <nospam@example.net> wrote in message
> news:zLidnYxB6u0ub07ZnZ2dnUVZ_tOdnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
>
>
>>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.
>
>
> Hey Jim - I'm not ragging on you, but this is the kind of thing that is very
> frustrating in a discussion. Many have talked about long term experiences
> gaining exactly that - a 200,000 mile engine that runs well. When you throw
> a red herring out there about engines that are barely running, it's just a
> noise level in the discussion. A statement like the one above really only
> discredits your position because it not only ignores the evidence of
> experience but it attempts to cloud the discussion with irrelevant clutter.
>
> I'm kind of hoping you can and do produce something a bit more factual and
> relevant to support your position. Maybe it won't cause me to change my
> habits but it would be worth seeing something factual, if for no other
> reason than the knowledge gain. I don't think you're full of hot air, or
> that your ideas are all wet. Rather, I still don't see the real world value
> they would add to what I already do.
>
> It may be that I decide there is no sufficient benefit to your ideas and
> that I'll continue with my own practices. That all by itself does not
> discredit what you do or what you support - it only says it doesn't offer
> enough for me. It may also be that if this discussion actually reached a
> level where some sort of empirical evidence was put forth, it might be
> obvious that the incremental value of more frequent changes, oil analysis,
> etc. simply do not offer a statistically significant benefit.

Mike, as you and I know, there is no credible scientific data out there
either for or against any given oil change frequency. The closest I've
seen to a real-world test is the one that CR did many years ago with a
taxi fleet. They found no measurable wear in engines changed at 6,000
miles (if memory serves) running plain old dino oil.

Now, there were several shortcomings in their test, in my opinion, such
as taxis don't really represent how most people drive as they rarely get
thermally cycled and there is reason to believe that cold starts are
one of the highest wear activities an engine sees. And, again if memory
serves, they ran the engines for only 60,000 miles. This is hardly a
stress test for a modern engine.

However, imperfect as it was, this is about the only test I've seen that
was even close to scientifically conducted.


Matt

Re: Determining oil change intervals via analysis
 

"Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote
> jim beam wrote:
>
>> 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.

You are not addressing his point about taking the car to
only 200k miles.

Just the way you reason is a tipoff that you're bs-ing.
Again.

As usual, you get all huffy and insist you know it all,
without producing any data. You need to learn that there is
a gray area; that opinions do not make facts.

Tribology indeed. I'd tell you to read about it, but that's
just a waste, because you couldn't reason your way out of
the proverbial wet paper bag.

Consumer Reports study is the best I've seen so far. It's
not perfect, but I haven't seen any other with any kind of
controls. See the article at
http://www.xs11.com/stories/croil96.htm

And no, Beamer, that does not mean it settles this debate.
But it is evidence on the side of not changing one's oil
every 3k miles under normal driving conditions.

Try try not to see things as black and white when they
clearly are not.

Try try not to read things into others' statements, in a
poor effort to build your weak ego.

>> 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.
>
> They may, but I've seen no documented proof as to when
> this is meaningful. Post some of your fleet testing
> results. If my engine will last 200K with 10,000 miles
> intervals and the body rusts off at 200K, what is the
> point of reducing engine wear?
>
> And why not change oil at 1,000 miles rather than 3,000 as
> that would reduce wear even more right? How about 500
> miles? Why not change it every morning before going to
> work?

Watch him rationalize this one.

Re: Determining oil change intervals via analysis
 

"Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote
> jim beam wrote:
>
>> 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.

You are not addressing his point about taking the car to
only 200k miles.

Just the way you reason is a tipoff that you're bs-ing.
Again.

As usual, you get all huffy and insist you know it all,
without producing any data. You need to learn that there is
a gray area; that opinions do not make facts.

Tribology indeed. I'd tell you to read about it, but that's
just a waste, because you couldn't reason your way out of
the proverbial wet paper bag.

Consumer Reports study is the best I've seen so far. It's
not perfect, but I haven't seen any other with any kind of
controls. See the article at
http://www.xs11.com/stories/croil96.htm

And no, Beamer, that does not mean it settles this debate.
But it is evidence on the side of not changing one's oil
every 3k miles under normal driving conditions.

Try try not to see things as black and white when they
clearly are not.

Try try not to read things into others' statements, in a
poor effort to build your weak ego.

>> 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.
>
> They may, but I've seen no documented proof as to when
> this is meaningful. Post some of your fleet testing
> results. If my engine will last 200K with 10,000 miles
> intervals and the body rusts off at 200K, what is the
> point of reducing engine wear?
>
> And why not change oil at 1,000 miles rather than 3,000 as
> that would reduce wear even more right? How about 500
> miles? Why not change it every morning before going to
> work?

Watch him rationalize this one.

Re: Determining oil change intervals via analysis
 

"Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote
> jim beam wrote:
>
>> 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.

You are not addressing his point about taking the car to
only 200k miles.

Just the way you reason is a tipoff that you're bs-ing.
Again.

As usual, you get all huffy and insist you know it all,
without producing any data. You need to learn that there is
a gray area; that opinions do not make facts.

Tribology indeed. I'd tell you to read about it, but that's
just a waste, because you couldn't reason your way out of
the proverbial wet paper bag.

Consumer Reports study is the best I've seen so far. It's
not perfect, but I haven't seen any other with any kind of
controls. See the article at
http://www.xs11.com/stories/croil96.htm

And no, Beamer, that does not mean it settles this debate.
But it is evidence on the side of not changing one's oil
every 3k miles under normal driving conditions.

Try try not to see things as black and white when they
clearly are not.

Try try not to read things into others' statements, in a
poor effort to build your weak ego.

>> 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.
>
> They may, but I've seen no documented proof as to when
> this is meaningful. Post some of your fleet testing
> results. If my engine will last 200K with 10,000 miles
> intervals and the body rusts off at 200K, what is the
> point of reducing engine wear?
>
> And why not change oil at 1,000 miles rather than 3,000 as
> that would reduce wear even more right? How about 500
> miles? Why not change it every morning before going to
> work?

Watch him rationalize this one.

Re: Determining oil change intervals via analysis
 

Oooohhh, you get the "Miss Congeniality" award.... you can rest assured your
reply has enamored you for life....

FWIW, nothing replaces regular, timely oil changes (along with the "usual"
but often overlooked inspection process involved) as a preventive service
measure. If an oil analysis reveals higher than normal levels of tin, is the
owner going to rush into an expensive rebearing job? I doubt it.

However, some users of oil analysis services find this valuable.... these
sorts of fleet operations use the analysis to identify incipient concerns
and feel justified in spending the money before there is a very expensive
"inconvenience" or possible environmental damage.

For the average motorist, the oil analysis will benefit only one entity...
usually, the testing lab.

I started driving in the mid-60s and have never needed this sort of service
for any other reason than to prove that a consumer has done something
wrong.... (hmmm... can we spell "backfire"?).

BTW, you are still a spammy bastuhd....

Re: Determining oil change intervals via analysis
 

Oooohhh, you get the "Miss Congeniality" award.... you can rest assured your
reply has enamored you for life....

FWIW, nothing replaces regular, timely oil changes (along with the "usual"
but often overlooked inspection process involved) as a preventive service
measure. If an oil analysis reveals higher than normal levels of tin, is the
owner going to rush into an expensive rebearing job? I doubt it.

However, some users of oil analysis services find this valuable.... these
sorts of fleet operations use the analysis to identify incipient concerns
and feel justified in spending the money before there is a very expensive
"inconvenience" or possible environmental damage.

For the average motorist, the oil analysis will benefit only one entity...
usually, the testing lab.

I started driving in the mid-60s and have never needed this sort of service
for any other reason than to prove that a consumer has done something
wrong.... (hmmm... can we spell "backfire"?).

BTW, you are still a spammy bastuhd....

Re: Determining oil change intervals via analysis
 

Oooohhh, you get the "Miss Congeniality" award.... you can rest assured your
reply has enamored you for life....

FWIW, nothing replaces regular, timely oil changes (along with the "usual"
but often overlooked inspection process involved) as a preventive service
measure. If an oil analysis reveals higher than normal levels of tin, is the
owner going to rush into an expensive rebearing job? I doubt it.

However, some users of oil analysis services find this valuable.... these
sorts of fleet operations use the analysis to identify incipient concerns
and feel justified in spending the money before there is a very expensive
"inconvenience" or possible environmental damage.

For the average motorist, the oil analysis will benefit only one entity...
usually, the testing lab.

I started driving in the mid-60s and have never needed this sort of service
for any other reason than to prove that a consumer has done something
wrong.... (hmmm... can we spell "backfire"?).

BTW, you are still a spammy bastuhd....

Re: Determining oil change intervals via analysis
 

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> 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.

What evidence do you have that it makes that difference? None, I
suspect, since none exists. I've owned three vehicles that went over
165K miles and all of them ran fine. Their oil was changed every
5000-7000 miles. They were all put to rest for reasons other than engine
problems (body rot, broken transmission, etc.)

Re: Determining oil change intervals via analysis
 

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> 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.

What evidence do you have that it makes that difference? None, I
suspect, since none exists. I've owned three vehicles that went over
165K miles and all of them ran fine. Their oil was changed every
5000-7000 miles. They were all put to rest for reasons other than engine
problems (body rot, broken transmission, etc.)