"Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message
news:aFTAg.230$Db4.20774@news1.epix.net...

>
> 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?
>

What!? You mean your wife does not do this for you now Matt? Man, we gotta
talk...

--

-Mike-
mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net

 

"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message
news:elmop-C8D037.07192405082006@nntp2.usenetserver.com...

>
> And when you run your car like a taxi, 24/7 with the engine on, those
> tests will be relevant to you.
>
> If you drive your car like a stay at home mom, a couple miles here and
> there with the engine never getting warm, that would create different
> results.
>
> Did CR test those kinds of conditions?
>
> You can't extrapolate the CR taxi test into the normal world where cars
> aren't run like taxis.
>

Well, between the sludge link posts and this reply, you've pretty much
proven yourself to be completely in the dark. Here - just for the sake of
accuracy, I've pasted in that part of Matt's original response to me which
states exactly what you babble about above. You know the part - it's the
part you snipped to make your post.

Matt said...

"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."

It pays to read what is posted and to give yourself that extra minute to
think about it before snipping relevant parts and running off on tangents
with misrepresentations of what was said.

--

-Mike-
mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net

 

"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message
news:elmop-C8D037.07192405082006@nntp2.usenetserver.com...

>
> And when you run your car like a taxi, 24/7 with the engine on, those
> tests will be relevant to you.
>
> If you drive your car like a stay at home mom, a couple miles here and
> there with the engine never getting warm, that would create different
> results.
>
> Did CR test those kinds of conditions?
>
> You can't extrapolate the CR taxi test into the normal world where cars
> aren't run like taxis.
>

Well, between the sludge link posts and this reply, you've pretty much
proven yourself to be completely in the dark. Here - just for the sake of
accuracy, I've pasted in that part of Matt's original response to me which
states exactly what you babble about above. You know the part - it's the
part you snipped to make your post.

Matt said...

"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."

It pays to read what is posted and to give yourself that extra minute to
think about it before snipping relevant parts and running off on tangents
with misrepresentations of what was said.

--

-Mike-
mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net

 

"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message
news:elmop-C8D037.07192405082006@nntp2.usenetserver.com...

>
> And when you run your car like a taxi, 24/7 with the engine on, those
> tests will be relevant to you.
>
> If you drive your car like a stay at home mom, a couple miles here and
> there with the engine never getting warm, that would create different
> results.
>
> Did CR test those kinds of conditions?
>
> You can't extrapolate the CR taxi test into the normal world where cars
> aren't run like taxis.
>

Well, between the sludge link posts and this reply, you've pretty much
proven yourself to be completely in the dark. Here - just for the sake of
accuracy, I've pasted in that part of Matt's original response to me which
states exactly what you babble about above. You know the part - it's the
part you snipped to make your post.

Matt said...

"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."

It pays to read what is posted and to give yourself that extra minute to
think about it before snipping relevant parts and running off on tangents
with misrepresentations of what was said.

--

-Mike-
mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net

 

"Bob Adkins" <bobad@charter.net> wrote in message
news:69r6d2hbvgcp6u41ildkitko4k8rdd9tb1@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 13:27:55 GMT, <HLS@nospam.nix> wrote:
>
>
> >No, I dont regard ignorance and stubbornness as virtues. There are a
> >lot of people who are impressed by apparently highly technical data
> >and specifications, and who really dont know what, if anything, it means.
>
> You would be surprised how easy it is to learn what the data means.
>
> That said, it isn't worth it. It's cheaper just to change the oil.
> --
> Bob

No, Bob. It isnt easly to learn what it means. It is easy to learn the
basics
of what it MIGHT mean. I am quite aware of what the chemical analyses
MIGHT mean.

It isnt even easy sometimes to get the same numbers from several different
oil analysis labs. $20-30 is measly when it comes to doing competent
chemical
analysis, even with modern equipment. Some of the labs give more
reproducible
data than others.

But for me, you are right...it isn't worth the time and cost.

 

"Bob Adkins" <bobad@charter.net> wrote in message
news:69r6d2hbvgcp6u41ildkitko4k8rdd9tb1@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 13:27:55 GMT, <HLS@nospam.nix> wrote:
>
>
> >No, I dont regard ignorance and stubbornness as virtues. There are a
> >lot of people who are impressed by apparently highly technical data
> >and specifications, and who really dont know what, if anything, it means.
>
> You would be surprised how easy it is to learn what the data means.
>
> That said, it isn't worth it. It's cheaper just to change the oil.
> --
> Bob

No, Bob. It isnt easly to learn what it means. It is easy to learn the
basics
of what it MIGHT mean. I am quite aware of what the chemical analyses
MIGHT mean.

It isnt even easy sometimes to get the same numbers from several different
oil analysis labs. $20-30 is measly when it comes to doing competent
chemical
analysis, even with modern equipment. Some of the labs give more
reproducible
data than others.

But for me, you are right...it isn't worth the time and cost.

 

"Bob Adkins" <bobad@charter.net> wrote in message
news:69r6d2hbvgcp6u41ildkitko4k8rdd9tb1@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 13:27:55 GMT, <HLS@nospam.nix> wrote:
>
>
> >No, I dont regard ignorance and stubbornness as virtues. There are a
> >lot of people who are impressed by apparently highly technical data
> >and specifications, and who really dont know what, if anything, it means.
>
> You would be surprised how easy it is to learn what the data means.
>
> That said, it isn't worth it. It's cheaper just to change the oil.
> --
> Bob

No, Bob. It isnt easly to learn what it means. It is easy to learn the
basics
of what it MIGHT mean. I am quite aware of what the chemical analyses
MIGHT mean.

It isnt even easy sometimes to get the same numbers from several different
oil analysis labs. $20-30 is measly when it comes to doing competent
chemical
analysis, even with modern equipment. Some of the labs give more
reproducible
data than others.

But for me, you are right...it isn't worth the time and cost.

 

"Mike Marlow" <mmarlow@alltel.net> wrote in message
news:d8421$44d3f692$471fbb8f$9627@ALLTEL.NET...
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.

This is the way I feel about oil analyses.
There is a real shortage of hard data about how well synthetics and refined
petroleum
lubricants actually perform.

Flash points, and viscosity, and all the other bits of physical and chemical
data
mean little or nothing. I want statistical data, which -below the bottom
line - will
tell what it costs to deliver certain levels of protection and performance.

And you wont get this with cheapass chemical analyses, or even oil company
product
hype.

 

"Mike Marlow" <mmarlow@alltel.net> wrote in message
news:d8421$44d3f692$471fbb8f$9627@ALLTEL.NET...
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.

This is the way I feel about oil analyses.
There is a real shortage of hard data about how well synthetics and refined
petroleum
lubricants actually perform.

Flash points, and viscosity, and all the other bits of physical and chemical
data
mean little or nothing. I want statistical data, which -below the bottom
line - will
tell what it costs to deliver certain levels of protection and performance.

And you wont get this with cheapass chemical analyses, or even oil company
product
hype.

 

"Mike Marlow" <mmarlow@alltel.net> wrote in message
news:d8421$44d3f692$471fbb8f$9627@ALLTEL.NET...
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.

This is the way I feel about oil analyses.
There is a real shortage of hard data about how well synthetics and refined
petroleum
lubricants actually perform.

Flash points, and viscosity, and all the other bits of physical and chemical
data
mean little or nothing. I want statistical data, which -below the bottom
line - will
tell what it costs to deliver certain levels of protection and performance.

And you wont get this with cheapass chemical analyses, or even oil company
product
hype.

 

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:

> In article <aFTAg.230$Db4.20774@news1.epix.net>,
> Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote:
>
>
>>And why not change oil at 1,000 miles rather than 3,000 as that would
>>reduce wear even more right?
>
>
> Because the benefits go on a curve.
>

That's right. And with good oil, the difference isn't measurable until
way beyond 3,000 miles. And with synthetic oil, it is probably way
beyond 5,000 miles. So, show us the curve. Show us the data.


Matt

 

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:

> In article <aFTAg.230$Db4.20774@news1.epix.net>,
> Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote:
>
>
>>And why not change oil at 1,000 miles rather than 3,000 as that would
>>reduce wear even more right?
>
>
> Because the benefits go on a curve.
>

That's right. And with good oil, the difference isn't measurable until
way beyond 3,000 miles. And with synthetic oil, it is probably way
beyond 5,000 miles. So, show us the curve. Show us the data.


Matt

 

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:

> In article <aFTAg.230$Db4.20774@news1.epix.net>,
> Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote:
>
>
>>And why not change oil at 1,000 miles rather than 3,000 as that would
>>reduce wear even more right?
>
>
> Because the benefits go on a curve.
>

That's right. And with good oil, the difference isn't measurable until
way beyond 3,000 miles. And with synthetic oil, it is probably way
beyond 5,000 miles. So, show us the curve. Show us the data.


Matt

 

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:

> In article <hCTAg.228$Db4.20512@news1.epix.net>,
> Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Comparing oil changes to insurance is simply stupid. They aren't
>>equivalent at all. You buy insurance to help when crap happens.
>
>
> In your world, maybe.

In the real world. You compared oil changes to homeowner's insurance.
Now tell us how they compare.

Actually, your analogy argues against your position. Homeowner's
insrurance doesn't protect my home from damage. That suggests that,
based on your own analogy, oil changes don't protect your engeing from
damage.

Got any other arguments or analogies?

Matt

 

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:

> In article <hCTAg.228$Db4.20512@news1.epix.net>,
> Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Comparing oil changes to insurance is simply stupid. They aren't
>>equivalent at all. You buy insurance to help when crap happens.
>
>
> In your world, maybe.

In the real world. You compared oil changes to homeowner's insurance.
Now tell us how they compare.

Actually, your analogy argues against your position. Homeowner's
insrurance doesn't protect my home from damage. That suggests that,
based on your own analogy, oil changes don't protect your engeing from
damage.

Got any other arguments or analogies?

Matt