Mike Marlow wrote:

> "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.

Only if you have integrity. If you don't have integrity, you do what he
did. Clip the part you like and omit the rest.

I'd really love to see some real data on oil and engine wear and life.
I certainly have my opinions, and I've seen testing that shows
differences in oils, and I believe those differences have an affect on
service life, but I've never found any data to support my opinions or
anyone elses.


Matt

 

HLS@nospam.nix wrote:

> "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.

You can skew the results heavily just through the sampling procedure.
Take your sample of the first oil to leave the drain and then sample
again when it is barely dripping at the end. That can change the
results dramatically. Most analysis labs have pretty specific sample
taking instructions, but few people are able to follow them precisely
and they can make a big difference.

Matt

 

HLS@nospam.nix wrote:

> "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.

You can skew the results heavily just through the sampling procedure.
Take your sample of the first oil to leave the drain and then sample
again when it is barely dripping at the end. That can change the
results dramatically. Most analysis labs have pretty specific sample
taking instructions, but few people are able to follow them precisely
and they can make a big difference.

Matt

 

HLS@nospam.nix wrote:

> "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.

You can skew the results heavily just through the sampling procedure.
Take your sample of the first oil to leave the drain and then sample
again when it is barely dripping at the end. That can change the
results dramatically. Most analysis labs have pretty specific sample
taking instructions, but few people are able to follow them precisely
and they can make a big difference.

Matt

 

[original post is likely clipped to save bandwidth]
On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 20:50:28 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
<elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:

>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


Any engine that bad in 8700 miles has something seriously wrong other
than oil change intervals.

gerry

--

Personal home page - http://gogood.com

gerry misspelled in my email address to confuse robots

 

[original post is likely clipped to save bandwidth]
On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 20:50:28 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
<elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:

>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


Any engine that bad in 8700 miles has something seriously wrong other
than oil change intervals.

gerry

--

Personal home page - http://gogood.com

gerry misspelled in my email address to confuse robots

 

[original post is likely clipped to save bandwidth]
On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 20:50:28 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
<elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:

>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


Any engine that bad in 8700 miles has something seriously wrong other
than oil change intervals.

gerry

--

Personal home page - http://gogood.com

gerry misspelled in my email address to confuse robots

 

[original post is likely clipped to save bandwidth]
On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 02:47:34 GMT, Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote:

>jim beam wrote:
>
>> Matt Whiting wrote:
>>
>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>
>>>> Matt Whiting wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:

>>
>> 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.
>
>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?
>
>
>Matt


Heck, at this rate, redirect the oil flow so it is never re circulated
Add a 100 gallon fresh oil tank and 100 gal holding tank. Ship the
"used oil" off to be fully reclaimed to original purity.

That seems the direction the ultra frequent changers really recommend

gerry

--

Personal home page - http://gogood.com

gerry misspelled in my email address to confuse robots

 

[original post is likely clipped to save bandwidth]
On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 02:47:34 GMT, Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote:

>jim beam wrote:
>
>> Matt Whiting wrote:
>>
>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>
>>>> Matt Whiting wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:

>>
>> 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.
>
>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?
>
>
>Matt


Heck, at this rate, redirect the oil flow so it is never re circulated
Add a 100 gallon fresh oil tank and 100 gal holding tank. Ship the
"used oil" off to be fully reclaimed to original purity.

That seems the direction the ultra frequent changers really recommend

gerry

--

Personal home page - http://gogood.com

gerry misspelled in my email address to confuse robots

 

[original post is likely clipped to save bandwidth]
On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 02:47:34 GMT, Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote:

>jim beam wrote:
>
>> Matt Whiting wrote:
>>
>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>
>>>> Matt Whiting wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:

>>
>> 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.
>
>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?
>
>
>Matt


Heck, at this rate, redirect the oil flow so it is never re circulated
Add a 100 gallon fresh oil tank and 100 gal holding tank. Ship the
"used oil" off to be fully reclaimed to original purity.

That seems the direction the ultra frequent changers really recommend

gerry

--

Personal home page - http://gogood.com

gerry misspelled in my email address to confuse robots

 

In article <u9a9d2ptl4ea2k42f0irn43c378shc56tf@4ax.com>,
gerry <gerrrry__net@gogood.com> wrote:

> Heck, at this rate, redirect the oil flow so it is never re circulated
> Add a 100 gallon fresh oil tank and 100 gal holding tank. Ship the
> "used oil" off to be fully reclaimed to original purity.
>
> That seems the direction the ultra frequent changers really recommend

And if it cost, oh, $20 for every 3000 miles to do that, why wouldn't
you?

Oh--I see. In your world, there's no room for cost/benefit analysis.

 

In article <u9a9d2ptl4ea2k42f0irn43c378shc56tf@4ax.com>,
gerry <gerrrry__net@gogood.com> wrote:

> Heck, at this rate, redirect the oil flow so it is never re circulated
> Add a 100 gallon fresh oil tank and 100 gal holding tank. Ship the
> "used oil" off to be fully reclaimed to original purity.
>
> That seems the direction the ultra frequent changers really recommend

And if it cost, oh, $20 for every 3000 miles to do that, why wouldn't
you?

Oh--I see. In your world, there's no room for cost/benefit analysis.

 

In article <u9a9d2ptl4ea2k42f0irn43c378shc56tf@4ax.com>,
gerry <gerrrry__net@gogood.com> wrote:

> Heck, at this rate, redirect the oil flow so it is never re circulated
> Add a 100 gallon fresh oil tank and 100 gal holding tank. Ship the
> "used oil" off to be fully reclaimed to original purity.
>
> That seems the direction the ultra frequent changers really recommend

And if it cost, oh, $20 for every 3000 miles to do that, why wouldn't
you?

Oh--I see. In your world, there's no room for cost/benefit analysis.

 

In article <b4a9d2h68mivpv5kqvsmeig1ab3k1ftuus@4ax.com>,
gerry <gerrrry__net@gogood.com> wrote:

> >http://www.tegger.com/hondafaq/sludg...ng_sludge.html
>
>
> Any engine that bad in 8700 miles has something seriously wrong other
> than oil change intervals.

You have absolutely no proof of that, therefore you cannot claim that.

Until you have proof, you must shut up. That's the new rule around here.

 

In article <b4a9d2h68mivpv5kqvsmeig1ab3k1ftuus@4ax.com>,
gerry <gerrrry__net@gogood.com> wrote:

> >http://www.tegger.com/hondafaq/sludg...ng_sludge.html
>
>
> Any engine that bad in 8700 miles has something seriously wrong other
> than oil change intervals.

You have absolutely no proof of that, therefore you cannot claim that.

Until you have proof, you must shut up. That's the new rule around here.