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.

 

gerry wrote:

> [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.

Yes, Gerry, that was my reaction as well. There is a lot more to this
story than is conveyed at that web site.

Matt

 

gerry wrote:

> [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.

Yes, Gerry, that was my reaction as well. There is a lot more to this
story than is conveyed at that web site.

Matt

 

gerry wrote:

> [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.

Yes, Gerry, that was my reaction as well. There is a lot more to this
story than is conveyed at that web site.

Matt

 

gerry wrote:

> [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

I just sent in my patent application, Gerry, sorry, but you just weren't
quick enough! :-)

Matt

 

gerry wrote:

> [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

I just sent in my patent application, Gerry, sorry, but you just weren't
quick enough! :-)

Matt

 

gerry wrote:

> [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

I just sent in my patent application, Gerry, sorry, but you just weren't
quick enough! :-)

Matt

 

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:

> 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.

There's lots of room for that in my world, and I suspect Gerry's as
well. Now if you could just provide a cost/benefit analysis that is
based on data rather than conjecture, we'd love to read it.

Matt

 

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:

> 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.

There's lots of room for that in my world, and I suspect Gerry's as
well. Now if you could just provide a cost/benefit analysis that is
based on data rather than conjecture, we'd love to read it.

Matt

 

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:

> 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.

There's lots of room for that in my world, and I suspect Gerry's as
well. Now if you could just provide a cost/benefit analysis that is
based on data rather than conjecture, we'd love to read it.

Matt

 

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:

> 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.

So you can learn. Excellent! :-)

Matt

 

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:

> 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.

So you can learn. Excellent! :-)

Matt

 

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:

> 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.

So you can learn. Excellent! :-)

Matt

 

Matt Whiting wrote:
> 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

eh? we're discussing wear. tribology is the science of wear and
lubrication. your problem with this subject seems to be that of
inconvenience, not lack of relevance.

 

Matt Whiting wrote:
> 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

eh? we're discussing wear. tribology is the science of wear and
lubrication. your problem with this subject seems to be that of
inconvenience, not lack of relevance.