|
Re: Determining oil change intervals via analysis
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. |
Re: Determining oil change intervals via analysis
Matt Whiting 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. 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? so how does that simplistic straw man get around the point i raised, i.e. "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"? [rhetorical] > > 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? oh dear. do you really think that putting words in someone's mouth, then using that as a platform for criticism is not childish and utterly transparent? bottom line matt, i'm not going to waste any more time arguing with you. having just googled a bunch of your other threads to see what kind of person you are, i see you're only interested in poisoning the well and ad hominem rather than contributing any useful data and i won't play that game. doubtless you'll "respond" by bleating some toxic criticism that'll contribute nothing to the subject in hand, but i won't care because i'm not going to read it. have a great life. |
Re: Determining oil change intervals via analysis
Matt Whiting 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. 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? so how does that simplistic straw man get around the point i raised, i.e. "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"? [rhetorical] > > 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? oh dear. do you really think that putting words in someone's mouth, then using that as a platform for criticism is not childish and utterly transparent? bottom line matt, i'm not going to waste any more time arguing with you. having just googled a bunch of your other threads to see what kind of person you are, i see you're only interested in poisoning the well and ad hominem rather than contributing any useful data and i won't play that game. doubtless you'll "respond" by bleating some toxic criticism that'll contribute nothing to the subject in hand, but i won't care because i'm not going to read it. have a great life. |
Re: Determining oil change intervals via analysis
Matt Whiting 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. 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? so how does that simplistic straw man get around the point i raised, i.e. "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"? [rhetorical] > > 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? oh dear. do you really think that putting words in someone's mouth, then using that as a platform for criticism is not childish and utterly transparent? bottom line matt, i'm not going to waste any more time arguing with you. having just googled a bunch of your other threads to see what kind of person you are, i see you're only interested in poisoning the well and ad hominem rather than contributing any useful data and i won't play that game. doubtless you'll "respond" by bleating some toxic criticism that'll contribute nothing to the subject in hand, but i won't care because i'm not going to read it. have a great life. |
Re: Determining oil change intervals via analysis
jim beam wrote:
> 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. I knew a fair bit about tribology when I was working with magnetic disk drives and recording heads many years ago, but that isn't relevant here. I've seen very few areas where accurate prediction of wear has been made. Often it is reasonably possible to predict that particles above a certain size will cause nearly catastrophic failure, but I've never seen a refereed paper that predicted auto engine life as a function of frequency of oil changes or particle size distribution in the oil. If you are aware of some, please post a reference. Shouting "tribology" isn't data, isn't meaningful and thus isn't relevant to the discussion at hand. Matt |
Re: Determining oil change intervals via analysis
jim beam wrote:
> 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. I knew a fair bit about tribology when I was working with magnetic disk drives and recording heads many years ago, but that isn't relevant here. I've seen very few areas where accurate prediction of wear has been made. Often it is reasonably possible to predict that particles above a certain size will cause nearly catastrophic failure, but I've never seen a refereed paper that predicted auto engine life as a function of frequency of oil changes or particle size distribution in the oil. If you are aware of some, please post a reference. Shouting "tribology" isn't data, isn't meaningful and thus isn't relevant to the discussion at hand. Matt |
Re: Determining oil change intervals via analysis
jim beam wrote:
> 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. I knew a fair bit about tribology when I was working with magnetic disk drives and recording heads many years ago, but that isn't relevant here. I've seen very few areas where accurate prediction of wear has been made. Often it is reasonably possible to predict that particles above a certain size will cause nearly catastrophic failure, but I've never seen a refereed paper that predicted auto engine life as a function of frequency of oil changes or particle size distribution in the oil. If you are aware of some, please post a reference. Shouting "tribology" isn't data, isn't meaningful and thus isn't relevant to the discussion at hand. Matt |
Re: Determining oil change intervals via analysis
jim beam wrote:
> Matt Whiting 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. 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? > > > so how does that simplistic straw man get around the point i raised, > i.e. "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"? [rhetorical] > >> >> 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? > > > oh dear. do you really think that putting words in someone's mouth, > then using that as a platform for criticism is not childish and utterly > transparent? > > bottom line matt, i'm not going to waste any more time arguing with you. > having just googled a bunch of your other threads to see what kind of > person you are, i see you're only interested in poisoning the well > and ad hominem rather than contributing any useful data and i won't play > that game. doubtless you'll "respond" by bleating some toxic criticism > that'll contribute nothing to the subject in hand, but i won't care > because i'm not going to read it. have a great life. Yes, I have a history of challenging people who make claims to back up those claims with data. Some are able to do so, but most are like you. They get huffy and go away. Your choice. Matt |
Re: Determining oil change intervals via analysis
jim beam wrote:
> Matt Whiting 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. 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? > > > so how does that simplistic straw man get around the point i raised, > i.e. "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"? [rhetorical] > >> >> 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? > > > oh dear. do you really think that putting words in someone's mouth, > then using that as a platform for criticism is not childish and utterly > transparent? > > bottom line matt, i'm not going to waste any more time arguing with you. > having just googled a bunch of your other threads to see what kind of > person you are, i see you're only interested in poisoning the well > and ad hominem rather than contributing any useful data and i won't play > that game. doubtless you'll "respond" by bleating some toxic criticism > that'll contribute nothing to the subject in hand, but i won't care > because i'm not going to read it. have a great life. Yes, I have a history of challenging people who make claims to back up those claims with data. Some are able to do so, but most are like you. They get huffy and go away. Your choice. Matt |
Re: Determining oil change intervals via analysis
jim beam wrote:
> Matt Whiting 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. 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? > > > so how does that simplistic straw man get around the point i raised, > i.e. "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"? [rhetorical] > >> >> 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? > > > oh dear. do you really think that putting words in someone's mouth, > then using that as a platform for criticism is not childish and utterly > transparent? > > bottom line matt, i'm not going to waste any more time arguing with you. > having just googled a bunch of your other threads to see what kind of > person you are, i see you're only interested in poisoning the well > and ad hominem rather than contributing any useful data and i won't play > that game. doubtless you'll "respond" by bleating some toxic criticism > that'll contribute nothing to the subject in hand, but i won't care > because i'm not going to read it. have a great life. Yes, I have a history of challenging people who make claims to back up those claims with data. Some are able to do so, but most are like you. They get huffy and go away. Your choice. Matt |
Re: Determining oil change intervals via analysis
Elle wrote:
> "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 isn't amazing how 2 people can read the same article and perceive two different meanings? when i read "We saw no meaningful differences." and "we noted no benefit", i don't perceive any statistical significance testing, data tables, or results, i perceive conclusions. and when we have comments like "Generally, we noted as much variation between engines using the same oil as between those using different oils. Even the engines with the most wear didn't reach a level where we could detect operational problems." there's three relevant items you seem to be missing: 1. again, there's no measurement data. 2. there are no yardstick defined. 3. where's the investigation of variance between engines? there's /always/ a reason for that. in reality, if the objective of this piece is to measure wear, the yardstick is not "well it seems to work ok", the yardstick is thou or mm, but it's absent. we're not even given wear as a percentage of acceptable wear tolerance which is much simpler to tabulate for the layperson - which is the /minimum/ i'd want to see. instead, all we're given is this allusion to a testing protocol and conclusions, i.e. "take our word for it". and you accept that? and while on the subject of measurements not made, why not measure the piston ring gap? rings are the most susceptible to wear with the temperatures and sliding speeds they achieve, so why avoid something so relevant? if i run two different brands of oil in my honda and one has a high burn-off rate, but the other is zero [i give this example because it's something you can test for yourself], are you going to tell me there's no difference in oils? and if there /is/ a difference in oils, are you then going to argue that the oil with the highest burn rate, i.e. the one that scorches off the hot stuff more easily, is offering as much protection as the one that doesn't? measure that ring gap and give us the data!!! > > 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. i've never argued that so don't put those words in my mouth. > > 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
Elle wrote:
> "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 isn't amazing how 2 people can read the same article and perceive two different meanings? when i read "We saw no meaningful differences." and "we noted no benefit", i don't perceive any statistical significance testing, data tables, or results, i perceive conclusions. and when we have comments like "Generally, we noted as much variation between engines using the same oil as between those using different oils. Even the engines with the most wear didn't reach a level where we could detect operational problems." there's three relevant items you seem to be missing: 1. again, there's no measurement data. 2. there are no yardstick defined. 3. where's the investigation of variance between engines? there's /always/ a reason for that. in reality, if the objective of this piece is to measure wear, the yardstick is not "well it seems to work ok", the yardstick is thou or mm, but it's absent. we're not even given wear as a percentage of acceptable wear tolerance which is much simpler to tabulate for the layperson - which is the /minimum/ i'd want to see. instead, all we're given is this allusion to a testing protocol and conclusions, i.e. "take our word for it". and you accept that? and while on the subject of measurements not made, why not measure the piston ring gap? rings are the most susceptible to wear with the temperatures and sliding speeds they achieve, so why avoid something so relevant? if i run two different brands of oil in my honda and one has a high burn-off rate, but the other is zero [i give this example because it's something you can test for yourself], are you going to tell me there's no difference in oils? and if there /is/ a difference in oils, are you then going to argue that the oil with the highest burn rate, i.e. the one that scorches off the hot stuff more easily, is offering as much protection as the one that doesn't? measure that ring gap and give us the data!!! > > 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. i've never argued that so don't put those words in my mouth. > > 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
Elle wrote:
> "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 isn't amazing how 2 people can read the same article and perceive two different meanings? when i read "We saw no meaningful differences." and "we noted no benefit", i don't perceive any statistical significance testing, data tables, or results, i perceive conclusions. and when we have comments like "Generally, we noted as much variation between engines using the same oil as between those using different oils. Even the engines with the most wear didn't reach a level where we could detect operational problems." there's three relevant items you seem to be missing: 1. again, there's no measurement data. 2. there are no yardstick defined. 3. where's the investigation of variance between engines? there's /always/ a reason for that. in reality, if the objective of this piece is to measure wear, the yardstick is not "well it seems to work ok", the yardstick is thou or mm, but it's absent. we're not even given wear as a percentage of acceptable wear tolerance which is much simpler to tabulate for the layperson - which is the /minimum/ i'd want to see. instead, all we're given is this allusion to a testing protocol and conclusions, i.e. "take our word for it". and you accept that? and while on the subject of measurements not made, why not measure the piston ring gap? rings are the most susceptible to wear with the temperatures and sliding speeds they achieve, so why avoid something so relevant? if i run two different brands of oil in my honda and one has a high burn-off rate, but the other is zero [i give this example because it's something you can test for yourself], are you going to tell me there's no difference in oils? and if there /is/ a difference in oils, are you then going to argue that the oil with the highest burn rate, i.e. the one that scorches off the hot stuff more easily, is offering as much protection as the one that doesn't? measure that ring gap and give us the data!!! > > 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. i've never argued that so don't put those words in my mouth. > > 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
On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 19:07:31 GMT, <HLS@nospam.nix> wrote:
>> While your other points are absolutely valid, I have to take issue with >> this one. There are no "crappy" oils on the market, at least not as long >> as you buy SAE certified oils (which most are). >I tend to agree. If an oil meets the certification criteria, it is probably >just fine. I agree with Brian and you. Yet the most heated arguments here (and elsewhere!) are about oil. And they keep popping up over and over. WOW!! I think much of the arguments are caused by people thinking in terms of "absolutes". Even with impeccable lab testing, there are rarely absolute conclusions with so many variables involved. When it comes to oil, I think in terms of "The existing body of evidence shows that using X product and changing at Y frequency will probably be fine". I'm definitely not going to spend more than my car is worth to prove things to 99.997% certainty! Why not say: Dino oil... Change at 3000-5000 miles. Syn oil... Change at 4000-7000 miles. Anything in this range has proven acceptable practically forever. Everyone should choose their product and comfort level, and relax! :) -- Bob |
Re: Determining oil change intervals via analysis
On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 19:07:31 GMT, <HLS@nospam.nix> wrote:
>> While your other points are absolutely valid, I have to take issue with >> this one. There are no "crappy" oils on the market, at least not as long >> as you buy SAE certified oils (which most are). >I tend to agree. If an oil meets the certification criteria, it is probably >just fine. I agree with Brian and you. Yet the most heated arguments here (and elsewhere!) are about oil. And they keep popping up over and over. WOW!! I think much of the arguments are caused by people thinking in terms of "absolutes". Even with impeccable lab testing, there are rarely absolute conclusions with so many variables involved. When it comes to oil, I think in terms of "The existing body of evidence shows that using X product and changing at Y frequency will probably be fine". I'm definitely not going to spend more than my car is worth to prove things to 99.997% certainty! Why not say: Dino oil... Change at 3000-5000 miles. Syn oil... Change at 4000-7000 miles. Anything in this range has proven acceptable practically forever. Everyone should choose their product and comfort level, and relax! :) -- Bob |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:39 AM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands