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
 

Mike Marlow wrote:
> "jim beam" <nospam@example.net> wrote in message
> news:zLidnYxB6u0ub07ZnZ2dnUVZ_tOdnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
>
>> a motor that burns less oil and is more fuel efficient, that's what! a
>> motor that barely runs at 200k is a whole lot more expensive compared
>> with one that runs /well/ at 200k.
>
> Hey Jim - I'm not ragging on you, but this is the kind of thing that is very
> frustrating in a discussion. Many have talked about long term experiences
> gaining exactly that - a 200,000 mile engine that runs well. When you throw
> a red herring out there about engines that are barely running, it's just a
> noise level in the discussion. A statement like the one above really only
> discredits your position because it not only ignores the evidence of
> experience but it attempts to cloud the discussion with irrelevant clutter.

ah, the old inference argument! why not direct contradiction?

>
> I'm kind of hoping you can and do produce something a bit more factual and
> relevant to support your position. Maybe it won't cause me to change my
> habits but it would be worth seeing something factual, if for no other
> reason than the knowledge gain. I don't think you're full of hot air, or
> that your ideas are all wet. Rather, I still don't see the real world value
> they would add to what I already do.

er, consider two things:

1. if a wear rate is X for a given lube regime, and service life is Y,
we can figure out what the service interval needs to be.

2. now, if you want to alter Y, what do you need to change in the above?

>
> It may be that I decide there is no sufficient benefit to your ideas and
> that I'll continue with my own practices. That all by itself does not
> discredit what you do or what you support - it only says it doesn't offer
> enough for me. It may also be that if this discussion actually reached a
> level where some sort of empirical evidence was put forth, it might be
> obvious that the incremental value of more frequent changes, oil analysis,
> etc. simply do not offer a statistically significant benefit.
>
well, you keep on doing what you want to do. i'm just an anonymous
troll that can't be bothered to spoon feed people stuff they don't want
to hear. but if you care to dabble in the high mileage used car market,
you may get to be more familiar with the direct results to the concept
outlined above.

Re: Determining oil change intervals via analysis
 

Mike Marlow wrote:
> "jim beam" <nospam@example.net> wrote in message
> news:zLidnYxB6u0ub07ZnZ2dnUVZ_tOdnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
>
>> a motor that burns less oil and is more fuel efficient, that's what! a
>> motor that barely runs at 200k is a whole lot more expensive compared
>> with one that runs /well/ at 200k.
>
> Hey Jim - I'm not ragging on you, but this is the kind of thing that is very
> frustrating in a discussion. Many have talked about long term experiences
> gaining exactly that - a 200,000 mile engine that runs well. When you throw
> a red herring out there about engines that are barely running, it's just a
> noise level in the discussion. A statement like the one above really only
> discredits your position because it not only ignores the evidence of
> experience but it attempts to cloud the discussion with irrelevant clutter.

ah, the old inference argument! why not direct contradiction?

>
> I'm kind of hoping you can and do produce something a bit more factual and
> relevant to support your position. Maybe it won't cause me to change my
> habits but it would be worth seeing something factual, if for no other
> reason than the knowledge gain. I don't think you're full of hot air, or
> that your ideas are all wet. Rather, I still don't see the real world value
> they would add to what I already do.

er, consider two things:

1. if a wear rate is X for a given lube regime, and service life is Y,
we can figure out what the service interval needs to be.

2. now, if you want to alter Y, what do you need to change in the above?

>
> It may be that I decide there is no sufficient benefit to your ideas and
> that I'll continue with my own practices. That all by itself does not
> discredit what you do or what you support - it only says it doesn't offer
> enough for me. It may also be that if this discussion actually reached a
> level where some sort of empirical evidence was put forth, it might be
> obvious that the incremental value of more frequent changes, oil analysis,
> etc. simply do not offer a statistically significant benefit.
>
well, you keep on doing what you want to do. i'm just an anonymous
troll that can't be bothered to spoon feed people stuff they don't want
to hear. but if you care to dabble in the high mileage used car market,
you may get to be more familiar with the direct results to the concept
outlined above.

Re: Determining oil change intervals via analysis
 

Mike Marlow wrote:
> "jim beam" <nospam@example.net> wrote in message
> news:zLidnYxB6u0ub07ZnZ2dnUVZ_tOdnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
>
>> a motor that burns less oil and is more fuel efficient, that's what! a
>> motor that barely runs at 200k is a whole lot more expensive compared
>> with one that runs /well/ at 200k.
>
> Hey Jim - I'm not ragging on you, but this is the kind of thing that is very
> frustrating in a discussion. Many have talked about long term experiences
> gaining exactly that - a 200,000 mile engine that runs well. When you throw
> a red herring out there about engines that are barely running, it's just a
> noise level in the discussion. A statement like the one above really only
> discredits your position because it not only ignores the evidence of
> experience but it attempts to cloud the discussion with irrelevant clutter.

ah, the old inference argument! why not direct contradiction?

>
> I'm kind of hoping you can and do produce something a bit more factual and
> relevant to support your position. Maybe it won't cause me to change my
> habits but it would be worth seeing something factual, if for no other
> reason than the knowledge gain. I don't think you're full of hot air, or
> that your ideas are all wet. Rather, I still don't see the real world value
> they would add to what I already do.

er, consider two things:

1. if a wear rate is X for a given lube regime, and service life is Y,
we can figure out what the service interval needs to be.

2. now, if you want to alter Y, what do you need to change in the above?

>
> It may be that I decide there is no sufficient benefit to your ideas and
> that I'll continue with my own practices. That all by itself does not
> discredit what you do or what you support - it only says it doesn't offer
> enough for me. It may also be that if this discussion actually reached a
> level where some sort of empirical evidence was put forth, it might be
> obvious that the incremental value of more frequent changes, oil analysis,
> etc. simply do not offer a statistically significant benefit.
>
well, you keep on doing what you want to do. i'm just an anonymous
troll that can't be bothered to spoon feed people stuff they don't want
to hear. but if you care to dabble in the high mileage used car market,
you may get to be more familiar with the direct results to the concept
outlined above.

Re: Determining oil change intervals via analysis
 

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.

I hope you were looking in the mirror when you said this. You have yet
to provide any evidence to support your claims.

Re: Determining oil change intervals via analysis
 

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.

I hope you were looking in the mirror when you said this. You have yet
to provide any evidence to support your claims.

Re: Determining oil change intervals via analysis
 

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.

I hope you were looking in the mirror when you said this. You have yet
to provide any evidence to support your claims.

Re: Determining oil change intervals via analysis
 

Bob Adkins wrote:
> 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.

There's one really good reason, Hyundai recommends changes every 7500
miles with "dino" oil. THEY should know what's best for THEIR engines.
If people would just use their heads and follow Hyundai's
recommendations rather than insisting on adding myth and folklore to the
mix, we wouldn't be having this debate.

Re: Determining oil change intervals via analysis
 

Bob Adkins wrote:
> 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.

There's one really good reason, Hyundai recommends changes every 7500
miles with "dino" oil. THEY should know what's best for THEIR engines.
If people would just use their heads and follow Hyundai's
recommendations rather than insisting on adding myth and folklore to the
mix, we wouldn't be having this debate.

Re: Determining oil change intervals via analysis
 

Bob Adkins wrote:
> 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.

There's one really good reason, Hyundai recommends changes every 7500
miles with "dino" oil. THEY should know what's best for THEIR engines.
If people would just use their heads and follow Hyundai's
recommendations rather than insisting on adding myth and folklore to the
mix, we wouldn't be having this debate.

Re: Determining oil change intervals via analysis
 

Brian Nystrom wrote:

>>
>> Why not say:
>>
>> Dino oil... Change at 3000-5000 miles.
>> Syn oil... Change at 4000-7000 miles.
>
> There's one really good reason, Hyundai recommends changes every 7500
> miles with "dino" oil. THEY should know what's best for THEIR engines.
> If people would just use their heads and follow Hyundai's
> recommendations rather than insisting on adding myth and folklore to the
> mix, we wouldn't be having this debate.

Definitely! The problem is that the motoring public has been
brainwashed by that 3,000 oil & filter mantra. Too bad also that the
service personnel at the dealerships are bucking the change as well.
Within the last 18-24 months I read articles indicating that GM is going
nuts trying to get their dealers to go along with GM's oil change
recommendations as indicated by the on-board computerized oil change
indicators now on most of their better vehicles.

Granted, it's not a chemical analysis of the oil but it tracks the kind
of usage the oil is being subjected to. You just know they have a
margin of safety/error built into their calculations, just as they did
when they stood proudly by that "Change it every 3,000 miles or else!"

Speaking of which, I always changed filters with the oil - even when I
was doing my own changes. Browsing through the manual for my new Accord
EX V-6 it appears that Honda wants an oil change ONLY at ~10,000 (or as
indicated by the oil life computer) but no filter. Am I reading that
correctly?

Re: Determining oil change intervals via analysis
 

Brian Nystrom wrote:

>>
>> Why not say:
>>
>> Dino oil... Change at 3000-5000 miles.
>> Syn oil... Change at 4000-7000 miles.
>
> There's one really good reason, Hyundai recommends changes every 7500
> miles with "dino" oil. THEY should know what's best for THEIR engines.
> If people would just use their heads and follow Hyundai's
> recommendations rather than insisting on adding myth and folklore to the
> mix, we wouldn't be having this debate.

Definitely! The problem is that the motoring public has been
brainwashed by that 3,000 oil & filter mantra. Too bad also that the
service personnel at the dealerships are bucking the change as well.
Within the last 18-24 months I read articles indicating that GM is going
nuts trying to get their dealers to go along with GM's oil change
recommendations as indicated by the on-board computerized oil change
indicators now on most of their better vehicles.

Granted, it's not a chemical analysis of the oil but it tracks the kind
of usage the oil is being subjected to. You just know they have a
margin of safety/error built into their calculations, just as they did
when they stood proudly by that "Change it every 3,000 miles or else!"

Speaking of which, I always changed filters with the oil - even when I
was doing my own changes. Browsing through the manual for my new Accord
EX V-6 it appears that Honda wants an oil change ONLY at ~10,000 (or as
indicated by the oil life computer) but no filter. Am I reading that
correctly?

Re: Determining oil change intervals via analysis
 

Brian Nystrom wrote:

>>
>> Why not say:
>>
>> Dino oil... Change at 3000-5000 miles.
>> Syn oil... Change at 4000-7000 miles.
>
> There's one really good reason, Hyundai recommends changes every 7500
> miles with "dino" oil. THEY should know what's best for THEIR engines.
> If people would just use their heads and follow Hyundai's
> recommendations rather than insisting on adding myth and folklore to the
> mix, we wouldn't be having this debate.

Definitely! The problem is that the motoring public has been
brainwashed by that 3,000 oil & filter mantra. Too bad also that the
service personnel at the dealerships are bucking the change as well.
Within the last 18-24 months I read articles indicating that GM is going
nuts trying to get their dealers to go along with GM's oil change
recommendations as indicated by the on-board computerized oil change
indicators now on most of their better vehicles.

Granted, it's not a chemical analysis of the oil but it tracks the kind
of usage the oil is being subjected to. You just know they have a
margin of safety/error built into their calculations, just as they did
when they stood proudly by that "Change it every 3,000 miles or else!"

Speaking of which, I always changed filters with the oil - even when I
was doing my own changes. Browsing through the manual for my new Accord
EX V-6 it appears that Honda wants an oil change ONLY at ~10,000 (or as
indicated by the oil life computer) but no filter. Am I reading that
correctly?

Re: Determining oil change intervals via analysis
 

Unquestionably Confused wrote:

> Brian Nystrom wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Why not say:
>>>
>>> Dino oil... Change at 3000-5000 miles.
>>> Syn oil... Change at 4000-7000 miles.
>>
>>
>> There's one really good reason, Hyundai recommends changes every 7500
>> miles with "dino" oil. THEY should know what's best for THEIR engines.
>> If people would just use their heads and follow Hyundai's
>> recommendations rather than insisting on adding myth and folklore to
>> the mix, we wouldn't be having this debate.
>
>
> Definitely! The problem is that the motoring public has been
> brainwashed by that 3,000 oil & filter mantra. Too bad also that the
> service personnel at the dealerships are bucking the change as well.
> Within the last 18-24 months I read articles indicating that GM is going
> nuts trying to get their dealers to go along with GM's oil change
> recommendations as indicated by the on-board computerized oil change
> indicators now on most of their better vehicles.

The auto makers lose either way. If they recommend 3,000 mile changes,
they get accused of being in bed with the oil companies and if they
recommend 10,000 mile changes they get accused of wanting you to wear
out your engine too soon so they can sell you another one.


> Speaking of which, I always changed filters with the oil - even when I
> was doing my own changes. Browsing through the manual for my new Accord
> EX V-6 it appears that Honda wants an oil change ONLY at ~10,000 (or as
> indicated by the oil life computer) but no filter. Am I reading that
> correctly?

I don't know as I don't have an Accord. One was enough for me.

Matt

Re: Determining oil change intervals via analysis
 

Unquestionably Confused wrote:

> Brian Nystrom wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Why not say:
>>>
>>> Dino oil... Change at 3000-5000 miles.
>>> Syn oil... Change at 4000-7000 miles.
>>
>>
>> There's one really good reason, Hyundai recommends changes every 7500
>> miles with "dino" oil. THEY should know what's best for THEIR engines.
>> If people would just use their heads and follow Hyundai's
>> recommendations rather than insisting on adding myth and folklore to
>> the mix, we wouldn't be having this debate.
>
>
> Definitely! The problem is that the motoring public has been
> brainwashed by that 3,000 oil & filter mantra. Too bad also that the
> service personnel at the dealerships are bucking the change as well.
> Within the last 18-24 months I read articles indicating that GM is going
> nuts trying to get their dealers to go along with GM's oil change
> recommendations as indicated by the on-board computerized oil change
> indicators now on most of their better vehicles.

The auto makers lose either way. If they recommend 3,000 mile changes,
they get accused of being in bed with the oil companies and if they
recommend 10,000 mile changes they get accused of wanting you to wear
out your engine too soon so they can sell you another one.


> Speaking of which, I always changed filters with the oil - even when I
> was doing my own changes. Browsing through the manual for my new Accord
> EX V-6 it appears that Honda wants an oil change ONLY at ~10,000 (or as
> indicated by the oil life computer) but no filter. Am I reading that
> correctly?

I don't know as I don't have an Accord. One was enough for me.

Matt