jcr wrote:
> > On 8/5/2006 10:18 AM ... 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.
>>
>> gerry
>>
>
> BTW: What specific engine problem would cause this to occur (except
> perhaps a stuck-open thermostat)?

Leaking head gasket allowing coolant into the crankcase. Cracked block
or head allowing same. Many short trips in cold weather.

I don't recall there being a date at this site, but the car was
purportedly a 2001. So, if this occurred just recently, then this car
may have been five years old when the engine was torn down. 8700 miles
over five years, is very little driving. And if this was the original
oil and filter as was suggested, and if this car was driven in a cold
climate, then that would constitute extreme abuse and might well
generage that much sludge.


Matt

 

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article <kPadnR-MffcIgkvZnZ2dnUVZ_q6dnZ2d@speakeasy.net>,
> jim beam <nospam@example.net> wrote:
>
>> in the current market, very few people keep a
>> car more than 100k, or not first owners, so that's where the attention
>> goes - for every manufacturer in the world.
>
> Right.
>
> So for a second owner, where the manufacturer has no interest, a
> decrease in oil change intervals is cheap insurance--no matter what the
> owner's manual says.
>
agreed, but why wait? it's something first owners benefit from too if
they plan on keeping the car for the long haul. crazy short change
intervals are a waste, but cutting 20% - 30% off the end of the
manufacturer specified mileage will cost 2 - 3 more oil changes in that
initial 100k period for a new honda, or about $45 if you do the work
yourself. i'd be hard pushed to sweat that kind of money if i were
balancing oil change economics against engine performance/durability
economics. in fact, since oils tend to get a little more viscous as
their contaminant load increases, you'll probably make that extra cost
back in fuel consumption savings.

 

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article <kPadnR-MffcIgkvZnZ2dnUVZ_q6dnZ2d@speakeasy.net>,
> jim beam <nospam@example.net> wrote:
>
>> in the current market, very few people keep a
>> car more than 100k, or not first owners, so that's where the attention
>> goes - for every manufacturer in the world.
>
> Right.
>
> So for a second owner, where the manufacturer has no interest, a
> decrease in oil change intervals is cheap insurance--no matter what the
> owner's manual says.
>
agreed, but why wait? it's something first owners benefit from too if
they plan on keeping the car for the long haul. crazy short change
intervals are a waste, but cutting 20% - 30% off the end of the
manufacturer specified mileage will cost 2 - 3 more oil changes in that
initial 100k period for a new honda, or about $45 if you do the work
yourself. i'd be hard pushed to sweat that kind of money if i were
balancing oil change economics against engine performance/durability
economics. in fact, since oils tend to get a little more viscous as
their contaminant load increases, you'll probably make that extra cost
back in fuel consumption savings.

 

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article <kPadnR-MffcIgkvZnZ2dnUVZ_q6dnZ2d@speakeasy.net>,
> jim beam <nospam@example.net> wrote:
>
>> in the current market, very few people keep a
>> car more than 100k, or not first owners, so that's where the attention
>> goes - for every manufacturer in the world.
>
> Right.
>
> So for a second owner, where the manufacturer has no interest, a
> decrease in oil change intervals is cheap insurance--no matter what the
> owner's manual says.
>
agreed, but why wait? it's something first owners benefit from too if
they plan on keeping the car for the long haul. crazy short change
intervals are a waste, but cutting 20% - 30% off the end of the
manufacturer specified mileage will cost 2 - 3 more oil changes in that
initial 100k period for a new honda, or about $45 if you do the work
yourself. i'd be hard pushed to sweat that kind of money if i were
balancing oil change economics against engine performance/durability
economics. in fact, since oils tend to get a little more viscous as
their contaminant load increases, you'll probably make that extra cost
back in fuel consumption savings.

 

jcr wrote:

> > On 8/4/2006 10:39 PM ... Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>> Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
>>
>>> In article <WNPAg.220$Db4.20522@news1.epix.net>,
>>> Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Well, but parts can easily fail due to infrequent oil changes.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Which parts and how do they fail?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.tegger.com/hondafaq/sludg...ng_sludge.html
>>
>>
>> Yes, some Toyota engines and one Chrysler engine (the 2.7 as I recall)
>> have design errors that cause sludge formation. Frequent oil changes
>> have little affect on this, but changing to synthetic helps a lot.
>>
>> And something is really fishy with this story. I don't believe the
>> 8700 miles for a second. Even sludge prone engines won't build this
>> much sludge in that little mileage. There is more to this than meets
>> the eye. I suspect odometer tampering or possibly even an engine swap
>> with a high mileage engine in order to use the new one for anothe
>> vehicle.
>>
>> Matt
>
>
> Constant short 3-4 mile trips could do it.

Possibly. If this 8700 miles was over a several year period, especially
in a cold slimate, then I can see this possibly happening. The site
simply has too few details to make an accurate assessment.


Matt

 

jcr wrote:

> > On 8/4/2006 10:39 PM ... Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>> Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
>>
>>> In article <WNPAg.220$Db4.20522@news1.epix.net>,
>>> Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Well, but parts can easily fail due to infrequent oil changes.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Which parts and how do they fail?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.tegger.com/hondafaq/sludg...ng_sludge.html
>>
>>
>> Yes, some Toyota engines and one Chrysler engine (the 2.7 as I recall)
>> have design errors that cause sludge formation. Frequent oil changes
>> have little affect on this, but changing to synthetic helps a lot.
>>
>> And something is really fishy with this story. I don't believe the
>> 8700 miles for a second. Even sludge prone engines won't build this
>> much sludge in that little mileage. There is more to this than meets
>> the eye. I suspect odometer tampering or possibly even an engine swap
>> with a high mileage engine in order to use the new one for anothe
>> vehicle.
>>
>> Matt
>
>
> Constant short 3-4 mile trips could do it.

Possibly. If this 8700 miles was over a several year period, especially
in a cold slimate, then I can see this possibly happening. The site
simply has too few details to make an accurate assessment.


Matt

 

jcr wrote:

> > On 8/4/2006 10:39 PM ... Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>> Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
>>
>>> In article <WNPAg.220$Db4.20522@news1.epix.net>,
>>> Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Well, but parts can easily fail due to infrequent oil changes.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Which parts and how do they fail?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.tegger.com/hondafaq/sludg...ng_sludge.html
>>
>>
>> Yes, some Toyota engines and one Chrysler engine (the 2.7 as I recall)
>> have design errors that cause sludge formation. Frequent oil changes
>> have little affect on this, but changing to synthetic helps a lot.
>>
>> And something is really fishy with this story. I don't believe the
>> 8700 miles for a second. Even sludge prone engines won't build this
>> much sludge in that little mileage. There is more to this than meets
>> the eye. I suspect odometer tampering or possibly even an engine swap
>> with a high mileage engine in order to use the new one for anothe
>> vehicle.
>>
>> Matt
>
>
> Constant short 3-4 mile trips could do it.

Possibly. If this 8700 miles was over a several year period, especially
in a cold slimate, then I can see this possibly happening. The site
simply has too few details to make an accurate assessment.


Matt

 

"Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote
in an exchange with Elmo and others
>>>>>> Well, but parts can easily fail due to infrequent oil
>>>>>> changes.
>>>>> Which parts and how do they fail?
>>>> http://www.tegger.com/hondafaq/sludg...ng_sludge.html

>> Constant short 3-4 mile trips could do it.
>
> Possibly. If this 8700 miles was over a several year
> period, especially in a cold slimate, then I can see this
> possibly happening. The site simply has too few details
> to make an accurate assessment.

The posting of the link above misleads. Indications are that
the engine shown at the site above has an "oil gelling"
problem known to certain Toyotas and in fact resulting in a
special warranty from Toyota. See
http://www.autosafety.org/article.php?scid=&did=566 , among
other sites that discuss this.

A poorly designed PCV system is arguably the main cause.
Note the mention of the warranty at the Tegger.com site. See
also commentary at the link below from the technician who
worked on this Toyota engine. As of January, 2006, he (and
others with expertise, it seems) puts some blame on
insufficient oil changes, but just as much blame on the PCV
system, which evidently is less tolerant of low oil change
frequency compared to many other makes and models.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.a...e16042141f52bc


For more on oil gelling in certain Toyotas, see

http://www.carfax.com/car_safety/rat...OYT4DFCAMRY_LE

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...06/ai_n9093540

 

"Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote
in an exchange with Elmo and others
>>>>>> Well, but parts can easily fail due to infrequent oil
>>>>>> changes.
>>>>> Which parts and how do they fail?
>>>> http://www.tegger.com/hondafaq/sludg...ng_sludge.html

>> Constant short 3-4 mile trips could do it.
>
> Possibly. If this 8700 miles was over a several year
> period, especially in a cold slimate, then I can see this
> possibly happening. The site simply has too few details
> to make an accurate assessment.

The posting of the link above misleads. Indications are that
the engine shown at the site above has an "oil gelling"
problem known to certain Toyotas and in fact resulting in a
special warranty from Toyota. See
http://www.autosafety.org/article.php?scid=&did=566 , among
other sites that discuss this.

A poorly designed PCV system is arguably the main cause.
Note the mention of the warranty at the Tegger.com site. See
also commentary at the link below from the technician who
worked on this Toyota engine. As of January, 2006, he (and
others with expertise, it seems) puts some blame on
insufficient oil changes, but just as much blame on the PCV
system, which evidently is less tolerant of low oil change
frequency compared to many other makes and models.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.a...e16042141f52bc


For more on oil gelling in certain Toyotas, see

http://www.carfax.com/car_safety/rat...OYT4DFCAMRY_LE

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...06/ai_n9093540

 

"Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote
in an exchange with Elmo and others
>>>>>> Well, but parts can easily fail due to infrequent oil
>>>>>> changes.
>>>>> Which parts and how do they fail?
>>>> http://www.tegger.com/hondafaq/sludg...ng_sludge.html

>> Constant short 3-4 mile trips could do it.
>
> Possibly. If this 8700 miles was over a several year
> period, especially in a cold slimate, then I can see this
> possibly happening. The site simply has too few details
> to make an accurate assessment.

The posting of the link above misleads. Indications are that
the engine shown at the site above has an "oil gelling"
problem known to certain Toyotas and in fact resulting in a
special warranty from Toyota. See
http://www.autosafety.org/article.php?scid=&did=566 , among
other sites that discuss this.

A poorly designed PCV system is arguably the main cause.
Note the mention of the warranty at the Tegger.com site. See
also commentary at the link below from the technician who
worked on this Toyota engine. As of January, 2006, he (and
others with expertise, it seems) puts some blame on
insufficient oil changes, but just as much blame on the PCV
system, which evidently is less tolerant of low oil change
frequency compared to many other makes and models.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.a...e16042141f52bc


For more on oil gelling in certain Toyotas, see

http://www.carfax.com/car_safety/rat...OYT4DFCAMRY_LE

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...06/ai_n9093540

 

"jim beam" <nospam@example.net> wrote in message
news:49CdnTDWkJc4cknZnZ2dnUVZ_t2dnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...

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

Infernece argument? Sounds like you are used to being confronted about your
use of such tactics as red herrings. Why not direct contradiction? You
seemed to have missed the point where I told you that contrary to what you'd
like to have available as your argument, folks here consistently keep their
cars running very strong at and above 200K.


>
> 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?

Again with the irrelevant hogwash. You are indeed proving yourself to be
well uninformed.


> 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.

That you are. Too many of us here have actually maintained and driven
vehicles to that level of "high mileage used car" as you refer to it for us
to allow baseless claims to prevail. That, I suggest is the difference
between those who challenge you here and your own experiences. We've
actually done it.

--

-Mike-
mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net

 

"jim beam" <nospam@example.net> wrote in message
news:49CdnTDWkJc4cknZnZ2dnUVZ_t2dnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...

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

Infernece argument? Sounds like you are used to being confronted about your
use of such tactics as red herrings. Why not direct contradiction? You
seemed to have missed the point where I told you that contrary to what you'd
like to have available as your argument, folks here consistently keep their
cars running very strong at and above 200K.


>
> 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?

Again with the irrelevant hogwash. You are indeed proving yourself to be
well uninformed.


> 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.

That you are. Too many of us here have actually maintained and driven
vehicles to that level of "high mileage used car" as you refer to it for us
to allow baseless claims to prevail. That, I suggest is the difference
between those who challenge you here and your own experiences. We've
actually done it.

--

-Mike-
mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net

 

"jim beam" <nospam@example.net> wrote in message
news:49CdnTDWkJc4cknZnZ2dnUVZ_t2dnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...

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

Infernece argument? Sounds like you are used to being confronted about your
use of such tactics as red herrings. Why not direct contradiction? You
seemed to have missed the point where I told you that contrary to what you'd
like to have available as your argument, folks here consistently keep their
cars running very strong at and above 200K.


>
> 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?

Again with the irrelevant hogwash. You are indeed proving yourself to be
well uninformed.


> 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.

That you are. Too many of us here have actually maintained and driven
vehicles to that level of "high mileage used car" as you refer to it for us
to allow baseless claims to prevail. That, I suggest is the difference
between those who challenge you here and your own experiences. We've
actually done it.

--

-Mike-
mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net

 

On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 23:17:49 GMT, Brian Nystrom <brian.nystrom@verizon.net>
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.

The 7500 is for normal conditions. Hyundai recommends changing oil more
frequently for severe conditions, thus the above range. Ya, I'm a little
conservative because I never know how people treat their cars or the
conditions in which they drive.
--
Bob

 

On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 23:17:49 GMT, Brian Nystrom <brian.nystrom@verizon.net>
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.

The 7500 is for normal conditions. Hyundai recommends changing oil more
frequently for severe conditions, thus the above range. Ya, I'm a little
conservative because I never know how people treat their cars or the
conditions in which they drive.
--
Bob