for the guys that are into recreational oil changing...

"dr_jeff" > wrote in message
...
> Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>
>> > wrote
>>> And they had a LOT of problem engines using the specified standard oil
>>> on the "normal" change schedule. The problem is obvious - the oil not
>>> being changed often enough for conditions.
>>> This is NOT to say there was not a problem with the engine design that
>>> made the operatring conditions for the oil more onerous than they
>>> needed to be.
>>
>>
>> Maybe some of the people following the "normal" schedule were actually
>> driving under the "severe" criteria. I wonder how many people actually
>> know what they should be following.
>
> What percent of people drive under "sever" criteria? 1%?

What percentage had the sludge problem, 1%?

I don't know the answer to either question, but that does not mean there is
or is not a correlation.

On Tue, 6 Apr 2010 01:44:46 +0000 (UTC), Tegger >
wrote:

wrote in
:
>
>> On Mon, 5 Apr 2010 20:50:00 -0400, "C. E. White"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>On the other hand, modern cars
>>>have reduced problems with blow-by (better control of manufacturing
>>>tolerances), warm up faster and run hotter than cars from the middle
>>>of the last century,
>>
>> No, in fact they run COLDER to reduce Oxides of Nitrogen emissions.
>> You do NOT see many 195F thermostats any more (if any).
>
>
>
>"Colder" for NOx refers to combustion chamber temperatures that are kept well
>below 2,500F, above which is where NOx are mostly formed. Thermostat ratings
>have nothing to do with that.
>
>Modern engines DO warm up faster than engines of yesteryear. Emissions-
>control and fuel-economy regulations see to that.
>
>I question the assertion that modern engines run "hotter", though. I suspect
>it would be more correct to say that they reach (and stay at) operating-
>temperature more efficiently than older engines.

Seem old cars had 180 degree thermos pretty commonly.
I don't pay much attention but it seems the last few I put in were
195.
Still easy to get burned by hot oil in any case.

--Vic

Vic Smith > wrote in
:


>
> Seem old cars had 180 degree thermos pretty commonly.
> I don't pay much attention but it seems the last few I put in were
> 195.
> Still easy to get burned by hot oil in any case.


I see 78C (172F) thermostats in new Hondas and Toyotas. Keep in mind that
this is an OPENING temperature. 172F thermostats are fully-open at 194F.


--
Tegger

On Tue, 6 Apr 2010 01:44:46 +0000 (UTC), Tegger >
wrote:

wrote in
:
>
>> On Mon, 5 Apr 2010 20:50:00 -0400, "C. E. White"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>On the other hand, modern cars
>>>have reduced problems with blow-by (better control of manufacturing
>>>tolerances), warm up faster and run hotter than cars from the middle
>>>of the last century,
>>
>> No, in fact they run COLDER to reduce Oxides of Nitrogen emissions.
>> You do NOT see many 195F thermostats any more (if any).
>
>
>
>"Colder" for NOx refers to combustion chamber temperatures that are kept well
>below 2,500F, above which is where NOx are mostly formed. Thermostat ratings
>have nothing to do with that.

Not nothing. Try to get your 1996-2010 vehicle to pass NOX with a 195
thermostat installed. It MIGHT pass - but very good chance it won't.
I've had to remove hot stats and put in the recommended cold stat on
quite a few vehicles to get them to pass NOX.
>
>Modern engines DO warm up faster than engines of yesteryear. Emissions-
>control and fuel-economy regulations see to that.

They DO warm up faster.
>
>I question the assertion that modern engines run "hotter", though. I suspect
>it would be more correct to say that they reach (and stay at) operating-
>temperature more efficiently than older engines.

On Mon, 05 Apr 2010 20:57:43 -0500, Vic Smith
> wrote:

>On Tue, 6 Apr 2010 01:44:46 +0000 (UTC), Tegger >
>wrote:
>
wrote in
m:
>>
>>> On Mon, 5 Apr 2010 20:50:00 -0400, "C. E. White"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>On the other hand, modern cars
>>>>have reduced problems with blow-by (better control of manufacturing
>>>>tolerances), warm up faster and run hotter than cars from the middle
>>>>of the last century,
>>>
>>> No, in fact they run COLDER to reduce Oxides of Nitrogen emissions.
>>> You do NOT see many 195F thermostats any more (if any).
>>
>>
>>
>>"Colder" for NOx refers to combustion chamber temperatures that are kept well
>>below 2,500F, above which is where NOx are mostly formed. Thermostat ratings
>>have nothing to do with that.
>>
>>Modern engines DO warm up faster than engines of yesteryear. Emissions-
>>control and fuel-economy regulations see to that.
>>
>>I question the assertion that modern engines run "hotter", though. I suspect
>>it would be more correct to say that they reach (and stay at) operating-
>>temperature more efficiently than older engines.
>
>Seem old cars had 180 degree thermos pretty commonly.
>I don't pay much attention but it seems the last few I put in were
>195.
>Still easy to get burned by hot oil in any case.
>
>--Vic
And when I say a colder thermostat - NOT a 160!!!
And double checking, my PT Cruiser DOES specify a 195 'stat!!. I know
for a few years 185 was standard and 195 would cause NOX to go up on
some vehicles.It looks like since about 1996 (and ealier on some)they
have gone back to 195 from 180 (along with dual bed converters to
handle the NOX better)

So I was wrong on the later stuff. I keep forgetting how fast the
years are passing by. On the 1988 and 2005 vehicles I last got rid of,
hot stats failed NOX -.

Tegger wrote:
> Vic Smith > wrote in
> :
>
>
>> Seem old cars had 180 degree thermos pretty commonly.
>> I don't pay much attention but it seems the last few I put in were
>> 195.
>> Still easy to get burned by hot oil in any case.
>
>
> I see 78C (172F) thermostats in new Hondas and Toyotas. Keep in mind that
> this is an OPENING temperature. 172F thermostats are fully-open at 194F.


That's surprising as my ancient Hondas call for 180° thermostats where
later models called for the 195° units.

Probably the fancy (and expensive) electronics make that possible.

JT

Grumpy AuContraire wrote:
> Tegger wrote:
>> Vic Smith > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Seem old cars had 180 degree thermos pretty commonly.
>>> I don't pay much attention but it seems the last few I put in were
>>> 195.
>>> Still easy to get burned by hot oil in any case.
>>
>>
>> I see 78C (172F) thermostats in new Hondas and Toyotas. Keep in mind
>> that this is an OPENING temperature. 172F thermostats are fully-open
>> at 194F.
>
>
> That's surprising as my ancient Hondas call for 180° thermostats where
> later models called for the 195° units.
>
> Probably the fancy (and expensive) electronics make that possible.
>
> JT

Does not the fan turn-on temp. more determine steady state temperature
once the thermostat has opened? It may or may not be that the
thermostat stays in continuously modulating mode (vs. full open) under
most ambient air and load conditions during operation, but I suspect
that the fans and their turn-on temp. as defined by the accuracy of the
coolant temp. sensor and the PCM/ECM setpoint are the dominant factor.

--
Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

On Apr 5, 2:30*pm, wrote:
> That's what I've been saying all along - the "severe" schedule hits
> just about every driver in Central Ontario for at least 3 months of
> the year - and often 6.,

Honda Canada, and presumably the owners' manuals in Canadian Hondas,
have a different, regular maintenance schedule than the one talked
about for U.S. Hondas. From
http://www.honda.ca/HondaCA2006/Your...TrimID=162&L=E,
for my 2003 Civic if driven in Canada, the oil is to be changed every
5k miles/4 months.

The Honda Canada site also states that "most maintenance items are
more dependent on distance driven than time."

On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 05:57:05 -0400, Bill Putney >
wrote:

>Grumpy AuContraire wrote:
>> Tegger wrote:
>>> Vic Smith > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>> Seem old cars had 180 degree thermos pretty commonly.
>>>> I don't pay much attention but it seems the last few I put in were
>>>> 195.
>>>> Still easy to get burned by hot oil in any case.
>>>
>>>
>>> I see 78C (172F) thermostats in new Hondas and Toyotas. Keep in mind
>>> that this is an OPENING temperature. 172F thermostats are fully-open
>>> at 194F.
>>
>>
>> That's surprising as my ancient Hondas call for 180° thermostats where
>> later models called for the 195° units.
>>
>> Probably the fancy (and expensive) electronics make that possible.
>>
>> JT
>
>Does not the fan turn-on temp. more determine steady state temperature
>once the thermostat has opened? It may or may not be that the
>thermostat stays in continuously modulating mode (vs. full open) under
>most ambient air and load conditions during operation, but I suspect
>that the fans and their turn-on temp. as defined by the accuracy of the
>coolant temp. sensor and the PCM/ECM setpoint are the dominant factor.
Yes - the thermostat only controls the MINIMUM operating temperature.
The fan control has more control over the upper operating temps.

"Bill Putney" > wrote in message
...
> C. E. White wrote:
>
>> Dusty conditions - how many people actually operate their vehicles
>> in dusty conditions more than very occasionally? The engines of
>> modern cars are sealed much more thoroughly than cars from the
>> middle of the last century. Assuming everything is in good order,
>> the main entry point of dirt into your engine is through the air
>> cleaner. So make sure you have a good air cleaner and stay out of
>> volcanic ash...
>
> And don't use a K&N filter (and - no - I'm not a troll trying to
> start a fight with anybody).

Don't go there. I can't even convince my Son he is an idiot for using
a K&N Air Filter. I keep telling myself, his car, his money.

>> ...BTW, changing your air filter too often is actually a bad idea.
>
> Other than unnecessary expense of throwing away an unspent filter,
> why? You're going to say you need some dust to clog up the bigger
> holes? Still better than a K&N or equivalent.

Read these references and decide for yourself -

http://www.filtercouncil.org/techdata/tsbs/89-3R3.html
http://www.tomorrowstechnician.com/A...f ilters.aspx
http://www.donaldson.com/en/filterme...ary/052024.pdf
- go to page 10 or so

My largest farm tractors have air filter restriction gauges (and
back-up air filters). In 30 years I've had a filter restriction light
come on once. Still I like to replace the air filters annually because
I worry about the filters degrading over time.

I wish I had a good picture of peanut picking...then you'd know what
real dusty conditions are like. I've been in dust so thick you
couldn't see past the front of the tractor. Not fun...but at least
I've always had a tractor with a cab. My Dad picked peanuts with open
deck tractors.

Ed