new Honda CR-V break in

On 01/14/2010 06:43 PM, Tegger wrote:
> jim > wrote in
> t:
>
>> On 01/14/2010 04:56 AM, Brian Smith wrote:
>>> On 1/14/2010 8:02 AM, Dave Kelsen wrote:
>>>>
>>>> How is it not wasted? Without getting in to any particular numbers
>>>> with respect to miles driven or time elapsed, the fact is that if
>>>> you change the oil more frequently than is necessary, or even
>>>> helpful, it certainly is wasted.
>>>
>>> How is it not wasted? Simply the regular changing of the engine's
>>> lubrication is a good thing.
>>
>> no. read this:
>> http://www.swri.org/3pubs/IRD1999/03912699.htm
>
>
>
> An update on my emails to SwRI: Two emails and no response. It's been over
> a week.
>
> I've been told by two tribologists that you can never change your oil too
> often for the good of the engine.

any citeable sources to support that?

http://tribology-abc.com/sub13.htm

"Maintenance management based on condition monitoring of machine
equipment and oil may result in:

reduction of unscheduled downtime
improved equipment reliability
extended service life of machine parts
maximization of oil change intervals
less costs of waste oil and less anti pollution taxes
by timely observation of faults, no lasting damage is caused"

the name of the game is extending service intervals.



> It's very unfortunate that SwRI appears
> to be unwilling to supply any clarification of the relevant statement in
> their publication.


dude, i can cite "experts" all over the net that'll tell you the
benefits of seafood consumption to help erectile dysfunction. but
without data, it's just witchcraft and bull****.

now, shall i tell you "i've been told" by exxon's bay area head fleet
maintenance products manager guy just the opposite? and that he eats
his own dogfood with 25000 mile oil change intervals on his chevy tahoe?
that's right - twenty five thousand on mobil 1. he says he has the
analysis data to back it up, but he's just an oil company guy so we
shouldn't believe him...

On 01/14/2010 11:41 AM, Brian Smith wrote:
> On 1/14/2010 11:13 AM, Tony Harding wrote:
>>
>> How can all the still serviceable oil drained not be wasted?
>
> It isn't considered "still serviceable" oil. It is used and then used by
> others to fuel their shop furnace. So it is well used.

i forgot this one:
using waste oil in your shop furnace could explain your learning
difficulties. waste oil is full of all kinds of nasties, including
lead, antimony, and a bunch of organics that also adversely affect your
health. mental retardation is but one symptom.


>
>> I agree with you philosophically, i.e, I do what I want with my $$$, you
>> do what you want with yours, etc.; but we're subject to irrational
>> choices. I've lost the link from a couple of years ago, but there was a
>> study done showing that the ancient wisdom of changing oil every 3,000
>> miles was way too soon for modern engines and modern engine oil.
>
> Mileage isn't the only factor involved when setting oil change
> frequency. We have operating hours which come into play in the equation
> as well.
>
>> Quite so, but no proof you're not spending more than you have to,
>> throwing out/recycling perfectly usable engine oil or keeping your fleet
>> vehicles off the road more time than they require.
>
> The proof is in the corporate books, which show that less money is being
> spent on the maintenance of the fleet since I took over the company's
> operation, than my predecessor's performance. The fleet is serviced
> during the night shift, which keeps the fleet on the road during the day
> when they are required to be there.

On 01/14/2010 06:35 PM, Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In >,
> Tony > wrote:
>
>> So if I were really conservative regarding oil changes, I'd do it weekly
>> or even daily. Anything wrong with that?
>
> No. You get to choose the line.

read a story of a guy who drove to wall st and dropped his car off every
morning for a $25 oil change. he'd then pick it up in the evening and
drive home. the logic? it was cheaper to do this than park the car in
the typical manhattan financial district car park.

On 01/14/2010 06:35 PM, Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In >,
> Tony > wrote:
>
>>>> Really? What about the wasted oil which is still perfectly usable as an
>>>> engine lubricant? Time? Money?
>>>
>>> It's not wasted oil, nor money, nor time.
>>
>> How can all the still serviceable oil drained not be wasted?
>
> well, you sell it to Jiffy Lube...

don't you mean "iffy lube"?

Thus spake Grumpy AuContraire > :

>Dillon Pyron wrote:
>> Thus spake "Elmo P. Shagnasty" > :
>>
>>> In article >,
>>> "Guy" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Personally I've read Hondas can be abused and
>>>> still no problems.
>>> hehehehe--reminds me of my 79 Civic. The oil system had a nifty
>>> self-changing feature. When the oil light flickered during hard right
>>> turns, it was time to add more oil.
>>
>> Had friend with a 79 CRX (same as mine except for color) that didn't
>> self change, but it was capable of at least removing the oil very
>> quickly. I was amazed that Honda built the car with a 5 or so inch
>> drain plug right under the #3 piston. Oh, and that was also the
>> reminder that he needed to replace the rod and all the bearings.
>
>
>
>'79 CRX???
>
>JT

89
Just washed my hands, can't do a thing with them.

I really need to be watching what I type, or at least reading my posts
every now and again. Jeez, get one digit wrong .... :-)
--

- dillon I am not invalid

I love my country, It's my government I fear.

Hey, turnabout's fair play.

Tegger wrote:
>
> jim beam > wrote in
> t:
>
> > On 01/14/2010 04:56 AM, Brian Smith wrote:
> >> On 1/14/2010 8:02 AM, Dave Kelsen wrote:
> >>>
> >>> How is it not wasted? Without getting in to any particular numbers
> >>> with respect to miles driven or time elapsed, the fact is that if
> >>> you change the oil more frequently than is necessary, or even
> >>> helpful, it certainly is wasted.
> >>
> >> How is it not wasted? Simply the regular changing of the engine's
> >> lubrication is a good thing.
> >
> > no. read this:
> > http://www.swri.org/3pubs/IRD1999/03912699.htm
>
> An update on my emails to SwRI: Two emails and no response. It's been over
> a week.
>
> I've been told by two tribologists that you can never change your oil too
> often for the good of the engine. It's very unfortunate that SwRI appears
> to be unwilling to supply any clarification of the relevant statement in
> their publication.
>

I'm not sure which statement you wish to have clarified, but this study
has long ago been discredited as evidence that old used oil protects an
engine better than fresh new oil does.

The experiment is simple it shows is that if you have two identical
engines that have been treated with radioactive tracers and put oil that
has been used for 72 hours in one engine and oil that is fresh in the
other after six hours of test running, there will be less evidence of
the radioactive wear particles in the used oil than in the new oil.
A simple experiment will show the fallacy of believing that this is
evidence that dirty oil provides better wear protection than clean: If
you setup the experiment so that you pump the oil through heated tubes
to simulate an engine lubricating system (but no actual engine wear is
present) and then just add equal amounts of wear particles to both the
old and new oil you will find that you get the same result. The old oil
shows less evidence of the wear particles than the new oil.
All this means is that the new oil has a greater capacity for holding
the wear particles in suspension than the old oil does. The article
itself confirms this fact. They article says that it is not until the
oil has been used for 20 hours that you start to see an accumulation of
radioactive particles in the oil filter. The explanation for that is
simple: the wear particles are very tiny - generally less than 1 micron
- and when the oil is fresh it does a very good job of holding the
particles in suspension. This is accomplished by additives that are
keeping the particles from sticking or bonding to anything. The article
shows that after 20 hours of use (20 hours would be 1200 miles at 60
mph) the oil starts to lose this capacity to keep the particles from
sticking to things. When this happens the particles will start to stick
to the engine components and stick to each other. When the particles
become more sticky they can clump together and become big enough to
settle out of the oil or to be removed by the oil filter. That is why
the study found wear particles in the filter only after 20 hours of
use.
As engine oil gets older and dirtier from use it will progressively
lose its capacity to hold wear particles in suspension. That means the
accumulated evidence of wear progressively disappears. This is reason
that Cummins advises fleet managers to not rely on oil analysis as a
method for determining the amount of engine wear. The simple fact is if
the oil is allowed to degrade enough the results can lead to erroneous
conclusions about the extent of actual engine wear that is occuring.

-jim

When one talks about "wasting money" on more regular servicing I was
reminded of an article in a car mag here in the UK - those makes that have
gone for extended serevicing (18k miles/.2 years etc) are those makes that
have fallen down the reliability stakes- this may be due to the fact they
are mostly european makes or maybe they don't worry about longer term
reliability

In the UK most Japanese makes have stuck to annual servicing and quite often
are slagged off in the car mags by penny pinching motorists for costing a
lot, BMWs with now 4 yr coolant changes instead of 2 years have had cooling
issues - loads more exmples of worse reliability - sadly the makes that try
and appeal to the car fleets are only concerned about the servicing costs
over 4 years /80k miles - after that If they blow up - who cares seems to be
the attitude although having said that the BMW diesel turbos "reliability
issues" did have an effect on their reliability image

jim beam wrote:
>
> On 01/14/2010 10:26 AM, jim wrote:
> >
> >
> > jim beam wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> you do oil analysis? doesn't sound like it. and when was the last time
> >> anyone here saw a breakdown due to lubrication failure? you may be more
> >> diligent about other aspects of maintenance, but too-frequent oil
> >> changes are wasting money and time.
> >
> > Posting on usenet is a waste of time and money also so wasting time and
> > money cant be the real issue.
>
> you're right - the issue is someone polluting the knowledge pool with
> witchcraft bull****.

You seem to be obsessed with witchcraft and bull****. "the knowledge
pool" seems to be your terminology for your mental fantasies. If someone
agrees with your fantasy then they are contributing to "the knowledge
pool" and if someone disagrees with one of your fantasies then they are
polluting "the knowledge pool".


>
> >
> > ` Do you worry about how often other people take a ****, or whether
> > they are washing their hands too often or that they are breathing too
> > fast.? These actions serve the same purpose as changing oil but for some
> > reason you are not constantly telling others how often they should be
> > engaging in these other activities that serve the same function of
> > cleansing the system. If someone said they change the air in their tires
> > every 3 months would you get all bent out of shape about it? This is a
> > serious mental deficiency some people have that they are completely and
> > totally obsessed with how often other people change oil.
>
> so why are you telling people you "save money" changing your oil so
> often??? all the evidence contradicts you, not supports you.

I have not been telling people they save money by changing oil so often
nor have I ever claimed to see "all evidence". From you I have seen no
evidence at all. You seem to think that anything you proclaim will be
taken as gospel without any evidence or even any explanation.

>
> >
> > In my opinion anybody who incessantly worries about other peoples oil
> > change habits are just perverted busy bodies.
>
> by that metric, you're a goddamned hypocrite. you're preaching your
> witchcraft about your oil change intervals so you're a perverted
> busybody if you dare to contradict anyone else. not least because you
> have no data to back up your position.

No I'm afraid you are hallucinating. I haven't stated anything of the
sort. I was simply commenting on your obsession with other people's oil
changing habits. And yes it would be perverted of me to preach to others
about changing there oil which is one reason I don't.


>
> >
> >>
> >>> IN regard to my own
> >>> personal vehicles, I have no qualms about changing the fluids based on
> >>> the mileage and time frame that I have decided gives the best return on
> >>> my investment.
> >>
> >> based on what analysis? unless you have numbers, you're no better than
> >> a witch doctor.
> >
> > That is utter nonsense. Oil analysis is like reading tea leaves in the
> > bottom of a cup.
>
> eh? so when you change your "fleet" brake linings, do you simply do it
> every 3000 miles? 10000 miles? or do you bother to observe actual wear
> and change when the pad reaches a given limit? because that's what
> you're doing with oil analysis - observing condition and replacing once
> it's worn to the limit. replacing it out of superstition and fear is
> ridiculous.


Just like brake pads if you push it to the absolute limit you will be
increasing the risk of failure due to incorrect guesses as to the exact
point where that limit should be set. Doing a brake job when the pads
still have useful life left is not as ridiculous as you make it out to
be. At any rate it would seem equally odd to me if someone was obsessed
with other people having brake jobs done more often than they need to.
If someone chooses to have a brake job done when the pads are only half
worn why would you object?



>
> > Major engine manufacturers like Cummins say oil
> > analysis is of very little value in determining oil maintenance
> > schedules.
>
> bull****. cite your source.

I did cite my source. Cummins engine is the source. Do you ever
actually say anything meaningful or is proclaiming "bull****." the total
extent of your capabilities?

Here is one quote from Cummins:

{QUOTE]

Cummins Inc. does not recommend that oil analysis be used to determine
maintenance intervals. Oil analysis only permits maintenance intervals
to be estimated. Engines must be operated at the estimated interval for
800,000 to 1,100,000 km [500,00 to 700,000 mi] or 10,000 to 15,000 hours
to determine if the estimated maintenance interval based on oil analysis
was correct. If the interval is estimated correctly, the engine will
remain in an acceptable condition for its operating environment. If an
extended maintenance interval is guessed incorrectly, up to 50 percent
of the potential engine life to rebuild can be sacrificed for the longer
maintenance interval.

[END QUOTE}

>
> > The reasoning is that oil analysis only tells you how much
> > dirt is in the oil.
>
> see, this is the reason you're so dismissive - you clearly don't
> understand what it does!

I clearly don't understand what you think it does since you never
actually say anything meaningful.

People who use oil analysis for determining oil change interval think
oil analysis will reveal how much engine wear is occurring. The problem
with that is that when the oil gets older and dirtier it has less
capacity for holding wear particles in suspension. As a result the the
oil analysis will not give a true picture of actual engine wear. This is
the the stated reason by Cummins when they advise Fleet managers to not
use oil analysis for determining OCI. This is not to say that oil
analysis can not be useful in finding things like failed air filter,
coolant leaks, fuel contamination or even unusual engine wear. Cummins
is not against oil analysis they just advise against using it as a basis
for establishing oil change intervals.

>
> > But if the oil additives are depleted the oil will
> > hold less dirt and that is where extended oil changes can get you into
> > trouble.
>
> see above.
>
> > Oil analysis does not accurately provide the information needed
> > to determine engine longevity.
>
> bull****. you don't know what you're talking about.

I definitely don't know what you are talking about, since you have yet
to say anything.

>
> > According to Cummins the only way you are
> > going to know if your lubrication maintenance schedule has been
> > aggressive enough (or not aggressive enough) is at the end of the road
> > when you tear the engine down for an overhaul.
>
> bull****. the whole point of analysis is that it /does/ tell you what's
> going on.

No it does not. It provides some evidence, but hardly a complete
picture.


>
> > Fleet mechanics that
> > maintain many engines get to see what works and what doesn't.
>
> yeah. and fleet mechanics that know what they're doing pay attention to
> data sources life service manuals. similarly, fleet managers that know
> their business get analysis done because it allows them to not only
> ensure efficient maintenance, but also minimize expense!

The direct expense of changing oil frequently or infrequently is a very
small percentage of the total cost of operating. The amount of money to
be saved by pushing this to the limit is tiny compared to the amount of
money that it can cost if a miscalculation is made. There are a lot
more important things that can be done to reduce expenses if that is the
only consideration.



>
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >>>
> >>>> This is also wrong.
> >>>
> >>> This is your opinion and as such has no basis on how or why I choose to
> >>> take care of the regular maintenance of any vehicles in my charge.
> >>
> >> where are your numbers?
> >
> > It is easy to determine if an engine has had the oil changed often
> > enough. Not so easy to exactly determine at what point it will make a
> > difference.
>
> er, no. you're simply afraid that if you don't sacrifice chickens, your
> leg will never heal.

I appears that you believe people who tear down engines can't make a
determination of how much wear an engine has seen, but instead you
believe that some laboratory that has never even been close to the
engine can accurately make such a determination. That sounds like a
fairy tale.



>
> >
> >
> >>
> >>>
> >>>> You may choose to do so, and you have the right to
> >>>> use your money any way you wish. But there is something wrong. You are
> >>>> wasting oil. I'm not saying you should change. I agree with you in that
> >>>> respect - do as you wish. But a person changing their oil weekly, or
> >>>> even daily, is certainly wasting oil and money. They have a right to do
> >>>> so, but don't kid yourself that there is nothing wrong.
> >>>
> >>> I'm not kidding myself in any way.
> >>
> >> absent facts, you absolutely are.
> >
> > He has the same facts you do. He may be a lot smarter than you if he
> > realizes that no one has all the facts or can get all the facts.
>
> "no one has all the facts or can get all the facts"??? wow dude, that's
> a classic. if everybody thought like you, you'd never be able to say
> that because you wouldn't have a computer to say it on. unbelievable
> ignorance.

OK why don't you tell your fairy tale about how you took a Computer CPU
and tore it apart and modified or repaired it. The fact is what you
don't know about computers far outweighs what you do know.

>
> >
> >
> >>
> >>> How I manage my fleet and personal
> >>> vehicles has proven to be cost effective over the last four decades and
> >>> (no offence intended Dave), your opinion does not matter in this regard.
> >>
> >> a witch doctor can "heal" a broken leg by tying a sacrificed chicken to
> >> it and immobilizing the patient. but it's the immobilization that heals
> >> the break, not the chicken. absent facts and/or numbers, you're simply
> >> living in a cave with a load of dead chicken carcasses.
> >
> > It would be you that is the ignorant one. Some people just don't
> > understand that you can't possibly predict all the consequences of every
> > action. The best you can do is play the odds.
>
> witchcraft works!!!

To someone like you that may be how playing the odds appears.


>
> >
> > I read recently in this newsgroup about some guy who had a large hole
> > burned in an exhaust valve.
>
> that was me.
>
> > There is one and only one thing that can
> > cause a valve to burn like that and that is a chunk of carbon breaks
> > loose from inside the combustion chamber and just happens to be passing
> > through as the exhaust valve is closing.
>
> bull****. you clearly don't know what you're talking about. quite a
> feat given that the thread you read actually explains the mechanisms
> that cause this.

HA HA HA HA. That's a good one. And I suppose you are going to tell us
how an Angel came down from heaven and gave you this precious knowledge
and therefore it is absolutely impossible that anyone could possibly
question your fairy tale account of what happened.



>
> > This is a rare occurrence that
> > a chunk of carbon gets trapped in a a exhaust valve but it does happen.
> > Is this something that is more likely to happen to someone who changes
> > their oil at 6000 miles compared to someone who changes at 3000 miles?
> > There is absolutely no doubt that will change the odds.
>
> oil changes affect valve burn??? dude, you need to either stop smoking
> that **** you're smoking now, or you need to

You probably didn't know this but not all valves burn in the same way.
Carbon deposits can be the cause of one particular valve burning
scenario. The condition of the oil does affect how much oil gets into
the combustion chamber via the rings, seals and PCV. Carbon deposits in
the combustion chamber are almost exclusively coming from burning oil.
So yes how often the oil is changed can have a statistical impact on
valve burn. If you want me to quantify that statistical impact I would
say it is very very small. The point is nobody can say exactly at what
point a given maintenance schedule will have a favorably impact on 100%
of the engines its applied to. A particular maintenance schedule may
produce a favorable result 99.999% of the time but that still is not an
absolute.

-jim

On 01/15/2010 05:15 AM, thomas wrote:
>
> When one talks about "wasting money" on more regular servicing I was
> reminded of an article in a car mag here in the UK - those makes that
> have gone for extended serevicing (18k miles/.2 years etc) are those
> makes that have fallen down the reliability stakes- this may be due to
> the fact they are mostly european makes or maybe they don't worry about
> longer term reliability

some manufacturers spend a good deal of money on "end of life". indeed,
it's probably their largest r&d cost these days.


>
> In the UK most Japanese makes have stuck to annual servicing and quite
> often are slagged off in the car mags by penny pinching motorists for
> costing a lot, BMWs with now 4 yr coolant changes instead of 2 years
> have had cooling issues - loads more exmples of worse reliability -
> sadly the makes that try and appeal to the car fleets are only concerned
> about the servicing costs over 4 years /80k miles - after that If they
> blow up - who cares seems to be the attitude although having said that
> the BMW diesel turbos "reliability issues" did have an effect on their
> reliability image

bmw have "coolant issues" because of poor system component quality, not
because the coolant fails. the polymer tanks on their radiators crack
for example. use of polymer in itself is no bad thing, but when it's
thin and of poor mechanical design, premature cracking and leakage is
pretty much inevitable. same for sensors and hoses. the coolant is
relatively inert and stable.

On 01/15/2010 05:05 AM, jim wrote:
>
>
> Tegger wrote:
>>
>> jim > wrote in
>> t:
>>
>>> On 01/14/2010 04:56 AM, Brian Smith wrote:
>>>> On 1/14/2010 8:02 AM, Dave Kelsen wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> How is it not wasted? Without getting in to any particular numbers
>>>>> with respect to miles driven or time elapsed, the fact is that if
>>>>> you change the oil more frequently than is necessary, or even
>>>>> helpful, it certainly is wasted.
>>>>
>>>> How is it not wasted? Simply the regular changing of the engine's
>>>> lubrication is a good thing.
>>>
>>> no. read this:
>>> http://www.swri.org/3pubs/IRD1999/03912699.htm
>>
>> An update on my emails to SwRI: Two emails and no response. It's been over
>> a week.
>>
>> I've been told by two tribologists that you can never change your oil too
>> often for the good of the engine. It's very unfortunate that SwRI appears
>> to be unwilling to supply any clarification of the relevant statement in
>> their publication.
>>
>
> I'm not sure which statement you wish to have clarified, but this study
> has long ago been discredited as evidence that old used oil protects an
> engine better than fresh new oil does.
>
> The experiment is simple it shows is that if you have two identical
> engines that have been treated with radioactive tracers and put oil that
> has been used for 72 hours in one engine and oil that is fresh in the
> other after six hours of test running, there will be less evidence of
> the radioactive wear particles in the used oil than in the new oil.
> A simple experiment will show the fallacy of believing that this is
> evidence that dirty oil provides better wear protection than clean: If
> you setup the experiment so that you pump the oil through heated tubes
> to simulate an engine lubricating system (but no actual engine wear is
> present) and then just add equal amounts of wear particles to both the
> old and new oil you will find that you get the same result. The old oil
> shows less evidence of the wear particles than the new oil.
> All this means is that the new oil has a greater capacity for holding
> the wear particles in suspension than the old oil does. The article
> itself confirms this fact. They article says that it is not until the
> oil has been used for 20 hours that you start to see an accumulation of
> radioactive particles in the oil filter. The explanation for that is
> simple: the wear particles are very tiny - generally less than 1 micron
> - and when the oil is fresh it does a very good job of holding the
> particles in suspension. This is accomplished by additives that are
> keeping the particles from sticking or bonding to anything. The article
> shows that after 20 hours of use (20 hours would be 1200 miles at 60
> mph) the oil starts to lose this capacity to keep the particles from
> sticking to things. When this happens the particles will start to stick
> to the engine components and stick to each other. When the particles
> become more sticky they can clump together and become big enough to
> settle out of the oil or to be removed by the oil filter. That is why
> the study found wear particles in the filter only after 20 hours of
> use.
> As engine oil gets older and dirtier from use it will progressively
> lose its capacity to hold wear particles in suspension. That means the
> accumulated evidence of wear progressively disappears. This is reason
> that Cummins advises fleet managers to not rely on oil analysis as a
> method for determining the amount of engine wear. The simple fact is if
> the oil is allowed to degrade enough the results can lead to erroneous
> conclusions about the extent of actual engine wear that is occuring.
>
> -jim

er, unless the oil is at end of life, which it most definitely is not at
only 20 hours, there's no way detergency is failing. and if detergency
is not failing, then it's not depositing combustion product or wear
product. so you're bull****ting.

of course, delusional fantasy is not a problem for people that start
paragraphs with tabs, but hey.