new Honda CR-V break in

"Observer" > wrote in
:

> I've never used synthetics in my cars. Years
> ago there was talk about being careful about sythetics because it
> might make older seals leak (perhaps due to its viscosity???). I
> don't know if that's still true but on the otherhand, I've read
> several people that do swear by the stuff.


I'm one of those.

That thing about the leaks might have been true decades ago, but it's most
certainly not true now.

Switched both cars to Mobil 1 a few years ago. No new leaks at all. Not
even any new seepage. Old seepage (my oil pan gasket) has not gotten worse.

Frankly, the stuff's amazing. Perhaps a tenth the varnish, and none of the
actual buildup, that happened with dino oil.

I have no idea what the lubrication properties of synthetic are like versus
dino, but by gosh Mobil 1 keeps your motor clean.


>
>
> 1-- Does anyone know if it's safe to use say Mobil 1 in
>
> a) older cars without the seals leaking?
> b) new or fairly new cars (low mileage)?



Use it without concern.


>
> 2-- If you use say Mobil 1, do you use the same oil filter you would
> normally use siince it will stay in place longer?


I change my filter with each oil change. With my annual mileage of over
20,000, I change oil and filter eight times a year (yeah, I'm a dummy and a
dupe, I know).


>
> 3-- Besides Mobil 1, any other worthy competitors?
> (I ask because I never hear of them, just Mobil 1)


Plenty of competitors. Are they as (apparently) good? Don't know. And don't
care. I like ExxonMobil for their politics and for what I see of their
commitment to doing good work. So I give them my money.



--
Tegger

The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/

On 01/20/2010 05:22 PM, Tegger wrote:
> > wrote in
> :
>
>> I've never used synthetics in my cars. Years
>> ago there was talk about being careful about sythetics because it
>> might make older seals leak (perhaps due to its viscosity???). I
>> don't know if that's still true but on the otherhand, I've read
>> several people that do swear by the stuff.
>
>
> I'm one of those.
>
> That thing about the leaks might have been true decades ago, but it's most
> certainly not true now.
>
> Switched both cars to Mobil 1 a few years ago. No new leaks at all. Not
> even any new seepage. Old seepage (my oil pan gasket) has not gotten worse.
>
> Frankly, the stuff's amazing. Perhaps a tenth the varnish, and none of the
> actual buildup, that happened with dino oil.
>
> I have no idea what the lubrication properties of synthetic are like versus
> dino, but by gosh Mobil 1 keeps your motor clean.
>
>
>>
>>
>> 1-- Does anyone know if it's safe to use say Mobil 1 in
>>
>> a) older cars without the seals leaking?
>> b) new or fairly new cars (low mileage)?
>
>
>
> Use it without concern.
>
>
>>
>> 2-- If you use say Mobil 1, do you use the same oil filter you would
>> normally use siince it will stay in place longer?
>
>
> I change my filter with each oil change. With my annual mileage of over
> 20,000, I change oil and filter eight times a year (yeah, I'm a dummy and a
> dupe, I know).

maybe there's something i can tell you to put your fears to rest...

if you examine this pic,
http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/4291579733/ at high res and
look closely at the cam lobe at 1o/c, you'll see scoring. when i
changed the head gasket on this engine about 42k miles ago, it was a
friday afternoon, and i had a hot weekend date in los angeles 400 miles
away and was in a hurry. needless to say, i rushed the job, didn't
strip and clean like i should have, and cleaning the head after scraping
the gasket off comprised putting the head on the driveway, and hosing it
off. needless to say, the splashing washed grit /on/ to the head, as
well as gasket flakes off it. but i didn't care - i was thinking of
upgrading the motor anyway, i had to get going, and to heck with the
consequences. i didn't even change the oil. i noticed that it scored
right away and was expecting it because of the grit.

i drove to l.a., back, and was busy for the next couple of months, so
when i eventually got around to changing the oil, i was expecting to
have nuts and bolts fall out of the drain hole. nothing. looking
inside the filler hole and at the cam, i expected to see either greater
trauma, or that the scoring had worn off - scoring is ridges and valleys
- all the high spots should get rubbed away.

instead, what i saw was exactly as it had been about ten minutes after
start-up from the gasket change gritting. and what you see there today,
is the same, 42k miles later.

now that sir, is a truly remarkable feat. those are not the marks of a
distressed cam where the nitriding has worn through to the soft
substrate beneath. this is where the oil has maintained a robust
hydrodynamic separation between the running surfaces, in spite of a
dramatically roughened surface, essentially not allowing any wear in
what is for many engines, a considerable fraction of their total lifetime.

i was ambivalent about synthetics before - i mean, i supposed them to be
good for chemical stability, friction reduction, etc. but i did not
expect them to be /this/ good for wear resistance. absolutely amazing.
and this last batch of oil has been in there for 20k miles.

the corollary: 2.5k mile change intervals on synthetic are completely
unnecessary. and i'm still running that engine at nearly 200k miles.
and it's not burning oil.


>
>
>>
>> 3-- Besides Mobil 1, any other worthy competitors?
>> (I ask because I never hear of them, just Mobil 1)
>
>
> Plenty of competitors. Are they as (apparently) good? Don't know. And don't
> care. I like ExxonMobil for their politics and for what I see of their
> commitment to doing good work. So I give them my money.
>
>
>

On 01/20/2010 07:18 AM, jim wrote:
>
>
> jim beam wrote:
>
>>
>> you're making two false statements.
>>
>> 1. that valves go from zero to burned in "milliseconds". that's bull****.
>
> Well it happens. And people who know why it happens say that
> lubricating oil is the root cause. Strange as that may seem.

that is an utterly ridiculous and unfounded statement - there is little
or no oil in the combustion chamber.


>
> Most of the research in this area has been done on engines that run on
> natural gas. This fuel produces virtually no soot so soot deposits in
> the combustion chamber and in the crankcase are not an issue. But there
> is an issue related to burning exhaust valves in these engines. They are
> much more likely to have an exhaust valve burn because of the higher
> temperature exhaust gasses. These engines exhaust valves are very
> sensitive to the amount of ash content in the lubricating oil. If the
> lubricating oil has too little ash content then the valve seat recession
> becomes a problem. Too much ash in the oil is associated with holes
> blown in the exhaust valve that look just like yours.

ash is silica and/or alumina abrasive. valve wear can cause clearance
problems, if there is any, hence it would be poor clearance and
maintenance that's the issue, not some magical unexplainable crap about
carbon deposits causing burn like you said before.

and let's ignore the effect of heat - the /real/ cause of valve pain.

bull****ter.


>
> Basically the problem is that if the valves seats are too clean then
> they wear away very rapidly.

bull**** - first it's the ash, now it's cleanliness. utter bull****.


> This was the mechanism behind why lead in
> gasoline was said to protect valves from valve seat recession. Lead
> caused engines to burn very dirty (created lots of cylinder deposits)
> and that protected the valves seats from wear.

bull****. it burned cooler and thus wore less. heat softens the metal.
it's heat that kills valves.


> However nowadays with all
> the additives in motor oil designed for gasoline engines the oil and
> fuel that burns in the combustion chamber generally produces enough
> residue that valve recession is not a problem with gasoline engines
> (particularly old engines that consume more oil). But industrial natural
> gas engines burn extremely clean and despite extremely hard valve seats
> in these engines the seats can wear away rapidly in the absence of any
> combustion chamber deposits. But if the oil is formulated so there are
> too much deposits from burning oil then they find the incidence of
> catastrophic failure (like your valve) increase greatly.

bull****. natural gas engines burn much cleaner, and thus have much
extended oil change intervals. it's neglect and lack of servicing
that's causing the problem [if any, and given that there's only honda
and a few converted frods on the road that run on this stuff, i'm
calling BULL**** on you having any experience.


>
>
>
>
>
>>
>> 2. you "self limiting" theory is bull**** too.
>
> You say that because you fail to understand how a 4 cycle spark ignition
> engine works. When a exhaust valve leaks it will let exhaust gas into
> the cylinder during the intake stroke.

you forgot two things cowboy:

1. the scavenging from valve overlap - that starts gas inflow momentum
long before there is any back-pressure.

2. you're expecting gas to flow through a tiny hole, when a honking
great big one is also open.

oh, and when one cylinder is on the intake stroke, its partner is on the
power stroke [no back pressure - valves are closed]. the others are on
compression [no back pressure - valves are closed], and one is on
exhaust. for exhaust to be an issue, it has to stop it's momentum down
the exhaust and blow back up the manifold and through a tiny hole, all
while being more viscous due to heat. in other words, you're just
making **** up because you can't think this through and don't have
enough information.


> That dilutes the air/fuel charge.
> It takes very little dilution before the charge will no longer ignite
> when the the spark plug fires. That means a slowly developing leak in a
> valve will only get so big.

but you said the hole was instantaneously big! bull****ter.


> After it gets to the point where the
> cylinder no longer fires then the valve and cylinder go cold and the
> valve leak no longer gets any bigger.

indeed. but that is not an instantaneous process. cylinders don't fire
at low rpm's but at higher rpm's, because of gas momentum, they still do.


>
>
>>
>> if you understood viscosity [along with flow dynamics], you'd not be
>> making these retarded false statements. but if you ever had the desire
>> to understand, which you obviously don't, you'd be asking questions, not
>> bull****ting.
>>
>
> I'd love to hear your theory on how viscosity plays role in the
> explanation of why your valve burned.

you can't read - i didn't say it has anything to do with burning - i
said your back-pressure bull**** was bull**** because of it.


> You seem to think that making a
> statement like "you don't understand flow dynamics" explains something.
> It doesn't explain anything. It simply illustrates your ignorance.

er, other way around, idiot.


>
>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> for those who aren't delusional and actually have an interest in
>>>> learning, valves burn comparatively slowly from a small nucleation
>>>> point.
>
> Some valve leaks develop slowly and others don't.

so, they burn fast when you want to bull****, but they don't when it's
ok to admit otherwise? great stuff there jim.


> But if they burn
> slowly then the size of the leak is limited. The size can't increase
> past the point where the cylinder goes cold.

they burn slowly either way, and limitation depends on rpm's. bull****ter.


>
>
>>>
>>> Sometimes that is what happens. And sometimes a valve will just crack
>>> and a chunk of the valve breaks off. But that isn't what happened in the
>>> valve we are discussing.
>>
>> er, the valve we are discussing is mine. i therefore have had the
>> opportunity to examine it closely.
>
> You don't need to examine it closely.

not to **** up and jump to conclusions you don't no!


> You should be able to recognize
> that type of burn from a distance.

then why did you get it so wrong???


>
>
>> the burn mechanism is as described.
>> you otoh are guessing wildly and wrongly, and are a ****ing moron for
>> arguing about something you've never seen!
>
> You didn't see the valve burning either. If you had any comprehension
> of the meaning of your own words you would realize that you are calling
> yourself a "****ing moron".

wow, the hypocrisy is stunning.


>
>
>>
>> er, my physical reality is that i own the valve, dip****. and i've done
>> metallurgy on valves like this, dip****.
>
> And what metallurgy have you done on valves like this? This is
> obviously once again a meaningless statement that you will later claim
> is an thorough explanation.

you don't know what you don't know. idiot.


>
> If you want to do an experiment on the metal try this: Try cutting the
> head of your valve with a cutting torch. If you attempt that you will
> find that it doesn't cut like steel does.

this is the best statement yet - no, it doesn't cut like steel does -
valves have to be heat and oxidation resistant. thus they DO NOT
INSTANTLY BURN IN A SHOWER OF SPARKS BECAUSE THERE IS NO OR LITTLE
OXIDATION MECHANISM as you were bull****ting earlier.


> But then try again and this
> time introduce some flux into the cutting stream and it will blow a hole
> in the valve that looks just like your valve does. If you are looking
> for some flux - try using some combustion chamber deposits.

what a bull****ting asshole.

Observer wrote:

> I admit it looks good. I've never used synthetics in my cars. Years
> ago there was talk about being careful about sythetics because it
> might make older seals leak (perhaps due to its viscosity???). I
> don't know if that's still true but on the otherhand, I've read
> several people that do swear by the stuff.
>
>
> 1-- Does anyone know if it's safe to use say Mobil 1 in
>
> a) older cars without the seals leaking?
> b) new or fairly new cars (low mileage)?

A) AFAIK, the original M1 apparently did have issues with seal
shrinkage. The noodle heads added a more esters and other seal
'moisturizers' to the mix and the problem was cured.

B) Of course. Any decent Syn will work just fine.

> 2-- If you use say Mobil 1, do you use the same oil filter you would
> normally use since it will stay in place longer?

Personally, I'd not use the low end Frams or other cheapo filters under
any circumstances. IMO, you should spend a few extra bucks on a Bosch,
Wix, Purolator, Mobil, etc. if you want to extend the oil change
intervals beyond the traditional 3000~5000 miles.
FWLIW, I'm running a 92 Accord at 10K OCI (oil change interval) on Syn
oil and Purolator Pure-One or M1 filters. I occasionally cut the
filters open at the end of their service life. None of these filters
has shown any sign of distress.

> 3-- Besides Mobil 1, any other worthy competitors?
> (I ask because I never hear of them, just Mobil 1)

There's really little to differentiate most mainstream Syn oils. Penz
Plat, M1, Valvoline's SynPower, etc. are all of roughly equal quality.
You may well find standout products in each manufacturer's lineup.
These are usually Euro-spec oils, or high mileage mixes which usually
feature boosted anti-wear additives. Syntec 0W-30 ("German Castrol"),
M1's 0W-40 and 10W-30HM, and other oils have attracted cult-like
supporters.

A CR-V will not require anything super dooper. When buying, look for an
"Oil Change Special" (oil + filter) at the local parts store and call it
good!

Redline makes possibly the best high performance oil available in the
US. Ester base, excellent viscosity characteristics, massive anti-wear
additives, made by a straightforward small company, right here in the US.

Head over to http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ for more oil
information (and plenty of unsubstantiated opinion as well!) than you
can shake a dipstick at.

On 01/20/2010 10:31 PM, Greg wrote:
> Observer wrote:
>
>> I admit it looks good. I've never used synthetics in my cars. Years
>> ago there was talk about being careful about sythetics because it
>> might make older seals leak (perhaps due to its viscosity???). I
>> don't know if that's still true but on the otherhand, I've read
>> several people that do swear by the stuff.
>>
>> 1-- Does anyone know if it's safe to use say Mobil 1 in
>> a) older cars without the seals leaking?
>> b) new or fairly new cars (low mileage)?
>
> A) AFAIK, the original M1 apparently did have issues with seal
> shrinkage. The noodle heads added a more esters

motul and red line are ester based, but the others are based on olefins.


> and other seal
> 'moisturizers' to the mix and the problem was cured.
>
> B) Of course. Any decent Syn will work just fine.
>
>> 2-- If you use say Mobil 1, do you use the same oil filter you would
>> normally use since it will stay in place longer?
>
> Personally, I'd not use the low end Frams or other cheapo filters under
> any circumstances. IMO, you should spend a few extra bucks on a Bosch,

"bosch" and "mobil 1" are in fact made by champion labs. the mobil
filters are slightly different construction, but the bosch style filters
are sold under the walmart house brand label for ~$2. i use them and
the results you see above.


> Wix, Purolator, Mobil, etc. if you want to extend the oil change
> intervals beyond the traditional 3000~5000 miles.
> FWLIW, I'm running a 92 Accord at 10K OCI (oil change interval) on Syn
> oil and Purolator Pure-One or M1 filters. I occasionally cut the filters
> open at the end of their service life. None of these filters has shown
> any sign of distress.
>
>> 3-- Besides Mobil 1, any other worthy competitors? (I ask because I
>> never hear of them, just Mobil 1)
>
> There's really little to differentiate most mainstream Syn oils. Penz
> Plat, M1, Valvoline's SynPower, etc. are all of roughly equal quality.
> You may well find standout products in each manufacturer's lineup. These
> are usually Euro-spec oils, or high mileage mixes which usually feature
> boosted anti-wear additives. Syntec 0W-30 ("German Castrol"),

"german castrol" is what is supposed to be in bmw's, and i can attest to
that stuff being bad for engine deposits.


> M1's 0W-40
> and 10W-30HM, and other oils have attracted cult-like supporters.
>
> A CR-V will not require anything super dooper. When buying, look for an
> "Oil Change Special" (oil + filter) at the local parts store and call it
> good!
>
> Redline makes possibly the best high performance oil available in the
> US. Ester base, excellent viscosity characteristics, massive anti-wear
> additives, made by a straightforward small company, right here in the US.
>
> Head over to http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ for more oil
> information (and plenty of unsubstantiated opinion as well!) than you
> can shake a dipstick at.

most of that "opinion" is underinformed drivel.

>
> 1. the scavenging from valve overlap - that starts gas inflow momentum
> long before there is any back-pressure.
>
> 2. you're expecting gas to flow through a tiny hole, when a honking
> great big one is also open.
>
> oh, and when one cylinder is on the intake stroke, its partner is on the
> power stroke [no back pressure - valves are closed]. the others are on
> compression [no back pressure - valves are closed], and one is on
> exhaust. for exhaust to be an issue, it has to stop it's momentum down
> the exhaust and blow back up the manifold and through a tiny hole, all
> while being more viscous due to heat.

Are you really trying to argue that the exhaust can't flow through that
hole and dilute the gasses on the intake stroke???????


If you had a hole that size in your exhaust manifold, do you think
exhaust gas would not flow through it? Do you think momentum and and the
fact that there is a bigger hole someplace else is going to keep the
exhaust gasses from going through the hole?

Do you think no one has ever measured the exhaust gas temps coming
from a cylinder with a burnt valve like that?



>no, it doesn't cut like steel does -
> valves have to be heat and oxidation resistant. thus they DO NOT
> INSTANTLY BURN IN A SHOWER OF SPARKS BECAUSE THERE IS NO OR LITTLE
> OXIDATION MECHANISM

Except that isn't always the case. The mechanism that protects the
iron in the valve from rapid oxidation is an extremely thin surface
layer of chromium oxides. Under the right conditions that protective
layer can be destroyed and then the iron in the valve can rapidly
oxidize just as fast as mild steel.

On 01/21/2010 01:47 PM, jim wrote:
>
>
>
>>
>> 1. the scavenging from valve overlap - that starts gas inflow momentum
>> long before there is any back-pressure.
>>
>> 2. you're expecting gas to flow through a tiny hole, when a honking
>> great big one is also open.
>>
>> oh, and when one cylinder is on the intake stroke, its partner is on the
>> power stroke [no back pressure - valves are closed]. the others are on
>> compression [no back pressure - valves are closed], and one is on
>> exhaust. for exhaust to be an issue, it has to stop it's momentum down
>> the exhaust and blow back up the manifold and through a tiny hole, all
>> while being more viscous due to heat.
>
> Are you really trying to argue that the exhaust can't flow through that
> hole and dilute the gasses on the intake stroke???????

look at the ****ing valve dip**** - all those marks are for exiting gas,
not entering. now, you go ahead and argue what you like to the
contrary, but it'll just be ignorant idiotic bull****.


>
>
> If you had a hole that size in your exhaust manifold, do you think
> exhaust gas would not flow through it?

does you ass fill with water if it's downstream of a fire hose? how
about if it's upstream? cos that burnt valve is upstream, just in case
your powers of observation hadn't allowed you to determine the facts. [sic]


> Do you think momentum and and the
> fact that there is a bigger hole someplace else is going to keep the
> exhaust gasses from going through the hole?

see above.


>
> Do you think no one has ever measured the exhaust gas temps coming
> from a cylinder with a burnt valve like that?

of freakin' course!!! but it's low compression causing low power yield,
and thus lower exit temps, not "exhaust dilution"!!!! jeepers - for a
guy that was bleating about knowledge of the 4-stroke cycle, you sure
are amazingly ignorant of it.


>
>
>
>> no, it doesn't cut like steel does -
>> valves have to be heat and oxidation resistant. thus they DO NOT
>> INSTANTLY BURN IN A SHOWER OF SPARKS BECAUSE THERE IS NO OR LITTLE
>> OXIDATION MECHANISM
>
> Except that isn't always the case. The mechanism that protects the
> iron in the valve from rapid oxidation is an extremely thin surface
> layer of chromium oxides.

absolute bull ****ing ****. you clearly know as much about valve
metallurgy as you do about flow dynamics.


> Under the right conditions that protective
> layer can be destroyed and then the iron in the valve can rapidly
> oxidize just as fast as mild steel.

absolutely not. you're just guessing. and guessing wrong.
bull****ting idiot.

On 1/21/10 12:31 AM, in article , "Greg"
> wrote:

> A CR-V will not require anything super dooper. When buying, look for an
> "Oil Change Special" (oil + filter) at the local parts store and call it
> good!
>

A US Market CR-V requires 5W20 weight oil per the mfr. You're not likely to
find that at any "oil change special" unless its the Honda dealer. If you
run anything else in it, they could invalidate the warranty if there are any
oil related engine problems.

On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 08:36:03 -0600, "E. Meyer" >
wrote:

>On 1/21/10 12:31 AM, in article , "Greg"
> wrote:
>
>> A CR-V will not require anything super dooper. When buying, look for an
>> "Oil Change Special" (oil + filter) at the local parts store and call it
>> good!
>>
>
>A US Market CR-V requires 5W20 weight oil per the mfr. You're not likely to
>find that at any "oil change special" unless its the Honda dealer. If you
>run anything else in it, they could invalidate the warranty if there are any
>oil related engine problems.


Pardon me for asking a dumb question but does Mobil1 come in different
viscosities like 5W20, etc... ?

On 01/23/2010 06:57 AM, Guy wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 08:36:03 -0600, "E. >
> wrote:
>
>> On 1/21/10 12:31 AM, in article , "Greg"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> A CR-V will not require anything super dooper. When buying, look for an
>>> "Oil Change Special" (oil + filter) at the local parts store and call it
>>> good!
>>>
>>
>> A US Market CR-V requires 5W20 weight oil per the mfr. You're not likely to
>> find that at any "oil change special" unless its the Honda dealer. If you
>> run anything else in it, they could invalidate the warranty if there are any
>> oil related engine problems.
>
>
> Pardon me for asking a dumb question but does Mobil1 come in different
> viscosities like 5W20, etc... ?

how about this for a dumb:

"is your browser broken? can't you get mobil1.com"?

ridiculous attention-seeking.