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

"jim beam" > wrote in message
...
> On 04/01/2010 04:33 PM, Bob Jones wrote:
>> "jim > wrote in message
>> t...
>>> On 03/31/2010 05:33 PM, Bob Jones wrote:
>>>> "jim > wrote in message
>>>> t...
>>>>> On 03/30/2010 04:55 PM, Bob Jones wrote:
>>>>>> > wrote in message
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>> On Mar 29, 6:41 pm, jim > wrote:
>>>>>>> http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/TechnologyDev...High-Efficienc...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The article linked above is a good read and helps reinforce my
>>>>>>> belief
>>>>>>> about going with the manufacturer's recommendations on oil change
>>>>>>> intervals, or even longer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The owner's manual for my 2003 Civic says to change the oil every
>>>>>>> 10k
>>>>>>> miles or every year, whichever comes first, using 5W20
>>>>>>> non-synthetic,
>>>>>>> and assuming no extreme conditions, per what is explained to be
>>>>>>> "extreme" in the owner's manual.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The wikipedia entry for "motor oil" talks about how oil standards
>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>> changed, driving the increasing interval over the decades.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That may be the case for normal driving condition. Most people drive
>>>>>> in
>>>>>> severe conditions.
>>>>>
>>>>> nonsense - by definition, "normal" is what most people drive in.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Severe conditions are defined
>>>
>>> defined by whom?
>>>
>>
>> Look up Honda's manual.
>>
>>>
>>>> as follows:
>>>>
>>>> - Driving less than 5 miles per trip or less than 10 miles per trip in
>>>> freezing temperatures.
>>>> - Driving in extreme hot (over 90F) conditions.
>>>> - Extensive idling or long periods of stop-and-go driving.
>>>> - Driving in muddy, dusty, de-iced, or mountain roads.
>>>
>>> i googled for those definitions, and guess what - they all came up on
>>> iffy-lube type websites selling you 3000 mile oil changes.
>>>
>>> bottom line - it's analysis that trumps all cant, sales, superstition or
>>> hysteria on this subject. if the analysis says you can run your oil
>>> longer, and per my original post, most people can, that's the end of the
>>> story.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I believe they apply to most drivers in this country. Are you saying
>>>> no?
>>>
>>> yes, i'm saying no. it's illogical nonsense.
>>>
>>
>> We just have to disagree then.
>>
>>
>
> you "disagree" with the facts?????? where can we find your contrary
> research published?
>

I don't need to do any research. Honda has already done that. If you want to
come up with your own, knock yourself out.

hls > wrote:
>
>So you are trying to say that the problematic Toyotas would not have
>sludged if they had been using synthetic oils? I doubt you have any
>proof at all for that statement.

Well, if the problem was caused by low flow and high temperatures causing
oil breakdown, a synthetic oil with a higher breakdown temperature would
seem to help.

I had a Chrysler Laser which was notorious for turbocharger problems. The
oil would bake in the turbocharger after the engine was turned off, and
clog it up with varnish. I used mostly synthetic oil in the thing for
years and never had a turbocharger problem.

It all really depends on what was causing the sludging in the first place.
If it was caused by blow-by, the best oil in the world wouldn't help. But
if it was caused by varnishing, synthetics can help a lot.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On 04/04/2010 06:05 AM, hls wrote:
>
> "jim beam" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 04/02/2010 07:47 AM, ACAR wrote:
>> <snip for clarity>
>>> Toyota's oil related sludge/gelling issues were pretty well
>>> publicized. However, I think it is true that not one problem was cited
>>> by anyone who changed their own oil.
>>
>> that statement is worth significant examination: "sludge", any engine,
>> is an oil problem, not mechanical. if toyota had been sold a job lot
>> of defective oil or if iffy-lube were being more ruthlessly
>> inattentive than normal, that would indeed cause the problem.
>>
>
> So you are trying to say that the problematic Toyotas would not have
> sludged if they had been using synthetic oils?

can't you read? [rhetorical]


> I doubt you have any
> proof at all for that statement.

why don't you bother to do some research for yourself? it's easy to sit
there and complain. if you think i'm wrong, go away, do your homework,
then come back and present it. don't just **** and moan because i dare
to offend the delicate sensibilities of the know-nothings and ignorants
that pollute usenet with their uninformed personal fears and superstitions.

--
nomina rutrum rutrum

On 04/04/2010 09:29 AM, Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In >,
> > wrote:
>
>> "jim > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On 04/02/2010 09:20 AM, SMS wrote:
>>>> On 01/04/10 7:30 PM, wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> And those of us who prefer to change the oil more often are villified
>>>>> as liars and idiots
>>>>
>>>> Not liars. Not even idiots. Just clueless.
>>>
>>> no, they're idiots. the clueless can be educated. the idiots, never so.
>>>
>>> --
>>
>> And your point is that anyone who doesnt agree with you is clueless or
>> an idiot.
>
> no, the clueless and idiots are clueless and idiots.
>
> That jim doesn't agree with the clueless and idiots, is to jim's credit.
>
> It almost sounds as if you, Mr. hls, think that majority rules. And if
> the majority are clueless and idiots, it's those who AREN'T clueless and
> idots who are clearly crazy and idiotic.
>
> Just because there's a large group of people, doesn't mean they have any
> clue what they're doing. But clearly you're more comfortable going
> along with the crowd, even if they are full of the clueless and idiots,
> up to and including trying to bash anyone who ISN'T one of them.
>
> You're doing nothing but proving that most people are idiots.
>
> "You've probably noticed that opinion pollsters go out of their way to
> include as many morons as possible in surveys ... I think it's dangerous
> to inform morons about what their fellow morons are thinking. It only
> reinforces their opinions. And the one thing worse than a moron with an
> opinion is lots of them." -- Scott Adams
>
> In other words: Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large
> groups.

remember the old deja news, and their slogan, "share what you know,
learn what you don't"? the price of free access is that the idiots can
still show up, even thought they learn nothing and have nothing to share.

--
nomina rutrum rutrum

On 04/04/2010 08:33 AM, Bob Jones wrote:
> "jim > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 04/01/2010 04:33 PM, Bob Jones wrote:
>>> "jim > wrote in message
>>> t...
>>>> On 03/31/2010 05:33 PM, Bob Jones wrote:
>>>>> "jim > wrote in message
>>>>> t...
>>>>>> On 03/30/2010 04:55 PM, Bob Jones wrote:
>>>>>>> > wrote in message
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> On Mar 29, 6:41 pm, jim > wrote:
>>>>>>>> http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/TechnologyDev...High-Efficienc...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The article linked above is a good read and helps reinforce my
>>>>>>>> belief
>>>>>>>> about going with the manufacturer's recommendations on oil change
>>>>>>>> intervals, or even longer.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The owner's manual for my 2003 Civic says to change the oil every
>>>>>>>> 10k
>>>>>>>> miles or every year, whichever comes first, using 5W20
>>>>>>>> non-synthetic,
>>>>>>>> and assuming no extreme conditions, per what is explained to be
>>>>>>>> "extreme" in the owner's manual.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The wikipedia entry for "motor oil" talks about how oil standards
>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>> changed, driving the increasing interval over the decades.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That may be the case for normal driving condition. Most people drive
>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>> severe conditions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> nonsense - by definition, "normal" is what most people drive in.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Severe conditions are defined
>>>>
>>>> defined by whom?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Look up Honda's manual.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> as follows:
>>>>>
>>>>> - Driving less than 5 miles per trip or less than 10 miles per trip in
>>>>> freezing temperatures.
>>>>> - Driving in extreme hot (over 90F) conditions.
>>>>> - Extensive idling or long periods of stop-and-go driving.
>>>>> - Driving in muddy, dusty, de-iced, or mountain roads.
>>>>
>>>> i googled for those definitions, and guess what - they all came up on
>>>> iffy-lube type websites selling you 3000 mile oil changes.
>>>>
>>>> bottom line - it's analysis that trumps all cant, sales, superstition or
>>>> hysteria on this subject. if the analysis says you can run your oil
>>>> longer, and per my original post, most people can, that's the end of the
>>>> story.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I believe they apply to most drivers in this country. Are you saying
>>>>> no?
>>>>
>>>> yes, i'm saying no. it's illogical nonsense.
>>>>
>>>
>>> We just have to disagree then.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> you "disagree" with the facts?????? where can we find your contrary
>> research published?
>>
>
> I don't need to do any research. Honda has already done that.

then you have a reading comprehension problem. because honda have
indeed done plenty of research and carefully written it into your owners
manual, but you evidently don't seem to understand what they've said.


> If you want to
> come up with your own, knock yourself out.

based on oil analysis, i have this:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/4291579733/

what do you have?


--
nomina rutrum rutrum

On 04/04/2010 09:14 AM, jim beam wrote:
> On 04/04/2010 09:29 AM, Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
>> In >,
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> "jim > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On 04/02/2010 09:20 AM, SMS wrote:
>>>>> On 01/04/10 7:30 PM, wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> And those of us who prefer to change the oil more often are villified
>>>>>> as liars and idiots
>>>>>
>>>>> Not liars. Not even idiots. Just clueless.
>>>>
>>>> no, they're idiots. the clueless can be educated. the idiots, never so.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>
>>> And your point is that anyone who doesnt agree with you is clueless or
>>> an idiot.
>>
>> no, the clueless and idiots are clueless and idiots.
>>
>> That jim doesn't agree with the clueless and idiots, is to jim's credit.
>>
>> It almost sounds as if you, Mr. hls, think that majority rules. And if
>> the majority are clueless and idiots, it's those who AREN'T clueless and
>> idots who are clearly crazy and idiotic.
>>
>> Just because there's a large group of people, doesn't mean they have any
>> clue what they're doing. But clearly you're more comfortable going
>> along with the crowd, even if they are full of the clueless and idiots,
>> up to and including trying to bash anyone who ISN'T one of them.
>>
>> You're doing nothing but proving that most people are idiots.
>>
>> "You've probably noticed that opinion pollsters go out of their way to
>> include as many morons as possible in surveys ... I think it's dangerous
>> to inform morons about what their fellow morons are thinking. It only
>> reinforces their opinions. And the one thing worse than a moron with an
>> opinion is lots of them." -- Scott Adams
>>
>> In other words: Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large
>> groups.
>
> remember the old deja news, and their slogan, "share what you know,
> learn what you don't"? the price of free access is that the idiots can
> still show up, even thought

spelling: "though"

> they learn nothing and have nothing to share.
>


--
nomina rutrum rutrum

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:

> ..."You've probably noticed that opinion pollsters go out of their way to
> include as many morons as possible in surveys ... I think it's dangerous
> to inform morons about what their fellow morons are thinking. It only
> reinforces their opinions. And the one thing worse than a moron with an
> opinion is lots of them." -- Scott Adams
>
> In other words: Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large
> groups.

Good post. IPCC comes to mind. I will have to remember this post and
maybe invoke it the next time global warming discussions are ensuing.

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

On Sun, 4 Apr 2010 08:05:22 -0500, "hls" > wrote:

>
>"jim beam" > wrote in message
...
>> On 04/02/2010 07:47 AM, ACAR wrote:
>> <snip for clarity>
>>> Toyota's oil related sludge/gelling issues were pretty well
>>> publicized. However, I think it is true that not one problem was cited
>>> by anyone who changed their own oil.
>>
>> that statement is worth significant examination: "sludge", any engine, is
>> an oil problem, not mechanical. if toyota had been sold a job lot of
>> defective oil or if iffy-lube were being more ruthlessly inattentive than
>> normal, that would indeed cause the problem.
>>
>
>So you are trying to say that the problematic Toyotas would not have
>sludged if they had been using synthetic oils? I doubt you have any
>proof at all for that statement.
>
He is correct though - synthetic oils at the recommended interval did
not sludge - nor dird regular oils at the severe duty schedule.
That has been proven time and again.

On 4 Apr 2010 12:01:13 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

>hls > wrote:
>>
>>So you are trying to say that the problematic Toyotas would not have
>>sludged if they had been using synthetic oils? I doubt you have any
>>proof at all for that statement.
>
>Well, if the problem was caused by low flow and high temperatures causing
>oil breakdown, a synthetic oil with a higher breakdown temperature would
>seem to help.
>
>I had a Chrysler Laser which was notorious for turbocharger problems. The
>oil would bake in the turbocharger after the engine was turned off, and
>clog it up with varnish. I used mostly synthetic oil in the thing for
>years and never had a turbocharger problem.
>
>It all really depends on what was causing the sludging in the first place.
>If it was caused by blow-by, the best oil in the world wouldn't help. But
>if it was caused by varnishing, synthetics can help a lot.
>--scott
Actually, even if blowby was at the root of the problem (which it
wasn't on the Toyotas and 3.7 Mopars) synthetic oils do not oxidize as
easily - meaning the acids etc deposited by the blowby would not break
down the synthetic as fast.

Would it eliminate the problem? Doubtful - but it would definitely
REDUCE the problem -or delay it.

Scott Dorsey wrote:

> Well, if the problem was caused by low flow and high temperatures causing
> oil breakdown, a synthetic oil with a higher breakdown temperature would
> seem to help.
>
> I had a Chrysler Laser which was notorious for turbocharger problems. The
> oil would bake in the turbocharger after the engine was turned off, and
> clog it up with varnish. I used mostly synthetic oil in the thing for
> years and never had a turbocharger problem.

I don't disagree with you. I had an '86 Subaru turbo wagon that I used
conventional Castrol oil with 8 oz. of Marvel Mystery Oil in the
crankcase for the last half of my ownership of it. I tried synthetic in
it when it had about 150k miles on it, but that didn't work out - had
valve clatter that was due to crankcase residues breaking loose and
interfering with proper lifter operation - at least, after lots of
experimenting and discussions, that's the only conclusion I could come
too that made consistent sense.

That's when I switched back to conventional oil and started adding the
MMO. Sold it running absolutely great on original engine and turbo unit
at 275k miles. The kid who bought it from me had to scrap it 6 mos.
later due to chassis rust (which I had already repaired once), but he
saved the engine and turbo for another body.

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