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

Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>"Scott Dorsey" > wrote
>>
>> 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.
>
>One of the problems in ****ing contests is that each participant looks at
>things from their own perspective. You bring up a good point there of an
>exception to most rules. Turbo engines need the best oils for the high
>temperatures. Exceptions also apply to the guy that travels a mile to work
>in -40 temperatures and the guy that commutes 90 miles across Death Valley.

Yup.

Clearly the Toyotas that sludged up were also an exception to the rule.
The question, then, is why. If it's a flow rate and temperature issue,
synthetic is a solution, just as it was in the turbo that had a flow rate
and temperature issue. If it's something else, maybe it's not.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

"jim beam" > wrote in message
t...
> 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.
>

From someone who has never even read the manual? I got to hand it to you.

>
>> 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/
>

Send it to Honda. May be they will rewrite the manual based on your
findings. If the manual says changing oil every 20k miles, I will be the
first one to follow.

On 04/04/2010 11:18 AM, Bob Jones wrote:
> "jim > wrote in message
> t...
>> 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.
>>
>
> From someone who has never even read the manual? I got to hand it to you.

wow dude - that's chutzpah!


>
>>
>>> 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/
>>
>
> Send it to Honda. May be they will rewrite the manual based on your
> findings. If the manual says changing oil every 20k miles, I will be the
> first one to follow.

eat your own dog food. do oil analysis. then you won't need to "follow".


--
nomina rutrum rutrum

On 04/04/10 12:01, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> > 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.

Sounds like a candidate for an electric fan to run after the engine was
shut off.

On 04/03/10 12:36, jim beam wrote:
> On 04/02/2010 12:06 AM, Tony Harding wrote:
>> On 03/31/10 09:43, jim beam wrote:
>>> On 03/31/2010 05:33 AM, Mark wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mar 30, 11:15�am, jim > wrote:
>>>>>> Does that really matter?
>>>>>
>>>>> of course not. �the percentage difference it makes is vanishingly
>>>>> small.
>>>>> � and that's not including the fact that some engines have oil
>>>>> deliberately pooled in locations that don't drain - to protect cam
>>>>> shafts for instance. �new oil simply dilutes - unless the engine is
>>>>> completely stripped and cleaned, it's never a complete "change".
>>>
>>> <fixed top posting>
>>>
>>> > If there are other pools of oil in the engine, why doesn't the oil
>>> > turn dark right away? What is the percentage difference between 5%
>>> > old oil left and 1%? Think it's 4%?
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>> like i said - dilution.
>>
>> Dilution with what? <serious question, not trying to be snarky>
>
> fresh oil. even 90% fresh oil [a low dilution rate] is indistinguishable
> in performance from 100%.

Oh, that, hadn't occurred to me. I was puzzled as what you werediluting
the oil with - fuel? Water? Thanks for the feedback.

Tony Harding wrote:
> On 04/04/10 12:01, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> > 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.
>
> Sounds like a candidate for an electric fan to run after the engine was
> shut off.

Some turbo units were water cooled, some were not. The unit on my '86
Subaru wagon was water cooled - and I tell you what: You learned very
quickly that you didn't use regular old generic heater hose on the
return hose on that baby - it wouldn't last 2 weeks. It was like steam
coming out of there, and you'd best be putting *silicone* heater hose on it.

I dreamed about putting an electric circulator pump with a timer on it
that ran it for a minute or so after the engine was shut off, but never
got around to doing that.

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

Tony Harding > wrote:
>On 04/04/10 12:01, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> > 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.
>
>Sounds like a candidate for an electric fan to run after the engine was
>shut off.

It had one, and that was a big deal! An electric oil pump that kept the
oil circulating after the engine was shut off might have been a good idea
too.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

"jim beam" > wrote in message
t...
> On 04/04/2010 11:18 AM, Bob Jones wrote:
>> "jim > wrote in message
>> t...
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> From someone who has never even read the manual? I got to hand it to
>> you.
>
> wow dude - that's chutzpah!
>

Based on the question you asked earlier? That's actually a safe bet.

>
>>
>>>
>>>> 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/
>>>
>>
>> Send it to Honda. May be they will rewrite the manual based on your
>> findings. If the manual says changing oil every 20k miles, I will be the
>> first one to follow.
>
> eat your own dog food. do oil analysis. then you won't need to "follow".
>
>

"honda have indeed done plenty of research and carefully written it into
your owners manual"

If that's the case, there should be no need to do your own analysis. That is
of course unless you think your research is more thorough and bullet-proof
than Honda's.

On Sun, 04 Apr 2010 12:49:44 -0400, Bill Putney >
wrote:

wrote:
>
>> Actually, even if blowby was at the root of the problem (which it
>> wasn't on the Toyotas and 3.7 Mopars)...
>
>I think you meant 2.7 Mopars there.
Yes, fat finger syndrome.

On Sun, 4 Apr 2010 11:57:24 -0500, "hls" > wrote:

>
> wrote in message
>> 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.
>
>Would they oxidize as easily, or not? Prove your point.
They would not oxidize as easily as the "dyno" oil, but if blowby
by-products are causing the problem the improvement from using
Synthetic - although real, would be insignificant in the grand scheme
of things. Synthetic oil will not "repair" the engine.
The synthetic would last longer than the dyno oil under the same
circumstances - but the Dyno oil would last even longer in an engine
without excessive blowby. And yes, the synthetic would likely last
even longer than the dyno under the same (better) conditions.