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

Dave Kelsen wrote:
> On 4/1/2010 9:30 PM spake these words of knowledge:

>> And those of us who prefer to change the oil more often are villified
>> as liars and idiots by those who believe today's oils and engines are
>> SO VASTLY improved, in ALL ways, over the e ngines and oils of the
>> past.
>>
>> Yes, there have been major improvements - but the higher specific
>> output and smaller bearing surfaces for reduced friction - and
>> therefor better fuel mileage - and numerous other design changes,
>> combined with the addition of Ethanol and other chemicals to the fuel
>> and the mandated removal of Zinc based extreme pressure
>> additives from the oil have ALL conspired to make the job of t he
>> engine oil more severe.
>
> True enough - but while the actions on your part are indeed a
> preference, the folks who talk about the improvements to engines and
> oils have something more than a belief. They have scientifically
> conducted experiments. They have proof that they are right.

Their proof did not consider that the oil change would only be billed
and not actually done - but that is a different problem. It also
ignores certain engines that are less tolerant of the longer change
intervals.

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

On 4/1/10 2:36 PM, in article
, "Elle"
> wrote:

> On Mar 31, 6:33*pm, "Bob Jones" > wrote:
>> Severe conditions are defined as follows:
>
>> I believe they apply to most drivers in this country. Are you saying no?
>
> I am saying "no," though it is conjecture like everyone else's. Honda
> itself says the normal schedule "is fine for most drivers." From my
> 2003 Civic's manual:
> ---
> The "normal" schedule is fine for most drivers, even if they
> occasionally drive in severe conditions.
>
> Follow the "severe" schedule only if you drive in one or more of these
> conditions /most of the time/" [emphasis is Honda's, not mine]:
>
> Trips of less than 5 miles (less than 10 in freezing weather)
> Extremely hot weather (over 90 degrees F)
> Extensive idling or stop-and-go driving
> Trailer towing, car-top carrier, or mountain driving
> Muddy, dusty, or de-iced roads"
> ---
>
> In addition, I think oil change analyses will support the claim that
> most folks' Hondas are not driven under severe conditions. The
> original study that Jim B cited proposes a 10k mile change interval
> for passenger cars. Look at the study itself, and one will see 40
> passenger cars, used as a fleet by the California Department of
> General Services, were examined. Again, it is only conjecture, but
> ISTM that such fleet cars would see much stop and go driving. Consumer
> Reports found similar for NYC taxis in 1996:
> http://www.moneybluebook.com/article....oilchange.php .

Here in Texas, the temp goes above 90 sometime in May and stays there until
October. That pretty much kills normal schedule here, at least in the
summer.

I think its interesting that Honda puts in the 90 degree clause, where
Nissan focuses on dust and freezing temps, and only talks about hot in terms
of stop-and-go driving in hot weather.

On Apr 1, 11:09*pm, "Ed Pawlowski" > wrote:
snip
> *I don't
> know of anyone that has had an oil related problems on a car built in the
> past 20 years. *

My independent mechanic claims he sees many BMWs with oil-related
excessive wear issues. The BMW owners who change their oil more
frequently than 15K miles do not see the same issues. Or so he claims.
But he does

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.

On Apr 2, 10:47*am, ACAR > wrote:
> On Apr 1, 11:09*pm, "Ed Pawlowski" > wrote:
> snip
>
> > *I don't
> > know of anyone that has had an oil related problems on a car built in the
> > past 20 years. *
>
> My independent mechanic claims he sees many BMWs with oil-related
> excessive wear issues. The BMW owners who change their oil more
> frequently than 15K miles do not see the same issues. Or so he claims.
> But he does quite a lot of BMW business and has been doing so for over 10 years.
>
> 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.

On Fri, 02 Apr 2010 09:18:04 -0400, Bill Putney >
wrote:

wrote:
>
>> I also see a lot of cars blowing blue smoke - ring or valve-guide
>> failure CAN be oil related failures...
>
>On that same 2.7, it's not the valve guides per-se - it's the valve stem
>seals that get hard and brittle typically at 105 to 125k miles. I
>replaced mine along with timing chain, water pump, and oil pump (they
>increased the capacity of the oil pump a year or so after mine was
>built) at 207k miles - didn't touch the heads other than the stem seals.
> No more smoke, no more oil usage (until probably 350k miles.
>
>The valve and springs are recessed down into the head, and the selas
>can't take the heat (even though they are viton). Not really an oil
>related failure, but sludge certainly would be.
I didn't specify the 2.7, or even Chrysler, as the smolers.

Lots of Nissan Altimas, Hyundai Elantras, the odd Tercel, Chevy
Cavaliers etc thrown into the mix as well.

On Fri, 02 Apr 2010 09:22:53 -0400, Bill Putney >
wrote:

>SMS wrote:
>
>> Hmm, right now our vehicles are 14, 9, and 2 years old. All had oil
>> changes that followed the manual. None ever had 3K changes of course
>> since every expert in the field of automotive engines and lubrication
>> agrees that there is absolutely no benefit to them...
>
>I wouldn't consider them experts if they are unaware of some particular
>engines that will absolutely sludge up with 5000+ mile change intervals.
> It's one thing to say that *on* *most* vehicles and *under* *most*
>*conditions*, 3000 mile oil change intervals are not necessary. But to
>tell people that 3000 mile oil change intervals are a waste with no
>qualification is gross malpractice - I would not consider a person
>giving such advice an expert..

I Agree, Bill.

MOST of my miles go on about 10KM (6 miles) at a time.
Most of the miles on my wife's car go on abot 3Km at a time. Both cars
actually get onto the highway an average of once every 6 weeks ( for
anything from 20 to a few hundred KM at a time). Much of the short
distance driving is in urban gridlock, and the humidity here in the
inter-lakes region of central Ontario can be stifling. We also still
have some gravel roads, as well as dusty construction areas.
On the odd highway trips either vehicle makes, the Hwy 401 moves at
roughly 125 Kph, and the vehicles are often well loaded.
4 adults and luggage to the east coast in a PT cruiser means the 2.4
is working pretty good - and the 2.5 V6 in the mystique is not
"lightly loaded" under those same highway conditions either.

Then the other half of the year, when the car gets virtually NO
highway driving, we have the other extremes - with very variable
weather , including some extreme cold.

The PT runs synthetic oil - has from the day it was new, 99000KM
before I bought it. The last 3 years before I bought it, it had never
left town. Oil was changed every 6000 to 8000 miles - minimum 3 times
a year.
The trip to the east coast was the longest (mileage) and shortest
(time) change interval since I bought the car at about 6000 km and 6
weeks.

The Mystique is 14 years old now, running conventonal oil ( but NOT
5W20) and has averaged under 10,000 km per year.
At one oil change per year (more than many are recommending) I'm
sure it would be well sludged by now. Going with about 3 changes a
year over the last 9 years it has stayed nice and clean - and barring
any serious non-engine related problems I expect it to go another 4 or
5 years.

If I was driving those same cars to, say London and back on a daily
basis, with trips to a muskoka cottage on the weekends, putting on
2000 - 2500 Km a week, I'd likely be pretty satisfied with anywhere
from 8000 to 12000 Km on a change - which would be about 2 months
give or take per change.

Not all cars or conditions are created equal.

On Fri, 2 Apr 2010 07:47:06 -0700 (PDT), ACAR
> wrote:

>On Apr 1, 11:09Â*pm, "Ed Pawlowski" > wrote:
>snip
>> Â*I don't
>> know of anyone that has had an oil related problems on a car built in the
>> past 20 years. Â*
>
>My independent mechanic claims he sees many BMWs with oil-related
>excessive wear issues. The BMW owners who change their oil more
>frequently than 15K miles do not see the same issues. Or so he claims.
>But he does
>
>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.
>
>
>
I agee.
I still have a lot of friends wrenching for a living. (I've given
it up) - and a friend at a Chrysler dealer said he's never seen a
2.7 sludged up or damaged that had the oil changed at least 4 times
a year or every 6000 km or lesss. Not a single one.

Also at the Toyota dealer where I was service manager for 10 years.
According to the guys still working there.
Not a single coked up engine on a car maintained according to the
"severe" schedule. NOT ONE.

On 4/2/2010 7:40 AM jim spake these words of knowledge:

>
> Dave Kelsen wrote:
>>
>> On 4/1/2010 9:00 AM jim spake these words of knowledge:
>>
>> >
>> > Dave Kelsen wrote:
>> >
>> >> never been one of the most helpful people here. Nor did I claim to be
>> >> one of those folks. But I have been here for years. Your reading
>> >> comprehension seems to be on a level with your reasoning abilities. Shame.
>> >
>> > He made several casual observations. I wonder which one of those statements
>> > rang true and got you so bent out of shape. I'm guessing this one:
>> >
>> > "Some people want to feel superior, or it could be they want
>> > reinforcement of their own beliefs, because they are not sure
>> > of those beliefs."
>>
>> In my case, it was the next statement. The idea that the people who
>> spend their time typing here, researching questions, answering questions
>> for others, etc., are doing so because they wish to justify their
>> laziness is rather remarkable.
>
> In short-> It is sacrilegious to even speculate about hidden motives of
> the Saints.

Your reading comprehension is even lower than "Vic's", apparently.


>> If you actually consider "Vic's" remarks to be casual, I do not wish to
>> disillusion you; the world will take care of that in relatively short
>> order. But they were not. They were obvious misrepresentations,
>> deliberate lies. Bear in mind that I was *not* one of the previous
>> respondents, so it wasn't a case of me taking it personally.
>
> You can't seriously believe I'm going to read this and not think "You
> are taking the comments as a personal attack on your belief system."

I don't have a belief system with respect to my cars. I use the actual
knowledge of the people who build and understand them, and the people
who have bothered to examine their oil to obtain real-world information
on how often they should change it. You should try it. That said, I
don't particularly care what you do. Further, if you look back up the
chain of posts, you will notice that I did not participate. "Vic" was
not responded to, nor addressing, me.

I can seriously believe that it doesn't matter what anyone says to you;
your opinion is apparently based on some sort of religion or, as you put
it, 'belief system'. Facts apparently don't enter into the matter. Enjoy!


>> Personally, I think you know that, and are a slightly more sophisticated
>> troll, but I have answered you as if you are not, because I surely can
>> be mistaken.
>
> So let's say I change my oil at 8000 miles where does that put me. I
> mean Heaven is obviously reserved for those that change their oil at
> 10000 miles and Hell is for those who change oil at 3000 miles. So where
> do I end up? Purgatory?

Lady, it leaves you as someone who changes their oil every 8000 miles.
Ask your high priest, or whatever freaky equivalent you use, about where
it leaves you spiritually. I was obviously right about you being a
troll, and wrong to respond to you as if you might not be. My fault, I
suppose. I fight cynicism every day, although your kind makes it more
difficult all the time.

This is usenet, so I understand you can do and say whatever you want.
That stated, I suggest that you go troll somewhere else, and shut the
hell up about your religion.


RFT!!!
Dave Kelsen
--
"In Vegas, I got into a long argument with the man at the roulette wheel
over what I considered to be an 'odd' number." -- Steven Wright

On 4/2/2010 7:43 AM hls spake these words of knowledge:

> "Dave Kelsen" > wrote in message
> g.com...
>
>>
>> True enough - but while the actions on your part are indeed a preference,
>> the folks who talk about the improvements to engines and oils have
>> something more than a belief. They have scientifically conducted
>> experiments. They have proof that they are right.
>
> We have talked about this before. There may be proof, and scientifically
> conducted experiments, but evidence of these is lacking, especially on
> this group. We hear testimonials, and opinions posed to be fact.
>
> Where is the actual data?

Apparently no where from which you would accept it.

Personally, I use the intarwebs to find out things other people know
about that I don't know about.

No, that doesn't mean I accept whatever someone puts on a page.

I understand nothing anyone says will sway you; if you send your own oil
off for analysis, you won't accept the results either. I don't know
what to tell you. The data is out6 there (I would start at
bobistheoilguy), but no one can (or even wants to) make you understand
or accept it.


RFT!!!
Dave Kelsen
--
"A belief is not merely an idea the mind possesses; it is an idea that
possesses the mind." -- Robert Bolton

On 4/2/2010 6:54 AM Observer spake these words of knowledge:

> On Thu, 01 Apr 2010 06:37:40 -0700, jim beam > wrote:
>
>>On 04/01/2010 04:38 AM, Observer wrote:
>>> On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 17:41:36 -0700, jim > wrote:
>>>
>>>> http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/TechnologyDev...il-Filters.cfm
>>>>
>>>> shock, horror, they used oil analysis to arrive at these recommendations!
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm one of those guys who believes in 3000 mile intervals because it
>>> has always worked for me.
>>
>>i keep garlic in my refrigerator because it stops elephants from
>>standing in the butter. because it has always worked for me.
>>
>>
>
>
> As I said, if it works for you, do it. Does it matter what others
> think?

Exactly right. Does it matter to you, OP, that you could save time and
money by doing it less often, without affecting how well it 'works for
you'? If not, go for it.

It's all in what matters to you.


RFT!!!
Dave Kelsen
--
A good submissive is hard to beat.