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

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.

ACAR wrote:

> 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.

Which may hark back to what I was saying about oil change places and
some dealers charging for an oil/filter change and not really doing it.

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

wrote:
> 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.

I was just giving my experience as the owner of a 2.7 and reader of the
various LH car forums. Wasn't trying to contradict your experience with
other engines.

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

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.

No that isn't true. And that is the problem with most of the thinking on
this subject - there are no absolutes. It is just like saying it is
scientifically proven that smoking causes cancer. That isn't accurate.
There may be a strong correlation but smoking does not absolutely
guarantee you will get Cancer. Smoking only increases the risk. The same
with those cars. An unacceptably large number of the cars may develop
sludge with extended oil change intervals but many of them won't.
Many manufacturers recommend that if you drive in high temps you should
change oil more often. But that doesn't mean someone who lives in Death
Valley and regularly drives when it is 110F can't get away with 10000
mile OCI. What it does mean is that the probability of the oil being
exposed to high enough temps long enough to start to break down and lose
viscosity and shear properties significantly increases in hot weather.
But in a perfectly functioning automobile even at that high ambient temp
the cooling capability of the engine should work and the oil shouldn't
break down. But you can't say absolutely that is going to hold true for
every car.
The fact is even with 3000 mile OCI there is a possibility that some
cars may suffer damage if the cooling system isn't up to snuff. The
probability of a problem occurring increases with extended intervals.
And it is not as if no car ever overheated in cool weather, but the
probability and the severity of such an event go down with the
temperature.



> 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..

That is right. Good advice should include the notion that there will be
risk involved in everything. If you are dependent on someone else to do
oil changes there is always the possibility that service provider may
not actually do the work. The probability of surviving the oil not being
changed without damage certainly goes up for those who take it in to be
changed every 3000 miles compared top those who do at 10000 miles.

The people who say they are reducing their risk by changing oil
frequently are in fact correct. However they really have no way of
knowing how much (or how little) they are reducing risk. There really
are not much in the way of scientific research or statistical analysis
on passenger car engines that looks at car engines much past 100000
miles. What if you are interested in keeping a car well past 100K miles?
There is really very little to go on but private anecdotes.

-jim

wrote:

> The Mystique is 14 years old now,...

I used to have one of those. 14 years old, eh? Did you get one of the
ones in which the engine wiring harness supplier used wire with the
wrong type of insulation, and the insulation literally turned to dust
after about 5 or 6 years?

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

Dave Kelsen wrote:


> >
> > 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 state you have zero personal first hand knowledge and no belief
system. So what's left? you are omniscient?


> 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.

yeah but if you're omniscient you already knew he was attacking you -
even before he wrote it.

>
> 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!

And pray tell what facts have you presented?

jim wrote:
>
> 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.
>
> No that isn't true. And that is the problem with most of the thinking on
> this subject - there are no absolutes. It is just like saying it is
> scientifically proven that smoking causes cancer. That isn't accurate.
> There may be a strong correlation but smoking does not absolutely
> guarantee you will get Cancer. Smoking only increases the risk. The same
> with those cars. An unacceptably large number of the cars may develop
> sludge with extended oil change intervals but many of them won't.
> Many manufacturers recommend that if you drive in high temps you should
> change oil more often. But that doesn't mean someone who lives in Death
> Valley and regularly drives when it is 110F can't get away with 10000
> mile OCI. What it does mean is that the probability of the oil being
> exposed to high enough temps long enough to start to break down and lose
> viscosity and shear properties significantly increases in hot weather.
> But in a perfectly functioning automobile even at that high ambient temp
> the cooling capability of the engine should work and the oil shouldn't
> break down. But you can't say absolutely that is going to hold true for
> every car.
> The fact is even with 3000 mile OCI there is a possibility that some
> cars may suffer damage if the cooling system isn't up to snuff. The
> probability of a problem occurring increases with extended intervals.
> And it is not as if no car ever overheated in cool weather, but the
> probability and the severity of such an event go down with the
> temperature.
>
>
>
>> 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..
>
> That is right. Good advice should include the notion that there will be
> risk involved in everything. If you are dependent on someone else to do
> oil changes there is always the possibility that service provider may
> not actually do the work. The probability of surviving the oil not being
> changed without damage certainly goes up for those who take it in to be
> changed every 3000 miles compared top those who do at 10000 miles.
>
> The people who say they are reducing their risk by changing oil
> frequently are in fact correct. However they really have no way of
> knowing how much (or how little) they are reducing risk. There really
> are not much in the way of scientific research or statistical analysis
> on passenger car engines that looks at car engines much past 100000
> miles. What if you are interested in keeping a car well past 100K miles?
> There is really very little to go on but private anecdotes.
>
> -jim

I think we see things the same way.

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

On 04/02/10 08:44, Obveeus wrote:
> "Tony > wrote:
>
>> On 03/31/10 15:40, Obveeus wrote:
>>> > wrote in message
>>>> -- I would have to see a citation to believe that most people drive in
>>>> severe conditions. I think Jim B is right that "normal" is a word that
>>>> Honda chose for its manuals with careful consideration.
>>>
>>> I have seen 'severe conditions' described as 'lots of stop and go
>>> traffic'.
>>> If that is the definition, then yes, most people drive under severe
>>> conditions.
>>
>> Not to me, I take 'lots of stop and go traffic' to be like driving a cab
>> in NYC. I have never driven a car like that and don't know anyone who has.
>
> I would think that anyone living in a major city with a 45+ minute style
> commute qualifies...and yes, that is a significant number of drivers. Of
> course, 'lots of stop and go' is open to interpretation and maybe the
> manufacturers intends for it to mean only cars that are driven for 8+ hours
> per day under those conditions...but should the end user assume that is what
> they meant or err on the side of caution if they have a daily rush-hour
> commute?

Thanks for the reply. IIRC I've seen Honda use the cab metaphor "stop
and go" conditions (damned if I know where nowadays, of course).

>> I'm also curious which latitudes one has to live in to drive consistently>
>> 90F or below freezing. I never pull a trailer nor do I ever go off road.
>
> Phoenix, Las Vegas, Los Angeles...millions of drivers deal with that 90+
> temperature for months at a time.
> Entire states like Wyoming and Wisconsin deal with temperatures
> 'consistently' below freezing for months at a time.

Right.

On 04/02/10 09:17, pws wrote:
> Obveeus wrote:
>> "Tony Harding" > wrote:
>>
>>> On 03/31/10 15:40, Obveeus wrote:
>>>> > wrote in message
>>>>> -- I would have to see a citation to believe that most people drive in
>>>>> severe conditions. I think Jim B is right that "normal" is a word that
>>>>> Honda chose for its manuals with careful consideration.
>>>> I have seen 'severe conditions' described as 'lots of stop and go
>>>> traffic'.
>>>> If that is the definition, then yes, most people drive under severe
>>>> conditions.
>>> Not to me, I take 'lots of stop and go traffic' to be like driving a
>>> cab in NYC. I have never driven a car like that and don't know anyone
>>> who has.
>>
>> I would think that anyone living in a major city with a 45+ minute
>> style commute qualifies...and yes, that is a significant number of
>> drivers. Of course, 'lots of stop and go' is open to interpretation
>> and maybe the manufacturers intends for it to mean only cars that are
>> driven for 8+ hours per day under those conditions...but should the
>> end user assume that is what they meant or err on the side of caution
>> if they have a daily rush-hour commute?
>>
>>> I'm also curious which latitudes one has to live in to drive
>>> consistently > 90F or below freezing. I never pull a trailer nor do I
>>> ever go off road.
>>
>> Phoenix, Las Vegas, Los Angeles...millions of drivers deal with that
>> 90+ temperature for months at a time.
>> Entire states like Wyoming and Wisconsin deal with temperatures
>> 'consistently' below freezing for months at a time.
>
> Dallas, Ft. Worth, Houston, El Paso, San Antonio & Austin. Many millions
> of Texans driving in the heat.
>
> It wasn't long ago that we went over 30 days in a row without getting
> below 100 during the day and never getting below 80 at night.

That's hot, no 2 ways about it.

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.
>
>
>> Do I care if no one agrees with me, NO. Do
>> I care if I can extend it to 5000 or more miles, NO. Do I claim my
>> way is the only correct way, NO. In other words, you do what works
>> for you and I'll do the same.
>
> superstitious nonsense - you have absolutely zero basis in fact.
>
>
I hate finding the butter with elephant tracks. Any special kind of
garlic.