On Sep 4, 11:03 am, bubbabu...@yahoo.com wrote:
> 2001 Corolla CE; 140,000 miles; city driving, 12-15k/year:
>
> Car eats a quart of oil every 300-400 miles (ran it low on oil a few
> years ago.) I’ve just been adding a quart of 10W30 (hi-milage) every
> week or so.

Try an oil change using Delo 15w40.
I have had tremendous luck in burners with this stuff.
HTH
Ben

 

jim wrote:
>
> jim beam wrote:
>
>> there's no evidence a heavier grade of oil gets burnt slower. in fact,
>> the flash point of heavier grades is often lower.
>
<snip for clarity>

> Also a heavier oil may reduce
> oil consumption.


eh?

 

Eats oil? Is it chewey?

You should change it more often, while its still thin enough to drink.

--
Paul Hovnanian mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
definition: recursion; see recursion.

 

On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 21:15:59 -0700, jim beam
<spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:

>jim wrote:
>>
>> zzyzzx wrote:
>>>> The truth is that an engine so unbelievably worn out (especially in this
>>>> day and age with only 140k miles) as to burn a quart in 300-400 miles is
>>>> also blowing HUGE amounts of combustion byproducts into the oil, so that
>>>> the oil is contaminated at a rate many times faster than a healthy engine.
>>> I agree, and I'm also guessing that the car has reduced power and
>>> mileage and really low compression. I'd do a compression test to see
>>> if maybe there is a problem with one cylinder and maybe you have a bad
>>> gasket, or something. But that's only if you are lucky. I'm guessing
>>> that it needs to be rebuilt, or a ring job at the very least.
>>
>> He said that the cause was he ran it low on oil several years ago. The damage
>> that is causing high oil consumption is probably to bearings, crank, rings,
>> and cylinder walls. Given the other information he gave, it makes no sense to
>> rebuild ( there is no way rebuilding will increase the value of the car by more
>> than it costs) and there is no reason to believe the engine won't last a long
>> time in it's present condition if it is driven sensibly and the oil is changed
>> frequently.
>> Since it passes emissions tests, it probably gets good gas mileage and if he
>> isn't interested in winning any races the performance is probably more than he
>> needs. I would do like someone else suggested-> Buy a case of oil (12 in a box)
>> and filter, then change the oil and filter and add oil as needed. When the case
>> is used up do it all over again. It would be a good idea to use at least 10-40
>> in the summer and go back to 10-30 for the winter.
>>
>> -jim
>
>
>there's no evidence a heavier grade of oil gets burnt slower. in fact,
>the flash point of heavier grades is often lower.

I don't see why the flash point would matter since any oil that finds
it's way into the combustion chamber will be burned. I had always
assumed that the conventional wisdom was that viscosity oil would
resist being sucked into the chamber as readily which would reduce oil
consumption.

 

Gordon McGrew wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 21:15:59 -0700, jim beam
> <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:
>
>> jim wrote:
>>> zzyzzx wrote:
>>>>> The truth is that an engine so unbelievably worn out (especially in this
>>>>> day and age with only 140k miles) as to burn a quart in 300-400 miles is
>>>>> also blowing HUGE amounts of combustion byproducts into the oil, so that
>>>>> the oil is contaminated at a rate many times faster than a healthy engine.
>>>> I agree, and I'm also guessing that the car has reduced power and
>>>> mileage and really low compression. I'd do a compression test to see
>>>> if maybe there is a problem with one cylinder and maybe you have a bad
>>>> gasket, or something. But that's only if you are lucky. I'm guessing
>>>> that it needs to be rebuilt, or a ring job at the very least.
>>> He said that the cause was he ran it low on oil several years ago. The damage
>>> that is causing high oil consumption is probably to bearings, crank, rings,
>>> and cylinder walls. Given the other information he gave, it makes no sense to
>>> rebuild ( there is no way rebuilding will increase the value of the car by more
>>> than it costs) and there is no reason to believe the engine won't last a long
>>> time in it's present condition if it is driven sensibly and the oil is changed
>>> frequently.
>>> Since it passes emissions tests, it probably gets good gas mileage and if he
>>> isn't interested in winning any races the performance is probably more than he
>>> needs. I would do like someone else suggested-> Buy a case of oil (12 in a box)
>>> and filter, then change the oil and filter and add oil as needed. When the case
>>> is used up do it all over again. It would be a good idea to use at least 10-40
>>> in the summer and go back to 10-30 for the winter.
>>>
>>> -jim
>>
>> there's no evidence a heavier grade of oil gets burnt slower. in fact,
>> the flash point of heavier grades is often lower.
>
> I don't see why the flash point would matter since any oil that finds
> it's way into the combustion chamber will be burned. I had always
> assumed that the conventional wisdom was that viscosity oil would
> resist being sucked into the chamber as readily which would reduce oil
> consumption.
>

Heavier oil does get consumed more slowly by worn engines, within
limits. The upper number isn't as important as the cold viscosity,
though; 15W-whatever will work better than 10W-40. For the same reason,
there is little advantage in going from 10W-40 to 10W-30 for Winter,
because it's the starting viscosity that matters most in cold weather.

 

Leftie wrote:

> there is little advantage in going from 10W-40 to 10W-30 for Winter,
> because it's the starting viscosity that matters most in cold weather.

You obviously have never poured 10-40 and 10-30 when it is -20F outside. If you
had you would have noticed that there is a significant visible difference in
viscosity no matter what the API might say. At that temperature, it makes a
noticeable difference in engine cranking also.

-jim


----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

 

jim wrote:
>
> Leftie wrote:
>
>> there is little advantage in going from 10W-40 to 10W-30 for Winter,
>> because it's the starting viscosity that matters most in cold weather.
>
> You obviously have never poured 10-40 and 10-30 when it is -20F outside. If you
> had you would have noticed that there is a significant visible difference in
> viscosity no matter what the API might say. At that temperature, it makes a
> noticeable difference in engine cranking also.
>
> -jim
>


I shouldn't have used that example, because the wider the in
viscosity, the more likely you are to find the oil behaving wrong,
especially with non-synthetics. I never use oil with a 30 weight
'' anymore. 10W-30 seems to be just fine for Summer driving, so
10W-30 in Summer and 5W-30 in Winter (if the engine isn't worn) is
probably the best way to go for normal driving.

 

jim wrote:
>
> Leftie wrote:
>
>> there is little advantage in going from 10W-40 to 10W-30 for Winter,
>> because it's the starting viscosity that matters most in cold weather.
>
> You obviously have never poured 10-40 and 10-30 when it is -20F outside. If you
> had you would have noticed that there is a significant visible difference in
> viscosity no matter what the API might say.

That's simply not true.

 

Steve wrote:
>
> jim wrote:
> >
> > Leftie wrote:
> >
> >> there is little advantage in going from 10W-40 to 10W-30 for Winter,
> >> because it's the starting viscosity that matters most in cold weather.
> >
> > You obviously have never poured 10-40 and 10-30 when it is -20F outside. If you
> > had you would have noticed that there is a significant visible difference in
> > viscosity no matter what the API might say.
>
> That's simply not true.

Why because you read it in a book?


----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

 

jim wrote:
>
> Steve wrote:
>> jim wrote:
>>> Leftie wrote:
>>>
>>>> there is little advantage in going from 10W-40 to 10W-30 for Winter,
>>>> because it's the starting viscosity that matters most in cold weather.
>>> You obviously have never poured 10-40 and 10-30 when it is -20F outside. If you
>>> had you would have noticed that there is a significant visible difference in
>>> viscosity no matter what the API might say.
>> That's simply not true.
>
> Why because you read it in a book?


:-)

No, because that's basically the DEFINITION of the API rating. If
there's a huge difference in cold pour characteristics, then the oil
really isn't meeting its API rating. Which, to be fair, is entirely
possible especially for bargain oils, and high viscosity oils.

 

Steve wrote:
>
> jim wrote:
> >
> > Steve wrote:
> >> jim wrote:
> >>> Leftie wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> there is little advantage in going from 10W-40 to 10W-30 for Winter,
> >>>> because it's the starting viscosity that matters most in cold weather.
> >>> You obviously have never poured 10-40 and 10-30 when it is -20F outside. If you
> >>> had you would have noticed that there is a significant visible difference in
> >>> viscosity no matter what the API might say.
> >> That's simply not true.
> >
> > Why because you read it in a book?
>
> :-)
>
> No, because that's basically the DEFINITION of the API rating. If
> there's a huge difference in cold pour characteristics, then the oil
> really isn't meeting its API rating. Which, to be fair, is entirely
> possible especially for bargain oils, and high viscosity oils.

So the answer is yes you just read about it. You didn't read very well. The cold
pour rating is not for -20F. When it is -20 there is a noticeable difference.


-jim


----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

 

Steve <no@spam.thanks> wrote:
>
>No, because that's basically the DEFINITION of the API rating. If
>there's a huge difference in cold pour characteristics, then the oil
>really isn't meeting its API rating. Which, to be fair, is entirely
>possible especially for bargain oils, and high viscosity oils.

Ask the manufacturer for a plot of viscosity versus temperature.

The various API ratings require the viscosity to be in a certain range
over a certain temperature range. But once you exceed the rated
temperature range, all bets are off.

If you buy an API SL grade oil marked "10W-30", you know according to the
standard that it will be a 10 weight (7Pa) oil at -25'C and that it will be
a 30 weight (2.9mPa) oil at 150C. But you have no idea what the oil is
going to do outside of those two points. And when things get really cold
and really hot, the viscosity improvers get weird sometimes.
--scott

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

 

jim wrote:
>
> Steve wrote:
>> jim wrote:
>>> Steve wrote:
>>>> jim wrote:
>>>>> Leftie wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> there is little advantage in going from 10W-40 to 10W-30 for Winter,
>>>>>> because it's the starting viscosity that matters most in cold weather.
>>>>> You obviously have never poured 10-40 and 10-30 when it is -20F outside. If you
>>>>> had you would have noticed that there is a significant visible difference in
>>>>> viscosity no matter what the API might say.
>>>> That's simply not true.
>>> Why because you read it in a book?
>> :-)
>>
>> No, because that's basically the DEFINITION of the API rating. If
>> there's a huge difference in cold pour characteristics, then the oil
>> really isn't meeting its API rating. Which, to be fair, is entirely
>> possible especially for bargain oils, and high viscosity oils.
>
> So the answer is yes you just read about it. You didn't read very well. The cold
> pour rating is not for -20F. When it is -20 there is a noticeable difference.

Its actually pretty close to -20F, as a matter of fact. Something like
-15F, -12F. Not far off, certainly no more than 8-10 degrees F. If you'd
said they differed a lot at -40F, then it might have been a more
believable statement. For sufficiently cheap and crappy oils.

 

On Sep 12, 7:13 pm, "Paul Hovnanian P.E." <p...@hovnanian.com> wrote:
> Eats oil? Is it chewey?
>
> You should change it more often, while its still thin enough to drink.
>
> --
> Paul Hovnanian mailto:P...@Hovnanian.com
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> definition: recursion; see recursion.

Thank you, Einstein. But I can't afford more frequent oil changes cuz
I sent all my $$ to yer motha so she can buy you a new pocket
protector.