Determining oil change intervals via analysis
#211
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Determining oil change intervals via analysis
In article <gIQAg.53$z12.35@trndny02>,
Brian Nystrom <brian.nystrom@verizon.net> wrote:
> >> Well, but parts can easily fail due to infrequent oil changes.
> >
> >
> > Which parts and how do they fail?
>
> This should be interesting. I can't wait to see his reply... ;-)
http://www.tegger.com/hondafaq/sludg...ng_sludge.html
Brian Nystrom <brian.nystrom@verizon.net> wrote:
> >> Well, but parts can easily fail due to infrequent oil changes.
> >
> >
> > Which parts and how do they fail?
>
> This should be interesting. I can't wait to see his reply... ;-)
http://www.tegger.com/hondafaq/sludg...ng_sludge.html
#212
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Determining oil change intervals via analysis
In article <WKPAg.218$Db4.20494@news1.epix.net>,
Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote:
> > "Cheap insurance"? ABSOLUTELY. There is no cheaper insurance for an
> > engine than oil changes.
>
> But it is wasted money, no matter how cheap.
Not if it takes the most expensive part of your car easily from 100K
miles to 200K miles.
Of course, since most people switch out cars every 36K miles anymore,
most people don't think that's important.
Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote:
> > "Cheap insurance"? ABSOLUTELY. There is no cheaper insurance for an
> > engine than oil changes.
>
> But it is wasted money, no matter how cheap.
Not if it takes the most expensive part of your car easily from 100K
miles to 200K miles.
Of course, since most people switch out cars every 36K miles anymore,
most people don't think that's important.
#213
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Determining oil change intervals via analysis
In article <WKPAg.218$Db4.20494@news1.epix.net>,
Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote:
> > "Cheap insurance"? ABSOLUTELY. There is no cheaper insurance for an
> > engine than oil changes.
>
> But it is wasted money, no matter how cheap.
Not if it takes the most expensive part of your car easily from 100K
miles to 200K miles.
Of course, since most people switch out cars every 36K miles anymore,
most people don't think that's important.
Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote:
> > "Cheap insurance"? ABSOLUTELY. There is no cheaper insurance for an
> > engine than oil changes.
>
> But it is wasted money, no matter how cheap.
Not if it takes the most expensive part of your car easily from 100K
miles to 200K miles.
Of course, since most people switch out cars every 36K miles anymore,
most people don't think that's important.
#214
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Determining oil change intervals via analysis
In article <WKPAg.218$Db4.20494@news1.epix.net>,
Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote:
> > "Cheap insurance"? ABSOLUTELY. There is no cheaper insurance for an
> > engine than oil changes.
>
> But it is wasted money, no matter how cheap.
Not if it takes the most expensive part of your car easily from 100K
miles to 200K miles.
Of course, since most people switch out cars every 36K miles anymore,
most people don't think that's important.
Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote:
> > "Cheap insurance"? ABSOLUTELY. There is no cheaper insurance for an
> > engine than oil changes.
>
> But it is wasted money, no matter how cheap.
Not if it takes the most expensive part of your car easily from 100K
miles to 200K miles.
Of course, since most people switch out cars every 36K miles anymore,
most people don't think that's important.
#215
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Determining oil change intervals via analysis
In article <WKPAg.218$Db4.20494@news1.epix.net>,
Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote:
> > Figure out how much you want to pay for that insurance, and set your
> > intervals accordingly.
>
> I prefer to not pay for things I don't need.
So you have no homeowner's insurance? No car insurance? After all,
your house will never burn down and you don't ever plan on getting into
an accident, therefore you don't need those things.
Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote:
> > Figure out how much you want to pay for that insurance, and set your
> > intervals accordingly.
>
> I prefer to not pay for things I don't need.
So you have no homeowner's insurance? No car insurance? After all,
your house will never burn down and you don't ever plan on getting into
an accident, therefore you don't need those things.
#216
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Determining oil change intervals via analysis
In article <WKPAg.218$Db4.20494@news1.epix.net>,
Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote:
> > Figure out how much you want to pay for that insurance, and set your
> > intervals accordingly.
>
> I prefer to not pay for things I don't need.
So you have no homeowner's insurance? No car insurance? After all,
your house will never burn down and you don't ever plan on getting into
an accident, therefore you don't need those things.
Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote:
> > Figure out how much you want to pay for that insurance, and set your
> > intervals accordingly.
>
> I prefer to not pay for things I don't need.
So you have no homeowner's insurance? No car insurance? After all,
your house will never burn down and you don't ever plan on getting into
an accident, therefore you don't need those things.
#217
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Determining oil change intervals via analysis
In article <WKPAg.218$Db4.20494@news1.epix.net>,
Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote:
> > Figure out how much you want to pay for that insurance, and set your
> > intervals accordingly.
>
> I prefer to not pay for things I don't need.
So you have no homeowner's insurance? No car insurance? After all,
your house will never burn down and you don't ever plan on getting into
an accident, therefore you don't need those things.
Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote:
> > Figure out how much you want to pay for that insurance, and set your
> > intervals accordingly.
>
> I prefer to not pay for things I don't need.
So you have no homeowner's insurance? No car insurance? After all,
your house will never burn down and you don't ever plan on getting into
an accident, therefore you don't need those things.
#218
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Determining oil change intervals via analysis
In article <WKPAg.218$Db4.20494@news1.epix.net>,
Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote:
> I keep my cars a long, long time at 5K and 10K intervals. My minivan
> had 178,000 when it was totaled and it was doing fine on 10K changes.
> The reality is that you have absolutely no evidence that more frequent
> changes extend engine life, because no such evidence exists,
> unfortunately. I've looked for years.
http://www.tegger.com/hondafaq/sludg...ng_sludge.html
Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote:
> I keep my cars a long, long time at 5K and 10K intervals. My minivan
> had 178,000 when it was totaled and it was doing fine on 10K changes.
> The reality is that you have absolutely no evidence that more frequent
> changes extend engine life, because no such evidence exists,
> unfortunately. I've looked for years.
http://www.tegger.com/hondafaq/sludg...ng_sludge.html
#219
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Determining oil change intervals via analysis
In article <WKPAg.218$Db4.20494@news1.epix.net>,
Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote:
> I keep my cars a long, long time at 5K and 10K intervals. My minivan
> had 178,000 when it was totaled and it was doing fine on 10K changes.
> The reality is that you have absolutely no evidence that more frequent
> changes extend engine life, because no such evidence exists,
> unfortunately. I've looked for years.
http://www.tegger.com/hondafaq/sludg...ng_sludge.html
Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote:
> I keep my cars a long, long time at 5K and 10K intervals. My minivan
> had 178,000 when it was totaled and it was doing fine on 10K changes.
> The reality is that you have absolutely no evidence that more frequent
> changes extend engine life, because no such evidence exists,
> unfortunately. I've looked for years.
http://www.tegger.com/hondafaq/sludg...ng_sludge.html
#220
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Determining oil change intervals via analysis
In article <WKPAg.218$Db4.20494@news1.epix.net>,
Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote:
> I keep my cars a long, long time at 5K and 10K intervals. My minivan
> had 178,000 when it was totaled and it was doing fine on 10K changes.
> The reality is that you have absolutely no evidence that more frequent
> changes extend engine life, because no such evidence exists,
> unfortunately. I've looked for years.
http://www.tegger.com/hondafaq/sludg...ng_sludge.html
Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote:
> I keep my cars a long, long time at 5K and 10K intervals. My minivan
> had 178,000 when it was totaled and it was doing fine on 10K changes.
> The reality is that you have absolutely no evidence that more frequent
> changes extend engine life, because no such evidence exists,
> unfortunately. I've looked for years.
http://www.tegger.com/hondafaq/sludg...ng_sludge.html
#221
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Determining oil change intervals via analysis
Matt Whiting wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>> Matt Whiting wrote:
>>
>>> Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <J3HAg.15775$Ju.2709@trndny09>,
>>>> Brian Nystrom <brian.nystrom@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I was referring more to the people who are absolutely convinced
>>>>> that they must change their oil more frequently than the
>>>>> recommended 7500 mile intervals.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "must"? No.
>>>>
>>>> "Cheap insurance"? ABSOLUTELY. There is no cheaper insurance for
>>>> an engine than oil changes.
>>>
>>>
>>> But it is wasted money, no matter how cheap. And with synthetic oil
>>> it isn't all that cheap.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Figure out how much you want to pay for that insurance, and set your
>>>> intervals accordingly.
>>>
>>>
>>> I prefer to not pay for things I don't need. I change at 5K miles
>>> now because it is easy to remember. I change at 10K when the
>>> warranty runs out.
>>>
>>>
>>>> If you want to keep the car a long, long time, then 3K intervals (or
>>>> even 5K if you bought the car new and are using good oil) are
>>>> extremely cheap yet very effective insurance.
>>>
>>>
>>> I keep my cars a long, long time at 5K and 10K intervals. My minivan
>>> had 178,000 when it was totaled and it was doing fine on 10K changes.
>>> The reality is that you have absolutely no evidence that more
>>> frequent changes extend engine life, because no such evidence exists,
>>> unfortunately. I've looked for years.
>>>
>>> We call make decisions that make us comfortable, but none are based
>>> on data.
>>
>>
>> what is this? a stupidity contest? data abounds all over the place.
>> and have you ever examined a stripped motor under a microscope? i
>> have. wear is directly proportional to contaminant content of the
>> lubricant. seals don't exactly thrive when oil chemistry gets too
>> hostile either.
>
> Yes, and you are currently winning.
>
>
>> bottom line: if you're trying to in some way assert that modern lubes
>> are better than the old stuff of our forefathers, you'd be absolutely
>> correct. but saying that contamination levels make no difference to
>> wear rates and therefore engine life is dead wrong.
>
> OK, show me the data. Show me the graphs of contaminant levels vs.
> engine life in miles. Show me that oil changes at 3,000 miles vs.
> 10,000 make a difference. Put up or shut up.
>
> Matt
no matt - you're the one making the assertion that it makes no
difference. i know it does because i've done fleet testing. i think
where you're getting confused is reading glib little articles on the net
that cleverly avoid the distinction between phrases like: "wear is
reduced" and "wear is within acceptable limits". the difference is
huge. sure, wear at extended intervals /can/ be within acceptable
limits, but that doesn't mean that sorter intervals don't reduce wear
rates to a lower level.
> jim beam wrote:
>> Matt Whiting wrote:
>>
>>> Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <J3HAg.15775$Ju.2709@trndny09>,
>>>> Brian Nystrom <brian.nystrom@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I was referring more to the people who are absolutely convinced
>>>>> that they must change their oil more frequently than the
>>>>> recommended 7500 mile intervals.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "must"? No.
>>>>
>>>> "Cheap insurance"? ABSOLUTELY. There is no cheaper insurance for
>>>> an engine than oil changes.
>>>
>>>
>>> But it is wasted money, no matter how cheap. And with synthetic oil
>>> it isn't all that cheap.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Figure out how much you want to pay for that insurance, and set your
>>>> intervals accordingly.
>>>
>>>
>>> I prefer to not pay for things I don't need. I change at 5K miles
>>> now because it is easy to remember. I change at 10K when the
>>> warranty runs out.
>>>
>>>
>>>> If you want to keep the car a long, long time, then 3K intervals (or
>>>> even 5K if you bought the car new and are using good oil) are
>>>> extremely cheap yet very effective insurance.
>>>
>>>
>>> I keep my cars a long, long time at 5K and 10K intervals. My minivan
>>> had 178,000 when it was totaled and it was doing fine on 10K changes.
>>> The reality is that you have absolutely no evidence that more
>>> frequent changes extend engine life, because no such evidence exists,
>>> unfortunately. I've looked for years.
>>>
>>> We call make decisions that make us comfortable, but none are based
>>> on data.
>>
>>
>> what is this? a stupidity contest? data abounds all over the place.
>> and have you ever examined a stripped motor under a microscope? i
>> have. wear is directly proportional to contaminant content of the
>> lubricant. seals don't exactly thrive when oil chemistry gets too
>> hostile either.
>
> Yes, and you are currently winning.
>
>
>> bottom line: if you're trying to in some way assert that modern lubes
>> are better than the old stuff of our forefathers, you'd be absolutely
>> correct. but saying that contamination levels make no difference to
>> wear rates and therefore engine life is dead wrong.
>
> OK, show me the data. Show me the graphs of contaminant levels vs.
> engine life in miles. Show me that oil changes at 3,000 miles vs.
> 10,000 make a difference. Put up or shut up.
>
> Matt
no matt - you're the one making the assertion that it makes no
difference. i know it does because i've done fleet testing. i think
where you're getting confused is reading glib little articles on the net
that cleverly avoid the distinction between phrases like: "wear is
reduced" and "wear is within acceptable limits". the difference is
huge. sure, wear at extended intervals /can/ be within acceptable
limits, but that doesn't mean that sorter intervals don't reduce wear
rates to a lower level.
#222
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Determining oil change intervals via analysis
Matt Whiting wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>> Matt Whiting wrote:
>>
>>> Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <J3HAg.15775$Ju.2709@trndny09>,
>>>> Brian Nystrom <brian.nystrom@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I was referring more to the people who are absolutely convinced
>>>>> that they must change their oil more frequently than the
>>>>> recommended 7500 mile intervals.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "must"? No.
>>>>
>>>> "Cheap insurance"? ABSOLUTELY. There is no cheaper insurance for
>>>> an engine than oil changes.
>>>
>>>
>>> But it is wasted money, no matter how cheap. And with synthetic oil
>>> it isn't all that cheap.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Figure out how much you want to pay for that insurance, and set your
>>>> intervals accordingly.
>>>
>>>
>>> I prefer to not pay for things I don't need. I change at 5K miles
>>> now because it is easy to remember. I change at 10K when the
>>> warranty runs out.
>>>
>>>
>>>> If you want to keep the car a long, long time, then 3K intervals (or
>>>> even 5K if you bought the car new and are using good oil) are
>>>> extremely cheap yet very effective insurance.
>>>
>>>
>>> I keep my cars a long, long time at 5K and 10K intervals. My minivan
>>> had 178,000 when it was totaled and it was doing fine on 10K changes.
>>> The reality is that you have absolutely no evidence that more
>>> frequent changes extend engine life, because no such evidence exists,
>>> unfortunately. I've looked for years.
>>>
>>> We call make decisions that make us comfortable, but none are based
>>> on data.
>>
>>
>> what is this? a stupidity contest? data abounds all over the place.
>> and have you ever examined a stripped motor under a microscope? i
>> have. wear is directly proportional to contaminant content of the
>> lubricant. seals don't exactly thrive when oil chemistry gets too
>> hostile either.
>
> Yes, and you are currently winning.
>
>
>> bottom line: if you're trying to in some way assert that modern lubes
>> are better than the old stuff of our forefathers, you'd be absolutely
>> correct. but saying that contamination levels make no difference to
>> wear rates and therefore engine life is dead wrong.
>
> OK, show me the data. Show me the graphs of contaminant levels vs.
> engine life in miles. Show me that oil changes at 3,000 miles vs.
> 10,000 make a difference. Put up or shut up.
>
> Matt
no matt - you're the one making the assertion that it makes no
difference. i know it does because i've done fleet testing. i think
where you're getting confused is reading glib little articles on the net
that cleverly avoid the distinction between phrases like: "wear is
reduced" and "wear is within acceptable limits". the difference is
huge. sure, wear at extended intervals /can/ be within acceptable
limits, but that doesn't mean that sorter intervals don't reduce wear
rates to a lower level.
> jim beam wrote:
>> Matt Whiting wrote:
>>
>>> Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <J3HAg.15775$Ju.2709@trndny09>,
>>>> Brian Nystrom <brian.nystrom@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I was referring more to the people who are absolutely convinced
>>>>> that they must change their oil more frequently than the
>>>>> recommended 7500 mile intervals.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "must"? No.
>>>>
>>>> "Cheap insurance"? ABSOLUTELY. There is no cheaper insurance for
>>>> an engine than oil changes.
>>>
>>>
>>> But it is wasted money, no matter how cheap. And with synthetic oil
>>> it isn't all that cheap.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Figure out how much you want to pay for that insurance, and set your
>>>> intervals accordingly.
>>>
>>>
>>> I prefer to not pay for things I don't need. I change at 5K miles
>>> now because it is easy to remember. I change at 10K when the
>>> warranty runs out.
>>>
>>>
>>>> If you want to keep the car a long, long time, then 3K intervals (or
>>>> even 5K if you bought the car new and are using good oil) are
>>>> extremely cheap yet very effective insurance.
>>>
>>>
>>> I keep my cars a long, long time at 5K and 10K intervals. My minivan
>>> had 178,000 when it was totaled and it was doing fine on 10K changes.
>>> The reality is that you have absolutely no evidence that more
>>> frequent changes extend engine life, because no such evidence exists,
>>> unfortunately. I've looked for years.
>>>
>>> We call make decisions that make us comfortable, but none are based
>>> on data.
>>
>>
>> what is this? a stupidity contest? data abounds all over the place.
>> and have you ever examined a stripped motor under a microscope? i
>> have. wear is directly proportional to contaminant content of the
>> lubricant. seals don't exactly thrive when oil chemistry gets too
>> hostile either.
>
> Yes, and you are currently winning.
>
>
>> bottom line: if you're trying to in some way assert that modern lubes
>> are better than the old stuff of our forefathers, you'd be absolutely
>> correct. but saying that contamination levels make no difference to
>> wear rates and therefore engine life is dead wrong.
>
> OK, show me the data. Show me the graphs of contaminant levels vs.
> engine life in miles. Show me that oil changes at 3,000 miles vs.
> 10,000 make a difference. Put up or shut up.
>
> Matt
no matt - you're the one making the assertion that it makes no
difference. i know it does because i've done fleet testing. i think
where you're getting confused is reading glib little articles on the net
that cleverly avoid the distinction between phrases like: "wear is
reduced" and "wear is within acceptable limits". the difference is
huge. sure, wear at extended intervals /can/ be within acceptable
limits, but that doesn't mean that sorter intervals don't reduce wear
rates to a lower level.
#223
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Determining oil change intervals via analysis
Matt Whiting wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>> Matt Whiting wrote:
>>
>>> Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <J3HAg.15775$Ju.2709@trndny09>,
>>>> Brian Nystrom <brian.nystrom@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I was referring more to the people who are absolutely convinced
>>>>> that they must change their oil more frequently than the
>>>>> recommended 7500 mile intervals.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "must"? No.
>>>>
>>>> "Cheap insurance"? ABSOLUTELY. There is no cheaper insurance for
>>>> an engine than oil changes.
>>>
>>>
>>> But it is wasted money, no matter how cheap. And with synthetic oil
>>> it isn't all that cheap.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Figure out how much you want to pay for that insurance, and set your
>>>> intervals accordingly.
>>>
>>>
>>> I prefer to not pay for things I don't need. I change at 5K miles
>>> now because it is easy to remember. I change at 10K when the
>>> warranty runs out.
>>>
>>>
>>>> If you want to keep the car a long, long time, then 3K intervals (or
>>>> even 5K if you bought the car new and are using good oil) are
>>>> extremely cheap yet very effective insurance.
>>>
>>>
>>> I keep my cars a long, long time at 5K and 10K intervals. My minivan
>>> had 178,000 when it was totaled and it was doing fine on 10K changes.
>>> The reality is that you have absolutely no evidence that more
>>> frequent changes extend engine life, because no such evidence exists,
>>> unfortunately. I've looked for years.
>>>
>>> We call make decisions that make us comfortable, but none are based
>>> on data.
>>
>>
>> what is this? a stupidity contest? data abounds all over the place.
>> and have you ever examined a stripped motor under a microscope? i
>> have. wear is directly proportional to contaminant content of the
>> lubricant. seals don't exactly thrive when oil chemistry gets too
>> hostile either.
>
> Yes, and you are currently winning.
>
>
>> bottom line: if you're trying to in some way assert that modern lubes
>> are better than the old stuff of our forefathers, you'd be absolutely
>> correct. but saying that contamination levels make no difference to
>> wear rates and therefore engine life is dead wrong.
>
> OK, show me the data. Show me the graphs of contaminant levels vs.
> engine life in miles. Show me that oil changes at 3,000 miles vs.
> 10,000 make a difference. Put up or shut up.
>
> Matt
no matt - you're the one making the assertion that it makes no
difference. i know it does because i've done fleet testing. i think
where you're getting confused is reading glib little articles on the net
that cleverly avoid the distinction between phrases like: "wear is
reduced" and "wear is within acceptable limits". the difference is
huge. sure, wear at extended intervals /can/ be within acceptable
limits, but that doesn't mean that sorter intervals don't reduce wear
rates to a lower level.
> jim beam wrote:
>> Matt Whiting wrote:
>>
>>> Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <J3HAg.15775$Ju.2709@trndny09>,
>>>> Brian Nystrom <brian.nystrom@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I was referring more to the people who are absolutely convinced
>>>>> that they must change their oil more frequently than the
>>>>> recommended 7500 mile intervals.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "must"? No.
>>>>
>>>> "Cheap insurance"? ABSOLUTELY. There is no cheaper insurance for
>>>> an engine than oil changes.
>>>
>>>
>>> But it is wasted money, no matter how cheap. And with synthetic oil
>>> it isn't all that cheap.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Figure out how much you want to pay for that insurance, and set your
>>>> intervals accordingly.
>>>
>>>
>>> I prefer to not pay for things I don't need. I change at 5K miles
>>> now because it is easy to remember. I change at 10K when the
>>> warranty runs out.
>>>
>>>
>>>> If you want to keep the car a long, long time, then 3K intervals (or
>>>> even 5K if you bought the car new and are using good oil) are
>>>> extremely cheap yet very effective insurance.
>>>
>>>
>>> I keep my cars a long, long time at 5K and 10K intervals. My minivan
>>> had 178,000 when it was totaled and it was doing fine on 10K changes.
>>> The reality is that you have absolutely no evidence that more
>>> frequent changes extend engine life, because no such evidence exists,
>>> unfortunately. I've looked for years.
>>>
>>> We call make decisions that make us comfortable, but none are based
>>> on data.
>>
>>
>> what is this? a stupidity contest? data abounds all over the place.
>> and have you ever examined a stripped motor under a microscope? i
>> have. wear is directly proportional to contaminant content of the
>> lubricant. seals don't exactly thrive when oil chemistry gets too
>> hostile either.
>
> Yes, and you are currently winning.
>
>
>> bottom line: if you're trying to in some way assert that modern lubes
>> are better than the old stuff of our forefathers, you'd be absolutely
>> correct. but saying that contamination levels make no difference to
>> wear rates and therefore engine life is dead wrong.
>
> OK, show me the data. Show me the graphs of contaminant levels vs.
> engine life in miles. Show me that oil changes at 3,000 miles vs.
> 10,000 make a difference. Put up or shut up.
>
> Matt
no matt - you're the one making the assertion that it makes no
difference. i know it does because i've done fleet testing. i think
where you're getting confused is reading glib little articles on the net
that cleverly avoid the distinction between phrases like: "wear is
reduced" and "wear is within acceptable limits". the difference is
huge. sure, wear at extended intervals /can/ be within acceptable
limits, but that doesn't mean that sorter intervals don't reduce wear
rates to a lower level.
#224
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Determining oil change intervals via analysis
Matt Whiting wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>
>> Brian Nystrom wrote:
>>
>>> Matt Whiting wrote:
>>>
>>>> Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In article <gdr6d25l6q81rg35lo413cj8v9ff7pfhfn@4ax.com>,
>>>>> Bob Adkins <bobad@charter.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Cheap insurance"? ABSOLUTELY. There is no cheaper insurance
>>>>>>> for an engine than oil changes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You're right to a point.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> However, engine failures are seldom directly oil-related. An
>>>>>> engine usually
>>>>>> fails from part failure or abuse long before they wear out from
>>>>>> infrequent
>>>>>> oil changes.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, but parts can easily fail due to infrequent oil changes.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Which parts and how do they fail?
>>>
>>>
>>> This should be interesting. I can't wait to see his reply... ;-)
>>
>>
>> so you've never worked in a repair shop then? what makes the ignorant
>> want to stand about and mock when they could get their asses on down
>> to a library and do some freakin' homework? "tribology" is your word
>> of the day. look it up.
>
> Just as I thought. No data, just smoke screen.
>
> Matt
t-r-i-b-o-l-g-y matt. read about it.
> jim beam wrote:
>
>> Brian Nystrom wrote:
>>
>>> Matt Whiting wrote:
>>>
>>>> Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In article <gdr6d25l6q81rg35lo413cj8v9ff7pfhfn@4ax.com>,
>>>>> Bob Adkins <bobad@charter.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Cheap insurance"? ABSOLUTELY. There is no cheaper insurance
>>>>>>> for an engine than oil changes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You're right to a point.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> However, engine failures are seldom directly oil-related. An
>>>>>> engine usually
>>>>>> fails from part failure or abuse long before they wear out from
>>>>>> infrequent
>>>>>> oil changes.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, but parts can easily fail due to infrequent oil changes.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Which parts and how do they fail?
>>>
>>>
>>> This should be interesting. I can't wait to see his reply... ;-)
>>
>>
>> so you've never worked in a repair shop then? what makes the ignorant
>> want to stand about and mock when they could get their asses on down
>> to a library and do some freakin' homework? "tribology" is your word
>> of the day. look it up.
>
> Just as I thought. No data, just smoke screen.
>
> Matt
t-r-i-b-o-l-g-y matt. read about it.
#225
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Determining oil change intervals via analysis
Matt Whiting wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>
>> Brian Nystrom wrote:
>>
>>> Matt Whiting wrote:
>>>
>>>> Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In article <gdr6d25l6q81rg35lo413cj8v9ff7pfhfn@4ax.com>,
>>>>> Bob Adkins <bobad@charter.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Cheap insurance"? ABSOLUTELY. There is no cheaper insurance
>>>>>>> for an engine than oil changes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You're right to a point.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> However, engine failures are seldom directly oil-related. An
>>>>>> engine usually
>>>>>> fails from part failure or abuse long before they wear out from
>>>>>> infrequent
>>>>>> oil changes.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, but parts can easily fail due to infrequent oil changes.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Which parts and how do they fail?
>>>
>>>
>>> This should be interesting. I can't wait to see his reply... ;-)
>>
>>
>> so you've never worked in a repair shop then? what makes the ignorant
>> want to stand about and mock when they could get their asses on down
>> to a library and do some freakin' homework? "tribology" is your word
>> of the day. look it up.
>
> Just as I thought. No data, just smoke screen.
>
> Matt
t-r-i-b-o-l-g-y matt. read about it.
> jim beam wrote:
>
>> Brian Nystrom wrote:
>>
>>> Matt Whiting wrote:
>>>
>>>> Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In article <gdr6d25l6q81rg35lo413cj8v9ff7pfhfn@4ax.com>,
>>>>> Bob Adkins <bobad@charter.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Cheap insurance"? ABSOLUTELY. There is no cheaper insurance
>>>>>>> for an engine than oil changes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You're right to a point.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> However, engine failures are seldom directly oil-related. An
>>>>>> engine usually
>>>>>> fails from part failure or abuse long before they wear out from
>>>>>> infrequent
>>>>>> oil changes.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, but parts can easily fail due to infrequent oil changes.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Which parts and how do they fail?
>>>
>>>
>>> This should be interesting. I can't wait to see his reply... ;-)
>>
>>
>> so you've never worked in a repair shop then? what makes the ignorant
>> want to stand about and mock when they could get their asses on down
>> to a library and do some freakin' homework? "tribology" is your word
>> of the day. look it up.
>
> Just as I thought. No data, just smoke screen.
>
> Matt
t-r-i-b-o-l-g-y matt. read about it.