"jim beam" <nospam@example.net> wrote in message
news:nv6dnQergNMmck7ZnZ2dnUVZ_rmdnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...

>
> duh, i should learn to spell
>
> t-r-i-b-o-l-o-g-y

Don't worry about it. This is the internet Jim. If you make a spelling
mistake someone will surely come along and let you know about it. And of
course, since it obviously so important, they'll surely offer up the
suggested proper spelling as well. Just to help out, of course...

--

-Mike-
mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net

 

"jim beam" <nospam@example.net> wrote in message
news:zLidnYxB6u0ub07ZnZ2dnUVZ_tOdnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...

> a motor that burns less oil and is more fuel efficient, that's what! a
> motor that barely runs at 200k is a whole lot more expensive compared
> with one that runs /well/ at 200k.

Hey Jim - I'm not ragging on you, but this is the kind of thing that is very
frustrating in a discussion. Many have talked about long term experiences
gaining exactly that - a 200,000 mile engine that runs well. When you throw
a red herring out there about engines that are barely running, it's just a
noise level in the discussion. A statement like the one above really only
discredits your position because it not only ignores the evidence of
experience but it attempts to cloud the discussion with irrelevant clutter.

I'm kind of hoping you can and do produce something a bit more factual and
relevant to support your position. Maybe it won't cause me to change my
habits but it would be worth seeing something factual, if for no other
reason than the knowledge gain. I don't think you're full of hot air, or
that your ideas are all wet. Rather, I still don't see the real world value
they would add to what I already do.

It may be that I decide there is no sufficient benefit to your ideas and
that I'll continue with my own practices. That all by itself does not
discredit what you do or what you support - it only says it doesn't offer
enough for me. It may also be that if this discussion actually reached a
level where some sort of empirical evidence was put forth, it might be
obvious that the incremental value of more frequent changes, oil analysis,
etc. simply do not offer a statistically significant benefit.

--

-Mike-
mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net

 

"jim beam" <nospam@example.net> wrote in message
news:zLidnYxB6u0ub07ZnZ2dnUVZ_tOdnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...

> a motor that burns less oil and is more fuel efficient, that's what! a
> motor that barely runs at 200k is a whole lot more expensive compared
> with one that runs /well/ at 200k.

Hey Jim - I'm not ragging on you, but this is the kind of thing that is very
frustrating in a discussion. Many have talked about long term experiences
gaining exactly that - a 200,000 mile engine that runs well. When you throw
a red herring out there about engines that are barely running, it's just a
noise level in the discussion. A statement like the one above really only
discredits your position because it not only ignores the evidence of
experience but it attempts to cloud the discussion with irrelevant clutter.

I'm kind of hoping you can and do produce something a bit more factual and
relevant to support your position. Maybe it won't cause me to change my
habits but it would be worth seeing something factual, if for no other
reason than the knowledge gain. I don't think you're full of hot air, or
that your ideas are all wet. Rather, I still don't see the real world value
they would add to what I already do.

It may be that I decide there is no sufficient benefit to your ideas and
that I'll continue with my own practices. That all by itself does not
discredit what you do or what you support - it only says it doesn't offer
enough for me. It may also be that if this discussion actually reached a
level where some sort of empirical evidence was put forth, it might be
obvious that the incremental value of more frequent changes, oil analysis,
etc. simply do not offer a statistically significant benefit.

--

-Mike-
mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net

 

"jim beam" <nospam@example.net> wrote in message
news:zLidnYxB6u0ub07ZnZ2dnUVZ_tOdnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...

> a motor that burns less oil and is more fuel efficient, that's what! a
> motor that barely runs at 200k is a whole lot more expensive compared
> with one that runs /well/ at 200k.

Hey Jim - I'm not ragging on you, but this is the kind of thing that is very
frustrating in a discussion. Many have talked about long term experiences
gaining exactly that - a 200,000 mile engine that runs well. When you throw
a red herring out there about engines that are barely running, it's just a
noise level in the discussion. A statement like the one above really only
discredits your position because it not only ignores the evidence of
experience but it attempts to cloud the discussion with irrelevant clutter.

I'm kind of hoping you can and do produce something a bit more factual and
relevant to support your position. Maybe it won't cause me to change my
habits but it would be worth seeing something factual, if for no other
reason than the knowledge gain. I don't think you're full of hot air, or
that your ideas are all wet. Rather, I still don't see the real world value
they would add to what I already do.

It may be that I decide there is no sufficient benefit to your ideas and
that I'll continue with my own practices. That all by itself does not
discredit what you do or what you support - it only says it doesn't offer
enough for me. It may also be that if this discussion actually reached a
level where some sort of empirical evidence was put forth, it might be
obvious that the incremental value of more frequent changes, oil analysis,
etc. simply do not offer a statistically significant benefit.

--

-Mike-
mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net

 

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article <WNPAg.220$Db4.20522@news1.epix.net>,
> Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote:
>
>
>>>Well, but parts can easily fail due to infrequent oil changes.
>>
>>Which parts and how do they fail?
>
>
> http://www.tegger.com/hondafaq/sludg...ng_sludge.html

Yes, some Toyota engines and one Chrysler engine (the 2.7 as I recall)
have design errors that cause sludge formation. Frequent oil changes
have little affect on this, but changing to synthetic helps a lot.

And something is really fishy with this story. I don't believe the 8700
miles for a second. Even sludge prone engines won't build this much
sludge in that little mileage. There is more to this than meets the
eye. I suspect odometer tampering or possibly even an engine swap with
a high mileage engine in order to use the new one for anothe vehicle.

Matt

 

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article <WNPAg.220$Db4.20522@news1.epix.net>,
> Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote:
>
>
>>>Well, but parts can easily fail due to infrequent oil changes.
>>
>>Which parts and how do they fail?
>
>
> http://www.tegger.com/hondafaq/sludg...ng_sludge.html

Yes, some Toyota engines and one Chrysler engine (the 2.7 as I recall)
have design errors that cause sludge formation. Frequent oil changes
have little affect on this, but changing to synthetic helps a lot.

And something is really fishy with this story. I don't believe the 8700
miles for a second. Even sludge prone engines won't build this much
sludge in that little mileage. There is more to this than meets the
eye. I suspect odometer tampering or possibly even an engine swap with
a high mileage engine in order to use the new one for anothe vehicle.

Matt

 

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article <WNPAg.220$Db4.20522@news1.epix.net>,
> Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote:
>
>
>>>Well, but parts can easily fail due to infrequent oil changes.
>>
>>Which parts and how do they fail?
>
>
> http://www.tegger.com/hondafaq/sludg...ng_sludge.html

Yes, some Toyota engines and one Chrysler engine (the 2.7 as I recall)
have design errors that cause sludge formation. Frequent oil changes
have little affect on this, but changing to synthetic helps a lot.

And something is really fishy with this story. I don't believe the 8700
miles for a second. Even sludge prone engines won't build this much
sludge in that little mileage. There is more to this than meets the
eye. I suspect odometer tampering or possibly even an engine swap with
a high mileage engine in order to use the new one for anothe vehicle.

Matt

 

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:

> 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
>

I didn't see any failed parts here, just lots of sludge. :-)

And as I already replied, this story just doesn't hold water and isn't
credible.

Matt

 

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:

> 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
>

I didn't see any failed parts here, just lots of sludge. :-)

And as I already replied, this story just doesn't hold water and isn't
credible.

Matt

 

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:

> 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
>

I didn't see any failed parts here, just lots of sludge. :-)

And as I already replied, this story just doesn't hold water and isn't
credible.

Matt

 

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:

> 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.

Well, my Chrysler minvan was very nearly to 200K on 5,000 and then later
10,000 mile change intervals using Mobil 1. The inside of the engine
had only a light coating of varnish when the car was totaled at 178K.


Matt

 

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:

> 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.

Well, my Chrysler minvan was very nearly to 200K on 5,000 and then later
10,000 mile change intervals using Mobil 1. The inside of the engine
had only a light coating of varnish when the car was totaled at 178K.


Matt

 

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:

> 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.

Well, my Chrysler minvan was very nearly to 200K on 5,000 and then later
10,000 mile change intervals using Mobil 1. The inside of the engine
had only a light coating of varnish when the car was totaled at 178K.


Matt

 

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:

> 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.
>

Comparing oil changes to insurance is simply stupid. They aren't
equivalent at all. You buy insurance to help when crap happens. You
don't change oil to help when your engine fails. How will an oil change
give you the money to buy a new engine?

Changing oil is more analogous to installing a sprinkler system in your
house. It is to prevent something, not mitigate the damages. And
changing your oil too often is like installing a sprinkler system in a
concrete building full of concrete blocks. It doesn't add any
additional fire protection and is thus a waste of money. Just as is
changing the oil more often than is necessary.


Matt

 

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:

> 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.
>

Comparing oil changes to insurance is simply stupid. They aren't
equivalent at all. You buy insurance to help when crap happens. You
don't change oil to help when your engine fails. How will an oil change
give you the money to buy a new engine?

Changing oil is more analogous to installing a sprinkler system in your
house. It is to prevent something, not mitigate the damages. And
changing your oil too often is like installing a sprinkler system in a
concrete building full of concrete blocks. It doesn't add any
additional fire protection and is thus a waste of money. Just as is
changing the oil more often than is necessary.


Matt