jim beam

On 01/20/2010 04:17 AM, Observer wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Jan 2010 19:58:07 -0800, jim beam<me@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>> On 01/19/2010 07:44 AM, Observer wrote:
>>> On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 18:14:39 -0800, jim beam<me@privacy.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 01/16/2010 03:34 PM, Tegger wrote:
>>>>> jim<"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net> wrote in
>>>>> news:7v-dnUM2k7SZ9c3WnZ2dnUVZ_gydnZ2d@bright.net:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tegger wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> An update on my emails to SwRI: Two emails and no response. It's been
>>>>>>> over a week.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I've been told by two tribologists that you can never change your oil
>>>>>>> too often for the good of the engine. It's very unfortunate that SwRI
>>>>>>> appears to be unwilling to supply any clarification of the relevant
>>>>>>> statement in their publication.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not sure which statement you wish to have clarified,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.swri.org/3pubs/IRD1999/03912699.htm
>>>>>
>>>>> This statement:
>>>>> "Testing with partially stressed oil, which contained some wear debris,
>>>>> produced less wear than testing with clean oil. This finding was
>>>>> unexpected and initially confusing (further inquiry suggested that the
>>>>> result was not so surprising, as many oil chemistries require time and
>>>>> temperature to enhance their effectiveness)."
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> but this study has long ago been discredited as evidence that old used
>>>>>> oil protects an engine better than fresh new oil does.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd love to know your sources for that.
>>>>>
>>>>> To me it's intuitive that new oil is better than old, but it was also
>>>>> intuitive at one time that infectious disease was the fault of "miasma",
>>>>> so I am suspicious of my own intuition.
>>>>
>>>> which of course, is the right approach to have. we are all limited by
>>>> our knowledge and experience. it's impossible to know what you don't
>>>> know! but we can outline pieces of what we don't know, then try to
>>>> learn so we can fill the gaps.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The experiment is simple it shows is that if you have two
>>>>>> identical engines that have been treated with radioactive tracers and
>>>>>> put oil that has been used for 72 hours in one engine and oil that is
>>>>>> fresh in the other after six hours of test running, there will be less
>>>>>> evidence of the radioactive wear particles in the used oil than in the
>>>>>> new oil.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The text suggests that the 72-hour test engine was fitted with
>>>>> radio-tracer parts:
>>>>> "...in addition, the oil filter was post-processed to determine the
>>>>> source and mass of irradiated wear debris collected during the 72-hour
>>>>> oil-conditioning run."
>>>>>
>>>>> The SwRI page contains seeming inconsistencies that I wanted them to
>>>>> clear up for me. The fact that they have not even replied makes me just
>>>>> a teeny bit uneasy. Not necessarily uneasy in the sense that they may be
>>>>> biased or lying, but in the sense that there may be more to the story
>>>>> than the text of the article appears to say.
>>>>
>>>> i suspect the real reason is because they got snowed by idiots like our
>>>> friend swamping them with their own crackpot theories.
>>>> science/engineering people don't usually have much time for the
>>>> ignorant. your emails probably [unfortunately] went down with that ship.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm too old to take much at face-value anymore; there are innumerable
>>>>> shades of gray in the world. Until I get some independent support for
>>>>> the concept of prolonged oil change intervals, I'm sticking to what
>>>>> seems intuitive to me.
>>>>
>>>> or you can rely on other information. something like mobil 1 extended
>>>> performance works exactly as advertised - it has a 15k mile warranty.
>>>
>>>
>>> I'd love to see what the oil looks like after 15k miles. I realize
>>> the quality of engines and oil is better than 30 years ago so it makes
>>> sense that the oil change interval is greater now (15k ???) but like
>>> Tegger, I prefer more frequent oil changes.
>>
>> this is 20k mile mobil 1 "extended performance" oil.
>>
>> http://tinypic.com/r/29c402b/6
>>
>> [the brown resin you see in a couple of places is from before i had the
>> car and was substantially worse.]
>
>
> I admit it looks good. I've never used synthetics in my cars. Years
> ago there was talk about being careful about sythetics because it
> might make older seals leak (perhaps due to its viscosity???). I
> don't know if that's still true but on the otherhand, I've read
> several people that do swear by the stuff.
>
>
> 1-- Does anyone know if it's safe to use say Mobil 1 in
>
> a) older cars without the seals leaking?

safe to use - mine is 20 years old, original seals. only leakage i've
had recently is about the distributor, but that's a common honda problem
and not specific to the oil.


> b) new or fairly new cars (low mileage)?

safe to use - original factory fill on several cars.


>
> 2-- If you use say Mobil 1, do you use the same oil filter you would
> normally use siince it will stay in place longer?

i use an ordinary filter. hondas burn clean [when properly maintained
anyway] so they don't produce excessive combustion product to clog the
filter. i did change this car's filter at about 12k miles though - more
for curiosity than anything else.


>
> 3-- Besides Mobil 1, any other worthy competitors?
> (I ask because I never hear of them, just Mobil 1)

no idea - i've been happy with these results so haven't experimented
further.

News

jim beam wrote:
> On 01/19/2010 05:28 PM, Tegger wrote:
>> News<News@Group.Name> wrote in
>> news:fNCdneaNJLzkdcjWnZ2dnUVZ_thi4p2d@speakeasy.ne t:
>>
>>> Tegger wrote:
>>>> jim<"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net> wrote in
>>>> news:S7udndm97riGuc7WnZ2dnUVZ_sqdnZ2d@bright.net:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Suffice it to say, it is not a well accepted fact in the automotive
>>>>> industry that dirty oil causes less wear than fresh clean oil. If that
>>>>> were an accepted fact by even a small minority of automotive
>>>>> engineers,
>>>>> you would probably be able to go down to your local Walmart and find
>>>>> pre-stressed oil sitting on the shelf.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That last sentence says it all for me.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> And "pre-stressed" would be priced at a premium to "new".
>>
>>
>>
>> That's /exactly/ what I thought.
>>
>> If the benefits from "prestressing" were actually real, it would have
>> some
>> significant marketing advantage. Oil companies could simply heat the
>> oil up
>> in a tank for X-number of hours to reach peak effectiveness, then sell it
>> with a big marketing campaign.
>>
>> Considering the unlikeliness of oil companies missing an opportunity for
>> more cash by failing to market "prestressed" motor oil, I am now deeply
>> suspicious of the whole "prestressed" idea.
>>
>>
>
> like when someone takes their oil to the recycling facility and
> generously donates it to the people that "refine" it, then sell it back
> as "motor oil"? what do people think happens to that stuff once the
> tanker collects it???


Same as what happens to the freedom fry oil at Mickey D's?

jim

jim beam wrote:

>
> you're making two false statements.
>
> 1. that valves go from zero to burned in "milliseconds". that's bullshit.

Well it happens. And people who know why it happens say that
lubricating oil is the root cause. Strange as that may seem.

Most of the research in this area has been done on engines that run on
natural gas. This fuel produces virtually no soot so soot deposits in
the combustion chamber and in the crankcase are not an issue. But there
is an issue related to burning exhaust valves in these engines. They are
much more likely to have an exhaust valve burn because of the higher
temperature exhaust gasses. These engines exhaust valves are very
sensitive to the amount of ash content in the lubricating oil. If the
lubricating oil has too little ash content then the valve seat recession
becomes a problem. Too much ash in the oil is associated with holes
blown in the exhaust valve that look just like yours.

Basically the problem is that if the valves seats are too clean then
they wear away very rapidly. This was the mechanism behind why lead in
gasoline was said to protect valves from valve seat recession. Lead
caused engines to burn very dirty (created lots of cylinder deposits)
and that protected the valves seats from wear. However nowadays with all
the additives in motor oil designed for gasoline engines the oil and
fuel that burns in the combustion chamber generally produces enough
residue that valve recession is not a problem with gasoline engines
(particularly old engines that consume more oil). But industrial natural
gas engines burn extremely clean and despite extremely hard valve seats
in these engines the seats can wear away rapidly in the absence of any
combustion chamber deposits. But if the oil is formulated so there are
too much deposits from burning oil then they find the incidence of
catastrophic failure (like your valve) increase greatly.





>
> 2. you "self limiting" theory is bullshit too.

You say that because you fail to understand how a 4 cycle spark ignition
engine works. When a exhaust valve leaks it will let exhaust gas into
the cylinder during the intake stroke. That dilutes the air/fuel charge.
It takes very little dilution before the charge will no longer ignite
when the the spark plug fires. That means a slowly developing leak in a
valve will only get so big. After it gets to the point where the
cylinder no longer fires then the valve and cylinder go cold and the
valve leak no longer gets any bigger.


>
> if you understood viscosity [along with flow dynamics], you'd not be
> making these retarded false statements. but if you ever had the desire
> to understand, which you obviously don't, you'd be asking questions, not
> bullshitting.
>

I'd love to hear your theory on how viscosity plays role in the
explanation of why your valve burned. You seem to think that making a
statement like "you don't understand flow dynamics" explains something.
It doesn't explain anything. It simply illustrates your ignorance.


> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >> for those who aren't delusional and actually have an interest in
> >> learning, valves burn comparatively slowly from a small nucleation
> >> point.

Some valve leaks develop slowly and others don't. But if they burn
slowly then the size of the leak is limited. The size can't increase
past the point where the cylinder goes cold.


> >
> > Sometimes that is what happens. And sometimes a valve will just crack
> > and a chunk of the valve breaks off. But that isn't what happened in the
> > valve we are discussing.
>
> er, the valve we are discussing is mine. i therefore have had the
> opportunity to examine it closely.

You don't need to examine it closely. You should be able to recognize
that type of burn from a distance.


>the burn mechanism is as described.
> you otoh are guessing wildly and wrongly, and are a ing moron for
> arguing about something you've never seen!

You didn't see the valve burning either. If you had any comprehension
of the meaning of your own words you would realize that you are calling
yourself a "ing moron".


>
> er, my physical reality is that i own the valve, dipshit. and i've done
> metallurgy on valves like this, dipshit.

And what metallurgy have you done on valves like this? This is
obviously once again a meaningless statement that you will later claim
is an thorough explanation.

If you want to do an experiment on the metal try this: Try cutting the
head of your valve with a cutting torch. If you attempt that you will
find that it doesn't cut like steel does. But then try again and this
time introduce some flux into the cutting stream and it will blow a hole
in the valve that looks just like your valve does. If you are looking
for some flux - try using some combustion chamber deposits.

Tegger

"Observer" <none@none.com> wrote in
news:5esdl5t9783e9hr72lkafhcg0a0lsh12r0@4ax.com:

> I've never used synthetics in my cars. Years
> ago there was talk about being careful about sythetics because it
> might make older seals leak (perhaps due to its viscosity???). I
> don't know if that's still true but on the otherhand, I've read
> several people that do swear by the stuff.


I'm one of those.

That thing about the leaks might have been true decades ago, but it's most
certainly not true now.

Switched both cars to Mobil 1 a few years ago. No new leaks at all. Not
even any new seepage. Old seepage (my oil pan gasket) has not gotten worse.

Frankly, the stuff's amazing. Perhaps a tenth the varnish, and none of the
actual buildup, that happened with dino oil.

I have no idea what the lubrication properties of synthetic are like versus
dino, but by gosh Mobil 1 keeps your motor clean.


>
>
> 1-- Does anyone know if it's safe to use say Mobil 1 in
>
> a) older cars without the seals leaking?
> b) new or fairly new cars (low mileage)?



Use it without concern.


>
> 2-- If you use say Mobil 1, do you use the same oil filter you would
> normally use siince it will stay in place longer?


I change my filter with each oil change. With my annual mileage of over
20,000, I change oil and filter eight times a year (yeah, I'm a dummy and a
dupe, I know).


>
> 3-- Besides Mobil 1, any other worthy competitors?
> (I ask because I never hear of them, just Mobil 1)


Plenty of competitors. Are they as (apparently) good? Don't know. And don't
care. I like ExxonMobil for their politics and for what I see of their
commitment to doing good work. So I give them my money.



--
Tegger

The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/

jim beam

On 01/20/2010 05:22 PM, Tegger wrote:
> "Observer"<none@none.com> wrote in
> news:5esdl5t9783e9hr72lkafhcg0a0lsh12r0@4ax.com:
>
>> I've never used synthetics in my cars. Years
>> ago there was talk about being careful about sythetics because it
>> might make older seals leak (perhaps due to its viscosity???). I
>> don't know if that's still true but on the otherhand, I've read
>> several people that do swear by the stuff.
>
>
> I'm one of those.
>
> That thing about the leaks might have been true decades ago, but it's most
> certainly not true now.
>
> Switched both cars to Mobil 1 a few years ago. No new leaks at all. Not
> even any new seepage. Old seepage (my oil pan gasket) has not gotten worse.
>
> Frankly, the stuff's amazing. Perhaps a tenth the varnish, and none of the
> actual buildup, that happened with dino oil.
>
> I have no idea what the lubrication properties of synthetic are like versus
> dino, but by gosh Mobil 1 keeps your motor clean.
>
>
>>
>>
>> 1-- Does anyone know if it's safe to use say Mobil 1 in
>>
>> a) older cars without the seals leaking?
>> b) new or fairly new cars (low mileage)?
>
>
>
> Use it without concern.
>
>
>>
>> 2-- If you use say Mobil 1, do you use the same oil filter you would
>> normally use siince it will stay in place longer?
>
>
> I change my filter with each oil change. With my annual mileage of over
> 20,000, I change oil and filter eight times a year (yeah, I'm a dummy and a
> dupe, I know).

maybe there's something i can tell you to put your fears to rest...

if you examine this pic,
http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/4291579733/ at high res and
look closely at the cam lobe at 1o/c, you'll see scoring. when i
changed the head gasket on this engine about 42k miles ago, it was a
friday afternoon, and i had a hot weekend date in los angeles 400 miles
away and was in a hurry. needless to say, i rushed the job, didn't
strip and clean like i should have, and cleaning the head after scraping
the gasket off comprised putting the head on the driveway, and hosing it
off. needless to say, the splashing washed grit /on/ to the head, as
well as gasket flakes off it. but i didn't care - i was thinking of
upgrading the motor anyway, i had to get going, and to heck with the
consequences. i didn't even change the oil. i noticed that it scored
right away and was expecting it because of the grit.

i drove to l.a., back, and was busy for the next couple of months, so
when i eventually got around to changing the oil, i was expecting to
have nuts and bolts fall out of the drain hole. nothing. looking
inside the filler hole and at the cam, i expected to see either greater
trauma, or that the scoring had worn off - scoring is ridges and valleys
- all the high spots should get rubbed away.

instead, what i saw was exactly as it had been about ten minutes after
start-up from the gasket change gritting. and what you see there today,
is the same, 42k miles later.

now that sir, is a truly remarkable feat. those are not the marks of a
distressed cam where the nitriding has worn through to the soft
substrate beneath. this is where the oil has maintained a robust
hydrodynamic separation between the running surfaces, in spite of a
dramatically roughened surface, essentially not allowing any wear in
what is for many engines, a considerable fraction of their total lifetime.

i was ambivalent about synthetics before - i mean, i supposed them to be
good for chemical stability, friction reduction, etc. but i did not
expect them to be /this/ good for wear resistance. absolutely amazing.
and this last batch of oil has been in there for 20k miles.

the corollary: 2.5k mile change intervals on synthetic are completely
unnecessary. and i'm still running that engine at nearly 200k miles.
and it's not burning oil.


>
>
>>
>> 3-- Besides Mobil 1, any other worthy competitors?
>> (I ask because I never hear of them, just Mobil 1)
>
>
> Plenty of competitors. Are they as (apparently) good? Don't know. And don't
> care. I like ExxonMobil for their politics and for what I see of their
> commitment to doing good work. So I give them my money.
>
>
>

jim beam

On 01/20/2010 07:18 AM, jim wrote:
>
>
> jim beam wrote:
>
>>
>> you're making two false statements.
>>
>> 1. that valves go from zero to burned in "milliseconds". that's bullshit.
>
> Well it happens. And people who know why it happens say that
> lubricating oil is the root cause. Strange as that may seem.

that is an utterly ridiculous and unfounded statement - there is little
or no oil in the combustion chamber.


>
> Most of the research in this area has been done on engines that run on
> natural gas. This fuel produces virtually no soot so soot deposits in
> the combustion chamber and in the crankcase are not an issue. But there
> is an issue related to burning exhaust valves in these engines. They are
> much more likely to have an exhaust valve burn because of the higher
> temperature exhaust gasses. These engines exhaust valves are very
> sensitive to the amount of ash content in the lubricating oil. If the
> lubricating oil has too little ash content then the valve seat recession
> becomes a problem. Too much ash in the oil is associated with holes
> blown in the exhaust valve that look just like yours.

ash is silica and/or alumina abrasive. valve wear can cause clearance
problems, if there is any, hence it would be poor clearance and
maintenance that's the issue, not some magical unexplainable crap about
carbon deposits causing burn like you said before.

and let's ignore the effect of heat - the /real/ cause of valve pain.

bullshitter.


>
> Basically the problem is that if the valves seats are too clean then
> they wear away very rapidly.

bullshit - first it's the ash, now it's cleanliness. utter bullshit.


> This was the mechanism behind why lead in
> gasoline was said to protect valves from valve seat recession. Lead
> caused engines to burn very dirty (created lots of cylinder deposits)
> and that protected the valves seats from wear.

bullshit. it burned cooler and thus wore less. heat softens the metal.
it's heat that kills valves.


> However nowadays with all
> the additives in motor oil designed for gasoline engines the oil and
> fuel that burns in the combustion chamber generally produces enough
> residue that valve recession is not a problem with gasoline engines
> (particularly old engines that consume more oil). But industrial natural
> gas engines burn extremely clean and despite extremely hard valve seats
> in these engines the seats can wear away rapidly in the absence of any
> combustion chamber deposits. But if the oil is formulated so there are
> too much deposits from burning oil then they find the incidence of
> catastrophic failure (like your valve) increase greatly.

bullshit. natural gas engines burn much cleaner, and thus have much
extended oil change intervals. it's neglect and lack of servicing
that's causing the problem [if any, and given that there's only honda
and a few converted frods on the road that run on this stuff, i'm
calling BULLSHIT on you having any experience.


>
>
>
>
>
>>
>> 2. you "self limiting" theory is bullshit too.
>
> You say that because you fail to understand how a 4 cycle spark ignition
> engine works. When a exhaust valve leaks it will let exhaust gas into
> the cylinder during the intake stroke.

you forgot two things cowboy:

1. the scavenging from valve overlap - that starts gas inflow momentum
long before there is any back-pressure.

2. you're expecting gas to flow through a tiny hole, when a honking
great big one is also open.

oh, and when one cylinder is on the intake stroke, its partner is on the
power stroke [no back pressure - valves are closed]. the others are on
compression [no back pressure - valves are closed], and one is on
exhaust. for exhaust to be an issue, it has to stop it's momentum down
the exhaust and blow back up the manifold and through a tiny hole, all
while being more viscous due to heat. in other words, you're just
making up because you can't think this through and don't have
enough information.


> That dilutes the air/fuel charge.
> It takes very little dilution before the charge will no longer ignite
> when the the spark plug fires. That means a slowly developing leak in a
> valve will only get so big.

but you said the hole was instantaneously big! bullshitter.


> After it gets to the point where the
> cylinder no longer fires then the valve and cylinder go cold and the
> valve leak no longer gets any bigger.

indeed. but that is not an instantaneous process. cylinders don't fire
at low rpm's but at higher rpm's, because of gas momentum, they still do.


>
>
>>
>> if you understood viscosity [along with flow dynamics], you'd not be
>> making these retarded false statements. but if you ever had the desire
>> to understand, which you obviously don't, you'd be asking questions, not
>> bullshitting.
>>
>
> I'd love to hear your theory on how viscosity plays role in the
> explanation of why your valve burned.

you can't read - i didn't say it has anything to do with burning - i
said your back-pressure bullshit was bullshit because of it.


> You seem to think that making a
> statement like "you don't understand flow dynamics" explains something.
> It doesn't explain anything. It simply illustrates your ignorance.

er, other way around, idiot.


>
>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> for those who aren't delusional and actually have an interest in
>>>> learning, valves burn comparatively slowly from a small nucleation
>>>> point.
>
> Some valve leaks develop slowly and others don't.

so, they burn fast when you want to bullshit, but they don't when it's
ok to admit otherwise? great stuff there jim.


> But if they burn
> slowly then the size of the leak is limited. The size can't increase
> past the point where the cylinder goes cold.

they burn slowly either way, and limitation depends on rpm's. bullshitter.


>
>
>>>
>>> Sometimes that is what happens. And sometimes a valve will just crack
>>> and a chunk of the valve breaks off. But that isn't what happened in the
>>> valve we are discussing.
>>
>> er, the valve we are discussing is mine. i therefore have had the
>> opportunity to examine it closely.
>
> You don't need to examine it closely.

not to up and jump to conclusions you don't no!


> You should be able to recognize
> that type of burn from a distance.

then why did you get it so wrong???


>
>
>> the burn mechanism is as described.
>> you otoh are guessing wildly and wrongly, and are a ing moron for
>> arguing about something you've never seen!
>
> You didn't see the valve burning either. If you had any comprehension
> of the meaning of your own words you would realize that you are calling
> yourself a "ing moron".

wow, the hypocrisy is stunning.


>
>
>>
>> er, my physical reality is that i own the valve, dipshit. and i've done
>> metallurgy on valves like this, dipshit.
>
> And what metallurgy have you done on valves like this? This is
> obviously once again a meaningless statement that you will later claim
> is an thorough explanation.

you don't know what you don't know. idiot.


>
> If you want to do an experiment on the metal try this: Try cutting the
> head of your valve with a cutting torch. If you attempt that you will
> find that it doesn't cut like steel does.

this is the best statement yet - no, it doesn't cut like steel does -
valves have to be heat and oxidation resistant. thus they DO NOT
INSTANTLY BURN IN A SHOWER OF SPARKS BECAUSE THERE IS NO OR LITTLE
OXIDATION MECHANISM as you were bullshitting earlier.


> But then try again and this
> time introduce some flux into the cutting stream and it will blow a hole
> in the valve that looks just like your valve does. If you are looking
> for some flux - try using some combustion chamber deposits.

what a bullshitting .

Greg

Observer wrote:

> I admit it looks good. I've never used synthetics in my cars. Years
> ago there was talk about being careful about sythetics because it
> might make older seals leak (perhaps due to its viscosity???). I
> don't know if that's still true but on the otherhand, I've read
> several people that do swear by the stuff.
>
>
> 1-- Does anyone know if it's safe to use say Mobil 1 in
>
> a) older cars without the seals leaking?
> b) new or fairly new cars (low mileage)?

A) AFAIK, the original M1 apparently did have issues with seal
shrinkage. The noodle heads added a more esters and other seal
'moisturizers' to the mix and the problem was cured.

B) Of course. Any decent Syn will work just fine.

> 2-- If you use say Mobil 1, do you use the same oil filter you would
> normally use since it will stay in place longer?

Personally, I'd not use the low end Frams or other cheapo filters under
any circumstances. IMO, you should spend a few extra bucks on a Bosch,
Wix, Purolator, Mobil, etc. if you want to extend the oil change
intervals beyond the traditional 3000~5000 miles.
FWLIW, I'm running a 92 Accord at 10K OCI (oil change interval) on Syn
oil and Purolator Pure-One or M1 filters. I occasionally cut the
filters open at the end of their service life. None of these filters
has shown any sign of distress.

> 3-- Besides Mobil 1, any other worthy competitors?
> (I ask because I never hear of them, just Mobil 1)

There's really little to differentiate most mainstream Syn oils. Penz
Plat, M1, Valvoline's SynPower, etc. are all of roughly equal quality.
You may well find standout products in each manufacturer's lineup.
These are usually Euro-spec oils, or high mileage mixes which usually
feature boosted anti-wear additives. Syntec 0W-30 ("German Castrol"),
M1's 0W-40 and 10W-30HM, and other oils have attracted cult-like
supporters.

A CR-V will not require anything super dooper. When buying, look for an
"Oil Change Special" (oil + filter) at the local parts store and call it
good!

Redline makes possibly the best high performance oil available in the
US. Ester base, excellent viscosity characteristics, massive anti-wear
additives, made by a straightforward small company, right here in the US.

Head over to http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ for more oil
information (and plenty of unsubstantiated opinion as well!) than you
can shake a dipstick at.

jim beam

On 01/20/2010 10:31 PM, Greg wrote:
> Observer wrote:
>
>> I admit it looks good. I've never used synthetics in my cars. Years
>> ago there was talk about being careful about sythetics because it
>> might make older seals leak (perhaps due to its viscosity???). I
>> don't know if that's still true but on the otherhand, I've read
>> several people that do swear by the stuff.
>>
>> 1-- Does anyone know if it's safe to use say Mobil 1 in
>> a) older cars without the seals leaking?
>> b) new or fairly new cars (low mileage)?
>
> A) AFAIK, the original M1 apparently did have issues with seal
> shrinkage. The noodle heads added a more esters

motul and red line are ester based, but the others are based on olefins.


> and other seal
> 'moisturizers' to the mix and the problem was cured.
>
> B) Of course. Any decent Syn will work just fine.
>
>> 2-- If you use say Mobil 1, do you use the same oil filter you would
>> normally use since it will stay in place longer?
>
> Personally, I'd not use the low end Frams or other cheapo filters under
> any circumstances. IMO, you should spend a few extra bucks on a Bosch,

"bosch" and "mobil 1" are in fact made by champion labs. the mobil
filters are slightly different construction, but the bosch style filters
are sold under the walmart house brand label for ~$2. i use them and
the results you see above.


> Wix, Purolator, Mobil, etc. if you want to extend the oil change
> intervals beyond the traditional 3000~5000 miles.
> FWLIW, I'm running a 92 Accord at 10K OCI (oil change interval) on Syn
> oil and Purolator Pure-One or M1 filters. I occasionally cut the filters
> open at the end of their service life. None of these filters has shown
> any sign of distress.
>
>> 3-- Besides Mobil 1, any other worthy competitors? (I ask because I
>> never hear of them, just Mobil 1)
>
> There's really little to differentiate most mainstream Syn oils. Penz
> Plat, M1, Valvoline's SynPower, etc. are all of roughly equal quality.
> You may well find standout products in each manufacturer's lineup. These
> are usually Euro-spec oils, or high mileage mixes which usually feature
> boosted anti-wear additives. Syntec 0W-30 ("German Castrol"),

"german castrol" is what is supposed to be in bmw's, and i can attest to
that stuff being bad for engine deposits.


> M1's 0W-40
> and 10W-30HM, and other oils have attracted cult-like supporters.
>
> A CR-V will not require anything super dooper. When buying, look for an
> "Oil Change Special" (oil + filter) at the local parts store and call it
> good!
>
> Redline makes possibly the best high performance oil available in the
> US. Ester base, excellent viscosity characteristics, massive anti-wear
> additives, made by a straightforward small company, right here in the US.
>
> Head over to http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ for more oil
> information (and plenty of unsubstantiated opinion as well!) than you
> can shake a dipstick at.

most of that "opinion" is underinformed drivel.

jim

>
> 1. the scavenging from valve overlap - that starts gas inflow momentum
> long before there is any back-pressure.
>
> 2. you're expecting gas to flow through a tiny hole, when a honking
> great big one is also open.
>
> oh, and when one cylinder is on the intake stroke, its partner is on the
> power stroke [no back pressure - valves are closed]. the others are on
> compression [no back pressure - valves are closed], and one is on
> exhaust. for exhaust to be an issue, it has to stop it's momentum down
> the exhaust and blow back up the manifold and through a tiny hole, all
> while being more viscous due to heat.

Are you really trying to argue that the exhaust can't flow through that
hole and dilute the gasses on the intake stroke???????


If you had a hole that size in your exhaust manifold, do you think
exhaust gas would not flow through it? Do you think momentum and and the
fact that there is a bigger hole someplace else is going to keep the
exhaust gasses from going through the hole?

Do you think no one has ever measured the exhaust gas temps coming
from a cylinder with a burnt valve like that?



>no, it doesn't cut like steel does -
> valves have to be heat and oxidation resistant. thus they DO NOT
> INSTANTLY BURN IN A SHOWER OF SPARKS BECAUSE THERE IS NO OR LITTLE
> OXIDATION MECHANISM

Except that isn't always the case. The mechanism that protects the
iron in the valve from rapid oxidation is an extremely thin surface
layer of chromium oxides. Under the right conditions that protective
layer can be destroyed and then the iron in the valve can rapidly
oxidize just as fast as mild steel.

jim beam

On 01/21/2010 01:47 PM, jim wrote:
>
>
>
>>
>> 1. the scavenging from valve overlap - that starts gas inflow momentum
>> long before there is any back-pressure.
>>
>> 2. you're expecting gas to flow through a tiny hole, when a honking
>> great big one is also open.
>>
>> oh, and when one cylinder is on the intake stroke, its partner is on the
>> power stroke [no back pressure - valves are closed]. the others are on
>> compression [no back pressure - valves are closed], and one is on
>> exhaust. for exhaust to be an issue, it has to stop it's momentum down
>> the exhaust and blow back up the manifold and through a tiny hole, all
>> while being more viscous due to heat.
>
> Are you really trying to argue that the exhaust can't flow through that
> hole and dilute the gasses on the intake stroke???????

look at the ing valve dipshit - all those marks are for exiting gas,
not entering. now, you go ahead and argue what you like to the
contrary, but it'll just be ignorant idiotic bullshit.


>
>
> If you had a hole that size in your exhaust manifold, do you think
> exhaust gas would not flow through it?

does you *** fill with water if it's downstream of a fire hose? how
about if it's upstream? cos that burnt valve is upstream, just in case
your powers of observation hadn't allowed you to determine the facts. [sic]


> Do you think momentum and and the
> fact that there is a bigger hole someplace else is going to keep the
> exhaust gasses from going through the hole?

see above.


>
> Do you think no one has ever measured the exhaust gas temps coming
> from a cylinder with a burnt valve like that?

of freakin' course!!! but it's low compression causing low power yield,
and thus lower exit temps, not "exhaust dilution"!!!! jeepers - for a
guy that was bleating about knowledge of the 4-stroke cycle, you sure
are amazingly ignorant of it.


>
>
>
>> no, it doesn't cut like steel does -
>> valves have to be heat and oxidation resistant. thus they DO NOT
>> INSTANTLY BURN IN A SHOWER OF SPARKS BECAUSE THERE IS NO OR LITTLE
>> OXIDATION MECHANISM
>
> Except that isn't always the case. The mechanism that protects the
> iron in the valve from rapid oxidation is an extremely thin surface
> layer of chromium oxides.

absolute bull ing . you clearly know as much about valve
metallurgy as you do about flow dynamics.


> Under the right conditions that protective
> layer can be destroyed and then the iron in the valve can rapidly
> oxidize just as fast as mild steel.

absolutely not. you're just guessing. and guessing wrong.
bullshitting idiot.

E. Meyer

On 1/21/10 12:31 AM, in article 2vS5n.2479$CM7.1688@newsfe04.iad, "Greg"
<nospam@null.net> wrote:

> A CR-V will not require anything super dooper. When buying, look for an
> "Oil Change Special" (oil + filter) at the local parts store and call it
> good!
>

A US Market CR-V requires 5W20 weight oil per the mfr. You're not likely to
find that at any "oil change special" unless its the Honda dealer. If you
run anything else in it, they could invalidate the warranty if there are any
oil related engine problems.

Guy

On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 08:36:03 -0600, "E. Meyer" <e.p.meyer@verizon.net>
wrote:

>On 1/21/10 12:31 AM, in article 2vS5n.2479$CM7.1688@newsfe04.iad, "Greg"
><nospam@null.net> wrote:
>
>> A CR-V will not require anything super dooper. When buying, look for an
>> "Oil Change Special" (oil + filter) at the local parts store and call it
>> good!
>>
>
>A US Market CR-V requires 5W20 weight oil per the mfr. You're not likely to
>find that at any "oil change special" unless its the Honda dealer. If you
>run anything else in it, they could invalidate the warranty if there are any
>oil related engine problems.


Pardon me for asking a dumb question but does Mobil1 come in different
viscosities like 5W20, etc... ?

jim beam

On 01/23/2010 06:57 AM, Guy wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 08:36:03 -0600, "E. Meyer"<e.p.meyer@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
>> On 1/21/10 12:31 AM, in article 2vS5n.2479$CM7.1688@newsfe04.iad, "Greg"
>> <nospam@null.net> wrote:
>>
>>> A CR-V will not require anything super dooper. When buying, look for an
>>> "Oil Change Special" (oil + filter) at the local parts store and call it
>>> good!
>>>
>>
>> A US Market CR-V requires 5W20 weight oil per the mfr. You're not likely to
>> find that at any "oil change special" unless its the Honda dealer. If you
>> run anything else in it, they could invalidate the warranty if there are any
>> oil related engine problems.
>
>
> Pardon me for asking a dumb question but does Mobil1 come in different
> viscosities like 5W20, etc... ?

how about this for a dumb:

"is your browser broken? can't you get mobil1.com"?

ridiculous attention-seeking.

jim

jim beam wrote:

> On 01/21/2010 01:47 PM, jim wrote:
>
> >
> > Are you really trying to argue that the exhaust can't flow through that
> > hole and dilute the gasses on the intake stroke???????
>
> look at the ing valve dipshit - all those marks are for exiting gas,
> not entering. now, you go ahead and argue what you like to the
> contrary, but it'll just be ignorant idiotic bullshit.

Yes the damage was done when pressurized air blow torched through the valve. And
all of that happened as gas flowed out the cylinder. The rapid oxidation of the
iron in the valve produces tremendously high temperature so there is a runaway
reaction until the air that is feeding it reverses direction.

But after that event was over with, from then on gasses can flow in and out
the hole with very little effect to the valve because (after a few seconds of
cooling down) the valve is very much colder than normal.


>
>
> >
> >
> > If you had a hole that size in your exhaust manifold, do you think
> > exhaust gas would not flow through it?
>
> does you *** fill with water if it's downstream of a fire hose? how
> about if it's upstream? cos that burnt valve is upstream, just in case
> your powers of observation hadn't allowed you to determine the facts. [sic]

The normal behavior of exhaust system dynamics becomes kaput when you put a hole
that size in the exhaust valve. The hole doesn't need to be that big to disrupt
the proper functioning of the cylinder and exhaust. A good bit of the cylinder
pressure is going to be lost during compression stroke and by the time it gets
around to the exhaust stroke there aint that much left. You are pretending the
gasses pushed out during the exhaust stroke would have the same inertia they would
have if the cylinder was working properly.
The hole in that cylinder exhaust valve is downstream from the other exhaust
ports and the flow from that exhaust port is less than the exhaust from the other
ports so there is nothing stopping the flow from higher pressure areas to where
there is less pressure.

>
>
> > Do you think momentum and and the
> > fact that there is a bigger hole someplace else is going to keep the
> > exhaust gasses from going through the hole?
>
> see above.

Yeah right I'm supposed to look above at some dimwitted remark about you putting
fire hoses up your ***. You seem to be relying on an encyclopedic collection of
meaningless metaphors for your attempts to understand how the physical world works.

If there is a hole in the exhaust manifold there will be exhaust flowing in and
out of the hole due to the pulsating exhaust pressure. But much more gasses will be
flowing out than in because of the average internal pressure of the exhaust
manifold is higher than outside. That momentary low pressure that draws air into
the flow is what is referred to as scavenging . The hole in the valve won't be
much different than any other hole in the exhaust manifold.

>
>
> >
> > Do you think no one has ever measured the exhaust gas temps coming
> > from a cylinder with a burnt valve like that?
>
> of freakin' course!!! but it's low compression causing low power yield,
> and thus lower exit temps, not "exhaust dilution"!!!! jeepers - for a
> guy that was bleating about knowledge of the 4-stroke cycle, you sure
> are amazingly ignorant of it.

No that is incorrect. If a hole in the valve is small enough that the cylinder can
still support combustion a Exhaust Gas Temperature sensor will show on average
higher than normal temp, due flames leaking past the valve.

Regardless of whether you hold the opinion that the cylinder is producing
power or not, if the sensor shows the exhaust temps are cold the valve is not
going to erode or wear any more. At that point the cylinder has stabilized and the
valve remains unchanged thereafter.


>
>
> >
> >
> >
> >> no, it doesn't cut like steel does -
> >> valves have to be heat and oxidation resistant. thus they DO NOT
> >> INSTANTLY BURN IN A SHOWER OF SPARKS BECAUSE THERE IS NO OR LITTLE
> >> OXIDATION MECHANISM
> >
> > Except that isn't always the case. The mechanism that protects the
> > iron in the valve from rapid oxidation is an extremely thin surface
> > layer of chromium oxides.
>
> absolute bull ing . you clearly know as much about valve
> metallurgy as you do about flow dynamics.

I know that if an exhaust valve does not have sufficient clearance it will get much
hotter than normal. And that can mean the valve will crack, fracture, warp or erode
away over time. But the end result of any of those scenarios will look much
different. And your feeble repetitions of the word "bullshit' doesn't change that
reality.



>
>
> > Under the right conditions that protective
> > layer can be destroyed and then the iron in the valve can rapidly
> > oxidize just as fast as mild steel.
>
> absolutely not. you're just guessing. and guessing wrong.
> bullshitting idiot.

Nobody saw what happened,. But we can be sure that your guess can not be
correct, because valves that burn slowly don't look like that. Valve
manufacturers have done extensive failure analysis. Based on that analysis, some
folk's guesses are more educated than others.

Small engine manufactures are a good source for information on this because
when a single cylinder engine is running along fine and abruptly stops running and
you open it up and find a valve that looks it has been flame cut with a torch there
is much less room for guessing as to what happened. Both Briggs and Kohler blame
this type of valve burnout on a chance encounter of combustion chamber carbon
deposits and the exhaust valve seat.

jim beam

On 01/23/2010 08:32 AM, jim wrote:
>
>
> jim beam wrote:
>
>> On 01/21/2010 01:47 PM, jim wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Are you really trying to argue that the exhaust can't flow through that
>>> hole and dilute the gasses on the intake stroke???????
>>
>> look at the ing valve dipshit - all those marks are for exiting gas,
>> not entering. now, you go ahead and argue what you like to the
>> contrary, but it'll just be ignorant idiotic bullshit.
>
> Yes the damage was done when pressurized air blow torched through the valve. And
> all of that happened as gas flowed out the cylinder. The rapid oxidation of the
> iron in the valve produces tremendously high temperature so there is a runaway
> reaction until the air that is feeding it reverses direction.

for ordinary iron, oxidation is strongly exothermic, yes. but ordinary
iron is no good at corrosion or heat resistance, so what are valves made
of, dipshit?

clue:
http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache...ient=firefox-a


>
> But after that event was over with, from then on gasses can flow in and out
> the hole with very little effect to the valve because (after a few seconds of
> cooling down) the valve is very much colder than normal.

but the freakin' gases aren't dipshit! besides, valves burn slowly -
see above.


>
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If you had a hole that size in your exhaust manifold, do you think
>>> exhaust gas would not flow through it?
>>
>> does you *** fill with water if it's downstream of a fire hose? how
>> about if it's upstream? cos that burnt valve is upstream, just in case
>> your powers of observation hadn't allowed you to determine the facts. [sic]
>
> The normal behavior of exhaust system dynamics becomes kaput when you put a hole
> that size in the exhaust valve.

so exhaust gasses are suddenly going to flood upstream - glad you could
re-write the entire book on flow dynamics and clear that up!


> The hole doesn't need to be that big to disrupt
> the proper functioning of the cylinder and exhaust.

really??!!!


> A good bit of the cylinder
> pressure is going to be lost during compression stroke and by the time it gets
> around to the exhaust stroke there aint that much left.

bravo. oh, btw, that's not "exhaust gas dilution".


> You are pretending the
> gasses pushed out during the exhaust stroke would have the same inertia they would
> have if the cylinder was working properly.

no, you are pretending that exhaust gas flows upstream!


> The hole in that cylinder exhaust valve is downstream from the other exhaust
> ports

eh? have you ever seen a honda manifold? you can't have to make a
statement like that.


> and the flow from that exhaust port is less than the exhaust from the other
> ports so there is nothing stopping the flow from higher pressure areas to where
> there is less pressure.

straw clutching drivel. what you /can/ get is a pressure wave, but that
is not exhaust flow. but you'd know that if you had the slightest clue.


>
>>
>>
>>> Do you think momentum and and the
>>> fact that there is a bigger hole someplace else is going to keep the
>>> exhaust gasses from going through the hole?
>>
>> see above.
>
> Yeah right I'm supposed to look above at some dimwitted remark about you putting
> fire hoses up your ***. You seem to be relying on an encyclopedic collection of
> meaningless metaphors for your attempts to understand how the physical world works.
>
> If there is a hole in the exhaust manifold there will be exhaust flowing in and
> out of the hole due to the pulsating exhaust pressure.

no, dipshit. does hydraulic fluid need to flow to transmit pressure???
of course not. neither does your phantom upstream flowing exhaust
gas. similarly, with a brake line, once you do get flow [open a bleed
valve], what happens to pressure???

[i blame [y]our education [system].]


> But much more gasses will be
> flowing out than in because of the average internal pressure of the exhaust
> manifold is higher than outside. That momentary low pressure that draws air into
> the flow is what is referred to as scavenging . The hole in the valve won't be
> much different than any other hole in the exhaust manifold.

except that a hole in the manifold is downstream, and an exhaust valve
is upstream!


>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Do you think no one has ever measured the exhaust gas temps coming
>>> from a cylinder with a burnt valve like that?
>>
>> of freakin' course!!! but it's low compression causing low power yield,
>> and thus lower exit temps, not "exhaust dilution"!!!! jeepers - for a
>> guy that was bleating about knowledge of the 4-stroke cycle, you sure
>> are amazingly ignorant of it.
>
> No that is incorrect. If a hole in the valve is small enough that the cylinder can
> still support combustion a Exhaust Gas Temperature sensor will show on average
> higher than normal temp, due flames leaking past the valve.

bullshit. combustion temperature is a function of compression. as
compression decreases, so does combustion temp. basic thermodynamics.


>
> Regardless of whether you hold the opinion that the cylinder is producing
> power or not, if the sensor shows the exhaust temps are cold the valve is not
> going to erode or wear any more. At that point the cylinder has stabilized and the
> valve remains unchanged thereafter.

you are slowly getting there, except that it's not anywhere that simple.
at low exchange rates, i.e. low rpm, there is more time to establish
equilibrium, and thus tend towards zero pressure differential. however,
as rpm's increase, there isn't, thus combustion continues to occur, and
valves continue to burn for quite some time after symptoms first appear.
"stabilization" is long and slow, not "milliseconds" as you were
previously guessing.


>
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> no, it doesn't cut like steel does -
>>>> valves have to be heat and oxidation resistant. thus they DO NOT
>>>> INSTANTLY BURN IN A SHOWER OF SPARKS BECAUSE THERE IS NO OR LITTLE
>>>> OXIDATION MECHANISM
>>>
>>> Except that isn't always the case. The mechanism that protects the
>>> iron in the valve from rapid oxidation is an extremely thin surface
>>> layer of chromium oxides.
>>
>> absolute bull ing . you clearly know as much about valve
>> metallurgy as you do about flow dynamics.
>
> I know that if an exhaust valve does not have sufficient clearance it will get much
> hotter than normal. And that can mean the valve will crack, fracture, warp or erode
> away over time.

cracking is almost unheard of. fracture is what happens after cracking.
warping is a function of temperature or loading - and warping is not a
factor in valve burn. erosion is caused by gas leakage due to failure
to close properly, or by a valve defect.


> But the end result of any of those scenarios will look much
> different. And your feeble repetitions of the word "bullshit' doesn't change that
> reality.

the "reality" that you clearly don't understand???


>
>
>
>>
>>
>>> Under the right conditions that protective
>>> layer can be destroyed and then the iron in the valve can rapidly
>>> oxidize just as fast as mild steel.
>>
>> absolutely not. you're just guessing. and guessing wrong.
>> bullshitting idiot.
>
> Nobody saw what happened,.

hey, you never saw that guy get shot, so that bullet hole didn't kill him!

or is the whole point of analysis to examine the physical evidence so
you /do/ know what happened??? [rhetorical]


> But we can be sure that your guess can not be
> correct, because valves that burn slowly don't look like that.

bullshit! dude, not only are you hopelessly undereducated on this stuff
[which would be curable if you weren't so closed], your problem is that
you refuse to learn, analyze, or even begin to seek out what it doesn't
know. thus, you're not merely ignorant, you're actually stoooopid.


> Valve
> manufacturers have done extensive failure analysis. Based on that analysis, some
> folk's guesses are more educated than others.

and some folk not only fiercely resist learning a damned thing, they
actually guess and bullshit, just for the sake of hearing their own voice!


>
> Small engine manufactures are a good source for information on this because
> when a single cylinder engine is running along fine and abruptly stops running and
> you open it up and find a valve that looks it has been flame cut with a torch there
> is much less room for guessing as to what happened. Both Briggs and Kohler blame
> this type of valve burnout on a chance encounter of combustion chamber carbon
> deposits and the exhaust valve seat.

briggs and kohler both have huge combustion technology and metallurgical
r&d facilities and make their own valves don't they. oh, wait, no they
don't... you don't work for one of them do you?