|
Re: new Honda CR-V break in
"Guy" <void@void.com> wrote in message news:mi91k59uj6u5sua9ki5itgboo85djnkago@4ax.com... > Thanks Thomas. I'll follow all you say except maybe the last part > <g>. Where I live, we don't get snow but every 5 to 10 years but > where I used to live, almost every year so I know what you mean by > salt. I guess I'll buy some Honda products (fluids) to store around > the garage. Sorry Guy, are you one of those people (nutters? ;-) who are sensible and keep their cars for years AND years as its the most economical w\y of running a car and not worried about MPG and think "whole life costs" is the only way to gauge "economy"? I'll not mention the Toyota Pious but as Car Companies are most concerned about PPM ( pence per mile - I'm guessing cents per mile in your case? :) and looking good over 3/5 years rather than the whole life there is nothing wrong in changing the oil a little more often or the ATF twice as often as the companies advise - I know that BMW for instance talk about "sealed for life" transmissions for instance BUT BMw specialists often talk about changing the oil twice as often and the transmission fluid at least every 48k sorry - this ad vise probable don't help do it? ;-) |
Re: new Honda CR-V break in
In article <7qdrjpFfflU1@mid.individual.net>,
"thomas" <toooommygin@retardedloony.com> wrote: > I know that BMW for instance talk about "sealed for > life" transmissions yeah--the life of the finance contract or the life of the warranty. BMW is able to make utterly disposable cars because their penishead buyers are dumber than oatmeal and trade them in for new leases every two years. |
Re: new Honda CR-V break in
Oi, don't sit on the fence - tell us how it really is:)
Also Is there a new joke there somewhere - whats the difference between a bmw driver and oatmeal? people like oatmeal! "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message news:elmop-F38DB1.07142004012010@nothing.attdns.com... > In article <7qdrjpFfflU1@mid.individual.net>, > "thomas" <toooommygin@retardedloony.com> wrote: > >> I know that BMW for instance talk about "sealed for >> life" transmissions > > yeah--the life of the finance contract or the life of the warranty. > > BMW is able to make utterly disposable cars because their penishead > buyers are dumber than oatmeal and trade them in for new leases every > two years. |
Re: new Honda CR-V break in
thomas wrote:
> Oi, don't sit on the fence - tell us how it really is:) > > Also Is there a new joke there somewhere - whats the difference between > a bmw driver and oatmeal? > people like oatmeal! Not me... I think that oatmeal is for, well, er, ahhh... hosses 'n the like. Putrid stuff! Of course, I'm not anyway supportive of BMWs either.. JT |
Re: new Honda CR-V break in
On 01/04/2010 10:16 AM, thomas wrote:
> Oi, don't sit on the fence - tell us how it really is:) > > Also Is there a new joke there somewhere - whats the difference between > a bmw driver and oatmeal? > people like oatmeal! > "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message > news:elmop-F38DB1.07142004012010@nothing.attdns.com... >> In article <7qdrjpFfflU1@mid.individual.net>, >> "thomas" <toooommygin@retardedloony.com> wrote: >> >>> I know that BMW for instance talk about "sealed for >>> life" transmissions >> >> yeah--the life of the finance contract or the life of the warranty. >> >> BMW is able to make utterly disposable cars because their penishead >> buyers are dumber than oatmeal and trade them in for new leases every >> two years. > yeah, but what's the difference between bmw drivers and people that don't like them? it's the bmw drivers that don't care! |
Re: new Honda CR-V break in
On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 13:40:27 -0600, "Guy" <void@void.com> wrote:
>Thanks JR, I gotcha. That sounds reasonable. I do intend to read >the manual regardless but I really wanted to know how others drove >their newer cars especially for breakin. I imagine my CR-V tho not >an EX will seem like a EX compared to my Accord LX of 7 years ago so >I'll have to get used to the extra bells and whistles. Anyway, >thanks for the straight advice and without the accusations. OK, I'll admit, I drive it a little easy for the first few hundred miles, I'm only up to 1,500 now and still at least feel a little guilty when I rev it above about 5,000 even briefly. I guess it takes until the second oil change, when the car starts getting better mileage as well, that I consider it fully broken in! I do wish Honda would publish the algorithm they use for the minder, how many points for a cold start, how many points for high revs, etc. I remember doing oil changes every 3,000 miles on the ol' 1987, I also remember about the 2004 model year when Honda said go 10,000 miles between changes if you have easy driving. I thought I had easy driving, and did go 10,000 miles between changes at least once. So when I got the first model with the minder in 2007, I was a bit surprised when it decided I should change around 6,000 miles. Such is life. Maybe Honda decided they'd overshot a little on the 10,000 estimate. J. |
Re: new Honda CR-V break in
On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 21:49:50 +0000 (UTC), Tegger <invalid@invalid.inv>
wrote: >The threaded rectangle on my original pan and the one on the new pan >(installed 1994) were definitely of different thicknesses, with the new one >being thicker. I believe Honda has changed the pans since 1991, and that's >why we don't hear of stripped drain plugs nearly as often as we used to ten >years ago. IIRC, the story the dealer gave back when about stripped oil plugs was corrosion. If that was ever correct, maybe they found a more resistant grade of steel for it. I think my 1987 Accord had the pan replaced once, maybe twice, in the twelve years I drove it. Since I've been on a three-year lease cycle, I've had no further experience with the issue. J. |
Re: new Honda CR-V break in
JRStern <JRStern@foobar.invalid> wrote in
news:4v15k55pk663amjm67mqji1qkr5g92sljg@4ax.com: > On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 21:49:50 +0000 (UTC), Tegger <invalid@invalid.inv> > wrote: > >>The threaded rectangle on my original pan and the one on the new pan >>(installed 1994) were definitely of different thicknesses, with the >>new one being thicker. I believe Honda has changed the pans since >>1991, and that's why we don't hear of stripped drain plugs nearly as >>often as we used to ten years ago. > > IIRC, the story the dealer gave back when about stripped oil plugs was > corrosion. If that was ever correct, I think that's total nonsense. The plug threads are bathed in oil. Even if the oil were neglected to the point where water would build up and cause corrosion, it most certainly would not happen in three years. I have never in my life ever seen an oil drain plug with corroded threads, even when what was in the pan was almost molasses. That dealer was feeding you a line so he could cover up for his inept and lazy monkeys. -- Tegger The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ |
Re: new Honda CR-V break in
On 01/04/2010 04:27 PM, JRStern wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 13:40:27 -0600, "Guy"<void@void.com> wrote: > >> Thanks JR, I gotcha. That sounds reasonable. I do intend to read >> the manual regardless but I really wanted to know how others drove >> their newer cars especially for breakin. I imagine my CR-V tho not >> an EX will seem like a EX compared to my Accord LX of 7 years ago so >> I'll have to get used to the extra bells and whistles. Anyway, >> thanks for the straight advice and without the accusations. > > OK, I'll admit, I drive it a little easy for the first few hundred > miles, I'm only up to 1,500 now and still at least feel a little > guilty when I rev it above about 5,000 even briefly. I guess it takes > until the second oil change, when the car starts getting better > mileage as well, that I consider it fully broken in! > > I do wish Honda would publish the algorithm they use for the minder, > how many points for a cold start, how many points for high revs, etc. > > I remember doing oil changes every 3,000 miles on the ol' 1987, I also > remember about the 2004 model year when Honda said go 10,000 miles > between changes if you have easy driving. I thought I had easy > driving, and did go 10,000 miles between changes at least once. So > when I got the first model with the minder in 2007, I was a bit > surprised when it decided I should change around 6,000 miles. Such is > life. Maybe Honda decided they'd overshot a little on the 10,000 > estimate. > > J. > i wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't honda bowing to dealer pressure/bleating to get people back in the shop more often. dealers /want/ you in more often so they can make more money. contrast that with bmw who offer free maintenance for the first few years - they want to see you as little as possible, and their oil changes go 10-15k. [interestingly, if you look up oil analysis examples online, mile for mile honda steel count - which correlates to wear rate and materials quality - is of the order of ten times /less/ than that of bmw. oil breakdown stability aside, that would imply honda being able to have a longer service interval than bmw, not shorter.] |
Re: new Honda CR-V break in
On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 17:30:57 -0800, jim beam <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>i wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't honda bowing to dealer >pressure/bleating to get people back in the shop more often. dealers >/want/ you in more often so they can make more money. contrast that >with bmw who offer free maintenance for the first few years - they want >to see you as little as possible, and their oil changes go 10-15k. Did not know that. BMW goes that long, with conventional oil? And even the first? Well, maybe they want you to wear things out! >[interestingly, if you look up oil analysis examples online, mile for >mile honda steel count - which correlates to wear rate and materials >quality - is of the order of ten times /less/ than that of bmw. oil >breakdown stability aside, that would imply honda being able to have a >longer service interval than bmw, not shorter.] Reminds me of an air pollution check on one of my old Hondas, required here in California every two years. Actual pollution line was barely off the zero, way way better than required. I guess that's why they started the "ULEV" labels and such, but I still felt like I deserved a medal, or a discount, or something, for driving such a clean car. Honda good. (of course, that doesn't really count towards the modern trendy "carbon footprint" issue, but that's another story) J. |
Re: new Honda CR-V break in
On 01/05/2010 04:05 PM, JRStern wrote:
> On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 17:30:57 -0800, jim beam<me@privacy.net> wrote: > >> i wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't honda bowing to dealer >> pressure/bleating to get people back in the shop more often. dealers >> /want/ you in more often so they can make more money. contrast that >> with bmw who offer free maintenance for the first few years - they want >> to see you as little as possible, and their oil changes go 10-15k. > > Did not know that. > > BMW goes that long, with conventional oil? apparently. i don't know what their oil is - but i know that when it's time to change, that stuff is pretty sour. and there's a strong buildup of resin under the rocker cover. i do occasional work on a friend's 330i and my 189k 20yr old civic is cleaner under the rocker after nearly 20k on a single change of mobil 1 than the 330i after a total lifetime 30k miles and bmw oil changes. whatever they use, it's either massively over-stressed or it's not as good as what i use. > And even the first? > > Well, maybe they want you to wear things out! > > >> [interestingly, if you look up oil analysis examples online, mile for >> mile honda steel count - which correlates to wear rate and materials >> quality - is of the order of ten times /less/ than that of bmw. oil >> breakdown stability aside, that would imply honda being able to have a >> longer service interval than bmw, not shorter.] > > Reminds me of an air pollution check on one of my old Hondas, required > here in California every two years. Actual pollution line was barely > off the zero, way way better than required. I guess that's why they > started the "ULEV" labels and such, but I still felt like I deserved a > medal, or a discount, or something, for driving such a clean car. > > Honda good. > > (of course, that doesn't really count towards the modern trendy > "carbon footprint" issue, but that's another story) > > J. > carbon footprint is pretty much just how much gas you burn. smaller, more efficient clean burning engines in smaller more aero cars means lower gas consumption. the average honda may not be as good as a prius, but it's a whole lot better than the average frod, chevy, chrysler, etc. |
Re: new Honda CR-V break in
jim beam wrote:
> On 01/05/2010 04:05 PM, JRStern wrote: >> On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 17:30:57 -0800, jim beam<me@privacy.net> wrote: >> >>> i wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't honda bowing to dealer >>> pressure/bleating to get people back in the shop more often. dealers >>> /want/ you in more often so they can make more money. contrast that >>> with bmw who offer free maintenance for the first few years - they want >>> to see you as little as possible, and their oil changes go 10-15k. Like any other dealer, BMW dealers like to see you as often as possible consistent with good customer satisfaction. The car business is what it is no matter which manufacturer we're talking about. Every contact they have with you gives them another opportunity to impress you with their professionalism and good will, and possibly make a sale or a future sale. The local BMW dealer has free car washes every Saturday, for example, no matter how long you've owned the car you bought from them. (My family owned a car dealership when I was growing up.) >> >> Did not know that. >> >> BMW goes that long, with conventional oil? No. It's a Castrol synthetic in anything recent. > apparently. i don't know what their oil is - but i know that when it's > time to change, that stuff is pretty sour. and there's a strong buildup > of resin under the rocker cover. i do occasional work on a friend's > 330i and my 189k 20yr old civic is cleaner under the rocker after nearly > 20k on a single change of mobil 1 than the 330i after a total lifetime > 30k miles and bmw oil changes. whatever they use, it's either massively > over-stressed or it's not as good as what i use. The oil looks different both new and old than conventional oil. However, at 30K miles, a 330i should have had 1-2 oil changes depending on the service it's seen, and it should not have significant buildup under the valve cover. Mine has no significant buildup at 88K, nor does my wife's 323i at 107K. >> And even the first? <snip> Yes. The first oil change on recent BMWs is likely to be at about 15K miles. That's less than the interval you're using with Mobil 1 in your Civic. My Accord was my first "experiment" car, the one with which I started to follow the manufacturer's service schedule rather than being more aggressive and changing oil and filter every 3K. I did do the very first oil change early just to get any crud left over from manufacturing out, but since then I have changed it only when the service indicator turns to red, which it does faithfully every 7,500 miles. Honda specs regular 5W-30 oil, and that's what I use, along with the Honda filter. Now, 19 years later at 218K, the car is falling (well, rusting) apart around the drive train. The engine uses no noticeable oil between changes, gas mileage remains good, and the engine seems as peppy now as it was when new. Had I changed oil every 3K I'd have done 72 oil changes by now rather than the 29 or so I've actually done, so at $25 or so per change for oil and filter, I'm $1,075 to the good--in fact, the money I have saved on unnecessary oil changes now exceeds the residual value of the car (according to Kelly Blue Book's website)! And that's changing the oil myself. Had I paid to have it done I'd have saved more than double the car's current value. In reasonably average service I see no concrete reason to be more agressive than the manufacturer's recommendations with our Honda, BMWs, garden tractor, etc. -- JRE |
Re: new Honda CR-V break in
On 01/06/2010 03:30 AM, JRE wrote:
> jim beam wrote: >> On 01/05/2010 04:05 PM, JRStern wrote: >>> On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 17:30:57 -0800, jim beam<me@privacy.net> wrote: >>> >>>> i wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't honda bowing to dealer >>>> pressure/bleating to get people back in the shop more often. dealers >>>> /want/ you in more often so they can make more money. contrast that >>>> with bmw who offer free maintenance for the first few years - they want >>>> to see you as little as possible, and their oil changes go 10-15k. > > Like any other dealer, BMW dealers like to see you as often as possible > consistent with good customer satisfaction. The car business is what it > is no matter which manufacturer we're talking about. Every contact they > have with you gives them another opportunity to impress you with their > professionalism and good will, and possibly make a sale or a future > sale. The local BMW dealer has free car washes every Saturday, for > example, no matter how long you've owned the car you bought from them. > > (My family owned a car dealership when I was growing up.) you're right, repeat business comes from the ability to cultivate and maintain a professional relationship. however, when service costs are borne by the dealer, not the client, they my be happy to bring you in for coffee and donuts, but they are /not/ going to bring you in for oil changes every 3k miles because it's losing them money. > >>> >>> Did not know that. >>> >>> BMW goes that long, with conventional oil? > > No. It's a Castrol synthetic in anything recent. i've read that is specified, but i have a hard time believing the dealer's actually using it in my friend's car - evidence to the contrary in fact. > >> apparently. i don't know what their oil is - but i know that when it's >> time to change, that stuff is pretty sour. and there's a strong >> buildup of resin under the rocker cover. i do occasional work on a >> friend's 330i and my 189k 20yr old civic is cleaner under the rocker >> after nearly 20k on a single change of mobil 1 than the 330i after a >> total lifetime 30k miles and bmw oil changes. whatever they use, it's >> either massively over-stressed or it's not as good as what i use. > > The oil looks different both new and old than conventional oil. However, > at 30K miles, a 330i should have had 1-2 oil changes depending on the > service it's seen, and it should not have significant buildup under the > valve cover. Mine has no significant buildup at 88K, nor does my wife's > 323i at 107K. frankly, because of what i'd read, i was surprised. > >>> And even the first? > <snip> > > Yes. The first oil change on recent BMWs is likely to be at about 15K > miles. That's less than the interval you're using with Mobil 1 in your > Civic. yes, but analysis shows the bmw to be wearing faster. > > My Accord was my first "experiment" car, the one with which I started to > follow the manufacturer's service schedule rather than being more > aggressive and changing oil and filter every 3K. I did do the very first > oil change early just to get any crud left over from manufacturing out, > but since then I have changed it only when the service indicator turns > to red, which it does faithfully every 7,500 miles. Honda specs regular > 5W-30 oil, and that's what I use, along with the Honda filter. > > Now, 19 years later at 218K, the car is falling (well, rusting) apart > around the drive train. The engine uses no noticeable oil between > changes, gas mileage remains good, and the engine seems as peppy now as > it was when new. Had I changed oil every 3K I'd have done 72 oil changes > by now rather than the 29 or so I've actually done, so at $25 or so per > change for oil and filter, I'm $1,075 to the good--in fact, the money I > have saved on unnecessary oil changes now exceeds the residual value of > the car (according to Kelly Blue Book's website)! And that's changing > the oil myself. Had I paid to have it done I'd have saved more than > double the car's current value. > > In reasonably average service I see no concrete reason to be more > agressive than the manufacturer's recommendations with our Honda, BMWs, > garden tractor, etc. > |
Re: new Honda CR-V break in
"JRE" <nothing@nowhere.invalid> wrote in message
news:hi1s8d$mls$1@news.eternal-september.org... > jim beam wrote: > Like any other dealer, BMW dealers like to see you as often as possible > consistent with good customer satisfaction. Yes, but they weren't generating any customer satisfaction due to astronomical service costs, they were losing sales to everything else on the market based on bad service experiences based on cost, that's why they went to service-included pricing. J. |
Re: new Honda CR-V break in
On 01/07/2010 09:56 AM, zzznot wrote:
> "JRE"<nothing@nowhere.invalid> wrote in message > news:hi1s8d$mls$1@news.eternal-september.org... >> jim beam wrote: >> Like any other dealer, BMW dealers like to see you as often as possible >> consistent with good customer satisfaction. > > Yes, but they weren't generating any customer > satisfaction due to astronomical service costs, > they were losing sales to everything else on the market > based on bad service experiences based on cost, > that's why they went to service-included pricing. > > J. > > > "service-included pricing" which costs them hardly anything because at 15k per service, they hardly ever touch the car! 4 years or 50k miles - that's three [max $50] oil changes. and once your "included" service period is up, brakes suddenly are kaput, and cost a freakin' fortune. they need new $200+ disks each time you change the pads - if you use bmw pads anyway. [use akebono ceramics and magically, disk wear goes away. strange that.] |
Re: new Honda CR-V break in
Thus spake "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> :
>In article <26mqj5pe66brehseqtiah36j5l7pkkrpr5@4ax.com>, > "Guy" <void@void.com> wrote: > >> >in that case, you should get rid of this vehicle and go buy a buick. >> >buh-bye! >> > >> >> I didn't mean the manual was wrong but wanted to know what >> experience(s) work well with a new Honda. Maybe most don't follow the >> manual??? > >Or maybe most do. > >Your owner's manual says...what? about oil changes? > >Does it have a maintenance minder system? When it says a maint is due, then it gets done. That means that at least three of us do the manual. I guess he doesn't thing the manuals are written for a reason. Perhaps the part where it says "don't do this or you will be killed or seriously injured" applies for him, either. -- - dillon I am not invalid I love my country, It's my government I fear. Hey, turnabout's fair play. |
Re: new Honda CR-V break in
Thus spake "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> :
>In article <GISdnc2cbrfHi6PWnZ2dnUVZ_sIAAAAA@speakeasy.net> , > jim beam <me@privacy.net> wrote: > >> > Have fun with your shiny new $25,000 toy. >> >> this is the piece of psychology that always completely blows my mind - >> the bit where people can spend a bunch of dough, then completely >> disregard what they put it into. if they had a suitcase with $25,000 in >> hundreds, would they toss it out of a moving car with the lid open and >> watch the notes get blown away in the wind? of course not. > >Some would, and then you'd see a blog entry on The Consumerist about how >Samsonite bags suck and they wouldn't even take the owner's phone call >about how Samsonite owes him $25,000 because his bag didn't prevent the >bills from leaving the opened suitcase. Off to alt.humor.best-of-usenet with you. -- - dillon I am not invalid I love my country, It's my government I fear. Hey, turnabout's fair play. |
Re: new Honda CR-V break in
Thus spake News <News@Groups.Name> :
>jim beam wrote: >> On 01/01/2010 08:32 AM, Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote: >>> In article<GISdnc2cbrfHi6PWnZ2dnUVZ_sIAAAAA@speakeasy .net>, >>> jim beam<me@privacy.net> wrote: >>> >>>>> Have fun with your shiny new $25,000 toy. >>>> >>>> this is the piece of psychology that always completely blows my mind - >>>> the bit where people can spend a bunch of dough, then completely >>>> disregard what they put it into. if they had a suitcase with $25,000 in >>>> hundreds, would they toss it out of a moving car with the lid open and >>>> watch the notes get blown away in the wind? of course not. >>> >>> Some would, and then you'd see a blog entry on The Consumerist about how >>> Samsonite bags suck and they wouldn't even take the owner's phone call >>> about how Samsonite owes him $25,000 because his bag didn't prevent the >>> bills from leaving the opened suitcase. >> >> doubtless, others would respond agreeing. especially if someone had the >> temerity to point out that our blogger was in fact at fault, because we >> should all stand about and hug and endorse stupidity, not actually try >> to learn something. >> >> > > >Try this on for size: ><http://forums.appleinsider.com/showthread.php?t=105876> a) a bill of sale is practiclly worthless without some kind of "authentication", ie the notary I used when I sold my Civic. 2) I think Apple would be covered by the same law as pawn shops and auto dealers. If they accept something for which they have a reasonable expectation that the presenter is the legal owner, they are under no obligation to return it to the legitimate owner without compensation. Bullshit law, yeah. In some states (such as Texas) certain shops may be identified by police as "known" fences and this doesn't apply. Trick is, you won't know unless you force the cops to say so and the shop won't know unless you take them to court with the above mentioned information. Which the cops don't want them to know until the nail them big time, not for your iPhone 3G that only sold for $99 back in July. -- - dillon I am not invalid I love my country, It's my government I fear. Hey, turnabout's fair play. |
Re: new Honda CR-V break in
Thus spake "Guy" <void@void.com> :
<major snippage> >>bottom line dude - it's your car - you do what you want. but don't ask >>advice if you don't want to hear it. and you have no business getting >>offended if people have a negative reaction to you dismissing their >>correct advice as of no consequence. > > >You seem to have a high opinion of yourself. I also have experience >tho I don't claim to know it all. Numbers are fine and I think the >manual is a great "guide" and in the absence of real life experiences >will use it but that's what I am seeking from others.... real life >experiences. Yes, I do listen to people just like I'm listening to >you. > >Maybe you haven't been around a long time on the net (???) but I >recall reading elsewhere, some thought the manuals are over >conservative and some even accused the manuals of trying to get people >to bring their cars in for service more than needed to make money for >that mfgr. So not knowing the truth, I was seeking other's advice >besides reading the manual. And yes I will read/re-read the manual in >parts. Perhaps you misunderstand my intentions???? Errh, you're suggesting doing your oil at 3500 miles and the manual says to do it when the MM says so, which for most folks is around 5-7K. So, who's being overly conservative and who's tossing away money? Let's see: "I don't care what the manual says." So, as the others have said, you are doing research to support an already developed solution. -- - dillon I am not invalid I love my country, It's my government I fear. Hey, turnabout's fair play. |
Re: new Honda CR-V break in
Thus spake "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> :
>In article <dplsj5153smn7npsj0dp06uhpq0tqd76gb@4ax.com>, > "Guy" <void@void.com> wrote: > >> Personally I've read Hondas can be abused and >> still no problems. > >hehehehe--reminds me of my 79 Civic. The oil system had a nifty >self-changing feature. When the oil light flickered during hard right >turns, it was time to add more oil. Had friend with a 79 CRX (same as mine except for color) that didn't self change, but it was capable of at least removing the oil very quickly. I was amazed that Honda built the car with a 5 or so inch drain plug right under the #3 piston. Oh, and that was also the reminder that he needed to replace the rod and all the bearings. -- - dillon I am not invalid I love my country, It's my government I fear. Hey, turnabout's fair play. |
Re: new Honda CR-V break in
On 1/10/2010 8:43 PM, Dillon Pyron wrote:
> > Errh, you're suggesting doing your oil at 3500 miles and the manual > says to do it when the MM says so, which for most folks is around > 5-7K. So, who's being overly conservative and who's tossing away > money? > > Let's see: "I don't care what the manual says." So, as the others > have said, you are doing research to support an already developed > solution. There is nothing wrong with frequent oil changes and grease (for those vehicles that have grease fittings). It is the cheapest form of maintenance available. |
Re: new Honda CR-V break in
Dillon Pyron wrote:
> Thus spake "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> : > >> In article <dplsj5153smn7npsj0dp06uhpq0tqd76gb@4ax.com>, >> "Guy" <void@void.com> wrote: >> >>> Personally I've read Hondas can be abused and >>> still no problems. >> hehehehe--reminds me of my 79 Civic. The oil system had a nifty >> self-changing feature. When the oil light flickered during hard right >> turns, it was time to add more oil. > > Had friend with a 79 CRX (same as mine except for color) that didn't > self change, but it was capable of at least removing the oil very > quickly. I was amazed that Honda built the car with a 5 or so inch > drain plug right under the #3 piston. Oh, and that was also the > reminder that he needed to replace the rod and all the bearings. '79 CRX??? JT |
Re: new Honda CR-V break in
On Dec 31 2009, 8:41 pm, "Guy" <v...@void.com> wrote:
> I got a new 2010 CR-V and wife asked me how to break it in properly. > What is the proper way? > > I don't care what the manual says. What do you guys feel is the best > mileage to do the first oil change? I normally change my oil and > filter around 3500 miles on my other cars with no synthetic. I'll bet when you wrote this you had no idea you were lighting a fuse. Once you get by the pedantic nonsense you'll find that Honda engines are well made and pretty much whatever oil change interval you choose will be fine so long as it does not exceed the built-in maintenance minder (which is the same as any other idiot light on the dash). If you do your own oil changes and plan to keep the car a long while, you may was well use synthetic, which can be had pretty cheaply from WalMart. You can use those tea-cup-sized Honda oil filters but if you find another brand of oil filters as small as Honda's that would be news to me. This will also set off the fuse but since I don't routiney check this newsgroup I will remain blissfully unaware. I will probably rue the day I did not follow my owner's manual to the letter and only got 250,000 miles out of my last car before I gave it to friends who are still driving it around. However, I did marvel at the treatise on "kill file," which I did not read as it immediately invoked a "get a life" response. YMMV |
Re: new Honda CR-V break in
On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 15:39:33 -0800 (PST), ACAR <gmwohl@gmail.com>
wrote: >On Dec 31 2009, 8:41 pm, "Guy" <v...@void.com> wrote: >> I got a new 2010 CR-V and wife asked me how to break it in properly. >> What is the proper way? >> >> I don't care what the manual says. What do you guys feel is the best >> mileage to do the first oil change? I normally change my oil and >> filter around 3500 miles on my other cars with no synthetic. > >I'll bet when you wrote this you had no idea you were lighting a >fuse. Boy, you are NOT kidding. I had no idea. >Once you get by the pedantic nonsense you'll find that Honda engines >are well made and pretty much whatever oil change interval you choose >will be fine so long as it does not exceed the built-in maintenance >minder (which is the same as any other idiot light on the dash). If >you do your own oil changes and plan to keep the car a long while, you >may was well use synthetic, which can be had pretty cheaply from >WalMart. > >You can use those tea-cup-sized Honda oil filters but if you find >another brand of oil filters as small as Honda's that would be news to >me. This will also set off the fuse but since I don't routiney check >this newsgroup I will remain blissfully unaware. I will probably rue >the day I did not follow my owner's manual to the letter and only got >250,000 miles out of my last car before I gave it to friends who are >still driving it around. > >However, I did marvel at the treatise on "kill file," which I did not >read as it immediately invoked a "get a life" response. > >YMMV Thank you ACAR for the tips. |
Re: new Honda CR-V break in
On 01/10/10 19:48, Brian Smith wrote:
> On 1/10/2010 8:43 PM, Dillon Pyron wrote: >> >> Errh, you're suggesting doing your oil at 3500 miles and the manual >> says to do it when the MM says so, which for most folks is around >> 5-7K. So, who's being overly conservative and who's tossing away >> money? >> >> Let's see: "I don't care what the manual says." So, as the others >> have said, you are doing research to support an already developed >> solution. > > There is nothing wrong with frequent oil changes and grease (for those > vehicles that have grease fittings). It is the cheapest form of > maintenance available. Really? What about the wasted oil which is still perfectly usable as an engine lubricant? Time? Money? So if I were really conservative regarding oil changes, I'd do it weekly or even daily. Anything wrong with that? You're either not keeping posted on modern engine lubrication or you reject info newer than "every 3,000 miles". <not a flame, BTW> |
Re: new Honda CR-V break in
On 01/13/2010 06:02 PM, Tony Harding wrote:
> On 01/10/10 19:48, Brian Smith wrote: >> On 1/10/2010 8:43 PM, Dillon Pyron wrote: >>> >>> Errh, you're suggesting doing your oil at 3500 miles and the manual >>> says to do it when the MM says so, which for most folks is around >>> 5-7K. So, who's being overly conservative and who's tossing away >>> money? >>> >>> Let's see: "I don't care what the manual says." So, as the others >>> have said, you are doing research to support an already developed >>> solution. >> >> There is nothing wrong with frequent oil changes and grease (for those >> vehicles that have grease fittings). It is the cheapest form of >> maintenance available. > > Really? What about the wasted oil which is still perfectly usable as an > engine lubricant? Time? Money? > > So if I were really conservative regarding oil changes, I'd do it weekly > or even daily. Anything wrong with that? > > You're either not keeping posted on modern engine lubrication or you > reject info newer than "every 3,000 miles". > > <not a flame, BTW> > you know, with the current rash of "contributors" that like to talk, but who don't actually /say/ anything, an argument of logic like that utterly fails - multiple retards agreeing with each other seems to be much more in vogue than bothering with facts or relevance. |
Re: new Honda CR-V break in
On 1/13/2010 10:02 PM, Tony Harding wrote:
> > Really? What about the wasted oil which is still perfectly usable as an > engine lubricant? Time? Money? It's not wasted oil, nor money, nor time. > So if I were really conservative regarding oil changes, I'd do it weekly > or even daily. Anything wrong with that? You may choose to do your vehicle's oil changes as frequently as you see fit to do so, after all it is your vehicle and your money. There is nothing wrong with you using your money in any way you wish. > You're either not keeping posted on modern engine lubrication or you > reject info newer than "every 3,000 miles". I am well aware of "modern engine lubrication", but I choose to take care of the vehicles under my care using a method that has been proven to work well for decades. It is after all my money and my choice. > <not a flame, BTW> Not taken as one. :^) |
Re: new Honda CR-V break in
On 1/14/2010 4:22 AM Brian Smith spake these words of knowledge:
> On 1/13/2010 10:02 PM, Tony Harding wrote: >> >> Really? What about the wasted oil which is still perfectly usable as an >> engine lubricant? Time? Money? > > It's not wasted oil, nor money, nor time. How is it not wasted? Without getting in to any particular numbers with respect to miles driven or time elapsed, the fact is that if you change the oil more frequently than is necessary, or even helpful, it certainly is wasted. >> So if I were really conservative regarding oil changes, I'd do it weekly >> or even daily. Anything wrong with that? > > You may choose to do your vehicle's oil changes as frequently as you > see fit to do so, after all it is your vehicle and your money. There is > nothing wrong with you using your money in any way you wish. This is also wrong. You may choose to do so, and you have the right to use your money any way you wish. But there is something wrong. You are wasting oil. I'm not saying you should change. I agree with you in that respect - do as you wish. But a person changing their oil weekly, or even daily, is certainly wasting oil and money. They have a right to do so, but don't kid yourself that there is nothing wrong. RFT!!! Dave Kelsen -- "There are only two types of people I hate; Those that are intolerant of other people's cultures, and the Dutch." |
Re: new Honda CR-V break in
On 1/14/2010 8:02 AM, Dave Kelsen wrote:
> > How is it not wasted? Without getting in to any particular numbers with > respect to miles driven or time elapsed, the fact is that if you change > the oil more frequently than is necessary, or even helpful, it certainly > is wasted. How is it not wasted? Simply the regular changing of the engine's lubrication is a good thing. I don't consider it wasted, nor does my employer when we look at the bottom line on the fleet's maintenance costs and vastly improved level of breakdowns and subsequent downtime, as compared to the previous manager's numbers. IN regard to my own personal vehicles, I have no qualms about changing the fluids based on the mileage and time frame that I have decided gives the best return on my investment. > This is also wrong. This is your opinion and as such has no basis on how or why I choose to take care of the regular maintenance of any vehicles in my charge. > You may choose to do so, and you have the right to > use your money any way you wish. But there is something wrong. You are > wasting oil. I'm not saying you should change. I agree with you in that > respect - do as you wish. But a person changing their oil weekly, or > even daily, is certainly wasting oil and money. They have a right to do > so, but don't kid yourself that there is nothing wrong. I'm not kidding myself in any way. How I manage my fleet and personal vehicles has proven to be cost effective over the last four decades and (no offence intended Dave), your opinion does not matter in this regard. Brian |
Re: new Honda CR-V break in
On 01/14/2010 04:56 AM, Brian Smith wrote:
> On 1/14/2010 8:02 AM, Dave Kelsen wrote: >> >> How is it not wasted? Without getting in to any particular numbers with >> respect to miles driven or time elapsed, the fact is that if you change >> the oil more frequently than is necessary, or even helpful, it certainly >> is wasted. > > How is it not wasted? Simply the regular changing of the engine's > lubrication is a good thing. no. read this: http://www.swri.org/3pubs/IRD1999/03912699.htm > I don't consider it wasted, nor does my > employer when we look at the bottom line on the fleet's maintenance > costs and vastly improved level of breakdowns and subsequent downtime, > as compared to the previous manager's numbers. you do oil analysis? doesn't sound like it. and when was the last time anyone here saw a breakdown due to lubrication failure? you may be more diligent about other aspects of maintenance, but too-frequent oil changes are wasting money and time. > IN regard to my own > personal vehicles, I have no qualms about changing the fluids based on > the mileage and time frame that I have decided gives the best return on > my investment. based on what analysis? unless you have numbers, you're no better than a witch doctor. > >> This is also wrong. > > This is your opinion and as such has no basis on how or why I choose to > take care of the regular maintenance of any vehicles in my charge. where are your numbers? > >> You may choose to do so, and you have the right to >> use your money any way you wish. But there is something wrong. You are >> wasting oil. I'm not saying you should change. I agree with you in that >> respect - do as you wish. But a person changing their oil weekly, or >> even daily, is certainly wasting oil and money. They have a right to do >> so, but don't kid yourself that there is nothing wrong. > > I'm not kidding myself in any way. absent facts, you absolutely are. > How I manage my fleet and personal > vehicles has proven to be cost effective over the last four decades and > (no offence intended Dave), your opinion does not matter in this regard. a witch doctor can "heal" a broken leg by tying a sacrificed chicken to it and immobilizing the patient. but it's the immobilization that heals the break, not the chicken. absent facts and/or numbers, you're simply living in a cave with a load of dead chicken carcasses. |
Re: new Honda CR-V break in
On 01/14/10 07:02, Dave Kelsen wrote:
> On 1/14/2010 4:22 AM Brian Smith spake these words of knowledge: > >> On 1/13/2010 10:02 PM, Tony Harding wrote: >>> >>> Really? What about the wasted oil which is still perfectly usable as an >>> engine lubricant? Time? Money? >> >> It's not wasted oil, nor money, nor time. > > How is it not wasted? Without getting in to any particular numbers with > respect to miles driven or time elapsed, the fact is that if you change > the oil more frequently than is necessary, or even helpful, it certainly > is wasted. > > >>> So if I were really conservative regarding oil changes, I'd do it weekly >>> or even daily. Anything wrong with that? >> >> You may choose to do your vehicle's oil changes as frequently as you >> see fit to do so, after all it is your vehicle and your money. There >> is nothing wrong with you using your money in any way you wish. > > This is also wrong. You may choose to do so, and you have the right to > use your money any way you wish. But there is something wrong. You are > wasting oil. I'm not saying you should change. I agree with you in that > respect - do as you wish. But a person changing their oil weekly, or > even daily, is certainly wasting oil and money. They have a right to do > so, but don't kid yourself that there is nothing wrong. Well put, Dave, thanks. |
Re: new Honda CR-V break in
On 01/14/10 05:22, Brian Smith wrote:
> On 1/13/2010 10:02 PM, Tony Harding wrote: >> >> Really? What about the wasted oil which is still perfectly usable as an >> engine lubricant? Time? Money? > > It's not wasted oil, nor money, nor time. How can all the still serviceable oil drained not be wasted? > >> So if I were really conservative regarding oil changes, I'd do it weekly >> or even daily. Anything wrong with that? > > You may choose to do your vehicle's oil changes as frequently as you see > fit to do so, after all it is your vehicle and your money. There is > nothing wrong with you using your money in any way you wish. I agree with you philosophically, i.e, I do what I want with my $$$, you do what you want with yours, etc.; but we're subject to irrational choices. I've lost the link from a couple of years ago, but there was a study done showing that the ancient wisdom of changing oil every 3,000 miles was way too soon for modern engines and modern engine oil. >> You're either not keeping posted on modern engine lubrication or you >> reject info newer than "every 3,000 miles". > > I am well aware of "modern engine lubrication", but I choose to take > care of the vehicles under my care using a method that has been proven > to work well for decades. It is after all my money and my choice. Quite so, but no proof you're not spending more than you have to, throwing out/recycling perfectly usable engine oil or keeping your fleet vehicles off the road more time than they require. |
Re: new Honda CR-V break in
On 01/14/10 09:25, jim beam wrote:
> On 01/14/2010 04:56 AM, Brian Smith wrote: >> On 1/14/2010 8:02 AM, Dave Kelsen wrote: >>> >>> How is it not wasted? Without getting in to any particular numbers with >>> respect to miles driven or time elapsed, the fact is that if you change >>> the oil more frequently than is necessary, or even helpful, it certainly >>> is wasted. >> >> How is it not wasted? Simply the regular changing of the engine's >> lubrication is a good thing. > > no. read this: > http://www.swri.org/3pubs/IRD1999/03912699.htm > > >> I don't consider it wasted, nor does my >> employer when we look at the bottom line on the fleet's maintenance >> costs and vastly improved level of breakdowns and subsequent downtime, >> as compared to the previous manager's numbers. > > you do oil analysis? doesn't sound like it. and when was the last time > anyone here saw a breakdown due to lubrication failure? you may be more > diligent about other aspects of maintenance, but too-frequent oil > changes are wasting money and time. > > >> IN regard to my own >> personal vehicles, I have no qualms about changing the fluids based on >> the mileage and time frame that I have decided gives the best return on >> my investment. > > based on what analysis? unless you have numbers, you're no better than a > witch doctor. Thanks, Jim, in extending my change interval I've been sending samples of engine oil to a lab for analysis. So far oil condition is good, no signs of engine wear, etc. The one thing I do counter to the manual is to change the engine air filter on my '03 Accord annually instead of every other year. |
Re: new Honda CR-V break in
jim beam wrote: > > you do oil analysis? doesn't sound like it. and when was the last time > anyone here saw a breakdown due to lubrication failure? you may be more > diligent about other aspects of maintenance, but too-frequent oil > changes are wasting money and time. Posting on usenet is a waste of time and money also so wasting time and money cant be the real issue. ` Do you worry about how often other people take a piss, or whether they are washing their hands too often or that they are breathing too fast.? These actions serve the same purpose as changing oil but for some reason you are not constantly telling others how often they should be engaging in these other activities that serve the same function of cleansing the system. If someone said they change the air in their tires every 3 months would you get all bent out of shape about it? This is a serious mental deficiency some people have that they are completely and totally obsessed with how often other people change oil. In my opinion anybody who incessantly worries about other peoples oil change habits are just perverted busy bodies. > > > IN regard to my own > > personal vehicles, I have no qualms about changing the fluids based on > > the mileage and time frame that I have decided gives the best return on > > my investment. > > based on what analysis? unless you have numbers, you're no better than > a witch doctor. That is utter nonsense. Oil analysis is like reading tea leaves in the bottom of a cup. Major engine manufacturers like Cummins say oil analysis is of very little value in determining oil maintenance schedules. The reasoning is that oil analysis only tells you how much dirt is in the oil. But if the oil additives are depleted the oil will hold less dirt and that is where extended oil changes can get you into trouble. Oil analysis does not accurately provide the information needed to determine engine longevity. According to Cummins the only way you are going to know if your lubrication maintenance schedule has been aggressive enough (or not aggressive enough) is at the end of the road when you tear the engine down for an overhaul. Fleet mechanics that maintain many engines get to see what works and what doesn't. > > > > >> This is also wrong. > > > > This is your opinion and as such has no basis on how or why I choose to > > take care of the regular maintenance of any vehicles in my charge. > > where are your numbers? It is easy to determine if an engine has had the oil changed often enough. Not so easy to exactly determine at what point it will make a difference. > > > > >> You may choose to do so, and you have the right to > >> use your money any way you wish. But there is something wrong. You are > >> wasting oil. I'm not saying you should change. I agree with you in that > >> respect - do as you wish. But a person changing their oil weekly, or > >> even daily, is certainly wasting oil and money. They have a right to do > >> so, but don't kid yourself that there is nothing wrong. > > > > I'm not kidding myself in any way. > > absent facts, you absolutely are. He has the same facts you do. He may be a lot smarter than you if he realizes that no one has all the facts or can get all the facts. > > > How I manage my fleet and personal > > vehicles has proven to be cost effective over the last four decades and > > (no offence intended Dave), your opinion does not matter in this regard. > > a witch doctor can "heal" a broken leg by tying a sacrificed chicken to > it and immobilizing the patient. but it's the immobilization that heals > the break, not the chicken. absent facts and/or numbers, you're simply > living in a cave with a load of dead chicken carcasses. It would be you that is the ignorant one. Some people just don't understand that you can't possibly predict all the consequences of every action. The best you can do is play the odds. I read recently in this newsgroup about some guy who had a large hole burned in an exhaust valve. There is one and only one thing that can cause a valve to burn like that and that is a chunk of carbon breaks loose from inside the combustion chamber and just happens to be passing through as the exhaust valve is closing. This is a rare occurrence that a chunk of carbon gets trapped in a a exhaust valve but it does happen. Is this something that is more likely to happen to someone who changes their oil at 6000 miles compared to someone who changes at 3000 miles? There is absolutely no doubt that will change the odds. -jim |
Re: new Honda CR-V break in
On 1/14/2010 11:13 AM, Tony Harding wrote:
> > How can all the still serviceable oil drained not be wasted? It isn't considered "still serviceable" oil. It is used and then used by others to fuel their shop furnace. So it is well used. > I agree with you philosophically, i.e, I do what I want with my $$$, you > do what you want with yours, etc.; but we're subject to irrational > choices. I've lost the link from a couple of years ago, but there was a > study done showing that the ancient wisdom of changing oil every 3,000 > miles was way too soon for modern engines and modern engine oil. Mileage isn't the only factor involved when setting oil change frequency. We have operating hours which come into play in the equation as well. > Quite so, but no proof you're not spending more than you have to, > throwing out/recycling perfectly usable engine oil or keeping your fleet > vehicles off the road more time than they require. The proof is in the corporate books, which show that less money is being spent on the maintenance of the fleet since I took over the company's operation, than my predecessor's performance. The fleet is serviced during the night shift, which keeps the fleet on the road during the day when they are required to be there. |
Re: new Honda CR-V break in
jim beam wrote:
> On 01/14/2010 04:56 AM, Brian Smith wrote: >> On 1/14/2010 8:02 AM, Dave Kelsen wrote: >>> >>> How is it not wasted? Without getting in to any particular numbers with >>> respect to miles driven or time elapsed, the fact is that if you change >>> the oil more frequently than is necessary, or even helpful, it certainly >>> is wasted. >> >> How is it not wasted? Simply the regular changing of the engine's >> lubrication is a good thing. > > no. read this: > http://www.swri.org/3pubs/IRD1999/03912699.htm All this says is that it appears to take an unspecified time for some of the anti-wear chemistry to 'activate.' They don't speculate, much less offer data, regarding the time, temp, mileage, etc. required to do so. It may take 20 miles, or 200. Depending on your driving habits and conditions, changing your oil every day may indeed be counter productive. Every 1000 miles? Maybe not. |
Re: new Honda CR-V break in
On 01/14/2010 04:57 PM, Greg wrote:
> jim beam wrote: >> On 01/14/2010 04:56 AM, Brian Smith wrote: >>> On 1/14/2010 8:02 AM, Dave Kelsen wrote: >>>> >>>> How is it not wasted? Without getting in to any particular numbers with >>>> respect to miles driven or time elapsed, the fact is that if you change >>>> the oil more frequently than is necessary, or even helpful, it >>>> certainly >>>> is wasted. >>> >>> How is it not wasted? Simply the regular changing of the engine's >>> lubrication is a good thing. >> >> no. read this: >> http://www.swri.org/3pubs/IRD1999/03912699.htm > > > All this says is that it appears to take an unspecified time for some of > the anti-wear chemistry to 'activate.' They don't speculate, much less > offer data, regarding the time, temp, mileage, etc. required to do so. > It may take 20 miles, or 200. Depending on your driving habits and > conditions, changing your oil every day may indeed be counter > productive. Every 1000 miles? Maybe not. so why remain in ignorance? get oil analysis done! it's neither hard nor expensive! or to put it another way - you use the fuel gauge on your dash don't you? it tells you how much gas you have in the tank doesn't it? wtf wouldn't anyone want to know how much life they have left in the oil in their multi-thousand dollar transportation device? |
Re: new Honda CR-V break in
In article <hiltvk02931@news5.newsguy.com>,
Tony Harding <tharding@newsguy.com> wrote: > So if I were really conservative regarding oil changes, I'd do it weekly > or even daily. Anything wrong with that? No. You get to choose the line. |
Re: new Honda CR-V break in
In article <hincae0r78@news3.newsguy.com>,
Tony Harding <tharding@newsguy.com> wrote: > >> Really? What about the wasted oil which is still perfectly usable as an > >> engine lubricant? Time? Money? > > > > It's not wasted oil, nor money, nor time. > > How can all the still serviceable oil drained not be wasted? well, you sell it to Jiffy Lube... |
Re: new Honda CR-V break in
On 01/14/2010 10:26 AM, jim wrote:
> > > jim beam wrote: > >> >> you do oil analysis? doesn't sound like it. and when was the last time >> anyone here saw a breakdown due to lubrication failure? you may be more >> diligent about other aspects of maintenance, but too-frequent oil >> changes are wasting money and time. > > Posting on usenet is a waste of time and money also so wasting time and > money cant be the real issue. you're right - the issue is someone polluting the knowledge pool with witchcraft bullshit. > > ` Do you worry about how often other people take a piss, or whether > they are washing their hands too often or that they are breathing too > fast.? These actions serve the same purpose as changing oil but for some > reason you are not constantly telling others how often they should be > engaging in these other activities that serve the same function of > cleansing the system. If someone said they change the air in their tires > every 3 months would you get all bent out of shape about it? This is a > serious mental deficiency some people have that they are completely and > totally obsessed with how often other people change oil. so why are you telling people you "save money" changing your oil so often??? all the evidence contradicts you, not supports you. > > In my opinion anybody who incessantly worries about other peoples oil > change habits are just perverted busy bodies. by that metric, you're a goddamned hypocrite. you're preaching your witchcraft about your oil change intervals so you're a perverted busybody if you dare to contradict anyone else. not least because you have no data to back up your position. > >> >>> IN regard to my own >>> personal vehicles, I have no qualms about changing the fluids based on >>> the mileage and time frame that I have decided gives the best return on >>> my investment. >> >> based on what analysis? unless you have numbers, you're no better than >> a witch doctor. > > That is utter nonsense. Oil analysis is like reading tea leaves in the > bottom of a cup. eh? so when you change your "fleet" brake linings, do you simply do it every 3000 miles? 10000 miles? or do you bother to observe actual wear and change when the pad reaches a given limit? because that's what you're doing with oil analysis - observing condition and replacing once it's worn to the limit. replacing it out of superstition and fear is ridiculous. > Major engine manufacturers like Cummins say oil > analysis is of very little value in determining oil maintenance > schedules. bullshit. cite your source. > The reasoning is that oil analysis only tells you how much > dirt is in the oil. see, this is the reason you're so dismissive - you clearly don't understand what it does! > But if the oil additives are depleted the oil will > hold less dirt and that is where extended oil changes can get you into > trouble. see above. > Oil analysis does not accurately provide the information needed > to determine engine longevity. bullshit. you don't know what you're talking about. > According to Cummins the only way you are > going to know if your lubrication maintenance schedule has been > aggressive enough (or not aggressive enough) is at the end of the road > when you tear the engine down for an overhaul. bullshit. the whole point of analysis is that it /does/ tell you what's going on. > Fleet mechanics that > maintain many engines get to see what works and what doesn't. yeah. and fleet mechanics that know what they're doing pay attention to data sources life service manuals. similarly, fleet managers that know their business get analysis done because it allows them to not only ensure efficient maintenance, but also minimize expense! > > > >> >>> >>>> This is also wrong. >>> >>> This is your opinion and as such has no basis on how or why I choose to >>> take care of the regular maintenance of any vehicles in my charge. >> >> where are your numbers? > > It is easy to determine if an engine has had the oil changed often > enough. Not so easy to exactly determine at what point it will make a > difference. er, no. you're simply afraid that if you don't sacrifice chickens, your leg will never heal. > > >> >>> >>>> You may choose to do so, and you have the right to >>>> use your money any way you wish. But there is something wrong. You are >>>> wasting oil. I'm not saying you should change. I agree with you in that >>>> respect - do as you wish. But a person changing their oil weekly, or >>>> even daily, is certainly wasting oil and money. They have a right to do >>>> so, but don't kid yourself that there is nothing wrong. >>> >>> I'm not kidding myself in any way. >> >> absent facts, you absolutely are. > > He has the same facts you do. He may be a lot smarter than you if he > realizes that no one has all the facts or can get all the facts. "no one has all the facts or can get all the facts"??? wow dude, that's a classic. if everybody thought like you, you'd never be able to say that because you wouldn't have a computer to say it on. unbelievable ignorance. > > >> >>> How I manage my fleet and personal >>> vehicles has proven to be cost effective over the last four decades and >>> (no offence intended Dave), your opinion does not matter in this regard. >> >> a witch doctor can "heal" a broken leg by tying a sacrificed chicken to >> it and immobilizing the patient. but it's the immobilization that heals >> the break, not the chicken. absent facts and/or numbers, you're simply >> living in a cave with a load of dead chicken carcasses. > > It would be you that is the ignorant one. Some people just don't > understand that you can't possibly predict all the consequences of every > action. The best you can do is play the odds. witchcraft works!!! > > I read recently in this newsgroup about some guy who had a large hole > burned in an exhaust valve. that was me. > There is one and only one thing that can > cause a valve to burn like that and that is a chunk of carbon breaks > loose from inside the combustion chamber and just happens to be passing > through as the exhaust valve is closing. bullshit. you clearly don't know what you're talking about. quite a feat given that the thread you read actually explains the mechanisms that cause this. > This is a rare occurrence that > a chunk of carbon gets trapped in a a exhaust valve but it does happen. > Is this something that is more likely to happen to someone who changes > their oil at 6000 miles compared to someone who changes at 3000 miles? > There is absolutely no doubt that will change the odds. oil changes affect valve burn??? dude, you need to either stop smoking that you're smoking now, or you need to |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:58 AM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands