|
Re: new Honda CR-V break in
On 01/14/2010 07:22 AM, Tony Harding wrote:
> 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. and that's the whole point - you /know/ what's going on - you're not making erroneous suppositions based on a bunch of bullshit lack of data. > 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
On 01/14/2010 11:41 AM, Brian Smith wrote:
> 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. no sherlock. but if you bothered with oil analysis, and as a fleet mechanic, your fleet manager should be requiring you to use it, you'd actually have facts in front of you about what's going on, not be simply guessing. http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/whatisoilanalysis.htm > >> 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. witchcraft! i tied this chicken to the broken leg and it healed!!! no dude, it shows you're not neglectful. it doesn't show you know a single damned thing about efficiency or how to optimize. > 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. duh. |
Re: new Honda CR-V break in
jim beam <me@privacy.net> wrote in
news:uqGdnfaZdfPqtNLWnZ2dnUVZ_vdi4p2d@speakeasy.ne t: > 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 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. -- Tegger The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ |
Re: new Honda CR-V break in
On 01/14/2010 06:43 PM, Tegger wrote:
> jim beam<me@privacy.net> wrote in > news:uqGdnfaZdfPqtNLWnZ2dnUVZ_vdi4p2d@speakeasy.ne t: > >> 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 > > > > 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. any citeable sources to support that? http://tribology-abc.com/sub13.htm "Maintenance management based on condition monitoring of machine equipment and oil may result in: reduction of unscheduled downtime improved equipment reliability extended service life of machine parts maximization of oil change intervals less costs of waste oil and less anti pollution taxes by timely observation of faults, no lasting damage is caused" the name of the game is extending service intervals. > It's very unfortunate that SwRI appears > to be unwilling to supply any clarification of the relevant statement in > their publication. dude, i can cite "experts" all over the net that'll tell you the benefits of seafood consumption to help erectile dysfunction. but without data, it's just witchcraft and bullshit. now, shall i tell you "i've been told" by exxon's bay area head fleet maintenance products manager guy just the opposite? and that he eats his own dogfood with 25000 mile oil change intervals on his chevy tahoe? that's right - twenty five thousand on mobil 1. he says he has the analysis data to back it up, but he's just an oil company guy so we shouldn't believe him... |
Re: new Honda CR-V break in
On 01/14/2010 11:41 AM, Brian Smith wrote:
> 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 forgot this one: using waste oil in your shop furnace could explain your learning difficulties. waste oil is full of all kinds of nasties, including lead, antimony, and a bunch of organics that also adversely affect your health. mental retardation is but one symptom. > >> 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
On 01/14/2010 06:35 PM, Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> 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. read a story of a guy who drove to wall st and dropped his car off every morning for a $25 oil change. he'd then pick it up in the evening and drive home. the logic? it was cheaper to do this than park the car in the typical manhattan financial district car park. |
Re: new Honda CR-V break in
On 01/14/2010 06:35 PM, Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> 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... don't you mean "iffy lube"? |
Re: new Honda CR-V break in
Thus spake Grumpy AuContraire <GrumpyOne@GrumpyvilleNOT.com> :
>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 89 Just washed my hands, can't do a thing with them. I really need to be watching what I type, or at least reading my posts every now and again. Jeez, get one digit wrong .... :-) -- - 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
Tegger wrote: > > jim beam <me@privacy.net> wrote in > news:uqGdnfaZdfPqtNLWnZ2dnUVZ_vdi4p2d@speakeasy.ne t: > > > 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 > > 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, but this study has long ago been discredited as evidence that old used oil protects an engine better than fresh new oil does. 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. A simple experiment will show the fallacy of believing that this is evidence that dirty oil provides better wear protection than clean: If you setup the experiment so that you pump the oil through heated tubes to simulate an engine lubricating system (but no actual engine wear is present) and then just add equal amounts of wear particles to both the old and new oil you will find that you get the same result. The old oil shows less evidence of the wear particles than the new oil. All this means is that the new oil has a greater capacity for holding the wear particles in suspension than the old oil does. The article itself confirms this fact. They article says that it is not until the oil has been used for 20 hours that you start to see an accumulation of radioactive particles in the oil filter. The explanation for that is simple: the wear particles are very tiny - generally less than 1 micron - and when the oil is fresh it does a very good job of holding the particles in suspension. This is accomplished by additives that are keeping the particles from sticking or bonding to anything. The article shows that after 20 hours of use (20 hours would be 1200 miles at 60 mph) the oil starts to lose this capacity to keep the particles from sticking to things. When this happens the particles will start to stick to the engine components and stick to each other. When the particles become more sticky they can clump together and become big enough to settle out of the oil or to be removed by the oil filter. That is why the study found wear particles in the filter only after 20 hours of use. As engine oil gets older and dirtier from use it will progressively lose its capacity to hold wear particles in suspension. That means the accumulated evidence of wear progressively disappears. This is reason that Cummins advises fleet managers to not rely on oil analysis as a method for determining the amount of engine wear. The simple fact is if the oil is allowed to degrade enough the results can lead to erroneous conclusions about the extent of actual engine wear that is occuring. -jim |
Re: new Honda CR-V break in
When one talks about "wasting money" on more regular servicing I was reminded of an article in a car mag here in the UK - those makes that have gone for extended serevicing (18k miles/.2 years etc) are those makes that have fallen down the reliability stakes- this may be due to the fact they are mostly european makes or maybe they don't worry about longer term reliability In the UK most Japanese makes have stuck to annual servicing and quite often are slagged off in the car mags by penny pinching motorists for costing a lot, BMWs with now 4 yr coolant changes instead of 2 years have had cooling issues - loads more exmples of worse reliability - sadly the makes that try and appeal to the car fleets are only concerned about the servicing costs over 4 years /80k miles - after that If they blow up - who cares seems to be the attitude although having said that the BMW diesel turbos "reliability issues" did have an effect on their reliability image |
Re: new Honda CR-V break in
jim beam wrote: > > 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. You seem to be obsessed with witchcraft and bullshit. "the knowledge pool" seems to be your terminology for your mental fantasies. If someone agrees with your fantasy then they are contributing to "the knowledge pool" and if someone disagrees with one of your fantasies then they are polluting "the knowledge pool". > > > > > ` 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. I have not been telling people they save money by changing oil so often nor have I ever claimed to see "all evidence". From you I have seen no evidence at all. You seem to think that anything you proclaim will be taken as gospel without any evidence or even any explanation. > > > > > 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. No I'm afraid you are hallucinating. I haven't stated anything of the sort. I was simply commenting on your obsession with other people's oil changing habits. And yes it would be perverted of me to preach to others about changing there oil which is one reason I don't. > > > > >> > >>> 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. Just like brake pads if you push it to the absolute limit you will be increasing the risk of failure due to incorrect guesses as to the exact point where that limit should be set. Doing a brake job when the pads still have useful life left is not as ridiculous as you make it out to be. At any rate it would seem equally odd to me if someone was obsessed with other people having brake jobs done more often than they need to. If someone chooses to have a brake job done when the pads are only half worn why would you object? > > > Major engine manufacturers like Cummins say oil > > analysis is of very little value in determining oil maintenance > > schedules. > > bullshit. cite your source. I did cite my source. Cummins engine is the source. Do you ever actually say anything meaningful or is proclaiming "bullshit." the total extent of your capabilities? Here is one quote from Cummins: {QUOTE] Cummins Inc. does not recommend that oil analysis be used to determine maintenance intervals. Oil analysis only permits maintenance intervals to be estimated. Engines must be operated at the estimated interval for 800,000 to 1,100,000 km [500,00 to 700,000 mi] or 10,000 to 15,000 hours to determine if the estimated maintenance interval based on oil analysis was correct. If the interval is estimated correctly, the engine will remain in an acceptable condition for its operating environment. If an extended maintenance interval is guessed incorrectly, up to 50 percent of the potential engine life to rebuild can be sacrificed for the longer maintenance interval. [END QUOTE} > > > 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! I clearly don't understand what you think it does since you never actually say anything meaningful. People who use oil analysis for determining oil change interval think oil analysis will reveal how much engine wear is occurring. The problem with that is that when the oil gets older and dirtier it has less capacity for holding wear particles in suspension. As a result the the oil analysis will not give a true picture of actual engine wear. This is the the stated reason by Cummins when they advise Fleet managers to not use oil analysis for determining OCI. This is not to say that oil analysis can not be useful in finding things like failed air filter, coolant leaks, fuel contamination or even unusual engine wear. Cummins is not against oil analysis they just advise against using it as a basis for establishing oil change intervals. > > > 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. I definitely don't know what you are talking about, since you have yet to say anything. > > > 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. No it does not. It provides some evidence, but hardly a complete picture. > > > 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! The direct expense of changing oil frequently or infrequently is a very small percentage of the total cost of operating. The amount of money to be saved by pushing this to the limit is tiny compared to the amount of money that it can cost if a miscalculation is made. There are a lot more important things that can be done to reduce expenses if that is the only consideration. > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >>>> 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. I appears that you believe people who tear down engines can't make a determination of how much wear an engine has seen, but instead you believe that some laboratory that has never even been close to the engine can accurately make such a determination. That sounds like a fairy tale. > > > > > > >> > >>> > >>>> 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. OK why don't you tell your fairy tale about how you took a Computer CPU and tore it apart and modified or repaired it. The fact is what you don't know about computers far outweighs what you do know. > > > > > > >> > >>> 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!!! To someone like you that may be how playing the odds appears. > > > > > 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. HA HA HA HA. That's a good one. And I suppose you are going to tell us how an Angel came down from heaven and gave you this precious knowledge and therefore it is absolutely impossible that anyone could possibly question your fairy tale account of what happened. > > > 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 You probably didn't know this but not all valves burn in the same way. Carbon deposits can be the cause of one particular valve burning scenario. The condition of the oil does affect how much oil gets into the combustion chamber via the rings, seals and PCV. Carbon deposits in the combustion chamber are almost exclusively coming from burning oil. So yes how often the oil is changed can have a statistical impact on valve burn. If you want me to quantify that statistical impact I would say it is very very small. The point is nobody can say exactly at what point a given maintenance schedule will have a favorably impact on 100% of the engines its applied to. A particular maintenance schedule may produce a favorable result 99.999% of the time but that still is not an absolute. -jim |
Re: new Honda CR-V break in
On 01/15/2010 05:15 AM, thomas wrote:
> > When one talks about "wasting money" on more regular servicing I was > reminded of an article in a car mag here in the UK - those makes that > have gone for extended serevicing (18k miles/.2 years etc) are those > makes that have fallen down the reliability stakes- this may be due to > the fact they are mostly european makes or maybe they don't worry about > longer term reliability some manufacturers spend a good deal of money on "end of life". indeed, it's probably their largest r&d cost these days. > > In the UK most Japanese makes have stuck to annual servicing and quite > often are slagged off in the car mags by penny pinching motorists for > costing a lot, BMWs with now 4 yr coolant changes instead of 2 years > have had cooling issues - loads more exmples of worse reliability - > sadly the makes that try and appeal to the car fleets are only concerned > about the servicing costs over 4 years /80k miles - after that If they > blow up - who cares seems to be the attitude although having said that > the BMW diesel turbos "reliability issues" did have an effect on their > reliability image bmw have "coolant issues" because of poor system component quality, not because the coolant fails. the polymer tanks on their radiators crack for example. use of polymer in itself is no bad thing, but when it's thin and of poor mechanical design, premature cracking and leakage is pretty much inevitable. same for sensors and hoses. the coolant is relatively inert and stable. |
Re: new Honda CR-V break in
On 01/15/2010 05:05 AM, jim wrote:
> > > Tegger wrote: >> >> jim beam<me@privacy.net> wrote in >> news:uqGdnfaZdfPqtNLWnZ2dnUVZ_vdi4p2d@speakeasy.ne t: >> >>> 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 >> >> 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, but this study > has long ago been discredited as evidence that old used oil protects an > engine better than fresh new oil does. > > 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. > A simple experiment will show the fallacy of believing that this is > evidence that dirty oil provides better wear protection than clean: If > you setup the experiment so that you pump the oil through heated tubes > to simulate an engine lubricating system (but no actual engine wear is > present) and then just add equal amounts of wear particles to both the > old and new oil you will find that you get the same result. The old oil > shows less evidence of the wear particles than the new oil. > All this means is that the new oil has a greater capacity for holding > the wear particles in suspension than the old oil does. The article > itself confirms this fact. They article says that it is not until the > oil has been used for 20 hours that you start to see an accumulation of > radioactive particles in the oil filter. The explanation for that is > simple: the wear particles are very tiny - generally less than 1 micron > - and when the oil is fresh it does a very good job of holding the > particles in suspension. This is accomplished by additives that are > keeping the particles from sticking or bonding to anything. The article > shows that after 20 hours of use (20 hours would be 1200 miles at 60 > mph) the oil starts to lose this capacity to keep the particles from > sticking to things. When this happens the particles will start to stick > to the engine components and stick to each other. When the particles > become more sticky they can clump together and become big enough to > settle out of the oil or to be removed by the oil filter. That is why > the study found wear particles in the filter only after 20 hours of > use. > As engine oil gets older and dirtier from use it will progressively > lose its capacity to hold wear particles in suspension. That means the > accumulated evidence of wear progressively disappears. This is reason > that Cummins advises fleet managers to not rely on oil analysis as a > method for determining the amount of engine wear. The simple fact is if > the oil is allowed to degrade enough the results can lead to erroneous > conclusions about the extent of actual engine wear that is occuring. > > -jim er, unless the oil is at end of life, which it most definitely is not at only 20 hours, there's no way detergency is failing. and if detergency is not failing, then it's not depositing combustion product or wear product. so you're bullshitting. of course, delusional fantasy is not a problem for people that start paragraphs with tabs, but hey. |
Re: new Honda CR-V break in
On 01/15/2010 06:13 AM, jim wrote:
> > > jim beam wrote: >> >> 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. > > You seem to be obsessed with witchcraft and bullshit. "the knowledge > pool" seems to be your terminology for your mental fantasies. If someone > agrees with your fantasy then they are contributing to "the knowledge > pool" and if someone disagrees with one of your fantasies then they are > polluting "the knowledge pool". you write the contradictory nonsense that no research supports, but i'm the fantasy bullshitter? do you know what "delusional" means? > > >> >>> >>> ` 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. > > I have not been telling people they save money by changing oil so often > nor have I ever claimed to see "all evidence". From you I have seen no > evidence at all. then you're not bothering to read my posts! or you have a comprehension problem. > You seem to think that anything you proclaim will be > taken as gospel without any evidence or even any explanation. see above. you should try reading my cites. > >> >>> >>> 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. > > No I'm afraid you are hallucinating. I haven't stated anything of the > sort. I was simply commenting on your obsession with other people's oil > changing habits. And yes it would be perverted of me to preach to others > about changing there oil which is one reason I don't. see above for "comprehension" and "delusional". > > >> >>> >>>> >>>>> 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. > > > Just like brake pads if you push it to the absolute limit you will be > increasing the risk of failure due to incorrect guesses as to the exact > point where that limit should be set. Doing a brake job when the pads > still have useful life left is not as ridiculous as you make it out to > be. At any rate it would seem equally odd to me if someone was obsessed > with other people having brake jobs done more often than they need to. > If someone chooses to have a brake job done when the pads are only half > worn why would you object? er, because it's unnecessary expense and wasteful? but of course, that's not the purpose of what you wrote - the purpose was to try to side-step the unarguable logic of making a wear-based decision vs. a blind and uninformed decision. > > > >> >>> Major engine manufacturers like Cummins say oil >>> analysis is of very little value in determining oil maintenance >>> schedules. >> >> bullshit. cite your source. > > I did cite my source. Cummins engine is the source. so show the source online, idiot. or don't you know what "cite" means? > Do you ever > actually say anything meaningful or is proclaiming "bullshit." the total > extent of your capabilities? > > Here is one quote from Cummins: > > {QUOTE] > > Cummins Inc. does not recommend that oil analysis be used to determine > maintenance intervals. Oil analysis only permits maintenance intervals > to be estimated. Engines must be operated at the estimated interval for > 800,000 to 1,100,000 km [500,00 to 700,000 mi] or 10,000 to 15,000 hours > to determine if the estimated maintenance interval based on oil analysis > was correct. If the interval is estimated correctly, the engine will > remain in an acceptable condition for its operating environment. If an > extended maintenance interval is guessed incorrectly, up to 50 percent > of the potential engine life to rebuild can be sacrificed for the longer > maintenance interval. > > [END QUOTE} "cummins" in the third person? this smells like sales literature, not their engineering lit. besides, analysis is not "guessing". analysis is proven and successful and used in all major vehicle fleets, shipping, aerospace, military, all industries, globally. again, you'd know that if you'd bothered to read any cites. > >> >>> 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! > > I clearly don't understand what you think it does since you never > actually say anything meaningful. see above for comprehension problems. > > People who use oil analysis for determining oil change interval think > oil analysis will reveal how much engine wear is occurring. er, that's because it does! just like your fuel gauge tells you how much gas is left in the tank! > The problem > with that is that when the oil gets older and dirtier it has less > capacity for holding wear particles in suspension. As a result the the > oil analysis will not give a true picture of actual engine wear. yeah. a broken fuel gauge doesn't tell you when to fill your tank either! > This is > the the stated reason by Cummins when they advise Fleet managers to not > use oil analysis for determining OCI. This is not to say that oil > analysis can not be useful in finding things like failed air filter, > coolant leaks, fuel contamination or even unusual engine wear. Cummins > is not against oil analysis they just advise against using it as a basis > for establishing oil change intervals. then "cummins" don't have any scientists writing their sales lit! > >> >>> 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. > > I definitely don't know what you are talking about, since you have yet > to say anything. see above. > >> >>> 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. > > No it does not. It provides some evidence, but hardly a complete > picture. it tells you a good deal more than witchcraft! which is why cummins provide it as a service to customers... http://www.npower-oilanalysis.com/ and: "Beyond the 250-hour/6-month requirement, an oil analysis program is strongly recommended." from: http://www.everytime.cummins.com/sit...qst30_o_g.page now, where's your cite? > > >> >>> 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! > > The direct expense of changing oil frequently or infrequently is a very > small percentage of the total cost of operating. The amount of money to > be saved by pushing this to the limit is tiny compared to the amount of > money that it can cost if a miscalculation is made. There are a lot > more important things that can be done to reduce expenses if that is the > only consideration. what fleet do you work on? 'cos it appears they have a job opening for someone that can actually read, do math, and who doesn't start paragraphs with tabs. > > > >> >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> 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. > > I appears that you believe people who tear down engines can't make a > determination of how much wear an engine has seen, but instead you > believe that some laboratory that has never even been close to the > engine can accurately make such a determination. That sounds like a > fairy tale. now you're putting false words in my mouth. stripdown and measurement gives you absolute determination of wear. but just like if you have water dripping out of a bucket, if you catch the drips and measure them, you know how much is left in the bucket - you don't have to empty it to find out! logical retard. > > > >> >>> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> 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. > > OK why don't you tell your fairy tale about how you took a Computer CPU > and tore it apart and modified or repaired it. The fact is what you > don't know about computers far outweighs what you do know. eh? maybe i made a mistake in assuming you had any comprehension ability. mea culpa. but i'd better spell it out: computers are made of highly advanced materials. there is no room for fudging - the math and the execution have to be precise and correct. witchcraft and guesswork don't work - the only successful method is scientific method. precisely the one you don't seem to be able to grasp. > >> >>> >>> >>>> >>>>> 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!!! > > To someone like you that may be how playing the odds appears. "playing the odds" is just guessing guy. just like driving without a fuel gauge. you can do it, but you're being a real chump. > > >> >>> >>> 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. > > HA HA HA HA. That's a good one. And I suppose you are going to tell us > how an Angel came down from heaven and gave you this precious knowledge > and therefore it is absolutely impossible that anyone could possibly > question your fairy tale account of what happened. retard - just freakin' read it. > > > >> >>> 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 > > You probably didn't know this but not all valves burn in the same way. er, i actually /do/ know this. again, if you'd bothered to read, you'd know. > Carbon deposits can be the cause of one particular valve burning > scenario. one??? > The condition of the oil does affect how much oil gets into > the combustion chamber via the rings, seals and PCV. Carbon deposits in > the combustion chamber are almost exclusively coming from burning oil. bullshit. ever heard of "combustion product"? otherwise known as "soot"? that stuff comes from "fuel". amazing, isn't it? > So yes how often the oil is changed can have a statistical impact on > valve burn. only if you don't know what you're looking at and can't follow a logical argument! see above. > If you want me to quantify that statistical impact I would > say it is very very small. "very very small" is a statistical impact?!! > The point is nobody can say exactly at what > point a given maintenance schedule will have a favorably impact on 100% > of the engines its applied to. correction: "no witchdoctor can say exactly at what..." > A particular maintenance schedule may > produce a favorable result 99.999% of the time but that still is not an > absolute. wow dude, you have a significant "knowledge gap"!!! kinda scary actually. |
Re: new Honda CR-V break in
On Jan 14, 2:41 pm, Brian Smith <Hali...@NovaScotia.Canada> wrote:
>snip > > The proof is in the corporate books..." That's exactly right. I'll bet some psychology student will write a PhD thesis examining how ordinarily intelligent people were so easily convinced to ignore their accumulated experience when presented with an oil change indicator on their dash board that provided a numerical representation (% remaining) instead of a typical on/off idiot light. It apparently doesn't matter that the formula used to derive this numerical representation is unknown. Most manufacturers actually give the game away when they say that under "certain" environmental conditions owners should change their oil more frequently than indicated by the idiot light. Like fleet owners my knuckle-dragging independent mechanics laugh all the way to the bank at owners who religiously follow their owner's manual and end up needing engine work due to extended oil drain intervals. |
Re: new Honda CR-V break in
On 1/15/2010 11:50 AM, ACAR wrote:
> > That's exactly right. > > I'll bet some psychology student will write a PhD thesis examining how > ordinarily intelligent people were so easily convinced to ignore their > accumulated experience when presented with an oil change indicator on > their dash board that provided a numerical representation (% > remaining) instead of a typical on/off idiot light. It apparently > doesn't matter that the formula used to derive this numerical > representation is unknown. Most manufacturers actually give the game > away when they say that under "certain" environmental conditions > owners should change their oil more frequently than indicated by the > idiot light. > > Like fleet owners my knuckle-dragging independent mechanics laugh all > the way to the bank at owners who religiously follow their owner's > manual and end up needing engine work due to extended oil drain > intervals. That's why I stated what I did, the proof is in the bottom line (which for the unthinking, is the accumulation of all costs of operating a fleet or a single vehicle). |
Re: new Honda CR-V break in
On 01/15/2010 07:53 AM, Brian Smith wrote:
> On 1/15/2010 11:50 AM, ACAR wrote: >> >> That's exactly right. >> >> I'll bet some psychology student will write a PhD thesis examining how >> ordinarily intelligent people were so easily convinced to ignore their >> accumulated experience when presented with an oil change indicator on >> their dash board that provided a numerical representation (% >> remaining) instead of a typical on/off idiot light. It apparently >> doesn't matter that the formula used to derive this numerical >> representation is unknown. Most manufacturers actually give the game >> away when they say that under "certain" environmental conditions >> owners should change their oil more frequently than indicated by the >> idiot light. >> >> Like fleet owners my knuckle-dragging independent mechanics laugh all >> the way to the bank at owners who religiously follow their owner's >> manual and end up needing engine work due to extended oil drain >> intervals. > > That's why I stated what I did, the proof is in the bottom line (which > for the unthinking, is the accumulation of all costs of operating a > fleet or a single vehicle). "hey, my rotted chicken healed that dude's leg!" |
Re: new Honda CR-V break in
jim beam wrote: > > you write the contradictory nonsense that no research supports, but i'm > the fantasy bullshitter? do you know what "delusional" means? Let me guess you are leading up to giving me a special deal so that I can study to be grand delusional at the feet of a True Master? Yes I'm quite sure you could give me some tips on the topic, but thanks anyway. > From you I have seen no > > evidence at all. > > then you're not bothering to read my posts! or you have a comprehension > problem. Your right i don't generally bother to read your posts.. They seem to have practically no content worth reading. How many times does one have to read "bullshit" and "see above" before one becomes bored and starts to pass over such drivel? > > > You seem to think that anything you proclaim will be > > taken as gospel without any evidence or even any explanation. > > see above. you should try reading my cites. I read the only citation I saw. It only demonstrated your ignorance. > > > > >> > >>> > >>> 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. > > > > No I'm afraid you are hallucinating. I haven't stated anything of the > > sort. I was simply commenting on your obsession with other people's oil > > changing habits. And yes it would be perverted of me to preach to others > > about changing there oil which is one reason I don't. > > see above for "comprehension" and "delusional". And what is there above to be seen? You really have knack for saying nothing? And then you keep referring back to the nothings you have said before? > > > > > > >> > >>> > >>>> > >>>>> 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. > > > > > > Just like brake pads if you push it to the absolute limit you will be > > increasing the risk of failure due to incorrect guesses as to the exact > > point where that limit should be set. Doing a brake job when the pads > > still have useful life left is not as ridiculous as you make it out to > > be. At any rate it would seem equally odd to me if someone was obsessed > > with other people having brake jobs done more often than they need to. > > If someone chooses to have a brake job done when the pads are only half > > worn why would you object? > > er, because it's unnecessary expense and wasteful? > > but of course, that's not the purpose of what you wrote - the purpose > was to try to side-step the unarguable logic of making a wear-based > decision vs. a blind and uninformed decision. Except that decision only exists in your fantasy world. The guy that is maintaining a fleet sounds like he has a lot more information than you now have or ever will have. Its only in your fantasy that you imagine something different. > > > > > > > > >> > >>> Major engine manufacturers like Cummins say oil > >>> analysis is of very little value in determining oil maintenance > >>> schedules. > >> > >> bullshit. cite your source. > > > > I did cite my source. Cummins engine is the source. > > so show the source online, idiot. or don't you know what "cite" means? Hey i'm not the one who is making unsubstantiated claims and no I'm not really interested in providing evidence that your claims are without merit. I would encourage you to so more research you clearly are in need of it. > > > Do you ever > > actually say anything meaningful or is proclaiming "bullshit." the total > > extent of your capabilities? > > > > Here is one quote from Cummins: > > > > {QUOTE] > > > > Cummins Inc. does not recommend that oil analysis be used to determine > > maintenance intervals. Oil analysis only permits maintenance intervals > > to be estimated. Engines must be operated at the estimated interval for > > 800,000 to 1,100,000 km [500,00 to 700,000 mi] or 10,000 to 15,000 hours > > to determine if the estimated maintenance interval based on oil analysis > > was correct. If the interval is estimated correctly, the engine will > > remain in an acceptable condition for its operating environment. If an > > extended maintenance interval is guessed incorrectly, up to 50 percent > > of the potential engine life to rebuild can be sacrificed for the longer > > maintenance interval. > > > > [END QUOTE} > > "cummins" in the third person? this smells like sales literature, not > their engineering lit. The difference between the companies published engineering lit and advertizing would be whether it pollutes your fantasy or not? >besides, analysis is not "guessing". analysis > is proven and successful and used in all major vehicle fleets, shipping, > aerospace, military, all industries, globally. again, you'd know that > if you'd bothered to read any cites. No you are just a wannabee idiot. Analysis is just how people gather information And the particular analysis you are referring to is a form of statistical analysis. There is no doubt that statistical analysis is effective, but the way it works is at some point someone has to decide what is for them acceptable level of risk. What you are attempting to do is claim that there is no risk involved in doing extended oil changes. That risk free absolute certainty is not a charateristic of the real world. It only exists in your fantasy world. > > > >> > >>> 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! > > > > I clearly don't understand what you think it does since you never > > actually say anything meaningful. > > see above for comprehension problems. If i did look again above would I now see something meaningful? > > > > > People who use oil analysis for determining oil change interval think > > oil analysis will reveal how much engine wear is occurring. > > er, that's because it does! just like your fuel gauge tells you how > much gas is left in the tank! And of course in your fantasy world no person has ever run out of gas when they rely on a fuel gauge. So why are you not hopping up and down and ranting about the many people who don't trust the gas gauge and never let it fall bellow 1/4 tank for fear of running out? Isn't this also polluting your fanatasy? The simple reality is that anyone who expects the fuel gauge to be completely infallible is living in a fantasy world. > > > The problem > > with that is that when the oil gets older and dirtier it has less > > capacity for holding wear particles in suspension. As a result the the > > oil analysis will not give a true picture of actual engine wear. > > yeah. a broken fuel gauge doesn't tell you when to fill your tank either! So how many fuel gauges do you have to put on a motor vehicle car to make sure that there is no chance if yiou run it down to empty you will ever run out? Your fantasy is so easy to crumble. For many people it is just a whole lot easier to change the oil well before there is any chance of it being worn out simply because the don't want to become a neurotic obsessive idiot like you. I have no personal problem with people who never go more than 100 miles without stopping to fill up with gas or with people who change their oil or brakes twice as often as they might really need to. These people are sane and normal because its a whole lot saner way to live your life than to be constantly obsessing about how close to the brink of disaster you can get with out falling in. The people who are obsessing about how far they can get on each oil change are the nut cases. > > > This is > > the the stated reason by Cummins when they advise Fleet managers to not > > use oil analysis for determining OCI. This is not to say that oil > > analysis can not be useful in finding things like failed air filter, > > coolant leaks, fuel contamination or even unusual engine wear. Cummins > > is not against oil analysis they just advise against using it as a basis > > for establishing oil change intervals. > > then "cummins" don't have any scientists writing their sales lit! I'm sure they would love to have a mad scientist of your caliber on their staff. > > > > >> > >>> 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. > > > > I definitely don't know what you are talking about, since you have yet > > to say anything. > > see above. You keep referring back to where you have previously said nothing . Wat's up with that? > > > > >> > >>> 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. > > > > No it does not. It provides some evidence, but hardly a complete > > picture. > > it tells you a good deal more than witchcraft! > > which is why cummins provide it as a service to customers... > http://www.npower-oilanalysis.com/ > > and: > "Beyond the 250-hour/6-month requirement, an oil analysis program is > strongly recommended." > from: > http://www.everytime.cummins.com/sit...qst30_o_g.page > > now, where's your cite? Where's your brain? Cummins stated position is: "Cummins Inc. does not recommend that oil analysis be used to determine maintenance intervals" That does not mean they do not approve of oil analysis. Cummins thinks oil analysis is a good thing and they have provided lots of good literature that guides people in how to do effective oil analysis. If you weren't so retarded you would know that policy statement simply means they advise people to not use oil analysis to determine oil change intervals. > > > > > > >> > >>> 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! > > > > The direct expense of changing oil frequently or infrequently is a very > > small percentage of the total cost of operating. The amount of money to > > be saved by pushing this to the limit is tiny compared to the amount of > > money that it can cost if a miscalculation is made. There are a lot > > more important things that can be done to reduce expenses if that is the > > only consideration. > > what fleet do you work on? 'cos it appears they have a job opening for > someone that can actually read, do math, and who doesn't start > paragraphs with tabs. Holy Cow Batman the terrible TAB man is back. What exactly is the basis of your TABaphobia. Does it have something to do with your incoherent mumblings about witches, chicken blood and broken legs??? > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> 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. > > > > I appears that you believe people who tear down engines can't make a > > determination of how much wear an engine has seen, but instead you > > believe that some laboratory that has never even been close to the > > engine can accurately make such a determination. That sounds like a > > fairy tale. > > now you're putting false words in my mouth. stripdown and measurement > gives you absolute determination of wear. but just like if you have > water dripping out of a bucket, if you catch the drips and measure them, > you know how much is left in the bucket - you don't have to empty it to > find out! logical retard. Yeah well in your fantasy world you may think it is brilliant strategy to poke a hole in the bucket and count the drops coming out, but the average sane human would probably just look in the bucket to see how full it is. > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >>> > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> 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. > > > > OK why don't you tell your fairy tale about how you took a Computer CPU > > and tore it apart and modified or repaired it. The fact is what you > > don't know about computers far outweighs what you do know. > > eh? maybe i made a mistake in assuming you had any comprehension > ability. mea culpa. > > but i'd better spell it out: > computers are made of highly advanced materials. there is no room for > fudging - the math and the execution have to be precise and correct. > witchcraft and guesswork don't work - the only successful method is > scientific method. precisely the one you don't seem to be able to grasp. And of course your grasp of reality does exist because you simply declare it to be so. > > > > >> > >>> > >>> > >>>> > >>>>> 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!!! > > > > To someone like you that may be how playing the odds appears. > > "playing the odds" is just guessing guy. just like driving without a > fuel gauge. you can do it, but you're being a real chump. Maybe I'm driving an old VW bug, but the question still remains. Why would you care if i was driving without a fuel gauge? I know I know - because it pollutes your fantasy. > > > > > > >> > >>> > >>> 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. > > > > HA HA HA HA. That's a good one. And I suppose you are going to tell us > > how an Angel came down from heaven and gave you this precious knowledge > > and therefore it is absolutely impossible that anyone could possibly > > question your fairy tale account of what happened. > > retard - just freakin' read it. I did. About the best that can be said of your account is that it was poorly contrived speculation. But that is a step up from what appears to be your typical delusional posting. > > > > > > > > >> > >>> 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 > > > > You probably didn't know this but not all valves burn in the same way. > > er, i actually /do/ know this. again, if you'd bothered to read, you'd > know. > > > Carbon deposits can be the cause of one particular valve burning > > scenario. > > one??? > > > The condition of the oil does affect how much oil gets into > > the combustion chamber via the rings, seals and PCV. Carbon deposits in > > the combustion chamber are almost exclusively coming from burning oil. > > bullshit. ever heard of "combustion product"? otherwise known as > "soot"? that stuff comes from "fuel". amazing, isn't it? Nevertheless ultimately oil changes do have an impact on carbon deposits. That is not something your going to ever find out from scientific oil analysis. > > > So yes how often the oil is changed can have a statistical impact on > > valve burn. > > only if you don't know what you're looking at and can't follow a logical > argument! see above. Somebody would actually have to make a logical argument if someone else is expected to follow it. Or are you saying that your continual repititions of "bullshit" and "see above" constitute a logical argument? > > > If you want me to quantify that statistical impact I would > > say it is very very small. > > "very very small" is a statistical impact?!! Yes its small as in not easy to ascertain. But that is a foreign concept in your fantasy world - isn't it?. In your hallucinations everything can be ascertained with perfect certainty. > > > The point is nobody can say exactly at what > > point a given maintenance schedule will have a favorably impact on 100% > > of the engines its applied to. > > correction: > "no witchdoctor can say exactly at what..." Yeah the statement would hold for witch doctors too. > > > A particular maintenance schedule may > > produce a favorable result 99.999% of the time but that still is not an > > absolute. > > wow dude, you have a significant "knowledge gap"!!! kinda scary actually. If the TAB key scares you - I suppose just about anything could scare you. |
Re: new Honda CR-V break in
jim beam wrote: > > er, unless the oil is at end of life, which it most definitely is not at > only 20 hours, there's no way detergency is failing. So Lets hear your explanation. Or are you only capable of saying "bullshit" and "see above"? The article states that the wear particles are too small to be filtered. So what's your explanation for why do they start to appear in the oil filter after 20 hours but not before that? > and if detergency > is not failing, then it's not depositing combustion product or wear > product. so you're bullshitting. No this is a simple case of you having no clue about how detergents and dispersants work. You seem to think they are something in the oil that get turned on and off like a light switch. Try reading the study you might learn something. What do you suppose this sentence was referring to: "The radiotracer data also showed periods of wear particle reentrainment, dispersion, and recollection, following engine restarts and idle periods during the oil-stressing test run." Those things were observed in the long test runs past 20 hours not in the short test runs with fresh oil. What it means is that with the used oil (after 20 hours) when they shut the engine off and let it sit for a while the radioactive measurements showed some of the wear particles disappeared from the oil. > > of course, delusional fantasy is not a problem for people that start > paragraphs with tabs, but hey. Talk about delusional fantasies...... |
Re: new Honda CR-V break in
On 01/15/2010 11:51 AM, jim wrote:
> > > jim beam wrote: > >> >> er, unless the oil is at end of life, which it most definitely is not at >> only 20 hours, there's no way detergency is failing. > > So Lets hear your explanation. Or are you only capable of saying > "bullshit" and "see above"? > > The article states that the wear particles are too small to be > filtered. So what's your explanation for why do they start to appear in > the oil filter after 20 hours but not before that? i've got a better question: why is it that you can read the same article i can, yet you can signally fail to understand any of the pertinent points or their context? [rhetorical] > > > >> and if detergency >> is not failing, then it's not depositing combustion product or wear >> product. so you're bullshitting. > > No this is a simple case of you having no clue about how detergents and > dispersants work. You seem to think they are something in the oil that > get turned on and off like a light switch. don't put false words in my mouth. and the one with the misunderstanding is you. > > Try reading the study you might learn something. What do you suppose > this sentence was referring to: > > "The radiotracer data also showed periods > of wear particle reentrainment, dispersion, > and recollection, following engine restarts > and idle periods during the oil-stressing test run." > > Those things were observed in the long test runs past 20 hours not in > the short test runs with fresh oil. What it means is that with the used > oil (after 20 hours) when they shut the engine off and let it sit for a > while the radioactive measurements showed some of the wear particles > disappeared from the oil. eh? do the words "reentrainment" and "recollection" really confuse you? because you don't seem to be able to make any sense of what you've just quoted. >> of course, delusional fantasy is not a problem for people that start >> paragraphs with tabs, but hey. > > Talk about delusional fantasies...... no, delusion is only seeing what you want to see, not what actually exists. you've just demonstrated being delusional three times above. |
Re: new Honda CR-V break in
On 01/15/2010 10:20 AM, jim wrote:
> > > jim beam wrote: > >> >> you write the contradictory nonsense that no research supports, but i'm >> the fantasy bullshitter? do you know what "delusional" means? > > Let me guess you are leading up to giving me a special deal so that I > can study to be grand delusional at the feet of a True Master? Yes I'm > quite sure you could give me some tips on the topic, but thanks anyway. > >> From you I have seen no >>> evidence at all. >> >> then you're not bothering to read my posts! or you have a comprehension >> problem. > > Your right i don't generally bother to read your posts.. then why are you arguing? you clearly have no desire to learn anything. <snip> |
Re: new Honda CR-V break in
jim beam wrote: > > On 01/15/2010 10:20 AM, jim wrote: > > > > > > jim beam wrote: > > > >> > >> you write the contradictory nonsense that no research supports, but i'm > >> the fantasy bullshitter? do you know what "delusional" means? > > > > Let me guess you are leading up to giving me a special deal so that I > > can study to be grand delusional at the feet of a True Master? Yes I'm > > quite sure you could give me some tips on the topic, but thanks anyway. > > > >> From you I have seen no > >>> evidence at all. > >> > >> then you're not bothering to read my posts! or you have a comprehension > >> problem. > > > > Your right i don't generally bother to read your posts.. > > then why are you arguing? you clearly have no desire to learn anything. > Ha HA HA Yeah if I had been reading all your posts by now I would have become expert at saying "Bullshit" with great authority! Oh my goodness i can't believe i missed the opportunity to learn that. |
Re: new Honda CR-V break in
On 1/15/2010 8:49 PM, jim wrote:
> > Ha HA HA Yeah if I had been reading all your posts by now I would have > become expert at saying "Bullshit" with great authority! Oh my goodness > i can't believe i missed the opportunity to learn that. After reading the second post of his, you would have had the proper response down pat. |
Re: new Honda CR-V break in
On 01/15/2010 04:49 PM, jim wrote:
> > > jim beam wrote: >> >> On 01/15/2010 10:20 AM, jim wrote: >>> >>> >>> jim beam wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> you write the contradictory nonsense that no research supports, but i'm >>>> the fantasy bullshitter? do you know what "delusional" means? >>> >>> Let me guess you are leading up to giving me a special deal so that I >>> can study to be grand delusional at the feet of a True Master? Yes I'm >>> quite sure you could give me some tips on the topic, but thanks anyway. >>> >>>> From you I have seen no >>>>> evidence at all. >>>> >>>> then you're not bothering to read my posts! or you have a comprehension >>>> problem. >>> >>> Your right i don't generally bother to read your posts.. >> >> then why are you arguing? you clearly have no desire to learn anything. >> > > Ha HA HA Yeah if I had been reading all your posts by now I would have > become expert at saying "Bullshit" with great authority! Oh my goodness > i can't believe i missed the opportunity to learn that. wow - pride in ignorance. that's shameful. |
Re: new Honda CR-V break in
jim beam wrote: > > On 01/15/2010 04:49 PM, jim wrote: > > > > > > jim beam wrote: > >> > >> On 01/15/2010 10:20 AM, jim wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> jim beam wrote: > >>> > >>>> > >>>> you write the contradictory nonsense that no research supports, but i'm > >>>> the fantasy bullshitter? do you know what "delusional" means? > >>> > >>> Let me guess you are leading up to giving me a special deal so that I > >>> can study to be grand delusional at the feet of a True Master? Yes I'm > >>> quite sure you could give me some tips on the topic, but thanks anyway. > >>> > >>>> From you I have seen no > >>>>> evidence at all. > >>>> > >>>> then you're not bothering to read my posts! or you have a comprehension > >>>> problem. > >>> > >>> Your right i don't generally bother to read your posts.. > >> > >> then why are you arguing? you clearly have no desire to learn anything. > >> > > > > Ha HA HA Yeah if I had been reading all your posts by now I would have > > become expert at saying "Bullshit" with great authority! Oh my goodness > > i can't believe i missed the opportunity to learn that. > > wow - pride in ignorance. that's shameful. No you got that exactly backwards as usual. I'm pretty sure I would be ashamed of myself if I had read more of your posts. |
Re: new Honda CR-V break in
jim beam wrote: > > On 01/15/2010 11:51 AM, jim wrote: > > > > > > jim beam wrote: > > > >> > >> er, unless the oil is at end of life, which it most definitely is not at > >> only 20 hours, there's no way detergency is failing. > > > > So Lets hear your explanation. Or are you only capable of saying > > "bullshit" and "see above"? > > > > The article states that the wear particles are too small to be > > filtered. So what's your explanation for why do they start to appear in > > the oil filter after 20 hours but not before that? > > i've got a better question: why is it that you can read the same > article i can, yet you can signally fail to understand any of the > pertinent points or their context? [rhetorical] In other words, you don't have a single clue how to answer the question. > > > > > > > > >> and if detergency > >> is not failing, then it's not depositing combustion product or wear > >> product. so you're bullshitting. > > > > No this is a simple case of you having no clue about how detergents and > > dispersants work. You seem to think they are something in the oil that > > get turned on and off like a light switch. > > don't put false words in my mouth. and the one with the > misunderstanding is you. False words??? You are precious little toady. If you don't want others to explain your position why don't you take a stab at explaining it yourself? I'll tell you why you don't because you can't. > > > > > Try reading the study you might learn something. What do you suppose > > this sentence was referring to: > > > > "The radiotracer data also showed periods > > of wear particle reentrainment, dispersion, > > and recollection, following engine restarts > > and idle periods during the oil-stressing test run." > > > > Those things were observed in the long test runs past 20 hours not in > > the short test runs with fresh oil. What it means is that with the used > > oil (after 20 hours) when they shut the engine off and let it sit for a > > while the radioactive measurements showed some of the wear particles > > disappeared from the oil. > > eh? do the words "reentrainment" and "recollection" really confuse you? > because you don't seem to be able to make any sense of what you've > just quoted. If there is 'no depositing of wear products' as you stated previously then how can there be "reentrainment" and "recollection" of wear particles as the article states? Is that another question you can't answer? The simple fact is that what was reported in the article demonstrates that some of the additives in the oil have already started to exhibit evidence of diminished effectiveness at 20 hours of use. > > >> of course, delusional fantasy is not a problem for people that start > >> paragraphs with tabs, but hey. > > > > Talk about delusional fantasies...... > > no, delusion is only seeing what you want to see, not what actually > exists. you've just demonstrated being delusional three times above. Why is it impossible for you to actually state in coherent words what exactly is incorrect in what I said? You can't answer that one either? Going back to my first question - If you can - Please explain why it was observed that the oil is displaying a difference in the way it holds wear particles in suspension after only 20 hours of use? |
Re: new Honda CR-V break in
On 01/15/2010 05:05 PM, jim wrote:
> > > jim beam wrote: >> >> On 01/15/2010 04:49 PM, jim wrote: >>> >>> >>> jim beam wrote: >>>> >>>> On 01/15/2010 10:20 AM, jim wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> jim beam wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> you write the contradictory nonsense that no research supports, but i'm >>>>>> the fantasy bullshitter? do you know what "delusional" means? >>>>> >>>>> Let me guess you are leading up to giving me a special deal so that I >>>>> can study to be grand delusional at the feet of a True Master? Yes I'm >>>>> quite sure you could give me some tips on the topic, but thanks anyway. >>>>> >>>>>> From you I have seen no >>>>>>> evidence at all. >>>>>> >>>>>> then you're not bothering to read my posts! or you have a comprehension >>>>>> problem. >>>>> >>>>> Your right i don't generally bother to read your posts.. >>>> >>>> then why are you arguing? you clearly have no desire to learn anything. >>>> >>> >>> Ha HA HA Yeah if I had been reading all your posts by now I would have >>> become expert at saying "Bullshit" with great authority! Oh my goodness >>> i can't believe i missed the opportunity to learn that. >> >> wow - pride in ignorance. that's shameful. > > No you got that exactly backwards as usual. I'm pretty sure I would be > ashamed of myself if I had read more of your posts. dude, let's get this straight: i post information and cites that not only offer you the opportunity to learn something you clearly don't know, they also set you straight on some of the you have hopelessly wrong. but you can't be bothered to read them, let alone address them in any meaningful manner. to then accuse me of the mistake you yourself are making is not only stupid, it's delusional. |
Re: new Honda CR-V break in
jim beam wrote: > > dude, let's get this straight: i post information and cites that not > only offer you the opportunity to learn something you clearly don't > know, they also set you straight on some of the you have hopelessly > wrong. but you can't be bothered to read them, let alone address them > in any meaningful manner. to then accuse me of the mistake you yourself > are making is not only stupid, it's delusional. You can't answer one little simple question about your so called "information and cite". All you can do in response to simple question of substance is to start name calling. |
Re: new Honda CR-V break in
On 01/15/2010 05:11 PM, jim wrote:
> > > jim beam wrote: >> >> On 01/15/2010 11:51 AM, jim wrote: >>> >>> >>> jim beam wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> er, unless the oil is at end of life, which it most definitely is not at >>>> only 20 hours, there's no way detergency is failing. >>> >>> So Lets hear your explanation. Or are you only capable of saying >>> "bullshit" and "see above"? >>> >>> The article states that the wear particles are too small to be >>> filtered. So what's your explanation for why do they start to appear in >>> the oil filter after 20 hours but not before that? >> >> i've got a better question: why is it that you can read the same >> article i can, yet you can signally fail to understand any of the >> pertinent points or their context? [rhetorical] > > In other words, you don't have a single clue how to answer the > question. er, no, it's a case of how can i argue with someone that can't read, doesn't evidence basic comprehension and doesn't want to know? > >> >>> >>> >>> >>>> and if detergency >>>> is not failing, then it's not depositing combustion product or wear >>>> product. so you're bullshitting. >>> >>> No this is a simple case of you having no clue about how detergents and >>> dispersants work. You seem to think they are something in the oil that >>> get turned on and off like a light switch. >> >> don't put false words in my mouth. and the one with the >> misunderstanding is you. > > False words??? You are precious little toady. If you don't want others > to explain your position why don't you take a stab at explaining it > yourself? I'll tell you why you don't because you can't. i've explained it, and cited external sources - you're the one that's in delusional denial. > > >> >>> >>> Try reading the study you might learn something. What do you suppose >>> this sentence was referring to: >>> >>> "The radiotracer data also showed periods >>> of wear particle reentrainment, dispersion, >>> and recollection, following engine restarts >>> and idle periods during the oil-stressing test run." >>> >>> Those things were observed in the long test runs past 20 hours not in >>> the short test runs with fresh oil. What it means is that with the used >>> oil (after 20 hours) when they shut the engine off and let it sit for a >>> while the radioactive measurements showed some of the wear particles >>> disappeared from the oil. >> >> eh? do the words "reentrainment" and "recollection" really confuse you? >> because you don't seem to be able to make any sense of what you've >> just quoted. > > If there is 'no depositing of wear products' as you stated previously > then how can there be "reentrainment" and "recollection" of wear > particles as the article states? Is that another question you can't > answer? !!! wow dude, for someone that can't pass a basic logic test, let alone comprehension, that's unbelievably presumptive and stupid!!! > > The simple fact is that what was reported in the article demonstrates > that some of the additives in the oil have already started to exhibit > evidence of diminished effectiveness at 20 hours of use. eh? in http://www.swri.org/3pubs/IRD1999/03912699.htm, in the "Accomplishments" section, it states: "Testing with partially stressed oil, which contained some wear debris, produced less wear than testing with clean oil." if in your muddled brain "less wear" equates to "diminished effectiveness", then you have problems i'm simply unqualified to address. > > > > >> >>>> of course, delusional fantasy is not a problem for people that start >>>> paragraphs with tabs, but hey. >>> >>> Talk about delusional fantasies...... >> >> no, delusion is only seeing what you want to see, not what actually >> exists. you've just demonstrated being delusional three times above. > > Why is it impossible for you to actually state in coherent words what > exactly is incorrect in what I said? You can't answer that one either? > > Going back to my first question - If you can - Please explain why it > was observed that the oil is displaying a difference in the way it holds > wear particles in suspension after only 20 hours of use? dude, if you could possibly get the facts straight in the first place, we could possibly have a discussion. as it stands however, you're hopelessly mired in confusion and delusion. |
Re: new Honda CR-V break in
On 01/15/2010 05:33 PM, jim wrote:
> > > jim beam wrote: > >> >> dude, let's get this straight: i post information and cites that not >> only offer you the opportunity to learn something you clearly don't >> know, they also set you straight on some of the you have hopelessly >> wrong. but you can't be bothered to read them, let alone address them >> in any meaningful manner. to then accuse me of the mistake you yourself >> are making is not only stupid, it's delusional. > > You can't answer one little simple question about your so called > "information and cite". All you can do in response to simple question of > substance is to start name calling. wrong. go back in the tread. |
Re: new Honda CR-V break in
On 01/15/2010 05:36 PM, jim beam wrote:
> On 01/15/2010 05:33 PM, jim wrote: >> >> >> jim beam wrote: >> >>> >>> dude, let's get this straight: i post information and cites that not >>> only offer you the opportunity to learn something you clearly don't >>> know, they also set you straight on some of the you have hopelessly >>> wrong. but you can't be bothered to read them, let alone address them >>> in any meaningful manner. to then accuse me of the mistake you yourself >>> are making is not only stupid, it's delusional. >> >> You can't answer one little simple question about your so called >> "information and cite". All you can do in response to simple question of >> substance is to start name calling. > > wrong. go back in the tread. "thread" |
Re: new Honda CR-V break in
jim beam wrote: > > On 01/15/2010 05:36 PM, jim beam wrote: > > On 01/15/2010 05:33 PM, jim wrote: > >> > >> > >> jim beam wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> dude, let's get this straight: i post information and cites that not > >>> only offer you the opportunity to learn something you clearly don't > >>> know, they also set you straight on some of the you have hopelessly > >>> wrong. but you can't be bothered to read them, let alone address them > >>> in any meaningful manner. to then accuse me of the mistake you yourself > >>> are making is not only stupid, it's delusional. > >> > >> You can't answer one little simple question about your so called > >> "information and cite". All you can do in response to simple question of > >> substance is to start name calling. > > > > wrong. go back in the tread. > > "thread" Made more sense before |
Re: new Honda CR-V break in
jim beam wrote: > eh? in http://www.swri.org/3pubs/IRD1999/03912699.htm, in the > "Accomplishments" section, it states: > "Testing with partially stressed oil, which contained some wear debris, > produced less wear than testing with clean oil." That conclusion has long ago been shown to be not correct. Using dirty oil did not produce less wear. It produced less evidence of wear. > > if in your muddled brain "less wear" equates to "diminished > effectiveness", then you have problems i'm simply unqualified to address. Diminished effectiveness of the detergents and dispersants in the oil is the cause of less evidence of wear particles in the oil. This study demonstrates exactly why oil analysis can be misleading and why Cummins engines advises against using oil analysis for determining oil change intervals. When oil gets old and dirty it no longer has the same capacity to hold wear particles in suspension that clean oil does. That doesn't mean there was less wear in the study it only means there were fewer wear particles found in the oil. You seem to think that you are the first person in the entire world to stumble upon this study that has been kicking around for 10 years. Let me clue you in. You are not some messenger from heaven ing the gospel of truth and enlightenment to the masses. For one thing the masses are already pretty convinced you don't have a clue. For another what you consider information is a crock of . If dirty oil was more valuable than clean oil I would be able to drain the oil out of my engine at 3000 miles and sell it as "partially stressed conditioned" oil for more than I paid for it new. |
Re: new Honda CR-V break in
On 01/15/2010 06:03 PM, jim wrote:
> > > jim beam wrote: > >> eh? in http://www.swri.org/3pubs/IRD1999/03912699.htm, in the >> "Accomplishments" section, it states: >> "Testing with partially stressed oil, which contained some wear debris, >> produced less wear than testing with clean oil." > > > That conclusion has long ago been shown to be not correct. Using dirty > oil did not produce less wear. It produced less evidence of wear. wow, the mental gymnastics continue! would this translate into witchdoctorese as "dead chickens don't heal broken legs, they simply hide evidence of breakage"? > > >> >> if in your muddled brain "less wear" equates to "diminished >> effectiveness", then you have problems i'm simply unqualified to address. > > Diminished effectiveness of the detergents and dispersants in the oil is > the cause of less evidence of wear particles in the oil. where did you get this little nugget from cowboy? it's not from anything presented here! > This study > demonstrates exactly why oil analysis can be misleading eh??? no it doesn't! > and why Cummins > engines advises against using oil analysis for determining oil change > intervals. no they don't. read the cites. > When oil gets old and dirty it no longer has the same > capacity to hold wear particles in suspension that clean oil does. at end of life. analysis determines that end of life. like a fuel gauge determines when your tank is empty! sorry if that's a hard concept to grasp. > That > doesn't mean there was less wear in the study it only means there were > fewer wear particles found in the oil. wow! have you ever heard of "logic"? 'cos you're not using any. > > You seem to think that you are the first person in the entire world to > stumble upon this study that has been kicking around for 10 years. Let > me clue you in. You are not some messenger from heaven ing the > gospel of truth and enlightenment to the masses. For one thing the > masses are already pretty convinced you don't have a clue. For another > what you consider information is a crock of . If dirty oil was more > valuable than clean oil I would be able to drain the oil out of my > engine at 3000 miles and sell it as "partially stressed conditioned" oil > for more than I paid for it new. whatever you say dude. you just keep on denying what you don't want to know and you'll go to your grave just as ignorant as you are today. just try not to piss in the knowledge pool too much for other people while you're on your way. |
Re: new Honda CR-V break in
jim beam wrote: > > On 01/15/2010 06:03 PM, jim wrote: > > > > > > jim beam wrote: > > > >> eh? in http://www.swri.org/3pubs/IRD1999/03912699.htm, in the > >> "Accomplishments" section, it states: > >> "Testing with partially stressed oil, which contained some wear debris, > >> produced less wear than testing with clean oil." > > > > > > That conclusion has long ago been shown to be not correct. Using dirty > > oil did not produce less wear. It produced less evidence of wear. > > wow, the mental gymnastics continue! would this translate into > witchdoctorese as "dead chickens don't heal broken legs, they simply > hide evidence of breakage"? It is pretty plain English, but who knows how it might translate into your fantasy. > > > > > > >> > >> if in your muddled brain "less wear" equates to "diminished > >> effectiveness", then you have problems i'm simply unqualified to address. > > > > Diminished effectiveness of the detergents and dispersants in the oil is > > the cause of less evidence of wear particles in the oil. > > where did you get this little nugget from cowboy? it's not from > anything presented here! Well it was, but you were pretty busy madly typing "Bullshit" and "see above" > > > This study > > demonstrates exactly why oil analysis can be misleading > > eh??? no it doesn't! And of course as usual you can't say why. > > > and why Cummins > > engines advises against using oil analysis for determining oil change > > intervals. > > no they don't. read the cites. Geez did your feeble mind forget the quote from Cummins already? "Cummins Inc. does not recommend that oil analysis be used to determine maintenance intervals." > > > When oil gets old and dirty it no longer has the same > > capacity to hold wear particles in suspension that clean oil does. > > at end of life. analysis determines that end of life. like a fuel > gauge determines when your tank is empty! sorry if that's a hard > concept to grasp. The question is/was what does the study you presented as evidence show? It does not show that oil gets better as it gets dirty - only a fool would believe that. > > > That > > doesn't mean there was less wear in the study it only means there were > > fewer wear particles found in the oil. > > wow! have you ever heard of "logic"? 'cos you're not using any. And once again you show how baffled you are. If you see a flaw in logic why don't you explain what it is instead of jumping up and down and chattering like a monkey. > > > > > You seem to think that you are the first person in the entire world to > > stumble upon this study that has been kicking around for 10 years. Let > > me clue you in. You are not some messenger from heaven ing the > > gospel of truth and enlightenment to the masses. For one thing the > > masses are already pretty convinced you don't have a clue. For another > > what you consider information is a crock of . If dirty oil was more > > valuable than clean oil I would be able to drain the oil out of my > > engine at 3000 miles and sell it as "partially stressed conditioned" oil > > for more than I paid for it new. > > whatever you say dude. you just keep on denying what you don't want to > know and you'll go to your grave just as ignorant as you are today. > just try not to piss in the knowledge pool too much for other people > while you're on your way. Well i must say you are consistent. You continue to be in anguish that someone might be polluting your fantasy. But hey maybe I've got you all wrong. Would you like to buy some used oil? I'll give you a super deal only $4/qt of a special blend of pre-stressed oil. Send me $40 and $10 for shipping and handling and your mailing address and i will send you 10 quarts of the finest pre-stressed conditioned oil. But don't dawdle this is a limited once in a life time offer. -jim |
Re: new Honda CR-V break in
jim wrote:
<snip> > 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 Too-lean mixtures combined with unleaded gasoline and valves and seats made from materials designed to work with leaded gas caused this often during the transition from leaded to unleaded gas, with no chunks of carbon involved. -- JRE |
Re: new Honda CR-V break in
On 01/15/2010 06:40 PM, jim wrote:
> > > jim beam wrote: >> >> On 01/15/2010 06:03 PM, jim wrote: >>> >>> >>> jim beam wrote: >>> >>>> eh? in http://www.swri.org/3pubs/IRD1999/03912699.htm, in the >>>> "Accomplishments" section, it states: >>>> "Testing with partially stressed oil, which contained some wear debris, >>>> produced less wear than testing with clean oil." >>> >>> >>> That conclusion has long ago been shown to be not correct. Using dirty >>> oil did not produce less wear. It produced less evidence of wear. >> >> wow, the mental gymnastics continue! would this translate into >> witchdoctorese as "dead chickens don't heal broken legs, they simply >> hide evidence of breakage"? > > It is pretty plain English, but who knows how it might translate into > your fantasy. thing is, what you understand comes out of your mouth. but reality and your mouth don't seem to be connected. but the fault is mine for daring to say so, right? > > >> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> if in your muddled brain "less wear" equates to "diminished >>>> effectiveness", then you have problems i'm simply unqualified to address. >>> >>> Diminished effectiveness of the detergents and dispersants in the oil is >>> the cause of less evidence of wear particles in the oil. >> >> where did you get this little nugget from cowboy? it's not from >> anything presented here! > > Well it was, but you were pretty busy madly typing "Bullshit" and "see > above" well dude, i'm many things - insufferably pedantic, potty mouthed, a royal prick, etc. but i also say it just how it is. and when someone like you starts spewing bullshit, i'll say so. if you don't like it, don't bullshit. real simple! > > > >> >>> This study >>> demonstrates exactly why oil analysis can be misleading >> >> eh??? no it doesn't! > > And of course as usual you can't say why. i can't say why you can read one thing and then misconstrue it to mean something else!!! well, i can, but then i'd be calling you "stupid" and "bullshitter" again, right? and apparently you don't like that. > > >> >>> and why Cummins >>> engines advises against using oil analysis for determining oil change >>> intervals. >> >> no they don't. read the cites. > > Geez did your feeble mind forget the quote from Cummins already? > > "Cummins Inc. does not recommend that oil > analysis be used to determine > maintenance intervals." those are your words. you have not cited a source that i can verify. otoh, /i/ cited cummins saying the opposite with things like "an oil analysis program is strongly recommended" and advertising their change interval extension options. apparently that doesn't bother you, but you've not evidenced any ability to read or understand, so why change now? > >> >>> When oil gets old and dirty it no longer has the same >>> capacity to hold wear particles in suspension that clean oil does. >> >> at end of life. analysis determines that end of life. like a fuel >> gauge determines when your tank is empty! sorry if that's a hard >> concept to grasp. > > The question is/was what does the study you presented as evidence show? > It does not show that oil gets better as it gets dirty - only a fool > would believe that. er, let me reinsert my words that you so carefully snipped: 'eh? in http://www.swri.org/3pubs/IRD1999/03912699.htm, in the "Accomplishments" section, it states: "Testing with partially stressed oil, which contained some wear debris, produced less wear than testing with clean oil." ' that's pretty straight language to most folks. apparently not comprehensible to you though. > > >> >>> That >>> doesn't mean there was less wear in the study it only means there were >>> fewer wear particles found in the oil. >> >> wow! have you ever heard of "logic"? 'cos you're not using any. > > And once again you show how baffled you are. If you see a flaw in logic > why don't you explain what it is instead of jumping up and down and > chattering like a monkey. er, so if you get locked into an airtight chamber, and after an hour or so, you turn blue and start to hyperventilate, that's not lack of oxygen, it's merely lack of evidence of oxygen? that sounds like an experiment you're familiar with! > > >> >>> >>> You seem to think that you are the first person in the entire world to >>> stumble upon this study that has been kicking around for 10 years. Let >>> me clue you in. You are not some messenger from heaven ing the >>> gospel of truth and enlightenment to the masses. For one thing the >>> masses are already pretty convinced you don't have a clue. For another >>> what you consider information is a crock of . If dirty oil was more >>> valuable than clean oil I would be able to drain the oil out of my >>> engine at 3000 miles and sell it as "partially stressed conditioned" oil >>> for more than I paid for it new. >> >> whatever you say dude. you just keep on denying what you don't want to >> know and you'll go to your grave just as ignorant as you are today. >> just try not to piss in the knowledge pool too much for other people >> while you're on your way. > > Well i must say you are consistent. You continue to be in anguish that > someone might be polluting your fantasy. > > But hey maybe I've got you all wrong. Would you like to buy some used > oil? > > I'll give you a super deal only $4/qt of a special blend of > pre-stressed oil. Send me $40 and $10 for shipping and handling and your > mailing address and i will send you 10 quarts of the finest pre-stressed > conditioned oil. But don't dawdle this is a limited once in a life time > offer. you want fries with that logical thinking diploma you have? here, try some bedtime reading: http://www.npower-oilanalysis.com/ http://www.everytime.cummins.com/sit...on=maintenance |
Re: new Honda CR-V break in
On 01/15/2010 06:56 PM, JRE wrote:
> jim wrote: > > <snip> >> 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 > > Too-lean mixtures combined with unleaded gasoline and valves and seats > made from materials designed to work with leaded gas caused this often > during the transition from leaded to unleaded gas, with no chunks of > carbon involved. > dude, please, don't disturb his fantasy - he's got it all dialed in. |
Re: new Honda CR-V break in
JRE wrote:
> jim wrote: > > <snip> >> 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 > > Too-lean mixtures combined with unleaded gasoline and valves and seats > made from materials designed to work with leaded gas caused this often > during the transition from leaded to unleaded gas, with no chunks of > carbon involved. I did not say all burnt valves were caused by carbon and I agree most are not. The ones that have large holes that look like they were cut with a cutting torch are the ones that indicate that the valve burn happened all at once. the valve goes from being whole to having a big hole in just a few milliseconds. How do I know this? because all burnt exhaust valves are self-limiting. They burn so far and then the cylinder can't fire and the valve will not burn any more after that. The only way a hole can get that big is for it to happen all at once. It can't happen gradually because the hole would stop getting bigger long before it got to that size. Anyway the point I was making is not how the valve burned but that what you do can have consequences under rare circumstances that never get traced back to root causes. You can never really no for sure what you might have done differently that could have produced a different outcome. The best you can do is play the odds. -jim |
Re: new Honda CR-V break in
jim beam wrote: > > > > It is pretty plain English, but who knows how it might translate into > > your fantasy. > > thing is, what you understand comes out of your mouth. but reality and > your mouth don't seem to be connected. but the fault is mine for daring > to say so, right? The fault is yours Yes. When confronted with a simple question or a statement of fact you tuck your tail between your legs and run run run. > > well dude, i'm many things - insufferably pedantic, potty mouthed, a > royal prick, etc. but i also say it just how it is. You forgot "clue less" in your list of attributes. > >> > >>> This study > >>> demonstrates exactly why oil analysis can be misleading > >> > >> eh??? no it doesn't! > > > > And of course as usual you can't say why. > > i can't say why you can read one thing and then misconstrue it to mean > something else!!! well, i can, but then i'd be calling you "stupid" and > "bullshitter" again, right? and apparently you don't like that. I wouldn't care what you said if it were said with any honesty. If fools like you honestly believed that dirty oil protects an engine from wear better than clean oil then all the people who change their oil at 3000 miles would be selling their used oil to fools like you at a profit. I just checked on Ebay - there is not one person selling used oil on Ebay. Why is that? Oh I'm sorry I asked another question now you have to go run and hide again. > > > > > > >> > >>> and why Cummins > >>> engines advises against using oil analysis for determining oil change > >>> intervals. > >> > >> no they don't. read the cites. > > > > Geez did your feeble mind forget the quote from Cummins already? > > > > "Cummins Inc. does not recommend that oil > > analysis be used to determine > > maintenance intervals." > > those are your words. you have not cited a source that i can verify. > otoh, /i/ cited cummins saying the opposite with things like "an oil > analysis program is strongly recommended" and advertising their change > interval extension options. What good is a source that you can verify? You are a fool. Your verification is completely worthless. If you weren't such a lazy whiner you would have cut and past that quote from Cummins into Google and it would take you right to the document from Cummins: http://www.cummins.dk/fileadmin/doku...3810340-04.htm Here is another quote from Cummins that bears directly on the question of wear particles found in used oil analysis: [QUOTE] Commercially available oil testing techniques do not measure depletion of all the chemical additives in the oil, or determine when these additives stop protecting engine parts from wear and deposits. Low wear metal levels in used oil samples can reflect high oil consumption rates and dilution with new oil added to replace that consumed. Low wear metal levels in used oil samples can also reflect additional contamination and wear debris. Engine oil operated beyond this saturation point often drops contamination and wear debris out as sludge. This results in declining wear metal levels at increasing kilometers [miles] or hours on the oil. This does not mean that wear rates are decreasing and oil condition is improving. It means that oil analysis becomes meaningless after the engine oil is excessively contaminated. [END QUOTE] Notice the last sentence in that quote. > > apparently that doesn't bother you, but you've not evidenced any ability > to read or understand, so why change now? > > > er, let me reinsert my words that you so carefully snipped: You are hallucinating again. I didn't snip that I responded to it directly. Meaningful responses apparently completely confound you. > > 'eh? in http://www.swri.org/3pubs/IRD1999/03912699.htm, in the > "Accomplishments" section, it states: > "Testing with partially stressed oil, which contained some wear debris, > produced less wear than testing with clean oil." ' > > that's pretty straight language to most folks. apparently not > comprehensible to you though. The statement is perfectly comprehensible. And it is also wrong. Running the test engine with dirty oil did not produce less wear. It produced less evidence of wear. This is because the dirty oil is not capable of retaining all the wear particles that were produced. As I said this study is 10 years old and the conclusion they reached 10 years ago has long since been discredited. To quote Cummins again: "Engine oil operated beyond this saturation point often drops contamination and wear debris out as sludge. This results in declining wear metal levels at increasing kilometers [miles] or hours on the oil. This does not mean that wear rates are decreasing and oil condition is improving. It means that oil analysis becomes meaningless after the engine oil is excessively contaminated." The study from SWRI indicates that oil starts to become saturated with contaminants at 20 hours of operation. That is the point where they found evidence that the wear particles started to clump together and the oil was no longer capable of holding all the radioactive wear particles in suspension. The factual evidence this study presents appear to be genuine. The conclusion they reached from those facts is what is flawed. Many automotive engineers have over the last 10 years pointed out this flaw in SWRI's reasoning. There is no one with any amount of intelligence that accepts the fact that this study proves that dirty oil causes less wear. The only thing the study proves is that dirty hold can hold less wear particles than clean oil can. That is a simple fact that only fools dispute. And this experiment is very long round about way to figure out a simple fact that had already been known for 60 years. -jim |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:37 AM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands