Elmo P. Shagnasty

In article <H3XOg.6$s85.5@newsfe08.lga>,
"Seth" <seth_lermanNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Now we have computers that take ALL the factors affecting oil life into
> consideration and thus the 3000 OCI of old has morphed into "change the oil
> when the computer says to" with a stage of "here are some different
> intervals based on use" in between.

I would be happier if the computer gave me even a few simple options for
explaining whether I was a conservative worrywart who wanted a very
conservative interval, or whatever.

Seth

"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message
news:elmop-711FE8.14411116092006@nntp2.usenetserver.com...
> In article <H3XOg.6$s85.5@newsfe08.lga>,
> "Seth" <seth_lermanNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Now we have computers that take ALL the factors affecting oil life into
>> consideration and thus the 3000 OCI of old has morphed into "change the
>> oil
>> when the computer says to" with a stage of "here are some different
>> intervals based on use" in between.
>
> I would be happier if the computer gave me even a few simple options for
> explaining whether I was a conservative worrywart who wanted a very
> conservative interval, or whatever.

Maybe next version?

My wife's mini-van rather than a simple light, gives it in a percentage.
Worriers can do it and reset it at say, 20%???

Seth

"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message
news:elmop-711FE8.14411116092006@nntp2.usenetserver.com...
> In article <H3XOg.6$s85.5@newsfe08.lga>,
> "Seth" <seth_lermanNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Now we have computers that take ALL the factors affecting oil life into
>> consideration and thus the 3000 OCI of old has morphed into "change the
>> oil
>> when the computer says to" with a stage of "here are some different
>> intervals based on use" in between.
>
> I would be happier if the computer gave me even a few simple options for
> explaining whether I was a conservative worrywart who wanted a very
> conservative interval, or whatever.

Maybe next version?

My wife's mini-van rather than a simple light, gives it in a percentage.
Worriers can do it and reset it at say, 20%???

Seth

"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message
news:elmop-711FE8.14411116092006@nntp2.usenetserver.com...
> In article <H3XOg.6$s85.5@newsfe08.lga>,
> "Seth" <seth_lermanNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Now we have computers that take ALL the factors affecting oil life into
>> consideration and thus the 3000 OCI of old has morphed into "change the
>> oil
>> when the computer says to" with a stage of "here are some different
>> intervals based on use" in between.
>
> I would be happier if the computer gave me even a few simple options for
> explaining whether I was a conservative worrywart who wanted a very
> conservative interval, or whatever.

Maybe next version?

My wife's mini-van rather than a simple light, gives it in a percentage.
Worriers can do it and reset it at say, 20%???

televascular

> Now we have computers that take ALL the factors affecting oil life
into
> consideration and thus the 3000 OCI of old has morphed into "change the oil
> when the computer says to" with a stage of "here are some different
> intervals based on use" in between.

>My wife's mini-van rather than a simple light, gives it in a percentage.
>Worriers can do it and reset it at say, 20%???

This is part of my argument: the Oil Life Meter should NOT be
considered the end-all be-all indicator. Like I said, they are very
liberal on oil life because of the "cost of ownership" concerns. Honda
wins that category in many car magazines (especially the Civic and
CR-V), so they are very conscious of the issue.

Also, I thought we were talking about Honda's Oil Life Meter the entire
time. It measures oil life in percentages; they recommend oil to be
changed at 15%. Another reason I don't trust it is because my car sees
the rev limiter very frequently (8,200 rpm) and I have been at 6200mi
when the OLM reads 20%. I often drive fifteen minutes or less (small
town), so one would assume the large number of cold starts would wear
out the oil faster. That was the first red flag that made me think
twice about the meter.

televascular

> Now we have computers that take ALL the factors affecting oil life
into
> consideration and thus the 3000 OCI of old has morphed into "change the oil
> when the computer says to" with a stage of "here are some different
> intervals based on use" in between.

>My wife's mini-van rather than a simple light, gives it in a percentage.
>Worriers can do it and reset it at say, 20%???

This is part of my argument: the Oil Life Meter should NOT be
considered the end-all be-all indicator. Like I said, they are very
liberal on oil life because of the "cost of ownership" concerns. Honda
wins that category in many car magazines (especially the Civic and
CR-V), so they are very conscious of the issue.

Also, I thought we were talking about Honda's Oil Life Meter the entire
time. It measures oil life in percentages; they recommend oil to be
changed at 15%. Another reason I don't trust it is because my car sees
the rev limiter very frequently (8,200 rpm) and I have been at 6200mi
when the OLM reads 20%. I often drive fifteen minutes or less (small
town), so one would assume the large number of cold starts would wear
out the oil faster. That was the first red flag that made me think
twice about the meter.

televascular

> Now we have computers that take ALL the factors affecting oil life
into
> consideration and thus the 3000 OCI of old has morphed into "change the oil
> when the computer says to" with a stage of "here are some different
> intervals based on use" in between.

>My wife's mini-van rather than a simple light, gives it in a percentage.
>Worriers can do it and reset it at say, 20%???

This is part of my argument: the Oil Life Meter should NOT be
considered the end-all be-all indicator. Like I said, they are very
liberal on oil life because of the "cost of ownership" concerns. Honda
wins that category in many car magazines (especially the Civic and
CR-V), so they are very conscious of the issue.

Also, I thought we were talking about Honda's Oil Life Meter the entire
time. It measures oil life in percentages; they recommend oil to be
changed at 15%. Another reason I don't trust it is because my car sees
the rev limiter very frequently (8,200 rpm) and I have been at 6200mi
when the OLM reads 20%. I often drive fifteen minutes or less (small
town), so one would assume the large number of cold starts would wear
out the oil faster. That was the first red flag that made me think
twice about the meter.

Seth

"televascular" <televascular@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1158466524.923136.97010@i42g2000cwa.googlegro ups.com...
> > Now we have computers that take ALL the factors affecting oil life
> into
>> consideration and thus the 3000 OCI of old has morphed into "change the
>> oil
>> when the computer says to" with a stage of "here are some different
>> intervals based on use" in between.
>
>>My wife's mini-van rather than a simple light, gives it in a percentage.
>>Worriers can do it and reset it at say, 20%???
>
> This is part of my argument: the Oil Life Meter should NOT be
> considered the end-all be-all indicator. Like I said, they are very
> liberal on oil life because of the "cost of ownership" concerns. Honda
> wins that category in many car magazines (especially the Civic and
> CR-V), so they are very conscious of the issue.

Repairs due to maintenence are part of the "cost of ownership" equation.
Part of why they wil in that category is by not breaking down as much thus
requiring costly repairs.

> Also, I thought we were talking about Honda's Oil Life Meter the entire
> time. It measures oil life in percentages; they recommend oil to be
> changed at 15%. Another reason I don't trust it is because my car sees
> the rev limiter very frequently (8,200 rpm) and I have been at 6200mi
> when the OLM reads 20%. I often drive fifteen minutes or less (small
> town), so one would assume the large number of cold starts would wear
> out the oil faster. That was the first red flag that made me think
> twice about the meter.

What does it matter who's oil life meter we're talking about? They all may
be a little different from each other, but they will all take more factors
other than just mileage into account.

If you weren't hitting the rev limiter, the meter might have shows 30% at
6200 instead of just 20%. That means it's working as it should looking at
all the factors.

You want to change your oil earlier than recommended, go ahead. My entire
point in this thread has been that blanket advice without using all the
factors is bunk. And when people give advice that differs from others they
will be challenged on it. You could go ahead and change your oil at 1500
and I won't care. When you recommend others do the same despite changes in
modern engineering (i.e. engines are better, oil is better and we have
better ways of predicting it's condition), someone will challenge that
advice.

Seth

"televascular" <televascular@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1158466524.923136.97010@i42g2000cwa.googlegro ups.com...
> > Now we have computers that take ALL the factors affecting oil life
> into
>> consideration and thus the 3000 OCI of old has morphed into "change the
>> oil
>> when the computer says to" with a stage of "here are some different
>> intervals based on use" in between.
>
>>My wife's mini-van rather than a simple light, gives it in a percentage.
>>Worriers can do it and reset it at say, 20%???
>
> This is part of my argument: the Oil Life Meter should NOT be
> considered the end-all be-all indicator. Like I said, they are very
> liberal on oil life because of the "cost of ownership" concerns. Honda
> wins that category in many car magazines (especially the Civic and
> CR-V), so they are very conscious of the issue.

Repairs due to maintenence are part of the "cost of ownership" equation.
Part of why they wil in that category is by not breaking down as much thus
requiring costly repairs.

> Also, I thought we were talking about Honda's Oil Life Meter the entire
> time. It measures oil life in percentages; they recommend oil to be
> changed at 15%. Another reason I don't trust it is because my car sees
> the rev limiter very frequently (8,200 rpm) and I have been at 6200mi
> when the OLM reads 20%. I often drive fifteen minutes or less (small
> town), so one would assume the large number of cold starts would wear
> out the oil faster. That was the first red flag that made me think
> twice about the meter.

What does it matter who's oil life meter we're talking about? They all may
be a little different from each other, but they will all take more factors
other than just mileage into account.

If you weren't hitting the rev limiter, the meter might have shows 30% at
6200 instead of just 20%. That means it's working as it should looking at
all the factors.

You want to change your oil earlier than recommended, go ahead. My entire
point in this thread has been that blanket advice without using all the
factors is bunk. And when people give advice that differs from others they
will be challenged on it. You could go ahead and change your oil at 1500
and I won't care. When you recommend others do the same despite changes in
modern engineering (i.e. engines are better, oil is better and we have
better ways of predicting it's condition), someone will challenge that
advice.

Seth

"televascular" <televascular@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1158466524.923136.97010@i42g2000cwa.googlegro ups.com...
> > Now we have computers that take ALL the factors affecting oil life
> into
>> consideration and thus the 3000 OCI of old has morphed into "change the
>> oil
>> when the computer says to" with a stage of "here are some different
>> intervals based on use" in between.
>
>>My wife's mini-van rather than a simple light, gives it in a percentage.
>>Worriers can do it and reset it at say, 20%???
>
> This is part of my argument: the Oil Life Meter should NOT be
> considered the end-all be-all indicator. Like I said, they are very
> liberal on oil life because of the "cost of ownership" concerns. Honda
> wins that category in many car magazines (especially the Civic and
> CR-V), so they are very conscious of the issue.

Repairs due to maintenence are part of the "cost of ownership" equation.
Part of why they wil in that category is by not breaking down as much thus
requiring costly repairs.

> Also, I thought we were talking about Honda's Oil Life Meter the entire
> time. It measures oil life in percentages; they recommend oil to be
> changed at 15%. Another reason I don't trust it is because my car sees
> the rev limiter very frequently (8,200 rpm) and I have been at 6200mi
> when the OLM reads 20%. I often drive fifteen minutes or less (small
> town), so one would assume the large number of cold starts would wear
> out the oil faster. That was the first red flag that made me think
> twice about the meter.

What does it matter who's oil life meter we're talking about? They all may
be a little different from each other, but they will all take more factors
other than just mileage into account.

If you weren't hitting the rev limiter, the meter might have shows 30% at
6200 instead of just 20%. That means it's working as it should looking at
all the factors.

You want to change your oil earlier than recommended, go ahead. My entire
point in this thread has been that blanket advice without using all the
factors is bunk. And when people give advice that differs from others they
will be challenged on it. You could go ahead and change your oil at 1500
and I won't care. When you recommend others do the same despite changes in
modern engineering (i.e. engines are better, oil is better and we have
better ways of predicting it's condition), someone will challenge that
advice.

televascular

Seth wrote:

> You want to change your oil earlier than recommended, go ahead. My entire
> point in this thread has been that blanket advice without using all the
> factors is bunk. And when people give advice that differs from others they
> will be challenged on it. You could go ahead and change your oil at 1500
> and I won't care. When you recommend others do the same despite changes in
> modern engineering (i.e. engines are better, oil is better and we have
> better ways of predicting it's condition), someone will challenge that
> advice.

Not much of what I said has stuck with you. No way would I ever
recommend changing oil regularly at 1,500 miles; that is an inexcusable
waste of oil and money. Maybe it's worth it if you drive your car once
a year, or twenty hours per day. Granted, a car with it's oil changed
every 500 miles will last much, much longer than a car with oil changed
every 7,500. It's an issue of ethics; hopefully, no one is that
desperate to become an enemy of the environment.

I welcome opposing opinions, it gets a good discussion going. So here:

Engines are "better", yes; advances in technology allow tighter
tolerances, hotter temperatures, and more complex moving parts without
risk of failure. This puts even more strain on engine oil, and car
manufacturers can do this because they know that the easily available
motor oils on the market have improved and can handle this. But the
only major improvement in engine oil is the quality/price of synthetic
oil since its first appearance in the seventies; traditional oil
companies have changed their additive packages (sometimes up to three
times a year), but their base stock hasn't improved. In fact, most oil
companies don't create their own stock, but buy it from other well
established companies in bulk. Pennzoil buys stock from Mobil 1, for
instance. Group IV and V stock is superior to anything on the market,
but the *endurance* of the oil has still not been proven to last longer
than dino oil. Thus, engines have become tougher on oil, and while
non-synthetic oil has improved greatly in the area of extreme
pressure/anti-wear additives, the advances in oil longevity are
negligent! This is why most car companies have been suggesting the
3,750/5,000mi service interval since the eighties, and still do,
regardless of using dino or synthetic.

televascular

Seth wrote:

> You want to change your oil earlier than recommended, go ahead. My entire
> point in this thread has been that blanket advice without using all the
> factors is bunk. And when people give advice that differs from others they
> will be challenged on it. You could go ahead and change your oil at 1500
> and I won't care. When you recommend others do the same despite changes in
> modern engineering (i.e. engines are better, oil is better and we have
> better ways of predicting it's condition), someone will challenge that
> advice.

Not much of what I said has stuck with you. No way would I ever
recommend changing oil regularly at 1,500 miles; that is an inexcusable
waste of oil and money. Maybe it's worth it if you drive your car once
a year, or twenty hours per day. Granted, a car with it's oil changed
every 500 miles will last much, much longer than a car with oil changed
every 7,500. It's an issue of ethics; hopefully, no one is that
desperate to become an enemy of the environment.

I welcome opposing opinions, it gets a good discussion going. So here:

Engines are "better", yes; advances in technology allow tighter
tolerances, hotter temperatures, and more complex moving parts without
risk of failure. This puts even more strain on engine oil, and car
manufacturers can do this because they know that the easily available
motor oils on the market have improved and can handle this. But the
only major improvement in engine oil is the quality/price of synthetic
oil since its first appearance in the seventies; traditional oil
companies have changed their additive packages (sometimes up to three
times a year), but their base stock hasn't improved. In fact, most oil
companies don't create their own stock, but buy it from other well
established companies in bulk. Pennzoil buys stock from Mobil 1, for
instance. Group IV and V stock is superior to anything on the market,
but the *endurance* of the oil has still not been proven to last longer
than dino oil. Thus, engines have become tougher on oil, and while
non-synthetic oil has improved greatly in the area of extreme
pressure/anti-wear additives, the advances in oil longevity are
negligent! This is why most car companies have been suggesting the
3,750/5,000mi service interval since the eighties, and still do,
regardless of using dino or synthetic.

televascular

Seth wrote:

> You want to change your oil earlier than recommended, go ahead. My entire
> point in this thread has been that blanket advice without using all the
> factors is bunk. And when people give advice that differs from others they
> will be challenged on it. You could go ahead and change your oil at 1500
> and I won't care. When you recommend others do the same despite changes in
> modern engineering (i.e. engines are better, oil is better and we have
> better ways of predicting it's condition), someone will challenge that
> advice.

Not much of what I said has stuck with you. No way would I ever
recommend changing oil regularly at 1,500 miles; that is an inexcusable
waste of oil and money. Maybe it's worth it if you drive your car once
a year, or twenty hours per day. Granted, a car with it's oil changed
every 500 miles will last much, much longer than a car with oil changed
every 7,500. It's an issue of ethics; hopefully, no one is that
desperate to become an enemy of the environment.

I welcome opposing opinions, it gets a good discussion going. So here:

Engines are "better", yes; advances in technology allow tighter
tolerances, hotter temperatures, and more complex moving parts without
risk of failure. This puts even more strain on engine oil, and car
manufacturers can do this because they know that the easily available
motor oils on the market have improved and can handle this. But the
only major improvement in engine oil is the quality/price of synthetic
oil since its first appearance in the seventies; traditional oil
companies have changed their additive packages (sometimes up to three
times a year), but their base stock hasn't improved. In fact, most oil
companies don't create their own stock, but buy it from other well
established companies in bulk. Pennzoil buys stock from Mobil 1, for
instance. Group IV and V stock is superior to anything on the market,
but the *endurance* of the oil has still not been proven to last longer
than dino oil. Thus, engines have become tougher on oil, and while
non-synthetic oil has improved greatly in the area of extreme
pressure/anti-wear additives, the advances in oil longevity are
negligent! This is why most car companies have been suggesting the
3,750/5,000mi service interval since the eighties, and still do,
regardless of using dino or synthetic.

Elle

"televascular" <televascular@yahoo.com> wrote
> Granted, a car with it's oil changed
> every 500 miles will last much, much longer than a car
> with oil changed
> every 7,500.

At some point, more frequent changes add no further life to
the engine. That point may very well be around 3000 miles
per oil change (with a commensurate time limit).

I think there is no basis (data, common sense, or otherwise)
for saying an engine will last "much, much longer" the more
often one changes the oil.

Elle

"televascular" <televascular@yahoo.com> wrote
> Granted, a car with it's oil changed
> every 500 miles will last much, much longer than a car
> with oil changed
> every 7,500.

At some point, more frequent changes add no further life to
the engine. That point may very well be around 3000 miles
per oil change (with a commensurate time limit).

I think there is no basis (data, common sense, or otherwise)
for saying an engine will last "much, much longer" the more
often one changes the oil.