Determining oil change intervals via analysis
#241
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Determining oil change intervals via analysis
jim beam wrote:
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>> jim beam wrote:
>>
>>> Brian Nystrom wrote:
>>>
>>>> Matt Whiting wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In article <gdr6d25l6q81rg35lo413cj8v9ff7pfhfn@4ax.com>,
>>>>>> Bob Adkins <bobad@charter.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Cheap insurance"? ABSOLUTELY. There is no cheaper insurance
>>>>>>>> for an engine than oil changes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You're right to a point.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> However, engine failures are seldom directly oil-related. An
>>>>>>> engine usually
>>>>>>> fails from part failure or abuse long before they wear out from
>>>>>>> infrequent
>>>>>>> oil changes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, but parts can easily fail due to infrequent oil changes.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Which parts and how do they fail?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This should be interesting. I can't wait to see his reply... ;-)
>>>
>>>
>>> so you've never worked in a repair shop then? what makes the
>>> ignorant want to stand about and mock when they could get their asses
>>> on down to a library and do some freakin' homework? "tribology" is
>>> your word of the day. look it up.
>>
>> Just as I thought. No data, just smoke screen.
>>
>> Matt
>
> t-r-i-b-o-l-g-y matt. read about it.
duh, i should learn to spell
t-r-i-b-o-l-o-g-y
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>> jim beam wrote:
>>
>>> Brian Nystrom wrote:
>>>
>>>> Matt Whiting wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In article <gdr6d25l6q81rg35lo413cj8v9ff7pfhfn@4ax.com>,
>>>>>> Bob Adkins <bobad@charter.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Cheap insurance"? ABSOLUTELY. There is no cheaper insurance
>>>>>>>> for an engine than oil changes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You're right to a point.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> However, engine failures are seldom directly oil-related. An
>>>>>>> engine usually
>>>>>>> fails from part failure or abuse long before they wear out from
>>>>>>> infrequent
>>>>>>> oil changes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, but parts can easily fail due to infrequent oil changes.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Which parts and how do they fail?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This should be interesting. I can't wait to see his reply... ;-)
>>>
>>>
>>> so you've never worked in a repair shop then? what makes the
>>> ignorant want to stand about and mock when they could get their asses
>>> on down to a library and do some freakin' homework? "tribology" is
>>> your word of the day. look it up.
>>
>> Just as I thought. No data, just smoke screen.
>>
>> Matt
>
> t-r-i-b-o-l-g-y matt. read about it.
duh, i should learn to spell
t-r-i-b-o-l-o-g-y
#242
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Determining oil change intervals via analysis
Mike Marlow wrote:
> "jim beam" <nospam@example.net> wrote in message
> news:TfGdnTu5w4PdfU7ZnZ2dnUVZ_rednZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
>
>> what is this? a stupidity contest? data abounds all over the place.
>> and have you ever examined a stripped motor under a microscope? i have.
>> wear is directly proportional to contaminant content of the lubricant.
>> seals don't exactly thrive when oil chemistry gets too hostile either.
>
> Correct. But again Jim, this is a red herring. None of the participants in
> this discussion have denied the fundamental and quite obvious truth of your
> statement above. All have only talked about the intervals that can
> realistically - based on real world experiences, be achieved. There is a
> lot that can be hyped in the name of Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt (FUD), but
> time tested truths stand up every time.
>
>> bottom line: if you're trying to in some way assert that modern lubes
>> are better than the old stuff of our forefathers, you'd be absolutely
>> correct. but saying that contamination levels make no difference to
>> wear rates and therefore engine life is dead wrong.
>
> No one said that so it becomes irrelevant to the conversation. Time has
> consistently proven that the change schedules and the oil and filter
> combinations talked about here, do indeed work. People are not reporting
> engine failures. Quite the contrary, people are reporting engine lives
> approaching or exceeding 200,000 miles. For most cars manufactured here or
> across either ocean that's plenty good enough. Other parts of the cars wear
> out by then, making them targets for junk yards or winter rats, or the
> owners simply feel they've gotten enough out of the car and it's time for a
> new one. What more could anyone really ask for?
>
a motor that burns less oil and is more fuel efficient, that's what! a
motor that barely runs at 200k is a whole lot more expensive compared
with one that runs /well/ at 200k.
> "jim beam" <nospam@example.net> wrote in message
> news:TfGdnTu5w4PdfU7ZnZ2dnUVZ_rednZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
>
>> what is this? a stupidity contest? data abounds all over the place.
>> and have you ever examined a stripped motor under a microscope? i have.
>> wear is directly proportional to contaminant content of the lubricant.
>> seals don't exactly thrive when oil chemistry gets too hostile either.
>
> Correct. But again Jim, this is a red herring. None of the participants in
> this discussion have denied the fundamental and quite obvious truth of your
> statement above. All have only talked about the intervals that can
> realistically - based on real world experiences, be achieved. There is a
> lot that can be hyped in the name of Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt (FUD), but
> time tested truths stand up every time.
>
>> bottom line: if you're trying to in some way assert that modern lubes
>> are better than the old stuff of our forefathers, you'd be absolutely
>> correct. but saying that contamination levels make no difference to
>> wear rates and therefore engine life is dead wrong.
>
> No one said that so it becomes irrelevant to the conversation. Time has
> consistently proven that the change schedules and the oil and filter
> combinations talked about here, do indeed work. People are not reporting
> engine failures. Quite the contrary, people are reporting engine lives
> approaching or exceeding 200,000 miles. For most cars manufactured here or
> across either ocean that's plenty good enough. Other parts of the cars wear
> out by then, making them targets for junk yards or winter rats, or the
> owners simply feel they've gotten enough out of the car and it's time for a
> new one. What more could anyone really ask for?
>
a motor that burns less oil and is more fuel efficient, that's what! a
motor that barely runs at 200k is a whole lot more expensive compared
with one that runs /well/ at 200k.
#243
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Determining oil change intervals via analysis
Mike Marlow wrote:
> "jim beam" <nospam@example.net> wrote in message
> news:TfGdnTu5w4PdfU7ZnZ2dnUVZ_rednZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
>
>> what is this? a stupidity contest? data abounds all over the place.
>> and have you ever examined a stripped motor under a microscope? i have.
>> wear is directly proportional to contaminant content of the lubricant.
>> seals don't exactly thrive when oil chemistry gets too hostile either.
>
> Correct. But again Jim, this is a red herring. None of the participants in
> this discussion have denied the fundamental and quite obvious truth of your
> statement above. All have only talked about the intervals that can
> realistically - based on real world experiences, be achieved. There is a
> lot that can be hyped in the name of Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt (FUD), but
> time tested truths stand up every time.
>
>> bottom line: if you're trying to in some way assert that modern lubes
>> are better than the old stuff of our forefathers, you'd be absolutely
>> correct. but saying that contamination levels make no difference to
>> wear rates and therefore engine life is dead wrong.
>
> No one said that so it becomes irrelevant to the conversation. Time has
> consistently proven that the change schedules and the oil and filter
> combinations talked about here, do indeed work. People are not reporting
> engine failures. Quite the contrary, people are reporting engine lives
> approaching or exceeding 200,000 miles. For most cars manufactured here or
> across either ocean that's plenty good enough. Other parts of the cars wear
> out by then, making them targets for junk yards or winter rats, or the
> owners simply feel they've gotten enough out of the car and it's time for a
> new one. What more could anyone really ask for?
>
a motor that burns less oil and is more fuel efficient, that's what! a
motor that barely runs at 200k is a whole lot more expensive compared
with one that runs /well/ at 200k.
> "jim beam" <nospam@example.net> wrote in message
> news:TfGdnTu5w4PdfU7ZnZ2dnUVZ_rednZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
>
>> what is this? a stupidity contest? data abounds all over the place.
>> and have you ever examined a stripped motor under a microscope? i have.
>> wear is directly proportional to contaminant content of the lubricant.
>> seals don't exactly thrive when oil chemistry gets too hostile either.
>
> Correct. But again Jim, this is a red herring. None of the participants in
> this discussion have denied the fundamental and quite obvious truth of your
> statement above. All have only talked about the intervals that can
> realistically - based on real world experiences, be achieved. There is a
> lot that can be hyped in the name of Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt (FUD), but
> time tested truths stand up every time.
>
>> bottom line: if you're trying to in some way assert that modern lubes
>> are better than the old stuff of our forefathers, you'd be absolutely
>> correct. but saying that contamination levels make no difference to
>> wear rates and therefore engine life is dead wrong.
>
> No one said that so it becomes irrelevant to the conversation. Time has
> consistently proven that the change schedules and the oil and filter
> combinations talked about here, do indeed work. People are not reporting
> engine failures. Quite the contrary, people are reporting engine lives
> approaching or exceeding 200,000 miles. For most cars manufactured here or
> across either ocean that's plenty good enough. Other parts of the cars wear
> out by then, making them targets for junk yards or winter rats, or the
> owners simply feel they've gotten enough out of the car and it's time for a
> new one. What more could anyone really ask for?
>
a motor that burns less oil and is more fuel efficient, that's what! a
motor that barely runs at 200k is a whole lot more expensive compared
with one that runs /well/ at 200k.
#244
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Determining oil change intervals via analysis
Mike Marlow wrote:
> "jim beam" <nospam@example.net> wrote in message
> news:TfGdnTu5w4PdfU7ZnZ2dnUVZ_rednZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
>
>> what is this? a stupidity contest? data abounds all over the place.
>> and have you ever examined a stripped motor under a microscope? i have.
>> wear is directly proportional to contaminant content of the lubricant.
>> seals don't exactly thrive when oil chemistry gets too hostile either.
>
> Correct. But again Jim, this is a red herring. None of the participants in
> this discussion have denied the fundamental and quite obvious truth of your
> statement above. All have only talked about the intervals that can
> realistically - based on real world experiences, be achieved. There is a
> lot that can be hyped in the name of Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt (FUD), but
> time tested truths stand up every time.
>
>> bottom line: if you're trying to in some way assert that modern lubes
>> are better than the old stuff of our forefathers, you'd be absolutely
>> correct. but saying that contamination levels make no difference to
>> wear rates and therefore engine life is dead wrong.
>
> No one said that so it becomes irrelevant to the conversation. Time has
> consistently proven that the change schedules and the oil and filter
> combinations talked about here, do indeed work. People are not reporting
> engine failures. Quite the contrary, people are reporting engine lives
> approaching or exceeding 200,000 miles. For most cars manufactured here or
> across either ocean that's plenty good enough. Other parts of the cars wear
> out by then, making them targets for junk yards or winter rats, or the
> owners simply feel they've gotten enough out of the car and it's time for a
> new one. What more could anyone really ask for?
>
a motor that burns less oil and is more fuel efficient, that's what! a
motor that barely runs at 200k is a whole lot more expensive compared
with one that runs /well/ at 200k.
> "jim beam" <nospam@example.net> wrote in message
> news:TfGdnTu5w4PdfU7ZnZ2dnUVZ_rednZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
>
>> what is this? a stupidity contest? data abounds all over the place.
>> and have you ever examined a stripped motor under a microscope? i have.
>> wear is directly proportional to contaminant content of the lubricant.
>> seals don't exactly thrive when oil chemistry gets too hostile either.
>
> Correct. But again Jim, this is a red herring. None of the participants in
> this discussion have denied the fundamental and quite obvious truth of your
> statement above. All have only talked about the intervals that can
> realistically - based on real world experiences, be achieved. There is a
> lot that can be hyped in the name of Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt (FUD), but
> time tested truths stand up every time.
>
>> bottom line: if you're trying to in some way assert that modern lubes
>> are better than the old stuff of our forefathers, you'd be absolutely
>> correct. but saying that contamination levels make no difference to
>> wear rates and therefore engine life is dead wrong.
>
> No one said that so it becomes irrelevant to the conversation. Time has
> consistently proven that the change schedules and the oil and filter
> combinations talked about here, do indeed work. People are not reporting
> engine failures. Quite the contrary, people are reporting engine lives
> approaching or exceeding 200,000 miles. For most cars manufactured here or
> across either ocean that's plenty good enough. Other parts of the cars wear
> out by then, making them targets for junk yards or winter rats, or the
> owners simply feel they've gotten enough out of the car and it's time for a
> new one. What more could anyone really ask for?
>
a motor that burns less oil and is more fuel efficient, that's what! a
motor that barely runs at 200k is a whole lot more expensive compared
with one that runs /well/ at 200k.
#245
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Determining oil change intervals via analysis
"jim beam" <nospam@example.net> wrote in message
news:nv6dnQergNMmck7ZnZ2dnUVZ_rmdnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
>
> duh, i should learn to spell
>
> t-r-i-b-o-l-o-g-y
Don't worry about it. This is the internet Jim. If you make a spelling
mistake someone will surely come along and let you know about it. And of
course, since it obviously so important, they'll surely offer up the
suggested proper spelling as well. Just to help out, of course...
--
-Mike-
mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net
#246
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Determining oil change intervals via analysis
"jim beam" <nospam@example.net> wrote in message
news:nv6dnQergNMmck7ZnZ2dnUVZ_rmdnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
>
> duh, i should learn to spell
>
> t-r-i-b-o-l-o-g-y
Don't worry about it. This is the internet Jim. If you make a spelling
mistake someone will surely come along and let you know about it. And of
course, since it obviously so important, they'll surely offer up the
suggested proper spelling as well. Just to help out, of course...
--
-Mike-
mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net
#247
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Determining oil change intervals via analysis
"jim beam" <nospam@example.net> wrote in message
news:nv6dnQergNMmck7ZnZ2dnUVZ_rmdnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
>
> duh, i should learn to spell
>
> t-r-i-b-o-l-o-g-y
Don't worry about it. This is the internet Jim. If you make a spelling
mistake someone will surely come along and let you know about it. And of
course, since it obviously so important, they'll surely offer up the
suggested proper spelling as well. Just to help out, of course...
--
-Mike-
mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net
#248
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Determining oil change intervals via analysis
"jim beam" <nospam@example.net> wrote in message
news:zLidnYxB6u0ub07ZnZ2dnUVZ_tOdnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
> a motor that burns less oil and is more fuel efficient, that's what! a
> motor that barely runs at 200k is a whole lot more expensive compared
> with one that runs /well/ at 200k.
Hey Jim - I'm not ragging on you, but this is the kind of thing that is very
frustrating in a discussion. Many have talked about long term experiences
gaining exactly that - a 200,000 mile engine that runs well. When you throw
a red herring out there about engines that are barely running, it's just a
noise level in the discussion. A statement like the one above really only
discredits your position because it not only ignores the evidence of
experience but it attempts to cloud the discussion with irrelevant clutter.
I'm kind of hoping you can and do produce something a bit more factual and
relevant to support your position. Maybe it won't cause me to change my
habits but it would be worth seeing something factual, if for no other
reason than the knowledge gain. I don't think you're full of hot air, or
that your ideas are all wet. Rather, I still don't see the real world value
they would add to what I already do.
It may be that I decide there is no sufficient benefit to your ideas and
that I'll continue with my own practices. That all by itself does not
discredit what you do or what you support - it only says it doesn't offer
enough for me. It may also be that if this discussion actually reached a
level where some sort of empirical evidence was put forth, it might be
obvious that the incremental value of more frequent changes, oil analysis,
etc. simply do not offer a statistically significant benefit.
--
-Mike-
mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net
#249
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Determining oil change intervals via analysis
"jim beam" <nospam@example.net> wrote in message
news:zLidnYxB6u0ub07ZnZ2dnUVZ_tOdnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
> a motor that burns less oil and is more fuel efficient, that's what! a
> motor that barely runs at 200k is a whole lot more expensive compared
> with one that runs /well/ at 200k.
Hey Jim - I'm not ragging on you, but this is the kind of thing that is very
frustrating in a discussion. Many have talked about long term experiences
gaining exactly that - a 200,000 mile engine that runs well. When you throw
a red herring out there about engines that are barely running, it's just a
noise level in the discussion. A statement like the one above really only
discredits your position because it not only ignores the evidence of
experience but it attempts to cloud the discussion with irrelevant clutter.
I'm kind of hoping you can and do produce something a bit more factual and
relevant to support your position. Maybe it won't cause me to change my
habits but it would be worth seeing something factual, if for no other
reason than the knowledge gain. I don't think you're full of hot air, or
that your ideas are all wet. Rather, I still don't see the real world value
they would add to what I already do.
It may be that I decide there is no sufficient benefit to your ideas and
that I'll continue with my own practices. That all by itself does not
discredit what you do or what you support - it only says it doesn't offer
enough for me. It may also be that if this discussion actually reached a
level where some sort of empirical evidence was put forth, it might be
obvious that the incremental value of more frequent changes, oil analysis,
etc. simply do not offer a statistically significant benefit.
--
-Mike-
mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net
#250
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Determining oil change intervals via analysis
"jim beam" <nospam@example.net> wrote in message
news:zLidnYxB6u0ub07ZnZ2dnUVZ_tOdnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
> a motor that burns less oil and is more fuel efficient, that's what! a
> motor that barely runs at 200k is a whole lot more expensive compared
> with one that runs /well/ at 200k.
Hey Jim - I'm not ragging on you, but this is the kind of thing that is very
frustrating in a discussion. Many have talked about long term experiences
gaining exactly that - a 200,000 mile engine that runs well. When you throw
a red herring out there about engines that are barely running, it's just a
noise level in the discussion. A statement like the one above really only
discredits your position because it not only ignores the evidence of
experience but it attempts to cloud the discussion with irrelevant clutter.
I'm kind of hoping you can and do produce something a bit more factual and
relevant to support your position. Maybe it won't cause me to change my
habits but it would be worth seeing something factual, if for no other
reason than the knowledge gain. I don't think you're full of hot air, or
that your ideas are all wet. Rather, I still don't see the real world value
they would add to what I already do.
It may be that I decide there is no sufficient benefit to your ideas and
that I'll continue with my own practices. That all by itself does not
discredit what you do or what you support - it only says it doesn't offer
enough for me. It may also be that if this discussion actually reached a
level where some sort of empirical evidence was put forth, it might be
obvious that the incremental value of more frequent changes, oil analysis,
etc. simply do not offer a statistically significant benefit.
--
-Mike-
mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net
#251
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Determining oil change intervals via analysis
Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article <WNPAg.220$Db4.20522@news1.epix.net>,
> Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote:
>
>
>>>Well, but parts can easily fail due to infrequent oil changes.
>>
>>Which parts and how do they fail?
>
>
> http://www.tegger.com/hondafaq/sludg...ng_sludge.html
Yes, some Toyota engines and one Chrysler engine (the 2.7 as I recall)
have design errors that cause sludge formation. Frequent oil changes
have little affect on this, but changing to synthetic helps a lot.
And something is really fishy with this story. I don't believe the 8700
miles for a second. Even sludge prone engines won't build this much
sludge in that little mileage. There is more to this than meets the
eye. I suspect odometer tampering or possibly even an engine swap with
a high mileage engine in order to use the new one for anothe vehicle.
Matt
> In article <WNPAg.220$Db4.20522@news1.epix.net>,
> Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote:
>
>
>>>Well, but parts can easily fail due to infrequent oil changes.
>>
>>Which parts and how do they fail?
>
>
> http://www.tegger.com/hondafaq/sludg...ng_sludge.html
Yes, some Toyota engines and one Chrysler engine (the 2.7 as I recall)
have design errors that cause sludge formation. Frequent oil changes
have little affect on this, but changing to synthetic helps a lot.
And something is really fishy with this story. I don't believe the 8700
miles for a second. Even sludge prone engines won't build this much
sludge in that little mileage. There is more to this than meets the
eye. I suspect odometer tampering or possibly even an engine swap with
a high mileage engine in order to use the new one for anothe vehicle.
Matt
#252
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Determining oil change intervals via analysis
Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article <WNPAg.220$Db4.20522@news1.epix.net>,
> Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote:
>
>
>>>Well, but parts can easily fail due to infrequent oil changes.
>>
>>Which parts and how do they fail?
>
>
> http://www.tegger.com/hondafaq/sludg...ng_sludge.html
Yes, some Toyota engines and one Chrysler engine (the 2.7 as I recall)
have design errors that cause sludge formation. Frequent oil changes
have little affect on this, but changing to synthetic helps a lot.
And something is really fishy with this story. I don't believe the 8700
miles for a second. Even sludge prone engines won't build this much
sludge in that little mileage. There is more to this than meets the
eye. I suspect odometer tampering or possibly even an engine swap with
a high mileage engine in order to use the new one for anothe vehicle.
Matt
> In article <WNPAg.220$Db4.20522@news1.epix.net>,
> Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote:
>
>
>>>Well, but parts can easily fail due to infrequent oil changes.
>>
>>Which parts and how do they fail?
>
>
> http://www.tegger.com/hondafaq/sludg...ng_sludge.html
Yes, some Toyota engines and one Chrysler engine (the 2.7 as I recall)
have design errors that cause sludge formation. Frequent oil changes
have little affect on this, but changing to synthetic helps a lot.
And something is really fishy with this story. I don't believe the 8700
miles for a second. Even sludge prone engines won't build this much
sludge in that little mileage. There is more to this than meets the
eye. I suspect odometer tampering or possibly even an engine swap with
a high mileage engine in order to use the new one for anothe vehicle.
Matt
#253
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Determining oil change intervals via analysis
Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article <WNPAg.220$Db4.20522@news1.epix.net>,
> Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote:
>
>
>>>Well, but parts can easily fail due to infrequent oil changes.
>>
>>Which parts and how do they fail?
>
>
> http://www.tegger.com/hondafaq/sludg...ng_sludge.html
Yes, some Toyota engines and one Chrysler engine (the 2.7 as I recall)
have design errors that cause sludge formation. Frequent oil changes
have little affect on this, but changing to synthetic helps a lot.
And something is really fishy with this story. I don't believe the 8700
miles for a second. Even sludge prone engines won't build this much
sludge in that little mileage. There is more to this than meets the
eye. I suspect odometer tampering or possibly even an engine swap with
a high mileage engine in order to use the new one for anothe vehicle.
Matt
> In article <WNPAg.220$Db4.20522@news1.epix.net>,
> Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote:
>
>
>>>Well, but parts can easily fail due to infrequent oil changes.
>>
>>Which parts and how do they fail?
>
>
> http://www.tegger.com/hondafaq/sludg...ng_sludge.html
Yes, some Toyota engines and one Chrysler engine (the 2.7 as I recall)
have design errors that cause sludge formation. Frequent oil changes
have little affect on this, but changing to synthetic helps a lot.
And something is really fishy with this story. I don't believe the 8700
miles for a second. Even sludge prone engines won't build this much
sludge in that little mileage. There is more to this than meets the
eye. I suspect odometer tampering or possibly even an engine swap with
a high mileage engine in order to use the new one for anothe vehicle.
Matt
#254
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Determining oil change intervals via analysis
Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article <gIQAg.53$z12.35@trndny02>,
> Brian Nystrom <brian.nystrom@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>>>>Well, but parts can easily fail due to infrequent oil changes.
>>>
>>>
>>>Which parts and how do they fail?
>>
>>This should be interesting. I can't wait to see his reply... ;-)
>
>
> http://www.tegger.com/hondafaq/sludg...ng_sludge.html
>
I didn't see any failed parts here, just lots of sludge. :-)
And as I already replied, this story just doesn't hold water and isn't
credible.
Matt
> In article <gIQAg.53$z12.35@trndny02>,
> Brian Nystrom <brian.nystrom@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>>>>Well, but parts can easily fail due to infrequent oil changes.
>>>
>>>
>>>Which parts and how do they fail?
>>
>>This should be interesting. I can't wait to see his reply... ;-)
>
>
> http://www.tegger.com/hondafaq/sludg...ng_sludge.html
>
I didn't see any failed parts here, just lots of sludge. :-)
And as I already replied, this story just doesn't hold water and isn't
credible.
Matt
#255
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Determining oil change intervals via analysis
Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article <gIQAg.53$z12.35@trndny02>,
> Brian Nystrom <brian.nystrom@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>>>>Well, but parts can easily fail due to infrequent oil changes.
>>>
>>>
>>>Which parts and how do they fail?
>>
>>This should be interesting. I can't wait to see his reply... ;-)
>
>
> http://www.tegger.com/hondafaq/sludg...ng_sludge.html
>
I didn't see any failed parts here, just lots of sludge. :-)
And as I already replied, this story just doesn't hold water and isn't
credible.
Matt
> In article <gIQAg.53$z12.35@trndny02>,
> Brian Nystrom <brian.nystrom@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>>>>Well, but parts can easily fail due to infrequent oil changes.
>>>
>>>
>>>Which parts and how do they fail?
>>
>>This should be interesting. I can't wait to see his reply... ;-)
>
>
> http://www.tegger.com/hondafaq/sludg...ng_sludge.html
>
I didn't see any failed parts here, just lots of sludge. :-)
And as I already replied, this story just doesn't hold water and isn't
credible.
Matt