From: Eeyore on 29 Mar 2007 23:08
Steve Barker wrote:
> The plain and simple fact is that MOST cars now days don't get fully warmed
> up EVERY time they are driven. And that puts them in the severe service
> definition. Period. If a car doesn't get driven 30 minutes at highway
> speeds, the oil never reaches full operating temp and needs to be changed
> every 3K. To extend this is just asking for problems.
You're an idiot.
From: Eeyore on 29 Mar 2007 23:09
Steve Barker wrote:
> I don't believe in extended oil changes, $ynthetic lube, or multiviscosity
So clearly the whole motor industry is wrong and you're right ?
From: Mike on 30 Mar 2007 00:40
"John Henderson" <jhenRemoveThis(a)talk21.com> wrote in message
> Mike wrote:
>> Got any proof to back up that claim ? I have to call
>> bullshit on that one,
>> it doesn't even make sense.
> "Testing with partially stressed oil, which contained some wear
> debris, produced less wear than testing with clean oil. This
> finding was unexpected and initially confusing (further inquiry
> suggested that the result was not so surprising, as many oil
> chemistries require time and temperature to enhance their
Thanks for the link, it was an interesting read. If you read all the way
to the end it says that they have not re-run the tests to verify the
results. I would be interested to see if they get the same results the
second time. The only part of the testing I don't agree with is running
without a filter. I just don't see how that cannot affect the outcome. But,
to be fair, all three tests were run without a filter.
From: John Henderson on 30 Mar 2007 00:55
> Thanks for the link, it was an interesting read. If you read
> all the way
> to the end it says that they have not re-run the tests to
> verify the results. I would be interested to see if they get
> the same results the second time. The only part of the testing
> I don't agree with is running without a filter. I just don't
> see how that cannot affect the outcome. But, to be fair, all
> three tests were run without a filter.
It's an interesting topic, and a counter-intuitive finding.
I've read _of_ other university engineering department reports
having similiar findings. But I can't locate references on the
From: Rick on 30 Mar 2007 01:07
"Steve Barker" <ichasetrains(a)some.yahoo.com> wrote in message
> He's right is a few instances. the ford 460 use(d) a water cooled oil
> filter adaptor. The 6.9/7.3 idi diesel has a water to oil cooler. Never
> the less, it still takes a lot longer to get the oil to normal operating
> temp than it does the water. As mentioned before, you can have an open
> thermostat and still have cool to the touch oil.
As does/did in certain applications, 3.0L Vulcan, 3.0L Duratec, 3.5L, 3.8/4.2l, 4.0L SOHC,