Automakers Lengthen Oil Change Intervals
in [Drive]
|
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. Graham
From: Eeyore on 29 Mar 2007 23:09 Steve Barker wrote: > I don't believe in extended oil changes, $ynthetic lube, or multiviscosity > oil. So clearly the whole motor industry is wrong and you're right ? Graham
From: Mike on 30 Mar 2007 00:40 "John Henderson" <jhenRemoveThis(a)talk21.com> wrote in message news:572is9F2bcl3gU3(a)mid.individual.net... > 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 > effectiveness)." > > http://www.swri.org/3pubs/IRD1999/03912699.htm > > John > 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 Mike wrote: > 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 'net. John
From: Rick on 30 Mar 2007 01:07
"Steve Barker" <ichasetrains(a)some.yahoo.com> wrote in message news:jNGdnZQNRsZJg5HbnZ2dnUVZ_v-tnZ2d(a)giganews.com... > 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, 4.6/5.4/6.8l... |