From: nm5k on
On Mar 30, 10:36 am, "Ulysses" <therealulys...(a)> wrote:

> This must be the longest thread in history of this newsgroup.

Ain't nuttin though, in the overall scheme of newsgroup threads..

> I don't see how anyone can say that a certain interval is correct. If I
> still had my '93 Escort with the 1.9L engine I'd change the oil every 3,000
> miles. In my '91 Explorer with the 4.0 OHV I change it every 20,000 miles
> (more often if I'm feeling real ambitious). If an engine has worn rings etc
> the oil is going to get dirty and diluted faster than if the engine is in
> good shape. The 1.9L and the 4.0L are not the same thing.

But... doesn't that make you wonder how an engine got worn rings, etc
to begin with...
20k interval on the explorer... At that rate, you will need to speed
the interval gradually due to the rings, etc flaking out from living
in dirty
diluted oil for so long. :(
I agree that vehicles differ in the time they take to dirty up oil..
I guess my point is the reason I insist on 5k max is to try to avoid
the worn rings, etc that cause problems farther down the road.
Dirt and dilution is probably the greatest enemy of piston rings and
Like I've said before, the reason I change at 5k is not cuz the oil
is wore out. It may not be. But thats not the point. The point is
to get all the dirt, fuel, water, etc out, along with a fresh filter
to avoid filter flow problems. I don't care if oil lasted 100k miles.
would still not go too far before changing. And I agree with some...
I don't buy pure synth oil, cuz I'm just gonna be dumping it 5k miles
later. I was feeling rich just to splurge on castrol syntech this last
time. Thats the first time I've ever used any type of synth oil, or
I usually use major brand low end dino oil..Usually Mobil, but varies
to what they have on stock at the particular store.
The main reason I decided to use a synth blend in the yota was to
avoid high temp coking or gelling in hot weather a bit better.
But even with dino oil, at my 5k change rate, coking is not likely
to be a problem. I'd never go 20k intervals, but if I did, I'd
change the filter every 3-5k miles at the very least to avoid filter

From: Ray on
clare at wrote:
> What's the last "bad engine design" that just plain broke???
> That could not be traced to poor maintenance(even if the required
> maintenance was more often than you approve of?) Even the nasty
> Mitsubishi 2600 (used by Chrysler, and cursed by thousands) stood up
> very well with proper lubrication, changed often enough.

From: Ed White on
On Mar 30, 2:06 pm, Ray <r...(a)> wrote:


The Center for Auto Safety is funded by trail lawyer that web site is
designed to drum up buisness for trail lawyers. While they might not
make stuff up, I wouldn't count on CAS providing fair and balanced
information. The web site is just another commercial like the ones
amulance chasers run on TV.


From: clare at on
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 08:18:03 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven(a)>

>clare at wrote:
>> In your world, perhaps. In the real world, the thermostat often opens
>> all the way,
>Not just often, virtually always. Have you ever tested a thermostat by
>submerging it into water then heating the water?
Many times. Used to be part of the annual "winterizing" service.
> It's a very tiny range
>of temperatures, well below operating temperature, where it's only
>partially open. It's designed to be open or closed, not anything in-between.
Well, I said often, because at -20F it could possibly remain closed
over 80% of the time. On my 3.0 Aerostar, the radiator virtually never
got warm from late November to early March. Getting heat out of that
beast was almost impossible without a "winter front" to keep the air
blast from over-cooling the block - didn't matter WHAT thermostat I
ran in it!! Block off the air flow past the rad and engine, and it
would warm up and throw real good heat after about 5 minutes of
In NORMAL use, the thermostat does do some modulating in cool and
temperate climates.

Posted via a free Usenet account from

From: jim on

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.

Of course they were run without a filter. What the test showed was that
clean oil was capable of taken on more additional dirt than dirty oil. A
filter would probably reduce that effect somewhat. It also shows that
after 72 hours of operation the dirty oil is pretty much saturated with
dirt so it doesn't pick up as much whether that dirt is radioactive or


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----