for the guys that are into recreational oil changing...
in [Technical]
|
From: Tegger on 1 Apr 2010 14:15 "Obveeus" <Obveeus(a)aol.com> wrote in news:hp28cs$hth$1(a)news.eternal-september.org: > > "Tegger" <invalid(a)invalid.inv> wrote in message > news:Xns9D4CCE8BC8E62tegger(a)208.90.168.18... >> "Obveeus" <Obveeus(a)aol.com> wrote in >> news:hovjra$9p0$1(a)news.eternal-september.org: >> >>> Exposure to all the chemicals also causes many health >>> problems. >> >> Question for you: What's a "chemical"? > > Did that statement really need to read as: 'Exposure to all the > *harmful* chemicals also causes many health problems.' for you to > understand it? > > So "chemical" and "harmful" are one and the same to you? Define "chemical". -- Tegger
From: Tegger on 1 Apr 2010 14:17 jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m(a)mwt,net> wrote in news:78GdnRLH3Kn8TCnWnZ2dnUVZ_vSdnZ2d(a)bright.net: > > I'll put it in terms that even a simpleton should be able to understand. Thank you for accommodating me. > > Somebody said > > "These minute particles pose no danger to > your engine, but they cause the oil to darken." > > I responded that although that holds true most of the time there can be > unusual circumstances where those fine particles do cause harm. > That statement is much more clearly written than your previous jumble. -- Tegger
From: Obveeus on 1 Apr 2010 14:28 "Tegger" <invalid(a)invalid.inv> wrote: > "Obveeus" <Obveeus(a)aol.com> wrote in >> "Tegger" <invalid(a)invalid.inv> wrote in message >> news:Xns9D4CCE8BC8E62tegger(a)208.90.168.18... >>> "Obveeus" <Obveeus(a)aol.com> wrote in >>> news:hovjra$9p0$1(a)news.eternal-september.org: >>> >>>> Exposure to all the chemicals also causes many health >>>> problems. >>> >>> Question for you: What's a "chemical"? >> >> Did that statement really need to read as: 'Exposure to all the >> *harmful* chemicals also causes many health problems.' for you to >> understand it? > > So "chemical" and "harmful" are one and the same to you? Clearly, the above does not say that. Why are you acting stupid? > Define "chemical". No desire to play your little agenda game. Defining 'chemical' will in no way lead to a greater depth of dicussion on why it is bad to needlessly expose yourself to harmful chemicals. Keep cleaning/disinfecting your home hourly if you believe that it won't/can't hurt you.
From: Michael on 1 Apr 2010 14:56 On Mar 29, 5:41 pm, jim beam <m...(a)privacy.net> wrote: > http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/TechnologyDevelopment/OPPTD_FLY_High-Efficienc... > > shock, horror, they used oil analysis to arrive at these recommendations! > > -- > nomina rutrum rutrum Interesting point: "The HE filters used in this study claimed filtration of particles to 1-2 [microns], much better than standard filters of 30-50 [microns]. Using standard filters is one reason that motor oil needs to be changed; it gets dirty with small particles which results in engine wear. In this regard, standard filters have not improved over the years compared to significant improvements in motor oil quality. The oil change interval set in warranties is a result of standard filters being the limiting factor, not the motor oil quality. Hence, higher quality filters will help to extend motor oil life to its full potential." This raises the question: would it be safe to keep engine oil for 10,000 miles if you replace JUST the oil filter every 5,000 miles? Is an HE filter necessary? Oil analysis comparisons of the HE Fram X2 filter vs. a normal CarQuest filter would have been nice. Maybe I can do an experiment with my '96 Camry (176k miles). For my wife's car, the 5,000 mile oil change will remain... Michael
From: dr_jeff on 1 Apr 2010 15:00
Michael wrote: > On Mar 29, 5:41 pm, jim beam <m...(a)privacy.net> wrote: >> http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/TechnologyDevelopment/OPPTD_FLY_High-Efficienc... >> >> shock, horror, they used oil analysis to arrive at these recommendations! >> >> -- >> nomina rutrum rutrum > > > > Interesting point: "The HE filters used in this study claimed > filtration of particles to 1-2 [microns], much better than standard > filters of 30-50 [microns]. Using standard filters is one reason that > motor oil needs to be changed; it gets dirty with small particles > which results in engine wear. In this regard, standard filters have > not improved over the years compared to significant improvements in > motor oil quality. The oil change interval set in warranties is a > result of standard filters being the limiting factor, not the motor > oil quality. Hence, higher quality filters will help to extend motor > oil life to its full potential." > > This raises the question: would it be safe to keep engine oil for > 10,000 miles if you replace JUST the oil filter every 5,000 miles? The problem is that the oil filter is filtering out the small particles. So you still have the small particles going right through the filter. > Is an HE filter necessary? Oil analysis comparisons of the HE Fram X2 > filter vs. a normal CarQuest filter would have been nice. Only if the comparisons include small particles. > Maybe I can do an experiment with my '96 Camry (176k miles). For my > wife's car, the 5,000 mile oil change will remain... And how are you going to determine the results of the experiment. You have an n of 1 (one sample). Not very useful. This doesn't take into account that the additives in the oil get used up. Jeff > Michael |