for the guys that are into recreational oil changing...
in [Technical]
|
From: Michael on 1 Apr 2010 15:11 On Apr 1, 12:00 pm, dr_jeff <u...(a)msu.edu> wrote: > 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. Good point. Then again the ('96) car's seen oil change intervals of 8000 miles anyway. Was thinking of pulling the valve cover to see how it's doing. In the absence of HE vs. regular oil filter data, was thinking of just changing the (regular) filter, leaving the oil in, for say 8000 miles again. Doesn't the manual specify 7500 miles? Don't have it on me at the moment... > This doesn't take into account that the additives in the oil get used up. The article implied that oil additives aren't the limiting factor: it's the oil filter that is the limiting factor. Michael
From: E. Meyer on 1 Apr 2010 15:12 On 3/31/10 4:02 PM, in article hp0d9b$5l4$1(a)news.eternal-september.org, "Obveeus" <Obveeus(a)aol.com> wrote: > > "jim" <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m(a)mwt,net> wrote in message > news:cOydnWHESr5ZLi7WnZ2dnUVZ_tCdnZ2d(a)bright.net... >> >> Obveeus wrote: >> >>> I hadn't noticed any obsession. >> >> I noticed that you hadn't noticed >> >>>> If you want to do that then advocate for getting rid of the automobile >>>> as private transportation. >>> >>> That might be a bit extreme compared with the simple advise of 'don't >>> throw >>> away oil while it is still perfectly good'. >> >> How about you recycle it instead of throwing it away. > > Recycle it? Is that like where the quick oil change centers run it through > a screen and then sell it to new customers? > >>>>> People that want the environment to be less poluted? >>>> >>>> Doubtful argument. My hunch is people with this obsession pollute the >>>> environment significantly more than those who aren't so obsessed. >>> >>> Do tell, why would people that don't want oil pollution be more likely to >>> polute? >> >> It doesn't even cross your mind that someone who claiming to not want >> oil pollution might be a bit insincere? > > No, I don't take on face value that people who speak out against pollution > are secretly plotting to pollute more. > > >>>>> People that are just trying to give helpful financial advice? >>>> >>>> That doesn't explain the obsession. >>> >>> I hadn't noticed any obsession, but now that you mention the word, I will >>> say that you do seem a bit obsessed with this issue. >> >> What issue? Making light of people who preach nonsense on the internet? > > Telling people not to waste time/money changing their oil every 3,000 miles > is preaching non-sense? > >> If that is the issue you mean Ok, maybe I did take a little time today >> to be obsessed with that. But since Im not one of those who enjoys >> changing oil often I get my recreation in other ways. > > Posting on usenet is not 'recreation'. > >>>>> Next up: irrational fear that someone will let out word that car wax >>>>> isn't >>>>> really beneficial. >>>> >>>> Well the same could be said for any other cosmetic product, but so >>>> what? >>> >>> 'So what' could be said about 99% of all dialog, right? Maybe the >>> 'advise' >>> will keep someone from wasting time and money on car wax.. >> >> Or maybe your deluded about the impact of your words. > > I have no delusions. I am well aware that the vast majority of people are > too stupid to take good advise. > > And then there is that incredibly noisy minority of people who actually think they are giving good advice.
From: Elle on 1 Apr 2010 15:36 On Mar 31, 6:33 pm, "Bob Jones" <em...(a)me.not> wrote: > Severe conditions are defined as follows: > I believe they apply to most drivers in this country. Are you saying no? I am saying "no," though it is conjecture like everyone else's. Honda itself says the normal schedule "is fine for most drivers." From my 2003 Civic's manual: --- The "normal" schedule is fine for most drivers, even if they occasionally drive in severe conditions. Follow the "severe" schedule only if you drive in one or more of these conditions /most of the time/" [emphasis is Honda's, not mine]: Trips of less than 5 miles (less than 10 in freezing weather) Extremely hot weather (over 90 degrees F) Extensive idling or stop-and-go driving Trailer towing, car-top carrier, or mountain driving Muddy, dusty, or de-iced roads" --- In addition, I think oil change analyses will support the claim that most folks' Hondas are not driven under severe conditions. The original study that Jim B cited proposes a 10k mile change interval for passenger cars. Look at the study itself, and one will see 40 passenger cars, used as a fleet by the California Department of General Services, were examined. Again, it is only conjecture, but ISTM that such fleet cars would see much stop and go driving. Consumer Reports found similar for NYC taxis in 1996: http://www.moneybluebook.com/articles/consumerreports.oilchange.php .
From: SMS on 1 Apr 2010 15:39 On 01/04/10 11:56 AM, 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? > > 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... On the 96 Camry it would be easy (assuming a 4 cylinder) because of the oil filter placement. On a lot of vehicles, changing just the filter would be messy. Of course the whole premise is wrong to begin with though. Using "standard" filters has nothing to do with how often the oil needs to be changed.
From: Ed Pawlowski on 1 Apr 2010 17:29
"C. E. White" <cewhite3(a)mindspring.com> wrote > I can't remember anyone in my family ever trading in a car becasue the > engine was worn out. It always sem to be other stuff that finally makes > the car/truck undesirable. I had two. Both were 1983, GM with the same 3.8 liter engine, one an Olds Cutlass, the other a Buick Regal. Both died at about 120,000 and I put rebuilt engines in both and the rebuilds lasted another 50,000 miles. It was a crappy engine design and no amount of oil changing would help them. The newer 3800 V-6 in my next Buick was running as good as the day it came from the showroom after 15 years and almost 200k. At 75000 I changed the plugs. At 85,000, the water pump. |