for the guys that are into recreational oil changing...
in [Technical]
|
From: Ed Pawlowski on 1 Apr 2010 23:09 <clare(a)snyder.on.ca> wrote in message > And those of us who prefer to change the oil more often are villified > as liars and idiots by those who believe today's oils and engines are > SO VASTLY improved, in ALL ways, over the e ngines and oils of the > past. > > Yes, there have been major improvements - but the higher specific > output and smaller bearing surfaces for reduced friction - and > therefor better fuel mileage - and numerous other design changes, > combined with the addition of Ethanol and other chemicals to the fuel > and the mandated removal of Zinc based extreme pressure > additives from the oil have ALL conspired to make the job of t he > engine oil more severe. > Use to be oil was change about 1500 miles and at 50,000 you had rings and bearings done, at 100,000, the car was shot, both engine and body. I don't know of anyone that has had an oil related problems on a car built in the past 20 years. Given that track record, there is no compelling reason for me to change oil more often. Your money, your choice, but I'm not wasting mine.
From: clare on 2 Apr 2010 00:01 On Thu, 1 Apr 2010 23:09:41 -0400, "Ed Pawlowski" <esp(a)snetnospam.net> wrote: > ><clare(a)snyder.on.ca> wrote in message >> And those of us who prefer to change the oil more often are villified >> as liars and idiots by those who believe today's oils and engines are >> SO VASTLY improved, in ALL ways, over the e ngines and oils of the >> past. >> >> Yes, there have been major improvements - but the higher specific >> output and smaller bearing surfaces for reduced friction - and >> therefor better fuel mileage - and numerous other design changes, >> combined with the addition of Ethanol and other chemicals to the fuel >> and the mandated removal of Zinc based extreme pressure >> additives from the oil have ALL conspired to make the job of t he >> engine oil more severe. >> > >Use to be oil was change about 1500 miles and at 50,000 you had rings and >bearings done, at 100,000, the car was shot, both engine and body. I don't >know of anyone that has had an oil related problems on a car built in the >past 20 years. Given that track record, there is no compelling reason for >me to change oil more often. Your money, your choice, but I'm not wasting >mine. > > Chrysler and Toyota, among others, have seen LOTS of oil related engine failures over the last number of years due to oil breakdown (they call it COKING) which is not a problem with more frequent oil changes. The 2.6 Mitsubishi engine timing chain problems were almost non-existent with frequent oil changes and the right oil, yet very common with 5000 mile changes and the 5W30 oil recommended by the manufacturer. Same with the seized ballance shaft problems. The tail end of that fiasco was about 20 years ago. I also see a lot of cars blowing blue smoke - ring or valve-guide failure CAN be oil related failures. Also timing belt tensioner problems on Mazdas. They are hydraulic tensioners - and they fail significantly more often on vehicles with extended drain intervals. The examples could go on, and on, and on - but you are right. It's YOUR car, and YOUR money. On MY car, MY money get's spent on preventative maintenance, not breakdown repairs.
From: SMS on 2 Apr 2010 00:45 On 01/04/10 9:18 AM, hls wrote: > > "C. E. White" <cewhite3(a)mindspring.com> wrote in message >> >> While eveyone should make their own decisions on this, I can think of >> a few "reasonable" reasons why it is useful to at least let people >> know 3000 mile oil changes are not usually beneficial: >> >> 1) To counteract the constant din from compnies like Jiffy-Lube that >> have brainwashed gnerations of people into thinking you must change >> your oil every 3000 miles. >> >> 2) To make people aware that cars and oils are much better than was >> the case when their Fathers used to change their oil. >> >> 3) Becasue some people are concerned about the environement and don't >> like seeing all that perfectly good oil being drained from engines. >> >> 4) Just becasue we want people to know the facts so they can make an >> informed decision. >> >> Ed > > What most people want, I think, is to have a car that goes when you turn > the key, and doesnt crater before you are ready to trade it in and get a > new one, all at a miraculously low price. > > We probably keep our cars longer than most people. 8-10 years for > us is not unusual. And I want minimum trouble. Hmm, right now our vehicles are 14, 9, and 2 years old. All had oil changes that followed the manual. None ever had 3K changes of course since every expert in the field of automotive engines and lubrication agrees that there is absolutely no benefit to them. And of course none have ever had any trouble related to the oil. The only problems on the 14 and 9 year old vehicles have been with exhaust sensors needing replacement, and the IAC valve on the '96 Camry (a known recurring problem). You can't get less than minimal trouble by needlessly changing the oil more than is necessary.
From: Tony Harding on 2 Apr 2010 02:46 On 03/31/10 20:22, AZ Nomad wrote: > On Thu, 1 Apr 2010 00:18:36 +0000 (UTC), Tegger<invalid(a)invalid.inv> wrote: >> "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"? > > > what's a dictionary? What's a "drug"?
From: Tony Harding on 2 Apr 2010 02:52
On 04/01/10 13:01, jim wrote: > > > Tegger wrote: >> >> jim<"sjedgingN0Sp"@m(a)mwt.net> wrote in >> news:j-6dnb2sTIiJby7WnZ2dnUVZ_g2dnZ2d(a)bright.net: >> >>> >>> >>> Tegger wrote: >> >>>>> >>>> >>>> Your entire reply is very difficult to understand, is filled with >>>> negatives stacked upon negatives, and appears to my faulty brain to >>>> be pretty much ill-thought-out gibberish. >>> >>> Try reading it slowly - it isn't that complicated. >> >> Try writing more clearly. I don't care to wade repeatedly through lousy >> writing; I have to do enough of that at work. > > > Obviously watching US TV has reduced your reading skills to very low > level. How about the CBC? Tegger lives in Canada. |