From: jim beam on
On 04/01/2010 07:37 AM, C. E. White wrote:
> "jim"<"sjedgingN0Sp"@m(a)mwt,net> wrote in message
> news:A8GdndMKt4ay1y7WnZ2dnUVZ_iydnZ2d(a)bright.net...
>
>> The question is why are there so many zealots on the internet that
>> feel
>> it is their mission in life to convince other motorists that it is
>> good
>> to be driving around with black oil in their engines? What sort of
>> belief system drives a person to go around trying to convert others
>> to
>> black engine oil?
>
> 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
>
>

quoth the expert in brainwashing, "awareness", "concern" and assisting
people in their "informed decisions"...


--
nomina rutrum rutrum
From: jim beam on
On 04/02/2010 07:47 AM, ACAR wrote:
<snip for clarity>
> Toyota's oil related sludge/gelling issues were pretty well
> publicized. However, I think it is true that not one problem was cited
> by anyone who changed their own oil.

that statement is worth significant examination: "sludge", any engine,
is an oil problem, not mechanical. if toyota had been sold a job lot of
defective oil or if iffy-lube were being more ruthlessly inattentive
than normal, that would indeed cause the problem.

--
nomina rutrum rutrum
From: jim beam on
On 04/02/2010 05:44 AM, dr_jeff wrote:
> clare(a)snyder.on.ca wrote:
>> On Thu, 1 Apr 2010 10:37:42 -0400, "C. E. White"
>> <cewhite3(a)mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>>> "jim" <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m(a)mwt,net> wrote in message
>>> news:A8GdndMKt4ay1y7WnZ2dnUVZ_iydnZ2d(a)bright.net...
>>>
>>>> The question is why are there so many zealots on the internet that feel
>>>> it is their mission in life to convince other motorists that it is good
>>>> to be driving around with black oil in their engines? What sort of
>>>> belief system drives a person to go around trying to convert others to
>>>> black engine oil?
>>> 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
>>
>> 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.
>
> Lighter cars and more efficient transmissions and accessories have made
> the job of the engine less severe.

not so - modern cars, at least in comparison with those of the 70's &
80's, are significantly heavier. a modern toyota or honda is
600-1000lbs heavier than their counterparts of 20 years ago. that's why
increasingly efficient and well managed engines are producing the same
mileage numbers as 80's cars, and in some cases, lower.

of course, washington being what it is, the oil industry has absolutely
no lobbying influence whatsoever on "safety" and the relentless pursuit
of heavier vehicles...

--
nomina rutrum rutrum
From: jim beam on
On 04/02/2010 09:20 AM, SMS wrote:
> On 01/04/10 7:30 PM, clare(a)snyder.on.ca wrote:
>
>> And those of us who prefer to change the oil more often are villified
>> as liars and idiots
>
> Not liars. Not even idiots. Just clueless.

no, they're idiots. the clueless can be educated. the idiots, never so.

--
nomina rutrum rutrum
From: jim beam on
On 04/02/2010 12:06 AM, Tony Harding wrote:
> On 03/31/10 09:43, jim beam wrote:
>> On 03/31/2010 05:33 AM, Mark wrote:
>>
>>> On Mar 30, 11:15�am, jim beam<m...(a)privacy.net> wrote:
>>>>> Does that really matter?
>>>>
>>>> of course not. �the percentage difference it makes is vanishingly
>>>> small.
>>>> � and that's not including the fact that some engines have oil
>>>> deliberately pooled in locations that don't drain - to protect cam
>>>> shafts for instance. �new oil simply dilutes - unless the engine is
>>>> completely stripped and cleaned, it's never a complete "change".
>>
>> <fixed top posting>
>>
>> > If there are other pools of oil in the engine, why doesn't the oil
>> > turn dark right away? What is the percentage difference between 5%
>> > old oil left and 1%? Think it's 4%?
>> >
>> >
>>
>> like i said - dilution.
>
> Dilution with what? <serious question, not trying to be snarky>

fresh oil. even 90% fresh oil [a low dilution rate] is
indistinguishable in performance from 100%.

--
nomina rutrum rutrum