for the guys that are into recreational oil changing...
in [Technical]
|
From: jim beam on 5 Apr 2010 12:46 On 04/05/2010 09:18 AM, Michael wrote: > On Apr 5, 9:08�am, jim beam<m...(a)privacy.net> wrote: >> On 04/05/2010 08:59 AM, Michael wrote: >> >> >> >>> On Apr 3, 10:08 am, jim beam<m...(a)privacy.net> �wrote: >>>> On 04/01/2010 03:32 PM, Michael wrote: >> >>>>> On Apr 1, 3:06 pm, n...(a)wt.net wrote: >>>>>> On Apr 1, 1:56 pm, Michael<mrdarr...(a)gmail.com> � 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." >> >>>>>> The smaller the particle the filter traps, the quicker it is going to >>>>>> clog up. >>>>>> Also, until you get to a point of saturation, the size of the >>>>>> particles missed >>>>>> by a "standard" filter are not large enough to do much engine wear. >>>>>> I'm fairly anal about my vehicle, but I don't use filters that trap >>>>>> very fine >>>>>> particles. I use regular old standard filters. They are less prone to >>>>>> being >>>>>> clogged. And if that happens the bypass kicks in and you have no >>>>>> filtering at all. >> >>>>>>> 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? >> >>>>>> It would depend on the service. If it's all highway miles, maybe.. >>>>>> If not, pretty risky.. :( >> >>>>>>> Is an HE filter necessary? Oil analysis comparisons of the HE Fram X2 >>>>>>> filter vs. a normal CarQuest filter would have been nice. >> >>>>>> I think it's a waste of money, and also not the greatest idea as I >>>>>> have already touched on. >> >>>>>>> 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... >> >>>>>> If your Camry has 176k miles on it, you are probably doing something >>>>>> right. Why change? :/ >> >>>>>> Myself, I use regular standard filters, half decent oil, "castrol >>>>>> syntec blend", >>>>>> and I change it every 5k miles like the manual and the blinky light >>>>>> on >>>>>> the dashboard says. I'm not a fan of "extended oil change skeds". >>>>>> The purpose of changing the oil and filter is to remove the dirt, >>>>>> acids, >>>>>> moisture, and whatever else, and to replenish the additives in the >>>>>> oil. >>>>>> I'm not going much past 5k in any of my vehicles, and I don't care >>>>>> what anyone thinks about it. My older trucks actually get dirtier >>>>>> after 5k miles than my newer Corolla. It's so clean burning it is >>>>>> really >>>>>> not that bad after 5k.. But I change it anyway. Cheap insurance. >>>>>> I don't use synth blend in the trucks though.. Just regular dino oil.. >>>>>> I only use the synth blend in the Corolla as extra insurance against >>>>>> the dreaded gelling problem. Again, the extra cost is cheap insurance >>>>>> the way I see it. >> >>>>> Ok, thanks for the info. Good points all around. Maybe the car can >>>>> go longer on multiple filters, but 5k miles is long enough. My use >>>>> might even qualify as "severe" come to think of it... mixed city/ >>>>> highway driving. >> >>>>> Was using Castrol regular 10W-30, thinking of putting in regular Mobil >>>>> 5W-30 for better fuel economy next change due in ~900 miles. >> >>>>> Thanks, >> >>>>> Michael >> >>>> ok, if mobil will go 20k miles per actual usage:http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024(a)N00/4291579733/ >> >>>> will you still change it at 5k? >> >>>> -- >>>> nomina rutrum rutrum >> >>> I was thinking of extending the interval, but when I looked for an oil >>> change interval in my manual I couldn't find one (!?) �Haynes >>> specifies a 3000 mile interval for both the '96 and '99. >> >>> Funny how Mobil doesn't say extended intervals are ok... >> >> yes they do - they specifically give mileages for the following: >> clean 5000 >> clean 7500 >> m1 extended performance - 15000. >> >> >> >>> I guess I'll just replace oil and filter at 5k... >> >> -- >> nomina rutrum rutrum > > > Weird... my Wal Mart Mobil 1 didn't seem to specify. look again. all my local's stock at least 4 of the 5 listed here: http://www.mobiloil.com/USA-English/MotorOil/Oils/Oils.aspx > Maybe if I read > the Spanish translation... :o > > Michael -- nomina rutrum rutrum
From: jim on 5 Apr 2010 13:09 jim beam wrote: > > Apparently, glycol is even nastier for oil than I suspected: > > http://www.machinerylubrication.com/Read/193/oil-glycol. > > > > > > It chemically reacts with different things, doesn't dissolve well in oil > > and makes acid. > > yeah, it agglomerates soot particles to Hrc >50 too. not. > Mr. Bean has a wealth of ignorance about motor oil. It is well known that coolant contamination can impair dispersancy which leads to drop out of dirt suspended in the oil. Here is a quote from the same www.machinerylubrication.com site quoted above. [quote] Detecting glycol using the blotter spot test can be difficult because of the coolant�s effects on a lubricant�s dispersancy. Coolant contamination forms acids in crankcase oil affecting soot dispersancy, even at low soot loading. Glycol contamination can also form destructive �oil balls� and additive precipitation when thermally aged in crankcase lubricants. When a drop of lubricant contaminated with glycol is placed on the chromatographic paper, the soot particles can be agglomerated due to dispersant depletion and will not travel. A dark or brownish stain in the center of the spot could be due to disrupted dispersancy and soot coagulation, a common consequence of glycol contamination. A black sticky paste with a well-defined (sharp edge) periphery is cause for serious concern. When glycol is present, a soot ring often develops around a yellow/brown center (Figure 3). [end quote] Now we will hear from Mr. Bean. The guy who is always whining about cites, when given an actual cite, will insist they don't know what they are talking about. -jim
From: jim beam on 5 Apr 2010 13:32 On 04/05/2010 10:09 AM, jim wrote: > > > jim beam wrote: > >>> Apparently, glycol is even nastier for oil than I suspected: >>> http://www.machinerylubrication.com/Read/193/oil-glycol. >>> > >>> >>> It chemically reacts with different things, doesn't dissolve well in oil >>> and makes acid. >> >> yeah, it agglomerates soot particles to Hrc>50 too. not. >> > > Mr. Bean has a wealth of ignorance about motor oil. It is well known > that coolant contamination can impair dispersancy which leads to drop > out of dirt suspended in the oil. > > Here is a quote from the same www.machinerylubrication.com site quoted > above. > > [quote] > Detecting glycol using the blotter spot test can be difficult > because of the coolant�s effects on a lubricant�s dispersancy. > Coolant contamination forms acids in crankcase oil affecting > soot dispersancy, even at low soot loading. Glycol contamination > can also form destructive �oil balls� and additive precipitation > when thermally aged in crankcase lubricants. When a drop of > lubricant contaminated with glycol is placed on the chromatographic > paper, the soot particles can be agglomerated due to dispersant > depletion and will not travel. A dark or brownish stain in the > center of the spot could be due to disrupted dispersancy and > soot coagulation, a common consequence of glycol contamination. > A black sticky paste with a well-defined (sharp edge) periphery > is cause for serious concern. When glycol is present, a soot ring > often develops around a yellow/brown center (Figure 3). > [end quote] > > Now we will hear from Mr. Bean. The guy who is always whining about > cites, when given an actual cite, will insist they don't know what they > are talking about. > > > -jim "impairing detergency" is NOT creating the large abrasive agglomerations you were bullshitting about, bullshitter. -- nomina rutrum rutrum
From: clare on 5 Apr 2010 16:30 On Sun, 4 Apr 2010 22:30:49 -0400, "Ed Pawlowski" <esp(a)snetnospam.net> wrote: > ><clare(a)snyder.on.ca> wrote >> And they had a LOT of problem engines using the specified standard oil >> on the "normal" change schedule. The problem is obvious - the oil not >> being changed often enough for conditions. >> This is NOT to say there was not a problem with the engine design that >> made the operatring conditions for the oil more onerous than they >> needed to be. > > >Maybe some of the people following the "normal" schedule were actually >driving under the "sever" criteria. I wonder how many people actually know >what they should be following. > > That's what I've been saying all along - the "severe" schedule hits just about every driver in Central Ontario for at least 3 months of the year - and often 6.,
From: Bill Putney on 5 Apr 2010 17:41
clare(a)snyder.on.ca wrote: > On Sun, 4 Apr 2010 22:30:49 -0400, "Ed Pawlowski" <esp(a)snetnospam.net> > wrote: > >> <clare(a)snyder.on.ca> wrote >>> And they had a LOT of problem engines using the specified standard oil >>> on the "normal" change schedule. The problem is obvious - the oil not >>> being changed often enough for conditions. >>> This is NOT to say there was not a problem with the engine design that >>> made the operatring conditions for the oil more onerous than they >>> needed to be. >> >> Maybe some of the people following the "normal" schedule were actually >> driving under the "sever" criteria. I wonder how many people actually know >> what they should be following. >> >> > That's what I've been saying all along - the "severe" schedule hits > just about every driver in Central Ontario for at least 3 months of > the year - and often 6., As I've said before, I've read of more than one incident of Chrysler turning down coverage for a failed engine (2.7L with reputation for sludging/catastrophically failing at between 60k and 80k miles) when the owner presented receipts proving oil/filter changes according to Schedule A - reason for refusing to cover repair or replacement: There is no such thing in the real world as Schedule A - vehicle was not maintained in accordance with Schedule B (I'm paraphrasing). Of course this is what I've read on some Chrysler forums, so admittedly this is anecdotal info. -- Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x') |