new Honda CR-V break in

no shit sherlock. but if you bothered with oil analysis, and as a fleet
mechanic, your fleet manager should be requiring you to use it, you'd
actually have facts in front of you about what's going on, not be simply
guessing.

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/whatisoilanalysis.htm

witchcraft! i tied this chicken to the broken leg and it healed!!!

no dude, it shows you're not neglectful. it doesn't show you know a
single damned thing about efficiency or how to optimize.

duh.

 

no shit sherlock. but if you bothered with oil analysis, and as a fleet
mechanic, your fleet manager should be requiring you to use it, you'd
actually have facts in front of you about what's going on, not be simply
guessing.

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/whatisoilanalysis.htm

witchcraft! i tied this chicken to the broken leg and it healed!!!

no dude, it shows you're not neglectful. it doesn't show you know a
single damned thing about efficiency or how to optimize.

duh.

 

An update on my emails to SwRI: Two emails and no response. It's been over
a week.

I've been told by two tribologists that you can never change your oil too
often for the good of the engine. It's very unfortunate that SwRI appears
to be unwilling to supply any clarification of the relevant statement in
their publication.

 

An update on my emails to SwRI: Two emails and no response. It's been over
a week.

I've been told by two tribologists that you can never change your oil too
often for the good of the engine. It's very unfortunate that SwRI appears
to be unwilling to supply any clarification of the relevant statement in
their publication.

 

any citeable sources to support that?

http://tribology-abc.com/sub13.htm

"Maintenance management based on condition monitoring of machine
equipment and oil may result in:

reduction of unscheduled downtime
improved equipment reliability
extended service life of machine parts
maximization of oil change intervals
less costs of waste oil and less anti pollution taxes
by timely observation of faults, no lasting damage is caused"

the name of the game is extending service intervals.

dude, i can cite "experts" all over the net that'll tell you the
benefits of seafood consumption to help erectile dysfunction. but
without data, it's just witchcraft and bullshit.

now, shall i tell you "i've been told" by exxon's bay area head fleet
maintenance products manager guy just the opposite? and that he eats
his own dogfood with 25000 mile oil change intervals on his chevy tahoe?
that's right - twenty five thousand on mobil 1. he says he has the
analysis data to back it up, but he's just an oil company guy so we
shouldn't believe him...

 

any citeable sources to support that?

http://tribology-abc.com/sub13.htm

"Maintenance management based on condition monitoring of machine
equipment and oil may result in:

reduction of unscheduled downtime
improved equipment reliability
extended service life of machine parts
maximization of oil change intervals
less costs of waste oil and less anti pollution taxes
by timely observation of faults, no lasting damage is caused"

the name of the game is extending service intervals.

dude, i can cite "experts" all over the net that'll tell you the
benefits of seafood consumption to help erectile dysfunction. but
without data, it's just witchcraft and bullshit.

now, shall i tell you "i've been told" by exxon's bay area head fleet
maintenance products manager guy just the opposite? and that he eats
his own dogfood with 25000 mile oil change intervals on his chevy tahoe?
that's right - twenty five thousand on mobil 1. he says he has the
analysis data to back it up, but he's just an oil company guy so we
shouldn't believe him...

 

i forgot this one:
using waste oil in your shop furnace could explain your learning
difficulties. waste oil is full of all kinds of nasties, including
lead, antimony, and a bunch of organics that also adversely affect your
health. mental retardation is but one symptom.

 

i forgot this one:
using waste oil in your shop furnace could explain your learning
difficulties. waste oil is full of all kinds of nasties, including
lead, antimony, and a bunch of organics that also adversely affect your
health. mental retardation is but one symptom.

 

read a story of a guy who drove to wall st and dropped his car off every
morning for a $25 oil change. he'd then pick it up in the evening and
drive home. the logic? it was cheaper to do this than park the car in
the typical manhattan financial district car park.

 

read a story of a guy who drove to wall st and dropped his car off every
morning for a $25 oil change. he'd then pick it up in the evening and
drive home. the logic? it was cheaper to do this than park the car in
the typical manhattan financial district car park.

 

don't you mean "iffy lube"?

 

don't you mean "iffy lube"?

 

89
Just washed my hands, can't do a thing with them.

I really need to be watching what I type, or at least reading my posts
every now and again. Jeez, get one digit wrong ....
--

- dillon I am not invalid

I love my country, It's my government I fear.

Hey, turnabout's fair play.

 

89
Just washed my hands, can't do a thing with them.

I really need to be watching what I type, or at least reading my posts
every now and again. Jeez, get one digit wrong ....
--

- dillon I am not invalid

I love my country, It's my government I fear.

Hey, turnabout's fair play.

 

I'm not sure which statement you wish to have clarified, but this study
has long ago been discredited as evidence that old used oil protects an
engine better than fresh new oil does.

The experiment is simple it shows is that if you have two identical
engines that have been treated with radioactive tracers and put oil that
has been used for 72 hours in one engine and oil that is fresh in the
other after six hours of test running, there will be less evidence of
the radioactive wear particles in the used oil than in the new oil.
A simple experiment will show the fallacy of believing that this is
evidence that dirty oil provides better wear protection than clean: If
you setup the experiment so that you pump the oil through heated tubes
to simulate an engine lubricating system (but no actual engine wear is
present) and then just add equal amounts of wear particles to both the
old and new oil you will find that you get the same result. The old oil
shows less evidence of the wear particles than the new oil.
All this means is that the new oil has a greater capacity for holding
the wear particles in suspension than the old oil does. The article
itself confirms this fact. They article says that it is not until the
oil has been used for 20 hours that you start to see an accumulation of
radioactive particles in the oil filter. The explanation for that is
simple: the wear particles are very tiny - generally less than 1 micron
- and when the oil is fresh it does a very good job of holding the
particles in suspension. This is accomplished by additives that are
keeping the particles from sticking or bonding to anything. The article
shows that after 20 hours of use (20 hours would be 1200 miles at 60
mph) the oil starts to lose this capacity to keep the particles from
sticking to things. When this happens the particles will start to stick
to the engine components and stick to each other. When the particles
become more sticky they can clump together and become big enough to
settle out of the oil or to be removed by the oil filter. That is why
the study found wear particles in the filter only after 20 hours of
use.
As engine oil gets older and dirtier from use it will progressively
lose its capacity to hold wear particles in suspension. That means the
accumulated evidence of wear progressively disappears. This is reason
that Cummins advises fleet managers to not rely on oil analysis as a
method for determining the amount of engine wear. The simple fact is if
the oil is allowed to degrade enough the results can lead to erroneous
conclusions about the extent of actual engine wear that is occuring.

-jim

 

I'm not sure which statement you wish to have clarified, but this study
has long ago been discredited as evidence that old used oil protects an
engine better than fresh new oil does.

The experiment is simple it shows is that if you have two identical
engines that have been treated with radioactive tracers and put oil that
has been used for 72 hours in one engine and oil that is fresh in the
other after six hours of test running, there will be less evidence of
the radioactive wear particles in the used oil than in the new oil.
A simple experiment will show the fallacy of believing that this is
evidence that dirty oil provides better wear protection than clean: If
you setup the experiment so that you pump the oil through heated tubes
to simulate an engine lubricating system (but no actual engine wear is
present) and then just add equal amounts of wear particles to both the
old and new oil you will find that you get the same result. The old oil
shows less evidence of the wear particles than the new oil.
All this means is that the new oil has a greater capacity for holding
the wear particles in suspension than the old oil does. The article
itself confirms this fact. They article says that it is not until the
oil has been used for 20 hours that you start to see an accumulation of
radioactive particles in the oil filter. The explanation for that is
simple: the wear particles are very tiny - generally less than 1 micron
- and when the oil is fresh it does a very good job of holding the
particles in suspension. This is accomplished by additives that are
keeping the particles from sticking or bonding to anything. The article
shows that after 20 hours of use (20 hours would be 1200 miles at 60
mph) the oil starts to lose this capacity to keep the particles from
sticking to things. When this happens the particles will start to stick
to the engine components and stick to each other. When the particles
become more sticky they can clump together and become big enough to
settle out of the oil or to be removed by the oil filter. That is why
the study found wear particles in the filter only after 20 hours of
use.
As engine oil gets older and dirtier from use it will progressively
lose its capacity to hold wear particles in suspension. That means the
accumulated evidence of wear progressively disappears. This is reason
that Cummins advises fleet managers to not rely on oil analysis as a
method for determining the amount of engine wear. The simple fact is if
the oil is allowed to degrade enough the results can lead to erroneous
conclusions about the extent of actual engine wear that is occuring.

-jim

 

When one talks about "wasting money" on more regular servicing I was
reminded of an article in a car mag here in the UK - those makes that have
gone for extended serevicing (18k miles/.2 years etc) are those makes that
have fallen down the reliability stakes- this may be due to the fact they
are mostly european makes or maybe they don't worry about longer term
reliability

In the UK most Japanese makes have stuck to annual servicing and quite often
are slagged off in the car mags by penny pinching motorists for costing a
lot, BMWs with now 4 yr coolant changes instead of 2 years have had cooling
issues - loads more exmples of worse reliability - sadly the makes that try
and appeal to the car fleets are only concerned about the servicing costs
over 4 years /80k miles - after that If they blow up - who cares seems to be
the attitude although having said that the BMW diesel turbos "reliability
issues" did have an effect on their reliability image

 

When one talks about "wasting money" on more regular servicing I was
reminded of an article in a car mag here in the UK - those makes that have
gone for extended serevicing (18k miles/.2 years etc) are those makes that
have fallen down the reliability stakes- this may be due to the fact they
are mostly european makes or maybe they don't worry about longer term
reliability

In the UK most Japanese makes have stuck to annual servicing and quite often
are slagged off in the car mags by penny pinching motorists for costing a
lot, BMWs with now 4 yr coolant changes instead of 2 years have had cooling
issues - loads more exmples of worse reliability - sadly the makes that try
and appeal to the car fleets are only concerned about the servicing costs
over 4 years /80k miles - after that If they blow up - who cares seems to be
the attitude although having said that the BMW diesel turbos "reliability
issues" did have an effect on their reliability image

 

You seem to be obsessed with witchcraft and bullshit. "the knowledge
pool" seems to be your terminology for your mental fantasies. If someone
agrees with your fantasy then they are contributing to "the knowledge
pool" and if someone disagrees with one of your fantasies then they are
polluting "the knowledge pool".

I have not been telling people they save money by changing oil so often
nor have I ever claimed to see "all evidence". From you I have seen no
evidence at all. You seem to think that anything you proclaim will be
taken as gospel without any evidence or even any explanation.

No I'm afraid you are hallucinating. I haven't stated anything of the
sort. I was simply commenting on your obsession with other people's oil
changing habits. And yes it would be perverted of me to preach to others
about changing there oil which is one reason I don't.

Just like brake pads if you push it to the absolute limit you will be
increasing the risk of failure due to incorrect guesses as to the exact
point where that limit should be set. Doing a brake job when the pads
still have useful life left is not as ridiculous as you make it out to
be. At any rate it would seem equally odd to me if someone was obsessed
with other people having brake jobs done more often than they need to.
If someone chooses to have a brake job done when the pads are only half
worn why would you object?

I did cite my source. Cummins engine is the source. Do you ever
actually say anything meaningful or is proclaiming "bullshit." the total
extent of your capabilities?

Here is one quote from Cummins:

{QUOTE]

Cummins Inc. does not recommend that oil analysis be used to determine
maintenance intervals. Oil analysis only permits maintenance intervals
to be estimated. Engines must be operated at the estimated interval for
800,000 to 1,100,000 km [500,00 to 700,000 mi] or 10,000 to 15,000 hours
to determine if the estimated maintenance interval based on oil analysis
was correct. If the interval is estimated correctly, the engine will
remain in an acceptable condition for its operating environment. If an
extended maintenance interval is guessed incorrectly, up to 50 percent
of the potential engine life to rebuild can be sacrificed for the longer
maintenance interval.

[END QUOTE}

I clearly don't understand what you think it does since you never
actually say anything meaningful.

People who use oil analysis for determining oil change interval think
oil analysis will reveal how much engine wear is occurring. The problem
with that is that when the oil gets older and dirtier it has less
capacity for holding wear particles in suspension. As a result the the
oil analysis will not give a true picture of actual engine wear. This is
the the stated reason by Cummins when they advise Fleet managers to not
use oil analysis for determining OCI. This is not to say that oil
analysis can not be useful in finding things like failed air filter,
coolant leaks, fuel contamination or even unusual engine wear. Cummins
is not against oil analysis they just advise against using it as a basis
for establishing oil change intervals.

I definitely don't know what you are talking about, since you have yet
to say anything.

No it does not. It provides some evidence, but hardly a complete
picture.

The direct expense of changing oil frequently or infrequently is a very
small percentage of the total cost of operating. The amount of money to
be saved by pushing this to the limit is tiny compared to the amount of
money that it can cost if a miscalculation is made. There are a lot
more important things that can be done to reduce expenses if that is the
only consideration.

I appears that you believe people who tear down engines can't make a
determination of how much wear an engine has seen, but instead you
believe that some laboratory that has never even been close to the
engine can accurately make such a determination. That sounds like a
fairy tale.

OK why don't you tell your fairy tale about how you took a Computer CPU
and tore it apart and modified or repaired it. The fact is what you
don't know about computers far outweighs what you do know.

To someone like you that may be how playing the odds appears.

HA HA HA HA. That's a good one. And I suppose you are going to tell us
how an Angel came down from heaven and gave you this precious knowledge
and therefore it is absolutely impossible that anyone could possibly
question your fairy tale account of what happened.

You probably didn't know this but not all valves burn in the same way.
Carbon deposits can be the cause of one particular valve burning
scenario. The condition of the oil does affect how much oil gets into
the combustion chamber via the rings, seals and PCV. Carbon deposits in
the combustion chamber are almost exclusively coming from burning oil.
So yes how often the oil is changed can have a statistical impact on
valve burn. If you want me to quantify that statistical impact I would
say it is very very small. The point is nobody can say exactly at what
point a given maintenance schedule will have a favorably impact on 100%
of the engines its applied to. A particular maintenance schedule may
produce a favorable result 99.999% of the time but that still is not an
absolute.

-jim

 

You seem to be obsessed with witchcraft and bullshit. "the knowledge
pool" seems to be your terminology for your mental fantasies. If someone
agrees with your fantasy then they are contributing to "the knowledge
pool" and if someone disagrees with one of your fantasies then they are
polluting "the knowledge pool".

I have not been telling people they save money by changing oil so often
nor have I ever claimed to see "all evidence". From you I have seen no
evidence at all. You seem to think that anything you proclaim will be
taken as gospel without any evidence or even any explanation.

No I'm afraid you are hallucinating. I haven't stated anything of the
sort. I was simply commenting on your obsession with other people's oil
changing habits. And yes it would be perverted of me to preach to others
about changing there oil which is one reason I don't.

Just like brake pads if you push it to the absolute limit you will be
increasing the risk of failure due to incorrect guesses as to the exact
point where that limit should be set. Doing a brake job when the pads
still have useful life left is not as ridiculous as you make it out to
be. At any rate it would seem equally odd to me if someone was obsessed
with other people having brake jobs done more often than they need to.
If someone chooses to have a brake job done when the pads are only half
worn why would you object?

I did cite my source. Cummins engine is the source. Do you ever
actually say anything meaningful or is proclaiming "bullshit." the total
extent of your capabilities?

Here is one quote from Cummins:

{QUOTE]

Cummins Inc. does not recommend that oil analysis be used to determine
maintenance intervals. Oil analysis only permits maintenance intervals
to be estimated. Engines must be operated at the estimated interval for
800,000 to 1,100,000 km [500,00 to 700,000 mi] or 10,000 to 15,000 hours
to determine if the estimated maintenance interval based on oil analysis
was correct. If the interval is estimated correctly, the engine will
remain in an acceptable condition for its operating environment. If an
extended maintenance interval is guessed incorrectly, up to 50 percent
of the potential engine life to rebuild can be sacrificed for the longer
maintenance interval.

[END QUOTE}

I clearly don't understand what you think it does since you never
actually say anything meaningful.

People who use oil analysis for determining oil change interval think
oil analysis will reveal how much engine wear is occurring. The problem
with that is that when the oil gets older and dirtier it has less
capacity for holding wear particles in suspension. As a result the the
oil analysis will not give a true picture of actual engine wear. This is
the the stated reason by Cummins when they advise Fleet managers to not
use oil analysis for determining OCI. This is not to say that oil
analysis can not be useful in finding things like failed air filter,
coolant leaks, fuel contamination or even unusual engine wear. Cummins
is not against oil analysis they just advise against using it as a basis
for establishing oil change intervals.

I definitely don't know what you are talking about, since you have yet
to say anything.

No it does not. It provides some evidence, but hardly a complete
picture.

The direct expense of changing oil frequently or infrequently is a very
small percentage of the total cost of operating. The amount of money to
be saved by pushing this to the limit is tiny compared to the amount of
money that it can cost if a miscalculation is made. There are a lot
more important things that can be done to reduce expenses if that is the
only consideration.

I appears that you believe people who tear down engines can't make a
determination of how much wear an engine has seen, but instead you
believe that some laboratory that has never even been close to the
engine can accurately make such a determination. That sounds like a
fairy tale.

OK why don't you tell your fairy tale about how you took a Computer CPU
and tore it apart and modified or repaired it. The fact is what you
don't know about computers far outweighs what you do know.

To someone like you that may be how playing the odds appears.

HA HA HA HA. That's a good one. And I suppose you are going to tell us
how an Angel came down from heaven and gave you this precious knowledge
and therefore it is absolutely impossible that anyone could possibly
question your fairy tale account of what happened.

You probably didn't know this but not all valves burn in the same way.
Carbon deposits can be the cause of one particular valve burning
scenario. The condition of the oil does affect how much oil gets into
the combustion chamber via the rings, seals and PCV. Carbon deposits in
the combustion chamber are almost exclusively coming from burning oil.
So yes how often the oil is changed can have a statistical impact on
valve burn. If you want me to quantify that statistical impact I would
say it is very very small. The point is nobody can say exactly at what
point a given maintenance schedule will have a favorably impact on 100%
of the engines its applied to. A particular maintenance schedule may
produce a favorable result 99.999% of the time but that still is not an
absolute.

-jim