new Honda CR-V break in

some manufacturers spend a good deal of money on "end of life". indeed,
it's probably their largest r&d cost these days.

bmw have "coolant issues" because of poor system component quality, not
because the coolant fails. the polymer tanks on their radiators crack
for example. use of polymer in itself is no bad thing, but when it's
thin and of poor mechanical design, premature cracking and leakage is
pretty much inevitable. same for sensors and hoses. the coolant is
relatively inert and stable.

 

some manufacturers spend a good deal of money on "end of life". indeed,
it's probably their largest r&d cost these days.

bmw have "coolant issues" because of poor system component quality, not
because the coolant fails. the polymer tanks on their radiators crack
for example. use of polymer in itself is no bad thing, but when it's
thin and of poor mechanical design, premature cracking and leakage is
pretty much inevitable. same for sensors and hoses. the coolant is
relatively inert and stable.

 

er, unless the oil is at end of life, which it most definitely is not at
only 20 hours, there's no way detergency is failing. and if detergency
is not failing, then it's not depositing combustion product or wear
product. so you're bullshitting.

of course, delusional fantasy is not a problem for people that start
paragraphs with tabs, but hey.

 

er, unless the oil is at end of life, which it most definitely is not at
only 20 hours, there's no way detergency is failing. and if detergency
is not failing, then it's not depositing combustion product or wear
product. so you're bullshitting.

of course, delusional fantasy is not a problem for people that start
paragraphs with tabs, but hey.

 

you write the contradictory nonsense that no research supports, but i'm
the fantasy bullshitter? do you know what "delusional" means?

then you're not bothering to read my posts! or you have a comprehension
problem.

see above. you should try reading my cites.

see above for "comprehension" and "delusional".

er, because it's unnecessary expense and wasteful?

but of course, that's not the purpose of what you wrote - the purpose
was to try to side-step the unarguable logic of making a wear-based
decision vs. a blind and uninformed decision.

so show the source online, idiot. or don't you know what "cite" means?

"cummins" in the third person? this smells like sales literature, not
their engineering lit. besides, analysis is not "guessing". analysis
is proven and successful and used in all major vehicle fleets, shipping,
aerospace, military, all industries, globally. again, you'd know that
if you'd bothered to read any cites.

see above for comprehension problems.

er, that's because it does! just like your fuel gauge tells you how
much gas is left in the tank!

yeah. a broken fuel gauge doesn't tell you when to fill your tank either!

then "cummins" don't have any scientists writing their sales lit!

see above.

it tells you a good deal more than witchcraft!

which is why cummins provide it as a service to customers...
http://www.npower-oilanalysis.com/

and:
"Beyond the 250-hour/6-month requirement, an oil analysis program is
strongly recommended."
from:
http://www.everytime.cummins.com/sites/every/applications/oil_gas/qst30_o_g.page

now, where's your cite?

what fleet do you work on? 'cos it appears they have a job opening for
someone that can actually read, do math, and who doesn't start
paragraphs with tabs.

now you're putting false words in my mouth. stripdown and measurement
gives you absolute determination of wear. but just like if you have
water dripping out of a bucket, if you catch the drips and measure them,
you know how much is left in the bucket - you don't have to empty it to
find out! logical retard.

eh? maybe i made a mistake in assuming you had any comprehension
ability. mea culpa.

but i'd better spell it out:
computers are made of highly advanced materials. there is no room for
fudging - the math and the execution have to be precise and correct.
witchcraft and guesswork don't work - the only successful method is
scientific method. precisely the one you don't seem to be able to grasp.

"playing the odds" is just guessing guy. just like driving without a
fuel gauge. you can do it, but you're being a real chump.

retard - just freakin' read it.

er, i actually /do/ know this. again, if you'd bothered to read, you'd
know.

bullshit. ever heard of "combustion product"? otherwise known as
"soot"? that stuff comes from "fuel". amazing, isn't it?

only if you don't know what you're looking at and can't follow a logical
argument! see above.

"very very small" is a statistical impact?!!

correction:
"no witchdoctor can say exactly at what..."

wow dude, you have a significant "knowledge gap"!!! kinda scary actually.

 

you write the contradictory nonsense that no research supports, but i'm
the fantasy bullshitter? do you know what "delusional" means?

then you're not bothering to read my posts! or you have a comprehension
problem.

see above. you should try reading my cites.

see above for "comprehension" and "delusional".

er, because it's unnecessary expense and wasteful?

but of course, that's not the purpose of what you wrote - the purpose
was to try to side-step the unarguable logic of making a wear-based
decision vs. a blind and uninformed decision.

so show the source online, idiot. or don't you know what "cite" means?

"cummins" in the third person? this smells like sales literature, not
their engineering lit. besides, analysis is not "guessing". analysis
is proven and successful and used in all major vehicle fleets, shipping,
aerospace, military, all industries, globally. again, you'd know that
if you'd bothered to read any cites.

see above for comprehension problems.

er, that's because it does! just like your fuel gauge tells you how
much gas is left in the tank!

yeah. a broken fuel gauge doesn't tell you when to fill your tank either!

then "cummins" don't have any scientists writing their sales lit!

see above.

it tells you a good deal more than witchcraft!

which is why cummins provide it as a service to customers...
http://www.npower-oilanalysis.com/

and:
"Beyond the 250-hour/6-month requirement, an oil analysis program is
strongly recommended."
from:
http://www.everytime.cummins.com/sites/every/applications/oil_gas/qst30_o_g.page

now, where's your cite?

what fleet do you work on? 'cos it appears they have a job opening for
someone that can actually read, do math, and who doesn't start
paragraphs with tabs.

now you're putting false words in my mouth. stripdown and measurement
gives you absolute determination of wear. but just like if you have
water dripping out of a bucket, if you catch the drips and measure them,
you know how much is left in the bucket - you don't have to empty it to
find out! logical retard.

eh? maybe i made a mistake in assuming you had any comprehension
ability. mea culpa.

but i'd better spell it out:
computers are made of highly advanced materials. there is no room for
fudging - the math and the execution have to be precise and correct.
witchcraft and guesswork don't work - the only successful method is
scientific method. precisely the one you don't seem to be able to grasp.

"playing the odds" is just guessing guy. just like driving without a
fuel gauge. you can do it, but you're being a real chump.

retard - just freakin' read it.

er, i actually /do/ know this. again, if you'd bothered to read, you'd
know.

bullshit. ever heard of "combustion product"? otherwise known as
"soot"? that stuff comes from "fuel". amazing, isn't it?

only if you don't know what you're looking at and can't follow a logical
argument! see above.

"very very small" is a statistical impact?!!

correction:
"no witchdoctor can say exactly at what..."

wow dude, you have a significant "knowledge gap"!!! kinda scary actually.

 

That's exactly right.

I'll bet some psychology student will write a PhD thesis examining how
ordinarily intelligent people were so easily convinced to ignore their
accumulated experience when presented with an oil change indicator on
their dash board that provided a numerical representation (%
remaining) instead of a typical on/off idiot light. It apparently
doesn't matter that the formula used to derive this numerical
representation is unknown. Most manufacturers actually give the game
away when they say that under "certain" environmental conditions
owners should change their oil more frequently than indicated by the
idiot light.

Like fleet owners my knuckle-dragging independent mechanics laugh all
the way to the bank at owners who religiously follow their owner's
manual and end up needing engine work due to extended oil drain
intervals.

 

That's exactly right.

I'll bet some psychology student will write a PhD thesis examining how
ordinarily intelligent people were so easily convinced to ignore their
accumulated experience when presented with an oil change indicator on
their dash board that provided a numerical representation (%
remaining) instead of a typical on/off idiot light. It apparently
doesn't matter that the formula used to derive this numerical
representation is unknown. Most manufacturers actually give the game
away when they say that under "certain" environmental conditions
owners should change their oil more frequently than indicated by the
idiot light.

Like fleet owners my knuckle-dragging independent mechanics laugh all
the way to the bank at owners who religiously follow their owner's
manual and end up needing engine work due to extended oil drain
intervals.

 

That's why I stated what I did, the proof is in the bottom line (which
for the unthinking, is the accumulation of all costs of operating a
fleet or a single vehicle).

 

That's why I stated what I did, the proof is in the bottom line (which
for the unthinking, is the accumulation of all costs of operating a
fleet or a single vehicle).

 

"hey, my rotted chicken healed that dude's leg!"

 

"hey, my rotted chicken healed that dude's leg!"

 

Let me guess you are leading up to giving me a special deal so that I
can study to be grand delusional at the feet of a True Master? Yes I'm
quite sure you could give me some tips on the topic, but thanks anyway.

Your right i don't generally bother to read your posts.. They seem to
have practically no content worth reading. How many times does one have
to read "bullshit" and "see above" before one becomes bored and starts
to pass over such drivel?

I read the only citation I saw. It only demonstrated your ignorance.

And what is there above to be seen? You really have knack for saying
nothing? And then you keep referring back to the nothings you have said
before?

Except that decision only exists in your fantasy world. The guy that is
maintaining a fleet sounds like he has a lot more information than you
now have or ever will have. Its only in your fantasy that you imagine
something different.

Hey i'm not the one who is making unsubstantiated claims and no I'm not
really interested in providing evidence that your claims are without
merit. I would encourage you to so more research you clearly are in need
of it.

The difference between the companies published engineering lit and
advertizing would be whether it pollutes your fantasy or not?

No you are just a wannabee idiot. Analysis is just how people gather
information And the particular analysis you are referring to is a form
of statistical analysis. There is no doubt that statistical analysis is
effective, but the way it works is at some point someone has to decide
what is for them acceptable level of risk. What you are attempting to do
is claim that there is no risk involved in doing extended oil changes.
That risk free absolute certainty is not a charateristic of the real
world. It only exists in your fantasy world.

If i did look again above would I now see something meaningful?

And of course in your fantasy world no person has ever run out of gas
when they rely on a fuel gauge. So why are you not hopping up and down
and ranting about the many people who don't trust the gas gauge and
never let it fall bellow 1/4 tank for fear of running out? Isn't this
also polluting your fanatasy?
The simple reality is that anyone who expects the fuel gauge to be
completely infallible is living in a fantasy world.

So how many fuel gauges do you have to put on a motor vehicle car to
make sure that there is no chance if yiou run it down to empty you will
ever run out? Your fantasy is so easy to crumble.

For many people it is just a whole lot easier to change the oil well
before there is any chance of it being worn out simply because the don't
want to become a neurotic obsessive idiot like you.
I have no personal problem with people who never go more than 100
miles without stopping to fill up with gas or with people who change
their oil or brakes twice as often as they might really need to. These
people are sane and normal because its a whole lot saner way to live
your life than to be constantly obsessing about how close to the brink
of disaster you can get with out falling in. The people who are
obsessing about how far they can get on each oil change are the nut
cases.

I'm sure they would love to have a mad scientist of your caliber on
their staff.

You keep referring back to where you have previously said nothing .
Wat's up with that?

Where's your brain? Cummins stated position is:

"Cummins Inc. does not recommend that oil
analysis be used to determine
maintenance intervals"

That does not mean they do not approve of oil analysis. Cummins thinks
oil analysis is a good thing and they have provided lots of good
literature that guides people in how to do effective oil analysis. If
you weren't so retarded you would know that policy statement simply
means they advise people to not use oil analysis to determine oil change
intervals.

Holy Cow Batman the terrible TAB man is back. What exactly is the basis
of your TABaphobia. Does it have something to do with your incoherent
mumblings about witches, chicken blood and broken legs???

Yeah well in your fantasy world you may think it is brilliant strategy
to poke a hole in the bucket and count the drops coming out, but the
average sane human would probably just look in the bucket to see how
full it is.

And of course your grasp of reality does exist because you simply
declare it to be so.

Maybe I'm driving an old VW bug, but the question still remains. Why
would you care if i was driving without a fuel gauge?
I know I know - because it pollutes your fantasy.

I did. About the best that can be said of your account is that it was
poorly contrived speculation. But that is a step up from what appears to
be your typical delusional posting.

Nevertheless ultimately oil changes do have an impact on carbon
deposits. That is not something your going to ever find out from
scientific oil analysis.

Somebody would actually have to make a logical argument if someone else
is expected to follow it. Or are you saying that your continual
repititions of "bullshit" and "see above" constitute a logical
argument?

Yes its small as in not easy to ascertain. But that is a foreign concept
in your fantasy world - isn't it?. In your hallucinations everything can
be ascertained with perfect certainty.

Yeah the statement would hold for witch doctors too.

If the TAB key scares you - I suppose just about anything could scare
you.

 

Let me guess you are leading up to giving me a special deal so that I
can study to be grand delusional at the feet of a True Master? Yes I'm
quite sure you could give me some tips on the topic, but thanks anyway.

Your right i don't generally bother to read your posts.. They seem to
have practically no content worth reading. How many times does one have
to read "bullshit" and "see above" before one becomes bored and starts
to pass over such drivel?

I read the only citation I saw. It only demonstrated your ignorance.

And what is there above to be seen? You really have knack for saying
nothing? And then you keep referring back to the nothings you have said
before?

Except that decision only exists in your fantasy world. The guy that is
maintaining a fleet sounds like he has a lot more information than you
now have or ever will have. Its only in your fantasy that you imagine
something different.

Hey i'm not the one who is making unsubstantiated claims and no I'm not
really interested in providing evidence that your claims are without
merit. I would encourage you to so more research you clearly are in need
of it.

The difference between the companies published engineering lit and
advertizing would be whether it pollutes your fantasy or not?

No you are just a wannabee idiot. Analysis is just how people gather
information And the particular analysis you are referring to is a form
of statistical analysis. There is no doubt that statistical analysis is
effective, but the way it works is at some point someone has to decide
what is for them acceptable level of risk. What you are attempting to do
is claim that there is no risk involved in doing extended oil changes.
That risk free absolute certainty is not a charateristic of the real
world. It only exists in your fantasy world.

If i did look again above would I now see something meaningful?

And of course in your fantasy world no person has ever run out of gas
when they rely on a fuel gauge. So why are you not hopping up and down
and ranting about the many people who don't trust the gas gauge and
never let it fall bellow 1/4 tank for fear of running out? Isn't this
also polluting your fanatasy?
The simple reality is that anyone who expects the fuel gauge to be
completely infallible is living in a fantasy world.

So how many fuel gauges do you have to put on a motor vehicle car to
make sure that there is no chance if yiou run it down to empty you will
ever run out? Your fantasy is so easy to crumble.

For many people it is just a whole lot easier to change the oil well
before there is any chance of it being worn out simply because the don't
want to become a neurotic obsessive idiot like you.
I have no personal problem with people who never go more than 100
miles without stopping to fill up with gas or with people who change
their oil or brakes twice as often as they might really need to. These
people are sane and normal because its a whole lot saner way to live
your life than to be constantly obsessing about how close to the brink
of disaster you can get with out falling in. The people who are
obsessing about how far they can get on each oil change are the nut
cases.

I'm sure they would love to have a mad scientist of your caliber on
their staff.

You keep referring back to where you have previously said nothing .
Wat's up with that?

Where's your brain? Cummins stated position is:

"Cummins Inc. does not recommend that oil
analysis be used to determine
maintenance intervals"

That does not mean they do not approve of oil analysis. Cummins thinks
oil analysis is a good thing and they have provided lots of good
literature that guides people in how to do effective oil analysis. If
you weren't so retarded you would know that policy statement simply
means they advise people to not use oil analysis to determine oil change
intervals.

Holy Cow Batman the terrible TAB man is back. What exactly is the basis
of your TABaphobia. Does it have something to do with your incoherent
mumblings about witches, chicken blood and broken legs???

Yeah well in your fantasy world you may think it is brilliant strategy
to poke a hole in the bucket and count the drops coming out, but the
average sane human would probably just look in the bucket to see how
full it is.

And of course your grasp of reality does exist because you simply
declare it to be so.

Maybe I'm driving an old VW bug, but the question still remains. Why
would you care if i was driving without a fuel gauge?
I know I know - because it pollutes your fantasy.

I did. About the best that can be said of your account is that it was
poorly contrived speculation. But that is a step up from what appears to
be your typical delusional posting.

Nevertheless ultimately oil changes do have an impact on carbon
deposits. That is not something your going to ever find out from
scientific oil analysis.

Somebody would actually have to make a logical argument if someone else
is expected to follow it. Or are you saying that your continual
repititions of "bullshit" and "see above" constitute a logical
argument?

Yes its small as in not easy to ascertain. But that is a foreign concept
in your fantasy world - isn't it?. In your hallucinations everything can
be ascertained with perfect certainty.

Yeah the statement would hold for witch doctors too.

If the TAB key scares you - I suppose just about anything could scare
you.

 

So Lets hear your explanation. Or are you only capable of saying
"bullshit" and "see above"?

The article states that the wear particles are too small to be
filtered. So what's your explanation for why do they start to appear in
the oil filter after 20 hours but not before that?

No this is a simple case of you having no clue about how detergents and
dispersants work. You seem to think they are something in the oil that
get turned on and off like a light switch.

Try reading the study you might learn something. What do you suppose
this sentence was referring to:

"The radiotracer data also showed periods
of wear particle reentrainment, dispersion,
and recollection, following engine restarts
and idle periods during the oil-stressing test run."

Those things were observed in the long test runs past 20 hours not in
the short test runs with fresh oil. What it means is that with the used
oil (after 20 hours) when they shut the engine off and let it sit for a
while the radioactive measurements showed some of the wear particles
disappeared from the oil.

Talk about delusional fantasies......

 

So Lets hear your explanation. Or are you only capable of saying
"bullshit" and "see above"?

The article states that the wear particles are too small to be
filtered. So what's your explanation for why do they start to appear in
the oil filter after 20 hours but not before that?

No this is a simple case of you having no clue about how detergents and
dispersants work. You seem to think they are something in the oil that
get turned on and off like a light switch.

Try reading the study you might learn something. What do you suppose
this sentence was referring to:

"The radiotracer data also showed periods
of wear particle reentrainment, dispersion,
and recollection, following engine restarts
and idle periods during the oil-stressing test run."

Those things were observed in the long test runs past 20 hours not in
the short test runs with fresh oil. What it means is that with the used
oil (after 20 hours) when they shut the engine off and let it sit for a
while the radioactive measurements showed some of the wear particles
disappeared from the oil.

Talk about delusional fantasies......

 

i've got a better question: why is it that you can read the same
article i can, yet you can signally fail to understand any of the
pertinent points or their context? [rhetorical]

don't put false words in my mouth. and the one with the
misunderstanding is you.

eh? do the words "reentrainment" and "recollection" really confuse you?
because you don't seem to be able to make any sense of what you've
just quoted.

no, delusion is only seeing what you want to see, not what actually
exists. you've just demonstrated being delusional three times above.

 

i've got a better question: why is it that you can read the same
article i can, yet you can signally fail to understand any of the
pertinent points or their context? [rhetorical]

don't put false words in my mouth. and the one with the
misunderstanding is you.

eh? do the words "reentrainment" and "recollection" really confuse you?
because you don't seem to be able to make any sense of what you've
just quoted.

no, delusion is only seeing what you want to see, not what actually
exists. you've just demonstrated being delusional three times above.

 

then why are you arguing? you clearly have no desire to learn anything.

<snip>

 

then why are you arguing? you clearly have no desire to learn anything.

<snip>