new Honda CR-V break in

Ha HA HA Yeah if I had been reading all your posts by now I would have
become expert at saying "Bullshit" with great authority! Oh my goodness
i can't believe i missed the opportunity to learn that.

 

Ha HA HA Yeah if I had been reading all your posts by now I would have
become expert at saying "Bullshit" with great authority! Oh my goodness
i can't believe i missed the opportunity to learn that.

 

After reading the second post of his, you would have had the proper
response down pat.

 

After reading the second post of his, you would have had the proper
response down pat.

 

wow - pride in ignorance. that's shameful.

 

wow - pride in ignorance. that's shameful.

 

No you got that exactly backwards as usual. I'm pretty sure I would be
ashamed of myself if I had read more of your posts.

 

No you got that exactly backwards as usual. I'm pretty sure I would be
ashamed of myself if I had read more of your posts.

 

In other words, you don't have a single clue how to answer the
question.

False words??? You are precious little toady. If you don't want others
to explain your position why don't you take a stab at explaining it
yourself? I'll tell you why you don't because you can't.

If there is 'no depositing of wear products' as you stated previously
then how can there be "reentrainment" and "recollection" of wear
particles as the article states? Is that another question you can't
answer?

The simple fact is that what was reported in the article demonstrates
that some of the additives in the oil have already started to exhibit
evidence of diminished effectiveness at 20 hours of use.

Why is it impossible for you to actually state in coherent words what
exactly is incorrect in what I said? You can't answer that one either?

Going back to my first question - If you can - Please explain why it
was observed that the oil is displaying a difference in the way it holds
wear particles in suspension after only 20 hours of use?

 

In other words, you don't have a single clue how to answer the
question.

False words??? You are precious little toady. If you don't want others
to explain your position why don't you take a stab at explaining it
yourself? I'll tell you why you don't because you can't.

If there is 'no depositing of wear products' as you stated previously
then how can there be "reentrainment" and "recollection" of wear
particles as the article states? Is that another question you can't
answer?

The simple fact is that what was reported in the article demonstrates
that some of the additives in the oil have already started to exhibit
evidence of diminished effectiveness at 20 hours of use.

Why is it impossible for you to actually state in coherent words what
exactly is incorrect in what I said? You can't answer that one either?

Going back to my first question - If you can - Please explain why it
was observed that the oil is displaying a difference in the way it holds
wear particles in suspension after only 20 hours of use?

 

dude, let's get this straight: i post information and cites that not
only offer you the opportunity to learn something you clearly don't
know, they also set you straight on some of the shit you have hopelessly
wrong. but you can't be bothered to read them, let alone address them
in any meaningful manner. to then accuse me of the mistake you yourself
are making is not only stupid, it's delusional.

 

dude, let's get this straight: i post information and cites that not
only offer you the opportunity to learn something you clearly don't
know, they also set you straight on some of the shit you have hopelessly
wrong. but you can't be bothered to read them, let alone address them
in any meaningful manner. to then accuse me of the mistake you yourself
are making is not only stupid, it's delusional.

 

You can't answer one little simple question about your so called
"information and cite". All you can do in response to simple question of
substance is to start name calling.

 

You can't answer one little simple question about your so called
"information and cite". All you can do in response to simple question of
substance is to start name calling.

 

er, no, it's a case of how can i argue with someone that can't read,
doesn't evidence basic comprehension and doesn't want to know?

i've explained it, and cited external sources - you're the one that's in
delusional denial.

!!! wow dude, for someone that can't pass a basic logic test, let alone
comprehension, that's unbelievably presumptive and stupid!!!

eh? in http://www.swri.org/3pubs/IRD1999/03912699.htm, in the
"Accomplishments" section, it states:
"Testing with partially stressed oil, which contained some wear debris,
produced less wear than testing with clean oil."

if in your muddled brain "less wear" equates to "diminished
effectiveness", then you have problems i'm simply unqualified to address.

dude, if you could possibly get the facts straight in the first place,
we could possibly have a discussion. as it stands however, you're
hopelessly mired in confusion and delusion.

 

er, no, it's a case of how can i argue with someone that can't read,
doesn't evidence basic comprehension and doesn't want to know?

i've explained it, and cited external sources - you're the one that's in
delusional denial.

!!! wow dude, for someone that can't pass a basic logic test, let alone
comprehension, that's unbelievably presumptive and stupid!!!

eh? in http://www.swri.org/3pubs/IRD1999/03912699.htm, in the
"Accomplishments" section, it states:
"Testing with partially stressed oil, which contained some wear debris,
produced less wear than testing with clean oil."

if in your muddled brain "less wear" equates to "diminished
effectiveness", then you have problems i'm simply unqualified to address.

dude, if you could possibly get the facts straight in the first place,
we could possibly have a discussion. as it stands however, you're
hopelessly mired in confusion and delusion.

 

wrong. go back in the tread.

 

wrong. go back in the tread.

 

"thread"

 

"thread"