new Honda CR-V break in

jim · Jan 24, 2010

jim said:

dude, read the fucking cites. exhaust valve alloys are chosen because
of heat and burn resistance. end of story. stop your denial.
Click to expand...

You would have to say something first before I could deny it. You have said nothing.

jim · Jan 24, 2010

jim said:

dude, read the fucking cites. exhaust valve alloys are chosen because
of heat and burn resistance. end of story. stop your denial.
Click to expand...

You would have to say something first before I could deny it. You have said nothing.

E. Meyer · Jan 24, 2010

Yea.... Buying the appropriate viscosity oil was sorta implied!

I had places like Auto Zone and Kragen in mind; not the guy on the
corner, selling who-knows-what out the back of his pickup!
Click to expand...

I misread your intent. I was thinking the "$29.95 special" at quicky-lube
or similar where you don't have any idea what they're doing or using most of
the time.

E. Meyer · Jan 24, 2010

Yea.... Buying the appropriate viscosity oil was sorta implied!

I had places like Auto Zone and Kragen in mind; not the guy on the
corner, selling who-knows-what out the back of his pickup!
Click to expand...

I misread your intent. I was thinking the "$29.95 special" at quicky-lube
or similar where you don't have any idea what they're doing or using most of
the time.

jim beam · Jan 24, 2010

You would have to say something first before I could deny it. You have said nothing.
Click to expand...

wow, denial /and/ delusion!!!

idiot.

jim beam · Jan 24, 2010

You would have to say something first before I could deny it. You have said nothing.
Click to expand...

wow, denial /and/ delusion!!!

idiot.

jim · Jan 24, 2010

jim beam wrote: nothing as usual

jim · Jan 24, 2010

jim beam wrote: nothing as usual

Guy · Jan 24, 2010

No you can't or at least you never have. You have yet to point anything
at all. You claim what i say is wrong but you have yet to explain the
basis for saying that.
Click to expand...

false statement. i have done so repeatedly. and at this point, you
continuing to say that is just pure dishonesty.

Who said "you can't determine the composition"? Where did that come
from?
Click to expand...

er, from the cite you've apparently not bothered to read properly?

You could explain what statement that I made is incorrect? And (more
important) why is it incorrect? Try that for once in your life.
Click to expand...

rtfc, then read my post one more time, dipshit. your reading
comprehension is failing badly.

Low wear
metal levels in used oil samples can reflect high oil consumption rates
and dilution with new oil added to replace that consumed. Low wear metal
levels in used oil samples can also reflect additional contamination and
wear debris. Engine oil operated beyond this saturation point often
drops contamination and wear debris out as sludge. This results in
declining wear metal levels at increasing kilometers [miles] or hours on
the oil. This does not mean that wear rates are decreasing and oil
condition is improving. It means that oil analysis becomes meaningless
after the engine oil is excessively contaminated.

[END QUOTE]

Notice the last sentence in that quote.

er, you're failing to comprehend basic context.

What's the problem? Is "meaningless" too big a word for you?

i know what "saturation" means. you clearly don't.
Click to expand...

But of course like always you can't explain a single thing. Cummins
used the word "saturation" to mean the point at which oil will start to
lose some of the suspended wear particles. They were making the point
that if the wear metal ends up somewhere else then it does not get
accounted for in oil analysis. So what is your point about the word
saturation?
Click to expand...

you are dishonestly and wrongly saying that oil loses its ability to
maintain suspension before saturation. that's completely incorrect. and
you're dishonestly fudging about where saturation point is.

You have never said anything.
Click to expand...

false statement.

You have nothing but miles and miles of
empty rhetoric. All you can say is "Bullshit" and "see above". You have
never said one thing that has any substance. And now your whining that
some of your empty blathering got snipped?
Click to expand...

you're dishonestly snipping the cites that contradict you. that makes
you a bullshitter - you can't man up and face the facts.

2. the exact quote is:
"radiotracer wear data showed that filtration had no noticeable affect
on wear particle removal until approximately 20 hours into the
oil-conditioning test run". that does /not/ mean the oil is starting to
fail after 20 hours. it means there is insufficient contamination onto
which radiotracer can adsorb. [a-D-s-o-r-b - look it up.]
Click to expand...

I didn't say the oil was starting to fail. I said It was evidence that
the oil could no longer hold 100% of the wear particles in suspension at
20 hours (I think I must have said that about 20 times now).
Click to expand...

and you're still 20x wrong!

That leads
to the obvious conclusions that if the oil is not holding all the
particles in suspension
Click to expand...

it's not an "obvious conclusion" because you're wrong! and you can't
read. and you're too fucking stoooopid to learn.

then A) they must be ending up somewhere else
and B) measuring the wear particles in the oil will not detect those
missing particles.
Click to expand...

a. wrong.

b. right, but a false conclusion because a. is wrong.

What is it that you are saying is normal? Try for once to say a single
statement clearly. Can you?
Click to expand...

how about this for a clear single statement: "you are an ignorant
bullshitter."

The drop out of wear particles from the oil after 20 hours occurs even
when the engine is running.
wrong.

The evidence that wear particles end up in
the filter means the particles are starting to stick to things.
Click to expand...

wow, amazingly wrong! filtration works by adhesion??? that's a classic!

The
purpose of the additives are to keep the very small wear particle (and
other types of particles, too) in the oil from sticking to things.
Click to expand...

/which/ additives, dipshit? the seal conditioners? they're not in to
prevent "sticking". the anti-foaming agents? they're not there to
prevent "sticking". the anti-oxidants? they're not there to prevent
"sticking". the acidity controllers? they're not there to prevent
"sticking". the e.p. additives? they're not there to prevent
"sticking". what about the detergents? they're there to keep wear and
combustion product in suspension so the filter can do its job. but
that's not anything to do with "sticking" either.

When
you start to see evidence that particles are becoming sticky that means
the additives that are supposed to prevent that from happening are
becoming less effective.
Click to expand...

you can see "sticky" particles <10 microns??? wow dude, you should work
for nasa!

Please try to stay on topic. We are not talking about whether the oil
loses effectiveness. We are examining your claim that dirty oil protects
an engine from wear better than clean oil does.
Click to expand...

wow dude, effectiveness is unimportant??? that's a classic! any more
of my words you want to mis-state???.

Your claim is false. The only reason anyone thinks it is true is
because they have relied on inaccurate methods for measuring actual
engine wear.
Click to expand...

nope, wrong. you can't read.

This is simply a case of bad accounting. the reason you
think there is less wear with dirty oil is because there are less wear
particles present in the oil. But that is only because you have failed
to account for the wear particles that dropped out of the oil.
Click to expand...

because the oil has "failed" after only 20 hours???!!! utter bullshit.

Cummins explanation of the pitfalls of oil analysis is much better than
mine:

"declining wear metal levels.....
does not mean that wear rates are
decreasing and oil condition is
improving."
Click to expand...

you're deliberately quoting out of context - you dishonestly snipped the
part about "beyond saturation".

They are directly addressing the falacy of your position. Your position
is not something new. You are not alone in your mistaken opinion.
Automotive engineers are quite aware that some people believe that lower
rates of wear metals in dirty oil leads some people to the erroneous
conclusion that dirty oil causes less wear than clean oil.
Click to expand...

false statement, see above.

Neither I nor Cummins ever said oil analysis has no use. If you read
that entire service bulletin Cummins gives a long list of scenarios
where oil analysis is useful and helpful.

All I have said is your claim that old dirty oil causes less wear than
fresh oil is absolutely false. Your reliance the SWRI study to bolster
your claim fails to do that.
Click to expand...

deliberately false statement - you keep trying to use "beyond
saturation" statements as if they apply to "pre saturation". they
don't. and to say they do is either retarded or dishonest.

All anyone needs to do is wipe a finger on the inside of a valve cover
to make a determination of whether dirt particles are dropping out of
the oil and sticking to things inside the engine. The simple fact is
that most engines do have some dirt deposited on the inside of the
engine and therefore you will end up with some dirt on your finger. This
is generally regarded as normal and there is no good evidence that it
will shorten the life of an engine.
Click to expand...

relentless with the bullshit, aren't you.

no, "dirt" on your finger comes from either the combustion/wear product
properly held in suspension by the oil, which properly coats the
surfaces. or it comes from deposition. but deposition ONLY occurs
after the oil has started to fail. if you use analysis correctly, you
determine what that failure point is, and thus avoid deposition! duh.

Oh we're back to "see above". And once again there is nothing at all
above to see.
Click to expand...

you missed a bit - let me correct it for you:

"And once again there is nothing at all above to see after i've snipped
what i don't like and can't man up to addressing".

there you go.

No body said that it was.
Click to expand...

er, when you say that oil starts to deposit wear/combustion product
after only 20 hours, that's exactly what you /are/ saying.

The experiment demonstrated that wear
particles start to become sticky
Click to expand...

no it doesn't!

and start to stick to things after 20
hours of operation. The article said:

"radiotracer wear data showed that filtration
had no noticeable affect on wear particle removal
until approximately 20 hours into the
oil-conditioning test run"

What that means is that before 20 hours the additives were 100%
effective at keeping wear particles in suspension in the oil. After 20
hours the additive package was no longer 100% effective at keeping the
particles from sticking to things.
Click to expand...

wow dude. how do you do it? i mean, draw utterly nonsense unrelated
conclusions from such a simple statement of fact?

That means that some of the particles
stick to each other in clumps and start to show up in the oil filter.
Click to expand...

no, it means that only 20 hours in - that's approximately 600 miles in,
there is no noticeable wear product created to measure!

But there is no accounting for particles that end up elsewhere.
Click to expand...

because they only exist in your fantasy!

As the
Cummins bulletin also stated one place the wear particles can disappear
to is inside the combustion chamber.
Click to expand...

of course, the black hole!

And The SWRI report never stated
how much less wear particles they found in the old dirty oil so we can
only guess what that number might be.
Click to expand...

but you can guess all kinds of wrong conclusions!

What is this sudden infatuation with the word "saturation". Cummins
used that word in there service bulletin and now you are spinning in
circles around this word.
Click to expand...

i need to keep repeating it because you don't acknowledge or understand it!

The SWRI study never used this word saturation, but they did give an
adequate description so that the reader can tell at what point the oil
was no longer able to hold 100% of the wear particles in suspension.
Click to expand...

to anyone interested in this topic, "saturation" is an obvious concept
and taken for granted. just like they don't bother to define "engine"
or "filter" or "oil" either.

did you ever do high school chemistry? [rhetorical]

What if I do look it up?
Click to expand...

you look up something that you conveniently don't want to acknowledge
because it contradicts your fantasies and bullshit!

I ask for an explanation of what you think is
the flaw in my logic and you respond with ""saturation"! look it up!".
I didn't even use that word neither did SWRI.
Click to expand...

that's because it's freakin' obvious, dipshit! do you need to look up
"stoooopid" too?

HA HA HA You have offered no explanation. You think ""saturation"! look
it up!" is an explanation? What is that explaining?
Click to expand...

that you're stoooopid!

OK here's another whole long dreary post from you where can't state a
single thing that is substantive or meaningful.
Click to expand...

here's something substantive and meaningful for you:

1. learn to read.

2. try to learn.

3. try to use logic.

4. don't be dishonest.

then you won't be pissing in the knowledge pool with your fantasy
underinformed ignorant bullshit.
Click to expand...

test

jim beam · Jan 24, 2010

jim beam wrote: nothing as usual
Click to expand...

here, you snipped this:

"denial /and/ delusion!!!"

that makes you an idiot.

jim beam · Jan 24, 2010

jim beam wrote: nothing as usual
Click to expand...

here, you snipped this:

"denial /and/ delusion!!!"

that makes you an idiot.

jim · Jan 24, 2010

Is this better:

jim · Jan 24, 2010

Is this better:

new Honda CR-V break in

jim Guest

jim Guest

E. Meyer Guest

E. Meyer Guest

jim beam Guest

jim beam Guest

jim Guest

jim Guest

Guy Guest

jim beam Guest

jim beam Guest

jim Guest

jim Guest

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

Honda Break Fluid

Break switch or break stopper

2003 Honda Accord Break Rotors

1989 Honda Accord with weird humming noise & electrical problemsafter a break-in

Break-in of new engine

Honda CRV oil change and break in

New Pilot break in period

Honda Accord Break Problem

new Honda CR-V break in

jim Guest

jim Guest

E. Meyer Guest

E. Meyer Guest

jim beam Guest

jim beam Guest

jim Guest

jim Guest

Guy Guest

jim beam Guest

jim beam Guest

jim Guest

jim Guest

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

Useful Searches