Questions about new Accord

What part of "I know what works for my application" did you not
understand? I change my engine oil and all the fluids in my vehicles
when I choose to, it is a practice that hasn't caused me any breakdowns
or headaches in close to four decades of motor vehicle ownership. If
that is wrong in your eyes, that is too bad, because practice has proven
it to be correct.

It's experience that has proven itself. Many people will call it wisdom
with a less sarcastic tone. They would be the people that know that
eliminating breakdowns through preventative maintenance is the smartest
way to operate. You ... well

 

What part of "I know what works for my application" did you not
understand? I change my engine oil and all the fluids in my vehicles
when I choose to, it is a practice that hasn't caused me any breakdowns
or headaches in close to four decades of motor vehicle ownership. If
that is wrong in your eyes, that is too bad, because practice has proven
it to be correct.

It's experience that has proven itself. Many people will call it wisdom
with a less sarcastic tone. They would be the people that know that
eliminating breakdowns through preventative maintenance is the smartest
way to operate. You ... well

 

no dude, that's like saying that because you keep cheese in the fridge,
and elephants don't like cheese, you've successfully prevented elephants
from invading your kitchen.

science and engineering are built on measurement. anything else is
guesswork. fact is, there /are/ no elephants in nova scotia, so your
"prevention" is wasted.

 

no dude, that's like saying that because you keep cheese in the fridge,
and elephants don't like cheese, you've successfully prevented elephants
from invading your kitchen.

science and engineering are built on measurement. anything else is
guesswork. fact is, there /are/ no elephants in nova scotia, so your
"prevention" is wasted.

 

What part of "I know what works for my application" did you not
understand?[/QUOTE]

What part of "the engineers are actually MEASURING your application
dynamically, and understand its ramifications on the system they
designed better than YOU do" don't you understand?

Ah, the old "things never change, therefore I don't have to either"
argument.

I guess if you do start out with the premise that things never change,
then in fact you DON'T have to.

This reminds me of a recent call to Car Talk, where some girl's father
had taught her to do some weirdness with the gas pump hose after
shutting it off, because in HIS day you did it to drain out ALL that gas
that's left in the hose--gas you've already paid for.

She blindly did this, because after all that's what her father taught
her. Come to find out, over the last 50 years gas pumps have changed!
<gasp!> And with ACTUAL measurements, it turns out that there's about 4
millilitres of fuel left in the hose after the pump shuts off.


Of course, things DO change. Engines change, the engineering changes,
the computerized controls change. Our knowledge of what conditions
cause what symptoms and/or problems accumulates, to the point where the
computer can be accurately programmed to interact with the various
sensors to tell YOU, the driver, in simple terms what's needed when it's
needed.

And remember, oil formulations have changed as well. It's not 1960
anymore.

Nobody's disputing preventive maintenance. What we're disputing is your
"wisdom" as developed on old systems and never changed for the times,
never taking into account that we can know much more about the system
than you are willing to acknowledge.

Sure, we can change the oil every 3000 miles. That's cheap insurance.
But if you KNOW the condition of the oil, then you're better off. Maybe
you drove it such that it needs changing in 2000 miles, and you're
screwing yourself on reliability. Or maybe you drove it such that the
oil still has 90% of its useful life left after 5000 miles. Yes, you
could change it--but that costs money that you don't have to spend, AND
you have KNOWLEDGE that you don't have to spend it.

In 1960, you didn't know the state of the oil so you made wild-ass
guesses and went with what worked. But you no longer have to make
wild-ass guesses; so, what force drives you to ignore the ACTUAL
KNOWLEDGE of the state of the system and continue with your wild-ass
guesses?

Before you know it, you'll be able to buy a home oil analyzer that will
take your dipstick in and tell you the exact state of your oil, complete
with life remaining and a program that tracks your driving style as
determined by your oil analyses. But I imagine you'll continue with
your wild-ass guesses.

What you have is called being an old fart.

 

What part of "I know what works for my application" did you not
understand?[/QUOTE]

What part of "the engineers are actually MEASURING your application
dynamically, and understand its ramifications on the system they
designed better than YOU do" don't you understand?

Ah, the old "things never change, therefore I don't have to either"
argument.

I guess if you do start out with the premise that things never change,
then in fact you DON'T have to.

This reminds me of a recent call to Car Talk, where some girl's father
had taught her to do some weirdness with the gas pump hose after
shutting it off, because in HIS day you did it to drain out ALL that gas
that's left in the hose--gas you've already paid for.

She blindly did this, because after all that's what her father taught
her. Come to find out, over the last 50 years gas pumps have changed!
<gasp!> And with ACTUAL measurements, it turns out that there's about 4
millilitres of fuel left in the hose after the pump shuts off.


Of course, things DO change. Engines change, the engineering changes,
the computerized controls change. Our knowledge of what conditions
cause what symptoms and/or problems accumulates, to the point where the
computer can be accurately programmed to interact with the various
sensors to tell YOU, the driver, in simple terms what's needed when it's
needed.

And remember, oil formulations have changed as well. It's not 1960
anymore.

Nobody's disputing preventive maintenance. What we're disputing is your
"wisdom" as developed on old systems and never changed for the times,
never taking into account that we can know much more about the system
than you are willing to acknowledge.

Sure, we can change the oil every 3000 miles. That's cheap insurance.
But if you KNOW the condition of the oil, then you're better off. Maybe
you drove it such that it needs changing in 2000 miles, and you're
screwing yourself on reliability. Or maybe you drove it such that the
oil still has 90% of its useful life left after 5000 miles. Yes, you
could change it--but that costs money that you don't have to spend, AND
you have KNOWLEDGE that you don't have to spend it.

In 1960, you didn't know the state of the oil so you made wild-ass
guesses and went with what worked. But you no longer have to make
wild-ass guesses; so, what force drives you to ignore the ACTUAL
KNOWLEDGE of the state of the system and continue with your wild-ass
guesses?

Before you know it, you'll be able to buy a home oil analyzer that will
take your dipstick in and tell you the exact state of your oil, complete
with life remaining and a program that tracks your driving style as
determined by your oil analyses. But I imagine you'll continue with
your wild-ass guesses.

What you have is called being an old fart.

 

Actually, more or less the same thing.

Yep, you can just imagine the difference in the oil in person A's
car--who sits in traffic over an hour each day in city commuting--
compared to person B's--who lives in a rural area and drives at
normals speeds cruising during commutes each day--after
5000 miles. The forumula (since only 't' and 'r' increases increase
the "estimated mileage") would have their 'e' very similar, which
in reality would be quite different.

 

Actually, more or less the same thing.

Yep, you can just imagine the difference in the oil in person A's
car--who sits in traffic over an hour each day in city commuting--
compared to person B's--who lives in a rural area and drives at
normals speeds cruising during commutes each day--after
5000 miles. The forumula (since only 't' and 'r' increases increase
the "estimated mileage") would have their 'e' very similar, which
in reality would be quite different.

 

Well, this old fart is going to continue on with the program that
works. If you don't like it, that's your decision. But it has proven
itself over a number of decades and what works, is nothing to get rid of
just because of technology.

 

Well, this old fart is going to continue on with the program that
works. If you don't like it, that's your decision. But it has proven
itself over a number of decades and what works, is nothing to get rid of
just because of technology.

 

Why would you expect me to go into any technical detail with you on
this when you've shown quite clearly your inability to understand
even the basic problem points (clearly stated by me) with the MM?
Your posting alias was chosen well it seems.

This is the formula used in their models during the last ten years
for BMW oil change countdown lights. Are you ever right about
anything btw?

 

Why would you expect me to go into any technical detail with you on
this when you've shown quite clearly your inability to understand
even the basic problem points (clearly stated by me) with the MM?
Your posting alias was chosen well it seems.

This is the formula used in their models during the last ten years
for BMW oil change countdown lights. Are you ever right about
anything btw?

 

try me. get as technical as you like. and feel free to post your oil
analysis.

how do i know this for fact? do you expect me to just take your word
for it when you've proven yourself unreliable? why would i believe
anything that simplistic would be used on a machine that can compute
ignition timing differently for each cylinder for each revolution based
on, among other things, stoichiometry, angular velocity and fluctuation
thereof, air density, temperatures of both air and coolant, coil
saturation, blah, blah, blah...

er, no, never. i just hang out on newsgroups, call myself an expert
when i'm not, and feebly try to denigrate anyone who dares call me on my
bullshit.

 

try me. get as technical as you like. and feel free to post your oil
analysis.

how do i know this for fact? do you expect me to just take your word
for it when you've proven yourself unreliable? why would i believe
anything that simplistic would be used on a machine that can compute
ignition timing differently for each cylinder for each revolution based
on, among other things, stoichiometry, angular velocity and fluctuation
thereof, air density, temperatures of both air and coolant, coil
saturation, blah, blah, blah...

er, no, never. i just hang out on newsgroups, call myself an expert
when i'm not, and feebly try to denigrate anyone who dares call me on my
bullshit.

 

keep those elephants at bay there brian! you'll be safe with your
refrigerator full of cheese when the rest of nova scotia is completely
over-run.

 

keep those elephants at bay there brian! you'll be safe with your
refrigerator full of cheese when the rest of nova scotia is completely
over-run.

 

Yep, I'm a little younger than you, but I've kept a couple of cars
many
years (currently have one nearly 20 years old, always maintained by
yours truly and still runs great). The yo-yo you responded to who
gives the great reverence and weight to the stuff put out by
automakers
has evidently been in a fog most of his life. It has LONG been the
practice
of automakers to lengthen the stated service intervals on various
items,
obviously to make their cars appear more maintenance free, and
therefore more attractive for purchase. Old stuff. After all,
they're the ones who will sell you new wheels when the old car
starts barking. One recent example is a big issue with a large
number of VW owners who were following their owners manuals
and not bothering to change their timing belts till the 100k mark
stated in their manuals. Guess what, these belts actually started
failing em masse at anywhere from 65-80k miles, as would be
expected for a timing belt. But purchasers who were uninformed
about timing belts believed the manual, and most paid around
4k for extensive engine work because of the failed belts.

But hey, people like shagnasty are needed in society. After
all, the people who sell times shares, rent-to-own services,
and bad mortgage deals have to make a living too!

 

Yep, I'm a little younger than you, but I've kept a couple of cars
many
years (currently have one nearly 20 years old, always maintained by
yours truly and still runs great). The yo-yo you responded to who
gives the great reverence and weight to the stuff put out by
automakers
has evidently been in a fog most of his life. It has LONG been the
practice
of automakers to lengthen the stated service intervals on various
items,
obviously to make their cars appear more maintenance free, and
therefore more attractive for purchase. Old stuff. After all,
they're the ones who will sell you new wheels when the old car
starts barking. One recent example is a big issue with a large
number of VW owners who were following their owners manuals
and not bothering to change their timing belts till the 100k mark
stated in their manuals. Guess what, these belts actually started
failing em masse at anywhere from 65-80k miles, as would be
expected for a timing belt. But purchasers who were uninformed
about timing belts believed the manual, and most paid around
4k for extensive engine work because of the failed belts.

But hey, people like shagnasty are needed in society. After
all, the people who sell times shares, rent-to-own services,
and bad mortgage deals have to make a living too!

 

ad hominem doesn't make you factually correct, it makes you look like a
loser. where is your oil analysis?

 

ad hominem doesn't make you factually correct, it makes you look like a
loser. where is your oil analysis?