Determining oil change intervals via analysis

duh, i should learn to spell

t-r-i-b-o-l-o-g-y

 

a motor that burns less oil and is more fuel efficient, that's what! a
motor that barely runs at 200k is a whole lot more expensive compared
with one that runs /well/ at 200k.

 

Don't worry about it. This is the internet Jim. If you make a spelling
mistake someone will surely come along and let you know about it. And of
course, since it obviously so important, they'll surely offer up the
suggested proper spelling as well. Just to help out, of course...

 

Hey Jim - I'm not ragging on you, but this is the kind of thing that is very
frustrating in a discussion. Many have talked about long term experiences
gaining exactly that - a 200,000 mile engine that runs well. When you throw
a red herring out there about engines that are barely running, it's just a
noise level in the discussion. A statement like the one above really only
discredits your position because it not only ignores the evidence of
experience but it attempts to cloud the discussion with irrelevant clutter.

I'm kind of hoping you can and do produce something a bit more factual and
relevant to support your position. Maybe it won't cause me to change my
habits but it would be worth seeing something factual, if for no other
reason than the knowledge gain. I don't think you're full of hot air, or
that your ideas are all wet. Rather, I still don't see the real world value
they would add to what I already do.

It may be that I decide there is no sufficient benefit to your ideas and
that I'll continue with my own practices. That all by itself does not
discredit what you do or what you support - it only says it doesn't offer
enough for me. It may also be that if this discussion actually reached a
level where some sort of empirical evidence was put forth, it might be
obvious that the incremental value of more frequent changes, oil analysis,
etc. simply do not offer a statistically significant benefit.

 

http://www.tegger.com/hondafaq/sludge/cleaning_sludge.html[/QUOTE]

Yes, some Toyota engines and one Chrysler engine (the 2.7 as I recall)
have design errors that cause sludge formation. Frequent oil changes
have little affect on this, but changing to synthetic helps a lot.

And something is really fishy with this story. I don't believe the 8700
miles for a second. Even sludge prone engines won't build this much
sludge in that little mileage. There is more to this than meets the
eye. I suspect odometer tampering or possibly even an engine swap with
a high mileage engine in order to use the new one for anothe vehicle.

Matt

 

http://www.tegger.com/hondafaq/sludge/cleaning_sludge.html
[/QUOTE]

I didn't see any failed parts here, just lots of sludge.

And as I already replied, this story just doesn't hold water and isn't
credible.

Matt

 

Not if it takes the most expensive part of your car easily from 100K
miles to 200K miles.

Of course, since most people switch out cars every 36K miles anymore,
most people don't think that's important.[/QUOTE]

Well, my Chrysler minvan was very nearly to 200K on 5,000 and then later
10,000 mile change intervals using Mobil 1. The inside of the engine
had only a light coating of varnish when the car was totaled at 178K.


Matt

 

So you have no homeowner's insurance? No car insurance? After all,
your house will never burn down and you don't ever plan on getting into
an accident, therefore you don't need those things.
[/QUOTE]

Comparing oil changes to insurance is simply stupid. They aren't
equivalent at all. You buy insurance to help when crap happens. You
don't change oil to help when your engine fails. How will an oil change
give you the money to buy a new engine?

Changing oil is more analogous to installing a sprinkler system in your
house. It is to prevent something, not mitigate the damages. And
changing your oil too often is like installing a sprinkler system in a
concrete building full of concrete blocks. It doesn't add any
additional fire protection and is thus a waste of money. Just as is
changing the oil more often than is necessary.


Matt

 

Other than being an argument not to buy a Toyota, this site is meaningless.


Matt

 

They may, but I've seen no documented proof as to when this is
meaningful. Post some of your fleet testing results. If my engine will
last 200K with 10,000 miles intervals and the body rusts off at 200K,
what is the point of reducing engine wear?

And why not change oil at 1,000 miles rather than 3,000 as that would
reduce wear even more right? How about 500 miles? Why not change it
every morning before going to work?


Matt

 

Trust me I have. That isn't data. Obviously, you have no data.


Matt

 

I think your cut and paste keys are stuck. This is meaningless and you
can't even figure that out. This isn't a test and doesn't show anything
related to the topic at hand. It shows a failed engine with unknown
history. If you think that is data, then you have much to learn.

Matt

 

Yes, and then learn about relevance.

Matt

 

My minvan ran as good as new at 178,000 miles, used the same amount of
oil as it did when I got it and had basically the same MPG (I compute
every single tank and keep it in a log book).

Next...


Matt

 

Mike, as you and I know, there is no credible scientific data out there
either for or against any given oil change frequency. The closest I've
seen to a real-world test is the one that CR did many years ago with a
taxi fleet. They found no measurable wear in engines changed at 6,000
miles (if memory serves) running plain old dino oil.

Now, there were several shortcomings in their test, in my opinion, such
as taxis don't really represent how most people drive as they rarely get
thermally cycled and there is reason to believe that cold starts are
one of the highest wear activities an engine sees. And, again if memory
serves, they ran the engines for only 60,000 miles. This is hardly a
stress test for a modern engine.

However, imperfect as it was, this is about the only test I've seen that
was even close to scientifically conducted.


Matt

 

You are not addressing his point about taking the car to
only 200k miles.

Just the way you reason is a tipoff that you're bs-ing.
Again.

As usual, you get all huffy and insist you know it all,
without producing any data. You need to learn that there is
a gray area; that opinions do not make facts.

Tribology indeed. I'd tell you to read about it, but that's
just a waste, because you couldn't reason your way out of
the proverbial wet paper bag.

Consumer Reports study is the best I've seen so far. It's
not perfect, but I haven't seen any other with any kind of
controls. See the article at
http://www.xs11.com/stories/croil96.htm

And no, Beamer, that does not mean it settles this debate.
But it is evidence on the side of not changing one's oil
every 3k miles under normal driving conditions.

Try try not to see things as black and white when they
clearly are not.

Try try not to read things into others' statements, in a
poor effort to build your weak ego.

Watch him rationalize this one.

 

Oooohhh, you get the "Miss Congeniality" award.... you can rest assured your
reply has enamored you for life....

FWIW, nothing replaces regular, timely oil changes (along with the "usual"
but often overlooked inspection process involved) as a preventive service
measure. If an oil analysis reveals higher than normal levels of tin, is the
owner going to rush into an expensive rebearing job? I doubt it.

However, some users of oil analysis services find this valuable.... these
sorts of fleet operations use the analysis to identify incipient concerns
and feel justified in spending the money before there is a very expensive
"inconvenience" or possible environmental damage.

For the average motorist, the oil analysis will benefit only one entity...
usually, the testing lab.

I started driving in the mid-60s and have never needed this sort of service
for any other reason than to prove that a consumer has done something
wrong.... (hmmm... can we spell "backfire"?).

BTW, you are still a spammy bastuhd....

 

Not if it takes the most expensive part of your car easily from 100K
miles to 200K miles.[/QUOTE]

What evidence do you have that it makes that difference? None, I
suspect, since none exists. I've owned three vehicles that went over
165K miles and all of them ran fine. Their oil was changed every
5000-7000 miles. They were all put to rest for reasons other than engine
problems (body rot, broken transmission, etc.)

 

Because the benefits go on a curve.

 

In your world, maybe.