From: SMS on
Steve wrote:

> From where I sit, spending extra for slightly more frequent oil changes
> costs about the same as regular UOAs.

Once you determine, via analysis, the interval on each vehicle at which
there is no additional benefit from more frequent oil changes, you don't
need to do any more analyzing.

I was really only suggesting that analysis might be a good idea for
those people that don't understand how needless it is to do a 3000 mile
oil change on a modern engine. They've been brainwashed by companies
like Jiffy Lube and/or they remember what their father or grandfather
told them back in the 1960's, and haven't updated this knowledge to
account for higher quality multi-weight detergent motor oils, versus
cans of SAE 30, even though every independent test has shown how
needless 3000 mile changes actually are.

They're wasting an enormous amount of money, time, and resources on
something that will provide absolutely no benefit in terms of the
longevity of their vehicle. Ask them why they don't do 1000 mile oil
changes rather than 3000?

Ditto for people that live in moderate climates, and are driving
non-high performance vehicles, and spending $45 changing their own oil
with synthetic versus spending $20 using conventional oil. Synthetic oil
won't hurt anything (as long as it's an API certified synthetic and not
one of the ones with high levels of ZDDP) but it won't give them greater
MPG, longer engine life, more power, or in Amsoil's words "more gusto."
It's basically just throwing away money for no reason. Well there is
something to the fact that it makes them feel good, so maybe it's $25
well spent after all!
From: SMS on
Steve wrote:

> If that were really true, then how do they meet the API specs for flow?
> WAAAAY back in the dawn of synthetics, there were claims- possibly quite
> true- about their lack of proper lubrication for the vertical surfaces
> of some automotive engine thrust bearings, but that was addressed by the
> oil makers 20+ years ago. If there were really that sort of difference
> persisting to this day, it would show up lots of other places, not JUST
> in air-cooled small engines. I just don't see it.

I suspect that the engine called for 10W30 oil, and a synthetic of a
different weight was used instead.
From: SMS on
Steve wrote:
> C. E. White wrote:
>> Reality check - what percentage of cars do you think are retired from
>> service because of an engine "worn out" due to oil related wear (as
>> opposed to failures related to the fuel, ignition, sensors, or other
>> non-lubricated component)? I am guessing it is a very low percentage.
> And I suspect the ones retired from service for all non-engine problems
> combined is far smaller than those retired from service because the
> owners just wanted something newer and flashier.

A lot more engines are destroyed by a loss of coolant than "worn out"
oil. My nephew destroyed a three year old BMW X5 by not knowing or not
noticing the temperature gauge, after the water pump started leaking.
Alway a pet peeve that the manufacturers don't put in some sort of an
audible warning of when to pull over and stop the vehicle. Click and
Clack used to say that the temperature idiot light shouldn't say TEMP,
it should say $3000 (this was a long time ago), since that's what
repairs will cost if you don't stop immediately.
From: jim on

Steve wrote:
> jim wrote:
> >
> > Steve wrote:
> >> jim wrote:
> >>
> >>> As far as I know the type of dirt that gets into oil due to combustion
> >>> byproducts is not going to be any different for synthetic oil.
> >> That's true, and is a key part of this discussion. Too bad its being
> >> discussed in terms of "synthetic" versus "conventional," because that
> >> really doesn't matter. What DOES matter is the rest of the oil additive
> >> package, in particular the compoenents that maintain the total base
> >> number (TBN) and keep the oil from becoming acidic. You can have
> >> synthetics with poor TBN control additive, and you can have
> >> conventionals with good packages. Now *most* synthetics also happen to
> >> be higher-end oils and have decent additive packages... but its not
> >> BECAUSE they're synthetic.
> >
> > Yes, and "becoming acidic" is just one of the things that happens to oil as the
> > miles go by. So what is the advantage of getting a good additive package that
> > counteracts or slows down that inevitable deterioration versus just changing the
> > oil more frequently to avoid the deterioration?
> >
> >
> > -jim
> Like everything, its a trade-off. If every car owner went to a 6000-mile
> versus the ridiculously short 3000 mile change interval, the savings in
> crude oil or natural gas (the raw material for synthetic oils), the
> reduction in energy required to produce the oil, and the reduced load on
> the recycling infrastructure would be non-negligible.

Just simply conserving by doing any number of things would have a far far
greater impact. But nothing gets the people who are pretty much careless in
conserving in almost every other respect so riled up as finding out someone is
changing oil at 3000 miles.


----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
From: Mark A on
"C. E. White" <cewhite3(a)> wrote in message
> What $3 Fram filer? I checked on-line prices at local auto parts stores
> (Advance and AutoZone). The $3.99 Fram (PH2) and the $6.99 Fram (TG2)
> equivalents to the Motorcraft FL820S ($3.68) both include the same glued
> cardboard end caps and the same mediocre relief valve. The $6.99 Fram
> filter does buy you a silicone anti-drain back valve. However, the CHEAPER
> Motorcraft FL820S includes the silicone anti-drain back valve, a very
> robust pressure relief valve, and potted metal end caps. There is no
> comparison, the Fram filters are a rip off, at least for this application.
> Maybe for other applications, the Fram filters are better. I can't say for
> sure. I've only cut open Fram filters for a few applications (FL820S, FL1,
> a Honda Filter) and they all had the same basic construction that I don't
> like.
> Ed

I think the price of the ExtraGuard is closer to $3 at Walmart, although I
admit I haven't checked the price recently.

Even though I explicitly mentioned to you the ExtendedGuard filter (which
costs about $11) you are still ignoring it as though it does not exist. By
your won admission you have never examined one.

Fram also makes a Racing Oil filter, which although I have not used, I
assume it is of suitable quality (not sure if there is a problem with using
it in a normal street application).

The point is not whether Fram filters are too expensive compared to others,
the problem is that you claimed all Fram filters are junk, when the fact is
they make some excellent quality filters in addition to the less expensive

So please, if you don't like the Fram ExtraGuard or you think the
ExtendedGuard is overpriced, that is fine, but don't lump all Fram filter