Best no BS motor oil/filter comparison?
in [Toyota]
|
From: Steve on 1 Dec 2008 17:44 SMS wrote: > 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. My wife's 93 Eagle (Chrysler) does exactly that and it saved the engine at least once. I'd replaced the timing belt and waterpump at 90k miles (100k interval on the belt) and the replacement waterpump was a dud- the pulley came off the shaft, wedged against the timing cover, and the engine overheated. She heard the "ding ding ding" sound, saw the "check gauges" light, and noticed the temp gauge headed for the red. She let it cool a bit then got it the remaining half mile home. I finally figured out what was wrong by the smell of burning timing belt as it rubbed against the locked waterpump pulley, and no damage was done other than me having to do a second timing belt and waterpump (from a different parts store) in less than 10k miles. In fact we're in the process of cleaning that car out to (probably) donate it to a charity. 256,000 miles, never had the engine open at all (3.5L v6, first-gen iron block version). I'll miss it a lot, but its time. It doesn't owe me a thing.
From: Steve on 1 Dec 2008 17:48 jim wrote: > >>> -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. > > -jim Oh, it doesn't rile me. Just pointing out one line of reasoning. Outlawing daytime running lights would probably save a similar amount of energy each year and I'd heartily approve. So would lowering speed limits, but I'm ABSOLUTELY against doing that. Everyone has their own idea of what should be conserved, and it usually involves things that annoy us anyway. Besides, more recycled oil means more fuel for the excursion railways' oil-fired steam locomotives to burn :-)
From: Scott Dorsey on 1 Dec 2008 18:51 SMS <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote: > >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? The severe use maintenance schedule in the owner's manual says 3000 miles. So I do that. If it said 1000 miles, I'd do that, sure. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
From: SMS on 1 Dec 2008 19:13 jim wrote: >> 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. But it's not either-or. Certainly keeping tires inflated properly, removing roof racks, etc., would also help conserve resources, but it's not like you can't do these things _AND_ not change your oil ridiculously often. It's basically a matter of education of vehicle owners to counter the advertising of places like Jiffy Lube, as well as educating them as to _why_ 3000 mile oil changes were a good idea 30 years ago, but no longer provide any benefit over following the manufacturer's specifications. They think that if the manufacturer says 5000 miles then 3000 miles changes will somehow make the vehicle last longer or run better, when in fact this is not the case. Alas, myths die hard. You can have every mechanic in the country explain the reality, and someone will insist that the mechanics just want engines to fail sooner so they can make more money on engine repairs. You can have independent organizations with no vested interest do extensive testing and analysis, and someone will insist that the tests simply must be bogus for any number of imagined reasons. Maybe the solution needs to be what's done in some European countries, where motor oil is heavily taxed and very expensive. It oil were $8 a quart instead o
From: jim on 1 Dec 2008 19:29
SMS wrote: > > jim wrote: > > >> 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. > > But it's not either-or. Certainly keeping tires inflated properly, > removing roof racks, etc., would also help conserve resources, but it's > not like you can't do these things _AND_ not change your oil > ridiculously often. > > It's basically a matter of education of vehicle owners to counter the > advertising of places like Jiffy Lube, as well as educating them as to > _why_ 3000 mile oil changes were a good idea 30 years ago, but no longer > provide any benefit over following the manufacturer's specifications. > They think that if the manufacturer says 5000 miles then 3000 miles > changes will somehow make the vehicle last longer or run better, when in > fact this is not the case. People put pin stripes on their cars also. It doesn't make their car run better or last longer. Why doesn't anyone rant about that for a while? The fact is if you have 2 engines with 150000 miles and one has had 3000 mile oil changes and one has had 6000 mile oil changes you can tell the difference if you look on the inside of the engine. That does not mean one is going to last longer or one will run better, but you can tell the difference. Some people wash there car regularly some people don't. Some people have a life. Others don't, so they spend their time worrying about how often other people change their oil or what filter they use. -jim ----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups ---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |