Who was it who mentioned Fram oil filters and dropping oil pressure?
in [Toyota]
|
Prev: The Most Powerful Natural Penis Enlargement Technique >><<
Next: Replace oxygen sensor even if check engine light does not come on
From: hls on 14 Dec 2009 10:16 "C. E. White" <cewhite3(a)mindspring.com> wrote in message > I can't find the old post. Can you repost the links? > > Ed Probably I can find it again, C.E
From: hls on 14 Dec 2009 10:19 <clare(a)snyder.on.ca> wrote in message > And the filter did NOT split. It just "blew off". Took the threads > right out of the base plate. SHOULD have blown the gasket out first, > but didn't I have never seen that, in all my days. It takes one hell of a lot of pressure (or very weak threads) to do something like this.
From: Vic Smith on 14 Dec 2009 10:29 On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 08:22:45 -0600, "hls" <hls(a)nospam.nix> wrote: > >Our 1998 Buick LeSabre actually had a reset button in the glove compartment >area. > >There were occasions it came on at less than 3500 miles, but not often. > My son told me that he has been resetting it when he changes oil, but has also changed the oil before it came on, because we about to take a long trip. And if it isn't on, he doesn't reset it. That raises some questions. Personally, I don't see it as useful unless you're willing to let it be your sole guide to oil changes. Since we jot down mileage at changes, then change again after 3k miles and no later than 4k miles, the light is just an irritation. >I have heard the GM algorithm strongly defended as far as its ability to >predict >oil change intervals, but like most everything else in this entire thread, >there is >no hard proof that I have ever seen. > Agreed. If I feel like it later, I'll take a look at the shop manual to see if says anything about it. Don't hold your breath. >I am sure these studies must exist, on filters, oil change intervals, effect >of >particulates of different size distributions in the oil, etc etc, but I have >never >seen them. (And I HAVE looked for them) I don't think they exist in a useful form. Imagine the logistics and expense of testing so many engines under many conditions and miles, with controls. Even if one were to test the oil filtration characteristics of many filters, using one engine to do it would not necessarily reveal how another engine would do with the same filters. Then you'll naturally get mechs and internet pundits saying stuff like "Sure, the Fram might be OK the Chevy, but the Ford really needs a Purulator." The CR report was the most extensive I've seen, but had many flaws. I consider it useless except as an interesting read. The auto manufacturers have the best somewhat controlled ability to get a handle on it with their maintenance schedules and dealership networks. Besides that, when I worked at IH there were engines constantly running on stands in the engine test area, and I'm sure all manufacturers do the same. I don't know what tests they do, but it's a safe assumption they are using their own oil change recommendations to run some amount of miles, teardown, and look for wear. Doubt they tinker too much with the oil beyond that. And as far as I saw, testing was done under constant external air temperature. Could be wrong about that though. As an aside, when I was at IH in Melrose Park, IL, an engine test tech was killed when an engine flew apart. There was quite a stink with the UAW about flawed test equipment that allowed the engine to go full throttle. About 1973. In any case, a car on the road, driven under diverse weather conditions, and varying warm-up and acceleration modes, is best left to the owners own judgement regarding when to change the oil. My opinion. --Vic
From: hls on 14 Dec 2009 13:58 "SMS" <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote in message news:4b264e5b$0$1623$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net... > hls wrote: >> >> "Ashton Crusher" <demi(a)moore.net> wrote in message >>> You are wasting a ton of money and oil. With today's high quality >>> regular oil, unless you have some crappy sludge producing import >>> engine, every 6mo/6000 miles is all you need. >> >> Depends on your goals. If you want the minimum upkeep, and you >> run the vehicles a relatively short time, and then just want to auction >> them >> off, you are probably right. >> >> If you want to maintain your warranty and run the car for 8-10 years and >> 100K or more, then you do what the manufacturer says, or better. >> >> At least, that seems logical to me. >> >> Oil is damn cheap compared to an engine. > > Then you should be changing your oil every 100 miles. It will have the > same benefit on the longevity of the engine versus changing the oil every > 1000 miles, 3000 miles, or 5000 miles--no effect at all. But it'll make > you feel better. Quoting your ideas as facts, with no scientific supporting information. You do what you want, and I'll do what I want, okay?
From: hls on 14 Dec 2009 13:59
"N8N" <njnagel(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:cb97cb13-00d5-4d7e-a73b-ebfa6fcc71e3(a)m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com... On Dec 8, 7:50 am, "hls" <h...(a)nospam.nix> wrote: > "Nate Nagel" <njna...(a)roosters.net> wrote in message > > > So? Running with no oil pressure for >10 sec at a time is way more > > detrimental to the life of an engine than <10 micron particles. > > nate > > Can you cite a source for this, Nate? I believe that the ad copy for any good preoiler has this information, but I don't have time to find an example at the moment. maybe on CM's web site? nate ******* I dont know. I can look, but I have never seen any hard data on this. |