for the guys that are into recreational oil changing...
in [Toyota]
|
Prev: Single Event Upsets: Cosmic radiation makes Toyota computers go haywire?
Next: What's your favorite dirty limerick?
From: C. E. White on 1 Apr 2010 16:54 "E. Meyer" <e.p.meyer(a)verizon.net> wrote in message news:C7DA5BE4.199C7%e.p.meyer(a)verizon.net... >>> While some automakers (e.g. Honda) are now saying 5,000/10,000 >>> mile >>> oil >>> change intervals, there are some that are not. Nissan, for >>> example >>> still >>> says 3750 (Severe) & 7500 (Normal), this from my '08 Altima and my >>> '09 G37. >>> Their definition of normal also pretty much leaves out everybody. >> >> Are you sure of that? > > Did you read the stuff you just posted (bolow)? It says 3750 > (severe) and > 7500 (normal). Yes I did. I understood that the two mileage requirements were 3750 (Severe) & 7500 (Normal). What I was commenting on was the line that said - "Their definition of normal also pretty much leaves out everybody." While Nissan tends to push owners toward the "severe" schedule more than than other companies, I was trying to make the point that the regular schedule does not leave everybody out. I should have been more explicit in what I was discussing. To be clear, I think most Nissan drivers can use the regualr schedule. Honestly, why would anyone call a schedule "Normal" and then claim it wasn't? If they meant for the 7500 mile schedule to apply to only a few owners, they should have called it "light duty" or "unstressed" but certianly not "normal." I think Nissan was trying to both claim extended maintenance (competitive advantage for selling cars) and encourage people to go to their dealer more often (aftermarket profit motive). Nissan explicitly said you didn't need to use the "Premium Service" to maintain your warranty. Ed
From: Ed Pawlowski on 1 Apr 2010 17:29 "C. E. White" <cewhite3(a)mindspring.com> wrote > I can't remember anyone in my family ever trading in a car becasue the > engine was worn out. It always sem to be other stuff that finally makes > the car/truck undesirable. I had two. Both were 1983, GM with the same 3.8 liter engine, one an Olds Cutlass, the other a Buick Regal. Both died at about 120,000 and I put rebuilt engines in both and the rebuilds lasted another 50,000 miles. It was a crappy engine design and no amount of oil changing would help them. The newer 3800 V-6 in my next Buick was running as good as the day it came from the showroom after 15 years and almost 200k. At 75000 I changed the plugs. At 85,000, the water pump.
From: Bill Putney on 1 Apr 2010 17:50 pj wrote: > Note -- neither of these engine types has a 'sludge' reputation so that > wasn't a consideration. That might be a consideration for Toyota > owners. YMMV I have one of the Chrysler 2.7 engines in one of my 2 Concordes. They are known for sludging up and catastrophically failing at between 60k and 80k miles. Many people learned the hard way not to go by the recommended 7500k change interval on those. Of course it depends on the service that the vehicle sees too - i.e., lots of stop-and-go short-trip stuff vs. mostly highway use. Mine has over 230k miles on it now and runs great because it is used on my daily commute of 80 miles total each weekday and I change oil and filter every 3000-3800 miles. Though people on the Chrysler forums will insist that that engine will not last unless you use synthetic, I've disproven that by using non-synth Castrol and 8 oz. of Marvel Mystery Oil at all times. There are definitely some engines that can tolerate abuse (long oil change intervals), but some are definitely intolerant of that. I think it has to do with the crankcase breathing design. ALSO - I can't help but feel that a lot of instances of engines failing due to sludging up is because more places (dealers included) than you would think actually do not change the oil or filter when the customer pays for it - I have seen that twice personally - once on my elderly mother's car, and once on a Jeep that my daughter had bought that had supposedly had oil and filter changed religiously every 3k miles at a chain, and I proved that to be absolutely false. -- Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')
From: Bill Putney on 1 Apr 2010 17:53 C. E. White wrote: > While Nissan tends to push owners toward the "severe" schedule more > than than other companies, I was trying to make the point that the > regular schedule does not leave everybody out. I should have been more > explicit in what I was discussing. To be clear, I think most Nissan > drivers can use the regualr schedule. Honestly, why would anyone call > a schedule "Normal" and then claim it wasn't?... I've read more than one account on Chrysler LH car flrums where it was claimed that Chrysler refused to cover a 2.7L engine failure when the customer had receipts showing the oil was changed at the dealer on the Schedule A. Reason for turning the claim down: There is no such thing in the real world as Schedule A service. Everything is Schedule B. Claim denied. I can't swear that the posters were telling the truth, but that's what was claimed. -- Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')
From: nm5k on 1 Apr 2010 18:06
On Apr 1, 1:56 pm, Michael <mrdarr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 29, 5:41 pm, jim beam <m...(a)privacy.net> wrote: > > >http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/TechnologyDevelopment/OPPTD_FLY_High-Efficienc... > > > shock, horror, they used oil analysis to arrive at these recommendations! > > > -- > > nomina rutrum rutrum > > Interesting point: "The HE filters used in this study claimed > filtration of particles to 1-2 [microns], much better than standard > filters of 30-50 [microns]. Using standard filters is one reason that > motor oil needs to be changed; it gets dirty with small particles > which results in engine wear. In this regard, standard filters have > not improved over the years compared to significant improvements in > motor oil quality. The oil change interval set in warranties is a > result of standard filters being the limiting factor, not the motor > oil quality. Hence, higher quality filters will help to extend motor > oil life to its full potential." The smaller the particle the filter traps, the quicker it is going to clog up. Also, until you get to a point of saturation, the size of the particles missed by a "standard" filter are not large enough to do much engine wear. I'm fairly anal about my vehicle, but I don't use filters that trap very fine particles. I use regular old standard filters. They are less prone to being clogged. And if that happens the bypass kicks in and you have no filtering at all. > > This raises the question: would it be safe to keep engine oil for > 10,000 miles if you replace JUST the oil filter every 5,000 miles? It would depend on the service. If it's all highway miles, maybe.. If not, pretty risky.. :( > > Is an HE filter necessary? Oil analysis comparisons of the HE Fram X2 > filter vs. a normal CarQuest filter would have been nice. I think it's a waste of money, and also not the greatest idea as I have already touched on. > > Maybe I can do an experiment with my '96 Camry (176k miles). For my > wife's car, the 5,000 mile oil change will remain... If your Camry has 176k miles on it, you are probably doing something right. Why change? :/ Myself, I use regular standard filters, half decent oil, "castrol syntec blend", and I change it every 5k miles like the manual and the blinky light on the dashboard says. I'm not a fan of "extended oil change skeds". The purpose of changing the oil and filter is to remove the dirt, acids, moisture, and whatever else, and to replenish the additives in the oil. I'm not going much past 5k in any of my vehicles, and I don't care what anyone thinks about it. My older trucks actually get dirtier after 5k miles than my newer Corolla. It's so clean burning it is really not that bad after 5k.. But I change it anyway. Cheap insurance. I don't use synth blend in the trucks though.. Just regular dino oil.. I only use the synth blend in the Corolla as extra insurance against the dreaded gelling problem. Again, the extra cost is cheap insurance the way I see it. |