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: jim beam on 5 Apr 2010 13:32 On 04/05/2010 10:09 AM, jim wrote: > > > jim beam wrote: > >>> Apparently, glycol is even nastier for oil than I suspected: >>> http://www.machinerylubrication.com/Read/193/oil-glycol. >>> > >>> >>> It chemically reacts with different things, doesn't dissolve well in oil >>> and makes acid. >> >> yeah, it agglomerates soot particles to Hrc>50 too. not. >> > > Mr. Bean has a wealth of ignorance about motor oil. It is well known > that coolant contamination can impair dispersancy which leads to drop > out of dirt suspended in the oil. > > Here is a quote from the same www.machinerylubrication.com site quoted > above. > > [quote] > Detecting glycol using the blotter spot test can be difficult > because of the coolant�s effects on a lubricant�s dispersancy. > Coolant contamination forms acids in crankcase oil affecting > soot dispersancy, even at low soot loading. Glycol contamination > can also form destructive �oil balls� and additive precipitation > when thermally aged in crankcase lubricants. When a drop of > lubricant contaminated with glycol is placed on the chromatographic > paper, the soot particles can be agglomerated due to dispersant > depletion and will not travel. A dark or brownish stain in the > center of the spot could be due to disrupted dispersancy and > soot coagulation, a common consequence of glycol contamination. > A black sticky paste with a well-defined (sharp edge) periphery > is cause for serious concern. When glycol is present, a soot ring > often develops around a yellow/brown center (Figure 3). > [end quote] > > Now we will hear from Mr. Bean. The guy who is always whining about > cites, when given an actual cite, will insist they don't know what they > are talking about. > > > -jim "impairing detergency" is NOT creating the large abrasive agglomerations you were bullshitting about, bullshitter. -- nomina rutrum rutrum
From: clare on 5 Apr 2010 16:30 On Sun, 4 Apr 2010 22:30:49 -0400, "Ed Pawlowski" <esp(a)snetnospam.net> wrote: > ><clare(a)snyder.on.ca> wrote >> And they had a LOT of problem engines using the specified standard oil >> on the "normal" change schedule. The problem is obvious - the oil not >> being changed often enough for conditions. >> This is NOT to say there was not a problem with the engine design that >> made the operatring conditions for the oil more onerous than they >> needed to be. > > >Maybe some of the people following the "normal" schedule were actually >driving under the "sever" criteria. I wonder how many people actually know >what they should be following. > > That's what I've been saying all along - the "severe" schedule hits just about every driver in Central Ontario for at least 3 months of the year - and often 6.,
From: Bill Putney on 5 Apr 2010 17:41 clare(a)snyder.on.ca wrote: > On Sun, 4 Apr 2010 22:30:49 -0400, "Ed Pawlowski" <esp(a)snetnospam.net> > wrote: > >> <clare(a)snyder.on.ca> wrote >>> And they had a LOT of problem engines using the specified standard oil >>> on the "normal" change schedule. The problem is obvious - the oil not >>> being changed often enough for conditions. >>> This is NOT to say there was not a problem with the engine design that >>> made the operatring conditions for the oil more onerous than they >>> needed to be. >> >> Maybe some of the people following the "normal" schedule were actually >> driving under the "sever" criteria. I wonder how many people actually know >> what they should be following. >> >> > That's what I've been saying all along - the "severe" schedule hits > just about every driver in Central Ontario for at least 3 months of > the year - and often 6., As I've said before, I've read of more than one incident of Chrysler turning down coverage for a failed engine (2.7L with reputation for sludging/catastrophically failing at between 60k and 80k miles) when the owner presented receipts proving oil/filter changes according to Schedule A - reason for refusing to cover repair or replacement: There is no such thing in the real world as Schedule A - vehicle was not maintained in accordance with Schedule B (I'm paraphrasing). Of course this is what I've read on some Chrysler forums, so admittedly this is anecdotal info. -- Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')
From: Vic Smith on 5 Apr 2010 18:02 On Mon, 05 Apr 2010 16:30:09 -0400, clare(a)snyder.on.ca wrote: >On Sun, 4 Apr 2010 22:30:49 -0400, "Ed Pawlowski" <esp(a)snetnospam.net> >wrote: > >> >><clare(a)snyder.on.ca> wrote >>> And they had a LOT of problem engines using the specified standard oil >>> on the "normal" change schedule. The problem is obvious - the oil not >>> being changed often enough for conditions. >>> This is NOT to say there was not a problem with the engine design that >>> made the operatring conditions for the oil more onerous than they >>> needed to be. >> >> >>Maybe some of the people following the "normal" schedule were actually >>driving under the "sever" criteria. I wonder how many people actually know >>what they should be following. >> >> >That's what I've been saying all along - the "severe" schedule hits >just about every driver in Central Ontario for at least 3 months of >the year - and often 6., Which throws out all the prescriptions you've seen here, and says, "You know how your car is driven, so change as you see fit, and live with the consequences." Reject oil change nannyism! --Vic
From: C. E. White on 5 Apr 2010 20:50
"Vic Smith" <thismailautodeleted(a)comcast.net> wrote in message news:q5nkr5p7ft5od5hgvv7vkm1613bc55q10s(a)4ax.com... > Which throws out all the prescriptions you've seen here, and says, > "You know how your car is driven, so change as you see fit, and live > with the consequences." > Reject oil change nannyism! Good advice assuming you actually have any idea of how well your oil is holding up and why you might want to change it more often than required by the "normal" schedule. It might be worthwhile to consider why some activities are considered severe... Short trip in very cold weather - I say the reason this might necessitate more frequent oil changes is because of contamination from water and unburned hydrocarbons (blow-by past the rings). If you never take trips longer than 10 miles or so, then I can see where this should force more often oil changes. On the other hand, modern cars have reduced problems with blow-by (better control of manufacturing tolerances), warm up faster and run hotter than cars from the middle of the last century, and modern oils better tolerate contamination. So I suppose when you operate your car in very cold temperatures and only make short trips, then 3000 mile oil changes are justifiable, although to be sure, have your oil analyzed at least once might provide valuable information. Towing - towing increases the load on the engine which results in higher oil temperatures and higher shearing forces on the oil, which can lead to oil breakdown. Of course if you are only towing a light trailer occasionally this is probably not a significant concern. And vehicles designed to tow heavy things, usually have better oil systems (they have higher oil capacities, include oil coolers, are geared properly for towing, etc.). Here is an interesting fact - oil usually thickens with age (becomes less viscous). I don't think the increased loads are much of an issue for high quality modern oil, particularly synthetic oils. So unless you are towing a trailer near the maximum allowable weight most of the times, 'I'd say you can ignore this reason for more frequent oil changes. Stop and go driving, particularly in hot weather - In the past (like 1960) cars often ran hot in stop and go driving. Running hot could cause oil to break down - at least the sorts of oil commonly used in the 1960's. These days most cars have very good cooling systems. When was the last time you had a car run hot while in traffic? If you have a car with electric fans, I doubt you have, unless something is broken. Stop and go driving doesn't impose any sort of heavy loads on the engine - just the brakes and transmission. So I contend that unless you have overheated your car, there is no reason to change the engine oil more often merely because you do a lot of stop and go driving. Maybe your transmission and brakes need extra attention, but probably not your engine oil. Dusty conditions - how many people actually operate their vehicles in dusty conditions more than very occasionally? The engines of modern cars are sealed much more thoroughly than cars from the middle of the last century. Assuming everything is in good order, the main entry point of dirt into your engine is through the air cleaner. So make sure you have a good air cleaner and stay out of volcanic ash and I think you don't need to worry about dusty conditions. Let the looks of your air filter be your guide. BTW, changing your air filter too often is actually a bad idea. Lot of stop and go driving or idling - clearly if you are driving slowly and spend lots of time in lower gears, and/or spend lots of time with the engine idling with the car not moving, you are altering the relationship between the number of engine revolutions and the number of miles the vehicle has traveled. I suppose in extreme cases (like Cops sitting on the side of the road clocking traffic) you can double the number of engine revolutions experienced per odometer mile recorded. So if you use you cars most of the time for clocking speeders, delivering pizza, or as a taxi, more often oil changes may be warranted. You should change your oil as often as you like, but just think about why you are doing it. Today's oils are much better than the oils available from even the 1980's. Modern fuel injected cars don't contaminate oil like older carbureted cars did. The removal of lead from gasoline has eliminated a major source of oil contamination. EPA rules have reduced the amount of sulfur in gasoline - another source of contamination eliminated. I have a hard time going past 3000 miles myself, but I am trying to be more responsible. My 2009 F150 allows for 7500 mile oil changes and does have an oil change reminder, but it can be adjusted, so I set mine for 80% of 7500 miles. My Fusion doesn't have an oil change reminder and I constantly have to check my records to avoid changing the oil more often that I consider necessary. My SO, Sisters, and Mothers all have Toyotas with 5000 mile oil change indicators. I consider this more than adequate (and the SO thinks it is excessive - she keeps reminding me her old Camry allowed for 10,000 mile oil changes). Ed |