02 PT Cruiser woes

Thanks, Superman. Let the world go to hell in it's own handbasket, right?

Do the figures, if you're capable. There's no infinity for us, my friend. Too bad you can only see the short-term. But, what the hell! If our children and theirs get screwed because we only care about ourselves, then f*ck'em, right? At least we got ours.

That _was_ your point, wasn't it?

doc

It is fun to watch a weasel when they've lost the argument. Name calling is typically the last refuge.

Matt

| > >> I'd also drive it a little | > >>| harder during break-in, with periodic full-throttle blasts. Again | > >>| quoting Cummins, one should "work" the engine during break-in. | > >>| | > >>| | > >>

| > >>The Chrysler/Dodge owners manual recommends occasional "short" full | > >>throttle sessions every few miles for the 1st few hundred miles. (But | > >>not full throttle "starts"!!) | > >

| > >

| > > And those full throttle sessions should be in a high gear with the car | > > at speed, rather than at high engine speeds (RPM). | > >

| >

| > That's another topic of debate among armchair mechanics. The | > counter-argument is that you SHOULD take it to redline during breakin, | > but never hold it at high RPM for any extended period. The theory being | > that because connecting rods stretch slightly and crankshafts bend | > slightly, the only way to break in the last few thousandths of piston | > travel up the cylinder wall is to take it to full RPM. | | Total bullshit, of course. Still, it's the owners' car and this d*****ad | will never pay you for doing what he suggests if he's goes wrong. | | Always the problem with interenet experts: ask a question, you'll get an | answer. You're money, their time. They'll always have more than you will. | | doc

I've used the Chrysler recommended break in procedure on every Chrysler engine I've bought since 1987...and every single one has run well into the six-figure miles range and all but one was still running when I sold or traded (except a '97 DHOC Neon Sport my wife wrecked three times before it reached 85K miles...but engine was running fine and the 97 Caravan that hasn't reached that point yet or the 2003 Stratus that is just still a baby). None used or burned oil...not even the infamous oil-burner 3.0 Mitsubishi V6 that was in my 87 Grand Caravan (nearly 200K miles on it, so I heard from the folks I sold it to). Why do you suppose that the owner manual suggests this break in procedure, especially when they're one of he few manufacturers that actually warranty the engine for a fair amount of miles (70K miles)? Surely they wouldn't want to tell you to do something that would risk them to replace more engines on their dime, would they! Curious also, why the name calling for someone simply repeating a _manufacturers_ written break in procedure?

Your narrow mindedness is impressive. Too bad your reasoning and logic skills aren't as impressive. My point was that you are using virtually the same amount of oil as me ... and using MORE oil filters on top of that. It takes material and energy to produce an oil filter. So, in all likelihood, your decision to use 4,000 mile oil changes vs. my decision to use 5,000, which is probably still conservative with Mobil

1, means we are causing equal harm to the environment. I guess you can't understand that because the data doesn't match your prejudgement.

Do you ride a bicycle rather than drive a car? If you really were concerned about the environment, you wouldn't even own a car. That would be MUCH better for the environment than even the most economical car and makes a much greater impact than lessening oil consumption from

1 quart/2,000 miles to 1 quart/10,000 miles. The fact that you admit to owning gasoline powered vehicles says that your concern for the environmnet is superficial at best and only comes into play if it doesn't cause you inconvenience.

Matt

Cute.

Got a light, sailor?

doc

Here's some quotes, above, from you:

"Virtually."

"In all likelihood."

"Probably."

"I guess."

And you talk about my reasoning and logic skills?

You couldn't have been more wishy-washy if you'd tried. At least, I made positive statements that I'm prepared to back up. You, on the other hand, are just plain spineless.

I'll give you another chance, though, jellyfish. Care to join the vertebrates?

doc

If you had reasoning and logic skills, you wouldn't be taking three letter phrases and even individual words out of context and using them as an example for anything.

Jenny.

Matt - I'm not one to play the troll card at the drop of the hat, but I think we have the proverbial pig in the mud-wrestling contest here.

"But if it saves just one spotted owl...!!!!!!" 8^)

Bill Putney (to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with "x")

Looks like Cass or StupidMechanic or one of the other trolls has found a new pseudonym.

The difference is I acknowledge things I don't know or are unsure of. You fit the old saying "Often wrong, but never in doubt."

Matt

Methinks you are correct! :-)

It sure is fun for a while though to feed the troll.

Matt

Heh - of course, with a V-8 you have probably double the cylinder wall surface of a 4 banger, and a lot more valve sealing surfaces all of which provide more of a path for oil to go from crankcase out the exhaust.

But I don't think though that in most engines that the majority of oil loss goes through the rings. Valve seals and such, as you point out.

Ted