Accord Oil Type Question ?

Acuras spec 5W-30 with the same engine families, so I don't think you will have any worries using 5W-30 if you need/want to.

John

Why do you believe this is surprising? It's been the recommended oil since the 2001 Honda products were introduced.

What does the Owners Manual for the vehicle state?

What does the Owners Manual state?

Honda spec. 5W-20 oil in the USA and nowhere else. They sell the exact same vehicle elsewhere where they spec. 5W-30 or 10W-30.

So, how critical to use 5W-20? Not.

I've been ignoring Honda's 5W-20 spec. and using Mobil 1 5W-30 (once past a 10K mile break-in period). Cars are running fine. Just went to Mobil 1 Extended Life (or whatever they call it) for my daughters' cars.

You're sadly misinformed.

Hello again,

Much thanks for replies and help. A bit confused on this.

Are you folks saying that the 5W 20 that Honda says to use Must be (all) Synthetic only ?

Or is 5W 20 that is not synthetic, just the regular stuff, is O.K. ?

I read somewhere that they should not be mixed, so really confused.

Thanks again, Bob

------------------------------------

"Robert11" wrote in news:GMqdnYgOo_am4dLZnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@comcast.com:

Bob, you are making things very confusing for yourself and others by posting individual messages to several groups. Responders in each group remain ignorant of the replies of others in those other groups unless they know to check. Learn to cross-post properly.

I will not repeat myself here. Go check nmy reply in rec.autos.makers.honda.

"TeGGeR®" wrote

Don't you think he saw you responded in the other newsgroup?

This second post (to a different Honda newsgroup) obviously was intended to cover more audience.

It's simply not a big deal to post to one newsgroup and then, a day or more later, post the same query to another newsgroup.

"Elle" wrote in news:VhL3g.1302$ snipped-for-privacy@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net:

He posted this identical message independently to at least three groups simultaneously. That's both bad etiquette and a cheat on the readers of the other groups.

"TeGGeR®" wrote

We disagree.

Now there's a surprise!

Just because you lurk in every group that says Honda on it, doesn't mean everyone else does. This is an un-moderated group, so by definition, no one is empowered to police it.

What's next, criticism of every top-poster and anyone who has the audacity to ask about the maintenance light? Your postings and your website have been very useful to a lot of people, but lately you seem to be descending more and more frequently into the etiquette policeman trap. Maybe its time to take a short break before it all drives you nuts.

On 4/26/2006 5:54 PM E Meyer spake these words of knowledge:

Personally, I think it's absurd to point out to someone voicing their opinion about someone else's posts (in this case Tegger) that this is usenet, and people can say whatever they want.

I mean, reading your post, it looks like you're taking Tegger to task for his posting, which was taking someone to task for their posting.

Whatever. After all, this is usenet, and you can be as silly as you want to be. Just don't expect other people not to notice.

RFT!!! Dave Kelsen

well /i/ think tegger's request is perfectly reasonable - it saves a bunch of messing about. i may "donate" time for free, but that doesn't mean it has no value and that i like wasting it on multiple independent posts.

I think Tegger's request is simply ridiculous and I just can't imagine why he thinks he should have to respond in each group where he sees a question. Who ever said you have to answer the same post independently in each newsgroup? If someone takes the time to post the same question individually to different groups, a reasonable expectation is that they are looking for different responses from different people.

I just hate to see this stuff start. I've been lurking/participating in some of these groups for over a decade and I've seen this happen a number of times. Once the etiquette postings start, usefulness stops. I have a number of ID's in the kill file of formerly intelligent and helpful people who burned out and descended into nonsensical rants about top-posting and/or the infamous "Maintenance required" light. I am hoping Tegger doesn¹t become one of them.

E Meyer wrote in news:C075643E.F8381% snipped-for-privacy@msn.com:

Suppose a question was asked in several groups, each with different viewer bases. Suppose in ONE of those groups the question was answered correctly. The viewers in the other groups would be completely unaware of the answer since they are not aware of the question having been asked in the other group. This means that those who read for edification remain uneducated. A cheat on them, as I said.

Crossposting is the cure for such informational disconnects.

I don't disagree, but my (personal) experience has been that when I have cross posted my question, that one correct answer is almost never cross posted to all those same groups. On one occasion that the answer I needed was cross posted, the answerer was flamed on at least one of the groups for excessive cross posting. I just don't think you can win trying to fix these things & even making the attempt just causes frustration (and seems to bring out Jim Beam's true personality...).

E Meyer wrote in news:C0763F45.F8486% snipped-for-privacy@msn.com:

That's because some ninny thinks he's smart by removing the crossposting.

Then somebody doesn't understand crossposting. Crossposting to a few related groups is not a bad thing.

Agreed.

I very seldom look at how many groups that a post has been crossed posted so when I reply, everyone gets my reply (some may call it torture ). Those that trim reply lists often shortchange the groups they delete.

There's a lot of good info here even though my interest is in ancient Hondas.

JT

That's what cross-posting is for. If the original message had been cross-posted to the appropriate groups, people who read those groups would only have to see the message once, and all properly addressed replies would be available in all groups of the cross-post.

Cross-posting /CAN/ be abusive. NOT cross-posting when applicable can also be abusive.