Curious...

Page 1 of 5  
I'm not seeing messages in the newsgroup any longer.
I don't know if it's at my end, or if a bunch of ISPs decided to drop newgroups at the same time.
A response from any of the regulars would be appreciated.
RFT!!! Dave Kelsen
--
A bachelor is a selfish, undeserving guy who has cheated some woman out
of a divorce.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I'm still here. Mostly because I hate Web boards.
And nobody's bothered to reply to my Oil Evaporation message...
--
Tegger

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Well, since you asked and since the topic is oil, perhaps you'll share your thoughts regarding an oil consumption question. I have a 10 month-old 2009 Civic 4-door EX. Had the first oil change at right about 5K miles per Honda recommendation. I didn't notice any oil loss in those first 5K miles. In the 2nd 5K miles I began to notice the oil level seemed to be dropping on the dipstick gage. At about 9K miles, the level was at the bottom of the dipstick gage and I had to add about 1/2 quart to bring the level back to the top of the gage. Always check oil after fueling. Haven't noticed any oil spots on garage floor so I'm pretty sure there's no leak.
I just had 2nd oil change at just over 10K miles. Asked dealership service tech about it and was told that Honda regards as normal any consumption up to 1qt. per 1000 miles. That seemed high to me but this is my first Honda so don't know. I insisted they do a consumption test which is currently underway and I'm supposed to return after about 1000 miles for evaluation. I drive pretty conservatively and rarely push the engine very hard. In the 10 mos. since I bought the car new, I doubt the engine has revved over 4500 even once.
So, how much oil consumption is normal for this engine, and what should I expect when I return for evaluation of the consumption test results? Thanks for the reply. PE

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
PE wrote:

A quart per thousand is pretty much the industry standard for warranty repair of new engines with higher-than-average oil consumption. Honda is not unique here. Interestingly, though, the same standard seems to be applied to both big V8s and small 4-pots. Go figure.
My Accord engine still uses no oil to speak of (though the front main seal's on its last legs, and hard right turns make it leak faster) at 224K. It regularly sees high loads (it's hilly here and I only downshift when I have to) and 6000RPM engine speeds, and has since new. The same went for my Civic when I had one.

Nearly none is average for nearly any modern car engine, but there is a range of "normality" and your engine just happens to fall at the other end. The real question is when Honda will tear it down or replace it to stop the consumption, and that, I'm afraid, they have told you.
--
JRE

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

"Normal" is well over 8K miles once broken-in.
If consumption is indeed as low as you allege, it's only a matter of time before it drops below 1K, and you're eligible for a warranty replacement. Anmd that's what Honda means when they tell you that 1K is considered "normal".
You need to estalbish a paper trail, both with regard to your dealership and your attempts there, and your /actual/ oil consumption.
Be EXTREMELY PRECISE in your oil-level measurements. Here's how I did it: <http://www.tegger.com/hondafaq/misc/graph-may28-10.pdf
And keep detailed written records. The more professional your approach, the more likely you'll eventually get sympathy from the dealer and from Honda.
--
Tegger

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 06/30/2010 05:12 AM, Tegger wrote:

with respect, and while well intentioned, you're not "measuring" the oil level correctly and are thus propagating misinformation with that pdf. in the honda owners manual, it tells you to do it with the engine hot, and a couple of minutes after shut-down. you're doing it cold which:
* does not take into account temperature differences
* does not take into account potential issues with the oil filter drain-back valve.
* does not take into account that the dip stick is *calibrated* to be read when hot, not cold.
honda engineers are both smart and experienced. when they formulated their oil check procedure, they did so in a way that would give the most consistent and accurate results. you should stick with it and encourage others to do so also.

--
nomina rutrum rutrum

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

He's measuring the oil level for a different purpose than that meant by the owner's manual. Hence his way makes complete sense.
We disagree.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 06/30/2010 08:49 AM, Elle wrote:

how can it possibly make sense to disregard a calibration? would you think it's ok if your local gas station started using their own "calibration" on their gas pumps rather than the one agreed on for standard measure???

--
nomina rutrum rutrum

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The "calibration" for the purpose of the owner's manual to me is a "go- no go" one. It is not intended to indicate how much oil is in the engine and sump with much accuracy.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 06/30/2010 05:52 PM, Elle wrote:

so again, how does it make sense to disregard a calibration that serves to account for temperature and filter drain back - both of which can lead to "no go" condition differences between hot per the book, or under some other random condition which is not?

agreed, but that is not the point - see the purpose of "go- no go" above.
--
nomina rutrum rutrum

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Tegger's approach carefully considers temperature. Any drainback effects are averaged out using his approach.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 06/30/2010 06:59 PM, Elle wrote:

eh? how? i don't call "cold" careful consideration when it's subject to a 50°C delta.

no, because some filters leak, some don't. a leaking valve gives an artificially high fill reading. if a filter does leak, the rate varies. and some filters can start leaking where they didn't before. so, how do you eliminate this variable? by taking a reading a short time after shut-down. that way, the filter leaking to empty in only 1 hour gives the [within usable accuracy limits] same reading as the filter that's taking a day.
--
nomina rutrum rutrum

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You just revealed that you did not read Tegger's comments on what time of year he took measurements.
We disagree on how filter drainback averages out.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 06/30/2010 08:21 PM, Elle wrote:

but i did. and that still doesn't address the fact that "the tegger method" will mislead anyone trying to emulate it - just like it's misleading him.
bottom line - it's his car - he can do what he wants with it. but do NOT encourage others in the mistaken myth that oil readings should be taken "cold" - they shouldn't.

then you don' t understand how reading taken two minutes into a 60-minute flow is not materially different from two minutes into a 600 minute flow. or how a non-leaking filter gives a different reading to a leaking one that's been given sufficient time to empty.
--
nomina rutrum rutrum

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:>>

That's correct.
--
Tegger

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

It's not really a calibration unless it were traceable back to a calibrated NIST/ISO standard, which the gas pumps should be.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 06/30/2010 07:31 PM, Stewart wrote:

that's a certified calibration. a calibration doesn't need to be certified.

--
nomina rutrum rutrum

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Never thought of an uncertified calibration as an actual calibration, just a point of reference.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 06/30/2010 09:33 PM, Stewart wrote:

technically, you're absolutely right, but in lay usage, something like this
http://www.globescientific.com/images/601541-Series.jpg
is commonly called "calibrated", even though the more accurate term is merely "graduated".

--
nomina rutrum rutrum

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

I can agree with that description.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.