for the guys that are into recreational oil changing...

I don't agree with Tegger very often, but here I agree. This sounds like ill thought out jibberish.

Severe conditions are defined as follows:

- Driving less than 5 miles per trip or less than 10 miles per trip in freezing temperatures.

- Driving in extreme hot (over 90F) conditions.

- Extensive idling or long periods of stop-and-go driving.

- Driving in muddy, dusty, de-iced, or mountain roads.

I believe they apply to most drivers in this country. Are you saying no?

AZ Nomad wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@ip70-176-155-130.ph.ph.cox.net:

Shush. I want "Obveeus" to answer my question according to his own definition. That definition will surely be different from the dictionary one, which is why I want him to define it himself.

Try reading it slowly - it isn't that complicated.

Well you seem to decipher some of it just fine. The age of the oil isn't going to prevent a leak if that is what your thinking was said. The point was the age of the oil can make a difference in some situations. A fairly small amount of glycol added to dirty oil can do damage where that same amount added to engine with fresh oil can avoid the damage. One of the consequences of adding the small amount of antifreeze is that it will rob from the dispersants and detergents their power to hold fine particles in suspension. That won't matter as much if the oil is not very saturated with fine particles.

The point is it is inaccurate to say there is zero risk to storing the fine particles suspended in the oil. You can if you want debate how small the risk is.

-jim

jim wrote in news:j-6dnb2sTIiJby7WnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@bright.net:

Try writing more clearly. I don't care to wade repeatedly through lousy writing; I have to do enough of that at work.

On 3/31/2010 6:21 PM Vic Smith spake these words of knowledge:

No. Not anyone. Just shitbags like you with your attitude. And I have never been one of the most helpful people here. Nor did I claim to be one of those folks. But I have been here for years. Your reading comprehension seems to be on a level with your reasoning abilities. Shame.

Looks like you've defined what camp you're in. The ignorant, unhelpful whiners who have only negative to offer, but offer it freely.

Carry on.

And f*ck you, shitbag.

RFT!!! Dave Kelsen

I'm one of those guys who believes in 3000 mile intervals because it has always worked for me. Do I care if no one agrees with me, NO. Do I care if I can extend it to 5000 or more miles, NO. Do I claim my way is the only correct way, NO. In other words, you do what works for you and I'll do the same.

OK, you're one of those wackos who REGRETS that he washes AND SEALS his car (gee, takes ONLY three hours) ONLY every couple of weeks now.

That implies that you're down from your original schedule, which was MORE than every couple of weeks.

Then you blast others for wasting resources?

The amount of water YOU waste, and the dangerous chemicals YOU introduce into the environment (yeah, your waxes and sealears), aren't on your horizon? Or do you CONVENIENTLY choose to IGNORE your waste while blasting OTHERS for "waste" and introducing things that are "harmful to the environment" that YOU don't like?

Really? Is that how you live your life? Do as I say, not as I do?

defined by whom?

i googled for those definitions, and guess what - they all came up on iffy-lube type websites selling you 3000 mile oil changes.

bottom line - it's analysis that trumps all cant, sales, superstition or hysteria on this subject. if the analysis says you can run your oil longer, and per my original post, most people can, that's the end of the story.

yes, i'm saying no. it's illogical nonsense.

yeah, on iffy-lube websites trying to get you to go into their shop and out of your wallet every 3000 miles.

nonsense.

i keep garlic in my refrigerator because it stops elephants from standing in the butter. because it has always worked for me.

superstitious nonsense - you have absolutely zero basis in fact.

Did that statement really need to read as: 'Exposure to all the *harmful* chemicals also causes many health problems.' for you to understand it?

It is an 'if, then' statement and as such, you must understand that it is not 'nonsense'. The 'if' part may be false, though, rendering the conclusion useless. I think we agree that, the claim that people need to change their oil every 3,000 miles or on some time interval is nonsense promoted by auto repair people.

FACT: De-ionized salt works just as well.

He didn't claim any basis in fact.

He made several casual observations. I wonder which one of those statements rang true and got you so bent out of shape. I'm guessing this one:

"Some people want to feel superior, or it could be they want reinforcement of their own beliefs, because they are not sure of those beliefs."

I disagree that it is nonsense. In my 1984 AMC Eagle, those frequent oil changes were needed. In my 2008 Ford Focus, a longer interval is needed.

The 3000 mi interval was based on good info. However, now it is based on greed.

Jeff

Good info based upon old technology (oil from 25 years ago and car manufacturing from 25 years ago). Even without the 'greed' factor, the technology has changed enough that the old rules simply should not apply.

...and for the people driving the 25+ year old cars, the 'topping off what leaks out method' probably is as good as doing oil changes (though the filter probably still needs to get changed).

Good post man... Gotta love the way a little article would generate so much banter.

As for the high efficiency oil filters, what would be a good brand to go with? Is the stock honda filter a good choice to stick with?

On Mar 31, 11:34 am, SMS wrote: snip

Did you bother to follow JB's link and read the suggested oil change intervals he is promoting? Based on your sentence above, obviously not.