XPost: alt.home.repair
From: rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com
"Xeno" wrote in message
news:ica504FrhkjU1@mid.individual.net...
> On 28/3/21 11:13 am, mike wrote:
>> On 27-03-2021 21:14 Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, that's why you test it.
>>
>> Of course.
>> Under the logic of most people here they should replace the oil daily.
>> That's because it breaks down daily.
>
> Oil in the engine is undergoing a continuous breakdown process. Actually,
> if the truth be known, it is the additives in the oil which are breaking
> down. So, when dealing with oil change intervals, two factors need to be
> considered; additive depletion and oil contamination. These are like the
> proverbial piece of string - there is no hard and fast rule on when
> additives are sufficiently depleted or the oil sufficiently contaminated
> to warrant an oil change. Ditto for the oil filter.
>
> When I was an apprentice, and later, a rule of thumb, backed by the
> vehicle owner manuals, was an oil change every 5,000 km (3,000 mi) with a
> filter change every 10,000 km (6,000 mi). This was the norm for the
> average 6 cylinder vehicles (GM, Ford, Chrysler) of the day, 4 cylinder
> vehicles had more frequent oil changes.
>
> What has happened since then? Oils (and their additives) have improved out
> of sight. Also, engine ventilation systems (PCV) have improved vastly.
> This has extended the oil change intervals. My car, a Toyota, has the oil
> *and* filter change interval *recommended* by the manufacturer at 10,000
> km (6,000 mi). So, the oil change interval has been doubled but the oil
> filter change interval seems to have remained static.
>
> What seems to have been forgotten here is that the recommended oil change
> interval will depend on the use made of the vehicle. If you do a lot of
> short runs where the engine never warms up sufficiently, you will
> experience greater wear factors and increased oil contamination requiring
> shorter than recommended oil change interval. Will that impact the filter
> change interval? Maybe. It really depends on the filter capacity - the
> point at which the filter will block up and commence bypass. A large
> filter of, say, 1 litre (1 quart) capacity might not need to be changed
> more frequently. On the other hand, a small filter with half or a quarter
> of the capacity might need to have a more frequent change interval.
>
> My Toyota, at 5 years of age and with over 100,000 km clocked up, has
> servicing at factory recommended intervals. My wife's car, on the other
> hand, has only done 40,000 km in the same time interval. It gets its
> servicing, including oil and filter changes, done by *time*. In other
> words, it gets an oil change and filter every 6 months *regardless* of
> what's on the odometer.
>
>>
>> The filter too.
>> Every day you replace the oil & filter and they won't break down too
>> much.
>>
>> But that's not the way the world works.
>> Instead you follow whatever specs your manufacturer recommends you
>> follow.
>>
>> That's why specifications matter. That's why the specs that matter are
>> usually printed on the oil container.
>
> Manufacturer's specs are a *guide* only. Servicing intervals are dictated
> by many variables - there is no hard and fast service interval.
>>
>> It's not a matter of price or convenience which most others claimed it
>> was.
>> It's a matter of knowledge and understanding of meaningful
>> specifications.
>>
>> Alls these other people know are dollar bills.
>> They make all their decisions based only on money.
>>
>> That's fine.
>> It works for them.
>>
>> But I like to make my decisions based on an understanding of the product.
>> And specs are part of that understanding of the product (for synthetic
>> oil).
>
> For most laypeople, the specs on, say, the oil, are totally meaningless. I
> don't get anal about oil specs. If the oil I buy meets the *minimum* spec
> recommended by the car manufacturer, then that's what I go with. No point
> in going with a more expensive or more highly speced oil if your engine
> cannot benefit from the increased capability.
>>
>> I am wide open about not knowing how to compare two different synthetics.
>> At least not yet.
>>
>> I don't see anyone else here who knows anything about synthetic oil
>> though.
>>
>> Everything almost everyone else said they pulled out of their own
>> assholes.
>> Especially the ones who claimed it was all about money and not about
>> specs.
>>
>> They can't understand what the product is as they only understand money.
>> Everyone understands money (even me) so it's easy (for them) to decide.
>>
>> But I like to make my decisions based on meaningfully relevent
>> specifications which I openly admit I don't know what they are just yet.
>
> I make my decisions based on the car manufacturer's requirements. I figure
> they would have a clue about what works in engines they manufacture.
>>
>> But neither does anyone else (at least not those who have responded).
>> So I guess I'm on my own.
>>
>>> It's been forty years since I took tribo class,
>>> but at the time there was a standard measurement with a rotating drum
>>> inside
>>> a stationary drum that creates high shear on the test sample. You
>>> measure
>>> viscosity regularly and plot it against time.
>>
>> Isn't all that supposed to be encompassed meaningfully within the oil
>> spec?
> Why do you get so anal about oil specs?
That’s the way he is, its Arlen Holder with a new nick.
> Pick an oil that matches your vehicle manufacturer's minimum spec and
> you're good to go.
>>> Clean linear paraffin oils did well on the test, oils with a lot of
>>> crosslinking or rings did poorly.
>>>
>>> You'd think a "synthetic oil" base would be pure linear paraffin chains
>>> with a
>>> very narrow range of molecular weights and you might be right or you
>>> might
>>> be terribly wrong, depending. Also, of course, the VI breaks down, not
>>> just
>>> the base oil.
>>
>> I tried calling both Chevron & Warren Distribution but I'll have to wait
>> till Monday to get their technical people on the line.
>>
>> Sometimes they tell us a lot and sometimes they just spit out the
>> advertising so it's a crap shoot whether or not that call will bear
>> fruit.
>>
>> I think the best test so far of the Kirkland synthetic oil was this one.
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9il_piyuT8
>>
>> And I think the best single description of the (euro) specs is this one.
>> https://addinol.de/en/products/lubricants-for-the-automotive-
ector/engine-oil/specifications/
>> If you have something better by all means please let me and all know.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
