Honda Car Forum


 

Go Back   Honda Car Forum - Accord Parts Civic Tuning Acura Racing > Honda Acura > Honda 2

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 28 May 2010, 08:13 pm
Tegger
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Tegger's real-world oil consumption

This was also posted to www.bobistheoilguy.com ,
but accidentally to the "Diesel" forum. I've asked the moderators to move
it to the "Gasoline" forum.

My 1991 Acura Integra has (currently) about 343,600 miles on it. At this
mileage, it's sort of inevitable that oil usage is going to be a lot higher
than it was when the engine had fewer miles on it.

After a scare four years ago (the last time I posted in BITOG), I decided
to make a near-science of monitoring my oil consumption, so I could find
out how much oil I was REALLY using.

The results of two-years of testing have led me to several conclusions:
1) ambient air temperatures make no difference in consumption, but age of
oil might;
2) usage cycles up-and-down regularly, for no apparent reason;
3) it takes a long time and many test-cycles to determine a trend.

The chart is here:
<http://www.tegger.com/hondafaq/misc/graph-may28-10.pdf>

I did this chart for "summer" only, which covers from about mid-April to
late-November, outside of which dates the winter tires go on, and mess up
the method on account of their slightly larger diameter.

I've tried to be as consistent and as accurate as possible with my testing
methods, but I think 17 cycles covering approximately 35,000 miles and 24
months is enough to detect the engine's actual consumption.

Hope this is of interest to some here.

--
Tegger
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 29 May 2010, 09:56 am
Dave Kelsen
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Tegger's real-world oil consumption

On 5/28/2010 7:13 PM Tegger spake these words of knowledge:

> This was also posted to www.bobistheoilguy.com ,
> but accidentally to the "Diesel" forum. I've asked the moderators to move
> it to the "Gasoline" forum.
>
> My 1991 Acura Integra has (currently) about 343,600 miles on it. At this
> mileage, it's sort of inevitable that oil usage is going to be a lot higher
> than it was when the engine had fewer miles on it.
>
> After a scare four years ago (the last time I posted in BITOG), I decided
> to make a near-science of monitoring my oil consumption, so I could find
> out how much oil I was REALLY using.
>
> The results of two-years of testing have led me to several conclusions:
> 1) ambient air temperatures make no difference in consumption, but age of
> oil might;
> 2) usage cycles up-and-down regularly, for no apparent reason;
> 3) it takes a long time and many test-cycles to determine a trend.
>
> The chart is here:
> <http://www.tegger.com/hondafaq/misc/graph-may28-10.pdf>
>
> I did this chart for "summer" only, which covers from about mid-April to
> late-November, outside of which dates the winter tires go on, and mess up
> the method on account of their slightly larger diameter.
>
> I've tried to be as consistent and as accurate as possible with my testing
> methods, but I think 17 cycles covering approximately 35,000 miles and 24
> months is enough to detect the engine's actual consumption.
>
> Hope this is of interest to some here.
>


It's of interest to me; over this time frame, you averaged about 1660
miles per quart of oil. That's not bad, given the wear on your engine.
A lot of work, and good information. And something the rest of us can
measure oil consumption against.

I wish there were more folks doing this level of information-gathering.

Thanks, Tegger.


RFT!!!
Dave Kelsen
--
"Everything has its wonders, even darkness and silence, and I learn,
whatever state I may be in, therein to be content." -- Helen Keller
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 29 May 2010, 10:04 am
Elle
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Tegger's real-world oil consumption

On May 28, 6:13*pm, Tegger <inva...@invalid.inv> wrote:
snip for brevity
> The chart is here:
> <http://www.tegger.com/hondafaq/misc/graph-may28-10.pdf>



I think the above represents a well-done study.

I too would think that oil consumption would be pretty consistent over
the 41k miles. But taking into account errors in measurement,
consumption perhaps is pretty consistent. For example, using the chart
linked above, the reader can surmise that the average consumption was
about 1660 miles per quart (mpq) with a range from 1500 to 1850 mpq,
or +/- about 10%. Reading error for each measurement taken would maybe
be around 0.04 quart ( = about one-half a gradation = about one-half
mm on the calibration chart next to which you held the dipstick).
Temperature effects might cause an error in reading of around +/- 0.03
quart (= .0005 per degree F * 20 degree F * 3 quarts). You monitored
every 1k miles or so, so I gather you did two readings of the dipstick
per data point. Each reading could be off by 0.07 quart. Hence any
given data point might be off by around 2*(.04+.03) quart = 0.14 quart
or around 10% error, consistent with what your readings were. Hence I
would say the variation you found might be explained by the
measurement error involved in doing readings. Hence the average number
you found is useful.

I see from the "Bob is the Oil Guy" (BITOG) thread you used Mobil 1, a
synthetic oil, for the entire study. I think this may be relevant for
some readers. E.g. those who are still using non-synthetic oil might
expect higher oil consumption for an engine the same age as your
Acura's.

(Anyone wanting to see Tegger's thread at BITOG should just do a BITOG
keyword search for "Tegger.")
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 29 May 2010, 07:22 pm
Tegger
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Tegger's real-world oil consumption

Elle <honda.lioness@gmail.com> wrote in news:58d793a8-b69b-445a-ad69-
4dbbb2d0668c@y12g2000vbg.googlegroups.com:

> On May 28, 6:13*pm, Tegger <invalid@invalid.inv> wrote:
> snip for brevity
>> The chart is here:
>> <http://www.tegger.com/hondafaq/misc/graph-may28-10.pdf>

>
>
> I think the above represents a well-done study.
>
> I too would think that oil consumption would be pretty consistent over
> the 41k miles. But taking into account errors in measurement,
> consumption perhaps is pretty consistent. For example, using the chart
> linked above, the reader can surmise that the average consumption was
> about 1660 miles per quart (mpq) with a range from 1500 to 1850 mpq,
> or +/- about 10%. Reading error for each measurement taken would maybe
> be around 0.04 quart ( = about one-half a gradation = about one-half
> mm on the calibration chart next to which you held the dipstick).




I'm a bit surprised that nobody in BITOG has brought up this extremely
important point. I was fully expecting to be called-out on reading
errors, but nobody's done that yet except you.



> Temperature effects might cause an error in reading of around +/- 0.03
> quart (= .0005 per degree F * 20 degree F * 3 quarts). You monitored
> every 1k miles or so, so I gather you did two readings of the dipstick
> per data point. Each reading could be off by 0.07 quart. Hence any
> given data point might be off by around 2*(.04+.03) quart = 0.14 quart
> or around 10% error, consistent with what your readings were. Hence I
> would say the variation you found might be explained by the
> measurement error involved in doing readings. Hence the average number
> you found is useful.



As you point out, the obvious uncontrolled variable here is my dipstick-
level-recording method: It's a simple visual comparison between dipstick
and chart, which is subject to some guesswork as to the exact position
of the "meniscus".

Of course, the level doesn't go in increments that match the markings on
my chart, but is usually in between the marks. Is it closer to one mark
than the other? Do I call it 6.3? 6.4? It takes very little change in
what I record to make a big difference in the final mileage number.
That's part of the reason I need very many records in the dataset; it's
the only way of materially reducing the inevitable contamination caused
by reading errors.

I take at least four readings each time I do my readings, just to be
certain I'm reading the level correctly. Even then there is some
"fudge", since the oil runs down the stick fairly quickly, especially in
warmer weather. I need to make sure I check the level quickly, before
the level at the "meniscus" thins-out so far that I have difficulty
locating the top of the "meniscus".


>
> I see from the "Bob is the Oil Guy" (BITOG) thread you used Mobil 1, a
> synthetic oil, for the entire study. I think this may be relevant for
> some readers. E.g. those who are still using non-synthetic oil might
> expect higher oil consumption for an engine the same age as your
> Acura's.



I had been using M1 for some time before my decision to keep precise
records, and kept using it just to eliminate a variable.

I have, though, also discovered that M1, over more than 100,000 miles,
produces FAR less varnish than Castrol GTX did over the same mileage.
I've been sufficiently impressed with M1 that I wish to keep using it.



--
Tegger
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 29 May 2010, 07:23 pm
Tegger
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Tegger's real-world oil consumption

Dave Kelsen <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in
news:4c011d2c$0$15235$9a6e19ea@unlimited.newshosti ng.com:


>
> I wish there were more folks doing this level of
> information-gathering.
>
> Thanks, Tegger.
>
>



You're welcome. The testing continues apace. An update will be issued at
some point in the future, once more records are generated.


--
Tegger
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 30 May 2010, 08:52 pm
Grumpy AuContraire
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Tegger's real-world oil consumption

Tegger wrote:
> This was also posted to www.bobistheoilguy.com ,
> but accidentally to the "Diesel" forum. I've asked the moderators to move
> it to the "Gasoline" forum.
>
> My 1991 Acura Integra has (currently) about 343,600 miles on it. At this
> mileage, it's sort of inevitable that oil usage is going to be a lot higher
> than it was when the engine had fewer miles on it.
>
> After a scare four years ago (the last time I posted in BITOG), I decided
> to make a near-science of monitoring my oil consumption, so I could find
> out how much oil I was REALLY using.
>
> The results of two-years of testing have led me to several conclusions:
> 1) ambient air temperatures make no difference in consumption, but age of
> oil might;
> 2) usage cycles up-and-down regularly, for no apparent reason;
> 3) it takes a long time and many test-cycles to determine a trend.
>
> The chart is here:
> <http://www.tegger.com/hondafaq/misc/graph-may28-10.pdf>
>
> I did this chart for "summer" only, which covers from about mid-April to
> late-November, outside of which dates the winter tires go on, and mess up
> the method on account of their slightly larger diameter.
>
> I've tried to be as consistent and as accurate as possible with my testing
> methods, but I think 17 cycles covering approximately 35,000 miles and 24
> months is enough to detect the engine's actual consumption.
>
> Hope this is of interest to some here.
>



I don't know why you're changing oil every 3K. Any reputable oil such
as Castrol, Valvoline etc should be good for at least 5K.

JT

Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 31 May 2010, 05:26 pm
M.A. Stewart
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Tegger's real-world oil consumption

Dave Kelsen (invalid@invalid.invalid) writes:
> On 5/28/2010 7:13 PM Tegger spake these words of knowledge:
>
>> This was also posted to www.bobistheoilguy.com ,
>> but accidentally to the "Diesel" forum. I've asked the moderators to move
>> it to the "Gasoline" forum.
>>
>> My 1991 Acura Integra has (currently) about 343,600 miles on it. At this
>> mileage, it's sort of inevitable that oil usage is going to be a lot higher
>> than it was when the engine had fewer miles on it.
>>
>> After a scare four years ago (the last time I posted in BITOG), I decided
>> to make a near-science of monitoring my oil consumption, so I could find
>> out how much oil I was REALLY using.
>>
>> The results of two-years of testing have led me to several conclusions:
>> 1) ambient air temperatures make no difference in consumption, but age of
>> oil might;
>> 2) usage cycles up-and-down regularly, for no apparent reason;
>> 3) it takes a long time and many test-cycles to determine a trend.
>>
>> The chart is here:
>> <http://www.tegger.com/hondafaq/misc/graph-may28-10.pdf>
>>
>> I did this chart for "summer" only, which covers from about mid-April to
>> late-November, outside of which dates the winter tires go on, and mess up
>> the method on account of their slightly larger diameter.
>>
>> I've tried to be as consistent and as accurate as possible with my testing
>> methods, but I think 17 cycles covering approximately 35,000 miles and 24
>> months is enough to detect the engine's actual consumption.
>>
>> Hope this is of interest to some here.
>>

>
> It's of interest to me; over this time frame, you averaged about 1660
> miles per quart of oil. That's not bad, given the wear on your engine.
> A lot of work, and good information. And something the rest of us can
> measure oil consumption against.
>
> I wish there were more folks doing this level of information-gathering.
>
> Thanks, Tegger.
>
>
> RFT!!!
> Dave Kelsen
> --
> "Everything has its wonders, even darkness and silence, and I learn,
> whatever state I may be in, therein to be content." -- Helen Keller



[politically incorrect humour follows]

What kind of lap times do you think Helen Keller could achieve on the
BBC TV show 'Top Gear'?




Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 01 Jun 2010, 10:18 am
Elle
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Tegger's real-world oil consumption

On May 29, 5:22*pm, Tegger <inva...@invalid.inv> wrote:
> I'm a bit surprised that nobody in BITOG has brought up this extremely
> important point. I was fully expecting to be called-out on reading
> errors, but nobody's done that yet except you.


Hi, I am not sure what you mean by "called-out," but I want to be
clear that I was not trying to criticize your work. Rather I was
curious about the variation and whether it might be explained by
measurement error. I think the variation is not meaningful and is to
be expected. Your study is /extremely/ well done. I doubt any other
DIY-er could get a narrower range for measured oil consumption. Your
study is instructive in a few ways, in fact.

I guess I might also keep in mind that generally, oil consumption is
going to rise. As you know. So one cannot take an average of too long
a time period and have it be meaningful. Rather something like the
average over every 50k miles seems like it would be helpful to folks
as a measure perhaps of how much wear the engine is seeing.

Do you mind if I post a link to your chart and a summary of it at
honda-tech.com ?

snip for brevity
> Of course, the level doesn't go in increments that match the markings on
> my chart, but is usually in between the marks. Is it closer to one mark
> than the other? Do I call it 6.3? 6.4? It takes very little change in
> what I record to make a big difference in the final mileage number.
> That's part of the reason I need very many records in the dataset; it's
> the only way of materially reducing the inevitable contamination caused
> by reading errors.


Yes, I understand: Lots of data points help average out any
measurement error.
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 01 Jun 2010, 08:27 pm
Tegger
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Tegger's real-world oil consumption

cf005@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (M.A. Stewart) wrote in
news:hu19ht$ct1$1@theodyn.ncf.ca:

> Dave Kelsen (invalid@invalid.invalid) writes:


>>
>>
>> RFT!!!
>> Dave Kelsen
>> --
>> "Everything has its wonders, even darkness and silence, and I learn,
>> whatever state I may be in, therein to be content." -- Helen Keller

>
>
> [politically incorrect humour follows]
>
> What kind of lap times do you think Helen Keller could achieve on the
> BBC TV show 'Top Gear'?
>
>
>
>
>



They once actually did have a blind man in their "reasonably priced car".
He'd lost his sight in a bomb-blast in some Third World country when he was
with the British military.

Jeremy Clarkson and he did /many/ test laps during which (with "Jezza" as
passenger) they'd worked out a rally-type system with Jeremy as navigator.

The blind guy did not finish last.


--
Tegger
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 01 Jun 2010, 08:50 pm
Tegger
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Tegger's real-world oil consumption

Elle <honda.lioness@gmail.com> wrote in
news:16730f82-48a1-4f77-8c2b-e7d0d44cfcf3@u7g2000vbq.googlegroups.com:

> On May 29, 5:22*pm, Tegger <inva...@invalid.inv> wrote:
>> I'm a bit surprised that nobody in BITOG has brought up this
>> extremely important point. I was fully expecting to be called-out on
>> reading errors, but nobody's done that yet except you.

>
> Hi, I am not sure what you mean by "called-out," but I want to be
> clear that I was not trying to criticize your work.




By "called-out", I meant I expected somebody to bring up the issue of
measurement accuracy when reading off the dipstick. The entire work
depends on that, of course. And nobody but you brought it up. That
doesn't say much for BITOG, frankly.

I'm complimenting you, is ultimately what I meant.




> Rather I was
> curious about the variation and whether it might be explained by
> measurement error.




That is very possible. I considered the possibility myself, but had no
real way of compensating for it outside of large sample size.

I'm no statistician, but I've done enough testing and offhand
statistical analysis--both personally and as part of my job--to realize
that variability is the norm in statistics, and can be very difficult to
both account for, and to correct for, when attempting to determine
trends and tendencies within the numbers.



> I think the variation is not meaningful and is to
> be expected.



I'm not totally sure what accounts for the variation. As you point out,
it may well have to do simply with the vagaries of my vision and with my
judgments as to the exact fractional positioning of a particular
reading.

I found that if I considered a reading as being 0.1 of a mark higher or
lower, that made as much as 500 miles per quart difference in the final
analysis. I had no way of correcting for that other than sample size.
When calculating gas mileage, one faces the very same variability
problem.

My reading-records were conservative, normally erring on the side of
higher consumption. IOW, if I wasn't quite sure, I'd guess on the higher
side (6.4 usage versus 6.3, etc.).



> Your study is /extremely/ well done. I doubt any other
> DIY-er could get a narrower range for measured oil consumption. Your
> study is instructive in a few ways, in fact.
>
> I guess I might also keep in mind that generally, oil consumption is
> going to rise. As you know. So one cannot take an average of too long
> a time period and have it be meaningful. Rather something like the
> average over every 50k miles seems like it would be helpful to folks
> as a measure perhaps of how much wear the engine is seeing.



If what I'm seeing is accurate, I believe consumption rises very slowly
over the years. I believe that the reason some people see a sudden large
hike in usage is because they never check their oil. And then one day
they do, and it's a LOT lower than they expected. They conclude from
this that it all-of-a-sudden started happening.


>
> Do you mind if I post a link to your chart and a summary of it at
> honda-tech.com ?




Please do. When posting to BITOG, I was hoping for somebody to chime in
with meaningful technical criticism and advice. So far, you're the only
one. Maybe we can get others in hondatech.

Hey, you're doing peer-review! Cool!


>
> snip for brevity
>> Of course, the level doesn't go in increments that match the markings
>> on my chart, but is usually in between the marks. Is it closer to one
>> mark than the other? Do I call it 6.3? 6.4? It takes very little
>> change in what I record to make a big difference in the final mileage
>> number. That's part of the reason I need very many records in the
>> dataset; it's the only way of materially reducing the inevitable
>> contamination caused by reading errors.

>
> Yes, I understand: Lots of data points help average out any
> measurement error.
>



Lots of data points = large sample size.


--
Tegger


Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Tegger's latest oil consumption Tegger Honda 3 1 29 Mar 2008 10:51 am
Tegger's latest oil consumption test Tegger Honda 3 14 29 Feb 2008 09:13 pm
For those who own a 2007 Civic Sedan LX automatic, what real world mpg have you been getting? chamelean75 Honda Technical 3 16 Oct 2007 07:12 am
For those who own a 2007 Civic Sedan LX automatic, what real world mpg have you been getting? chamelean75 Honda Technical 0 16 Oct 2007 07:07 am
what is the real fuel consumption for 1998-2002 honda accord 3.0 v6 coupe? Tony I Honda Technical 2 04 Sep 2007 06:34 am


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:30 pm.


Attribution:
Honda News | Autoblog
Powered by Yahoo Answers




Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
LinkBacks Enabled by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2 © 2011, Crawlability, Inc.
HondaCarForum.com is not affiliated with Honda Motor Company in any way. Honda Motor Company does not sponsor, support, or endorse HondaCarForum.com in any way. Copyright/trademark/sales mark infringements are not intended or implied.