Honda Car Forum

> In fact, my 120K mile 92 Civic, with 3K mile oil change intervals and
> minimal warmup times, showed an oil analysis where the engine was in
> brand-new shape. And it continues to run.

Oil analysis by itself can not determine that an engine is "in brand new
shape".


--
'03 S2000
'94 Accord

It's just about going fast...that's all...

http://home.insight.rr.com/cgreen/

Don't really want to add any more flame into the discussion, however:

1. do you know that warm-up time while idling is at least 2-4 times longer
than under reasonable load (under 2.5-3k rpm under 45 mph), therefore engine
is exposed to the clearances you mentioned for A LOT LONGER when you idle.
2. do you think that reasonable load (under 2.5-3k rpm, under 45 mph) hurts
A LOT? Do you think that going 40 mph at 2.5 k rpm is a "load" per se at
all? (Flat terrain, please)
3. do you really think that oil system for 1.5-2.5 l engine needs a whole
lot time to boost the pressure back after sitting overnight or starting
"dry" after oil change?

TNX

"NetSock" <NetSock@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:bobmeg$gvh$1@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
> > In fact, my 120K mile 92 Civic, with 3K mile oil change intervals and
> > minimal warmup times, showed an oil analysis where the engine was in
> > brand-new shape. And it continues to run.
>
> Oil analysis by itself can not determine that an engine is "in brand new
> shape".
>
>
> --
> '03 S2000
> '94 Accord
>
> It's just about going fast...that's all...
>
> http://home.insight.rr.com/cgreen/
>
>

Ok, I'll buy at least some of that.

"NetSock" <NetSock@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:boavbh$d32$1@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
> "Jafir Elkurd" <jafir@nospam.no.spam.hotpop.com> wrote in message
> news:vqhuak13194eb9@corp.supernews.com...
>
> > If it burning ALL the fuel at any point, the emissions would be the same
> at
> > any point.
>
> No they wouldn't. RPMs are a HUGE factor.
>
> >Heck, cars wouldn't even need a catalyst if they could do what
> > you are saying.
>
> Catalyst are designed to deal with the nitrous by products from burning
fuel
> (gasoline). The catalytic converter has little to do with unburnt fuel.
>
> I will however clarify...modern engines are designed to burn 97% of the
fuel
> at any temperature. The remaining 3% could never result in "washing" of
the
> cylinders...which was my point.
>
>
>

My 1988 CRX has 205,900 miles on it and gets driven within 20 seconds
of starting it every day. I live in NJ, change the oil every 3,000
miles (Castrol GTX 5-30, oem filter) and hit redline at least once a
day. If I've shaved any longevity from my engine I won't mind as the
body is deteriorating at a much quicker pace.


On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 08:29:45 -0500, "NetSock" <NetSock@nospam.com>
wrote:
>Think about it...20 degree block, and your going to drive away after 30
>seconds!? Tolerances are too tight in a cold engine for loading
>purposes...you are "shaving" longevity away from your engine. We have done
>those precise studies in our fleet, and that is our findings. My very own
>'94 Accord with 138k miles on it, has *always* been completely warmed up,
>and to this day, runs like its brand new.
>
>Talk about rusting your exhaust system by letting your car warm up, is
>nonsense as well. That doesn't even make sense.
>
>I welcome any debate on the subject, and I sure there is good rational for
>those who disagree, but we actually did the studies, and tore down the
>engines afterwards. Believe me...seeing, is believing.
>
>Take care.

On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 08:12:08 -0500, "NetSock" <NetSock@nospam.com>
wrote:

>Tom and Ray (to whom I've never heard of) seem to be good ol' boys and well
>intentioned, but I didn't catch their credentials. Nor did they give any
>real explanation to their methods.
>
>Like I said, to each there own...but Ill stick with real world facts to make
>my judgments.
>
>Take care.

You should catch their show, it's hilarious. They aren't exactly good
ol' boys but MIT grads who run a garage in Boston. They are pretty
bright but will also admit that they are sometimes just making it up.
You could call them up and tell them about your testing.

Thanks for posting that BTW. I am always a little amazed about
claims such as synthetic oil is better. It may be, but I have never
heard of any actual testing to show that. Same with the 3000 mile
oil change. Certainly a private car owner would have only the weakest
anecdotal evidence from personal experience.

Which reminds me of an experiment that Tom or Ray is doing with an old
Dodge Colt Vista the he owns. He stopped changing the oil about five
years ago and now only adds oil if it is low. He mentions it every
now and then so I guess it is still running.

In article <bo8ac6$c9$1@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
"NetSock" <NetSock@nospam.com> wrote:

> http://home.insight.rr.com/cgreen/
> "Jafir Elkurd" <jafir@nospam.no.spam.hotpop.com> wrote in message
> news:vqdnnpi424j1e5@corp.supernews.com...
>
> [snip]
>
> >Also it is
> > possible that the extreme rich running condition of a cold engine could
> > cause cylinder lubrication problems, so you'd be better off driving the
> car
> > so that it will warm up quicker.
>
> Modern engines that are properly tuned do not run "rich" when cold. They may
> be running "richer" than normal conditions, but not overly so.
>
> Today's modern engines are designed to burn ALL the full at any given
> temperature range. If your modern engine is having fuel wash at ANY time,
> there is something wrong.
>
> Take care.
>
> --
> It's just about going fast...that's all...
>
> http://home.insight.rr.com/cgreen/
>
>

Modern engines do run rich when cold.

The fuel mixes poorly when when the incoming air is cold. The richness
is compensation for the fuel that forms useless large dropplets or that
settles onto the engine's surfaces. The tailpipe result is extra
gasoline coming out.

In article <bo89pj$a3$1@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
"NetSock" <NetSock@nospam.com> wrote:

> I have to disagree with just about every response.
>
> First, some credentials...I was a 12 year certified technician, and
> regularly did engine rebuilds on both gas and diesel engines. As a fleet
> manager, will also did extensive wear studies and regular in-depth oil
> analysis. While I am no longer "in the field" I still get my hands dirty
> building hi-performance engines for boats as a hobby.
>
> With that said...I will make this blanket statement...
>
> "Allowing the engine coolant to reach its maximum operating temperature at
> idle after a cold start, will extend the life of the engine."
>
> Think about it...20 degree block, and your going to drive away after 30
> seconds!? Tolerances are too tight in a cold engine for loading
> purposes...you are "shaving" longevity away from your engine. We have done
> those precise studies in our fleet, and that is our findings. My very own
> '94 Accord with 138k miles on it, has *always* been completely warmed up,
> and to this day, runs like its brand new.
>
> Talk about rusting your exhaust system by letting your car warm up, is
> nonsense as well. That doesn't even make sense.
>
> I welcome any debate on the subject, and I sure there is good rational for
> those who disagree, but we actually did the studies, and tore down the
> engines afterwards. Believe me...seeing, is believing.
>
> Take care.
>

Ever tried to idle a small car up to temperature on a cold day? It will
never happen in some cars. It doesn't in my 97 Civic and it sure as
hell wouldn't in my 88 Tercel. Trying to idle them warm is just wearing
out the engine without getting a single mile from it.

My Civic has 135K miles and I've never idled it warm. It still runs as
good as new too.

In article <mcmurtri-1602EB.01021706112003@corp-radius.supernews.com>,
Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtri@dslextreme.com> wrote:

> Ever tried to idle a small car up to temperature on a cold day? It will
> never happen in some cars.

And it won't happen on a Honda.

In fact, on a really cold day, get the engine good and warm and turn the
heat on and then go to a long traffic light. You'll find cool air on
your feet, because it simply can't produce any heat at idle. That's a
Honda for you.

In article <boat4h$cnr$1@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
"NetSock" <NetSock@nospam.com> wrote:

> Tom and Ray (to whom I've never heard of) seem to be good ol' boys and well
> intentioned, but I didn't catch their credentials.

If you've never heard of Tom and Ray, you need to get out more.

Since you're writing from Ohio State, my guess is you're an 18 year old
know it all who actually knows exactly nothing.

Tom and Ray have engineering credentials from MIT, in addition to 30+
years of experience each. I'll take them over you any dea.



> Like I said, to each there own...but Ill stick with real world facts to make
> my judgments.

The real world facts are, you don't have a clue what you're talking
about.

With regard to synthetic oils being better. I think the recent class
action suit against Mercedes suggests that they can deffinitlely be
used for much longer periods with out the need to be changed.
__________________________________________________ ___________________________

Conventional Oil Costs Carmaker $32 Million

By Tim Sullivan

American owners of Mercedes-Benz cars were awarded a $32 million
settlement this month on a complaint that their engines may have
sustained early wear because they were not advised to use synthetic
motor oil.

The class action settlement, approved April 9 by a U.S. District Court
judge in Philadelphia, calls for Mercedes-Benz USA to mail vouchers
for a free oil change to more than 350,000 owners and lessees of cars
from the 1998 through 2001 model years. In addition, the company
commits to cover repairs estimated to cost $20 million.

The case involved a Flexible Service System (FSS), included on nearly
all Mercedes-Benz cars sold in the United States from 1998 to 2001.
The system is designed to help owners lower maintenance costs and to
reduce environmental impacts of used motor oil by advising owners when
the oil truly needs to be changed. According to Mercedes-Benz, the
system begins with a minimum interval of 10,000 miles and adjusts
upward as it detects favorable conditions, such as extended highway
travel.

Documentation brought forth during the case indicated that intervals
ranged up to 20,000 miles, with the average being 12,000 miles.

The problem, according to the plaintiffs, was that owners manuals and
promotional materials advised motorists to use conventional motor
oils.

"The company's intentions – to save its customers money and to protect
the environment – are certainly commendable," attorney Kenneth
Jacobsen told Lube Report. "But it didn't work because conventional
oils just don't stand up to those intervals."

Mercedes-Benz mailed a letter to owners in 2001 advising them to use
synthetic motor oils. Ironically, it was that letter that eventually
led the original plaintiff, Joseph A. O'Keefe, to file suit.

"He had worked for years in the automotive business, so he thought it
was strange when he received this letter from out of the blue
recommending that he switch from conventional oil," Jacobsen said. "He
wrote to Mercedes to find out what was going on and received what he
considered to be an unsatisfactory answer."

Jacobsen added that the automaker did not dispute during the case that
the intervals recommended by the FSS were too long for conventional
oils.

"It was never really an issue," he said. "They pretty much
acknowledged that they had a problem. Their argument was that it
wasn't as big of a problem as what we said and that the case did not
merit a class-action suit."

After the settlement, Mercedes-Benz issued a statement denying
wrongdoing and maintaining that conventional API SH and SJ motor oils
should withstand the intervals recommended by the FSS without sludging
or related engine damage. The statement did not address other aspects
of engine oil performance, such as fuel economy preservation or
protection of emissions controls. It also noted that the vehicles were
factory-filled with oil that "met the same standard as approved
synthetic oils."

Mercedes-Benz USA Public Relations Manager Frederick R. Heiler
acknowledged that the intervals for which the FSS was programmed
significantly exceed those typically recommended for conventional
oils. He noted, however, that typical intervals are "blind"
recommendations – that is, made for cases in which neither oil nor
driving conditions are monitored.

"A system that monitors oil condition and the amount of highway
driving can often prescribe much longer change intervals," Heiler
said. The FSS does not directly monitor oil condition.

The vouchers to be mailed by Mercedes-Benz will pay for installation
of synthetic oils. With their face value of $35, that part of the
settlement has a price tag of $12.3 million. Judge Franklin S. Van
Antwerpen arrived at $20 million for potential repairs based on expert
testimony. His decision approving the settlement cited allegations
that several thousand owners had reported problems by the time O'Keefe
filed his suit.