Honda Car Forum

<nick@nowhere.com> wrote

>I only use Mobil 1. I've been running it for years in my Integra and
> my 95 and 99 Accords. I just recall in the newsgroup others suggested
> using a synthetic blend on the first change and then going to full
> synthetic on the 2nd. I wanted to find out if that was still the case.

I wouldn't use a synthetic blend at all. Again....you can go directly to
full synthetic and not look back

I would only use Mobile 1 myself, btw...never anything else.

Peace,
Polfus

"Polfus" wrote

>> www.tegger.com/hondafaq/

> Even though you took it over, I still like it and appreciate the link...


That's really got to make Tegger feel good... ;-)

"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote

> In article <nh3pl35o2tdno2q13jnviqtilu9ng105pp@4ax.com>,
> nick@nowhere.com wrote:
>
>> I only use Mobil 1. I've been running it for years in my Integra and
>> my 95 and 99 Accords.
>
> Have you done a double blind test against dino oils under the same
> circumstances in the same cars?

"Double-blind" testing?

What would make you suggest this methodology of engine oil "testing"?

> No?
>
> Then how do you know Mobil 1 is better than dino?
>
> I used nothing but dino in my 92 Civic Si. I sold it with 120K on it a
> few years ago; my nephew drove it for three years, then he sold it with
> 145K on it. All dino.

That's not very convincing "double-blind" testing, if that's what you are
saying *you* did.

!!!

Did you put your 92 Civic Si in the shop to have them inspect the engine
internally before you sold it each time? Get it on the dyno to compare
initial levels when new and the results before you sold it? How do you know
what it was other than just knowing that t he car started and ran for that
length of time?

You see my point?

> When we did the Blackstone analysis at 120K, it came back "no
> significant engine wear and plenty of lubricants left; you can easily
> extend your oil change interval".

Errr....how is that possible, especially when Blackstone Labratories tests
*just* the oil sample you send them?

I mean..they never looked at the car, so how can you say they said "no
significant engine wear"?

> Mobil 1 is largely marketing. It may have some benefits under some
> circumstances, but in a consumer Honda engine it's a waste of money.

Can you prove that, and show a link that proves it?

> Use dino. If you feel like it, change the oil at half the interval.

That's not something I would be interested in at all with conventional oils.

> You'll still save significant money while having all the benefits of
> good lubrication and long engine life.

I don't like conventional oils for the crap that gets in there from
processing, so Ill stick with the clean stuff.

And my original 1990 Accord has 192,000+ ( I just called my buddy that has
it ), and used Mobile 1 all the way. Still running, strong too, with not one
repair needed to the engine in 17 years.

Not bad, eh?

Peace,
Polfus

Polfus wrote:
>
> "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote
>
>> In article <nh3pl35o2tdno2q13jnviqtilu9ng105pp@4ax.com>,
>> nick@nowhere.com wrote:
>>
>>> I only use Mobil 1. I've been running it for years in my Integra and
>>> my 95 and 99 Accords.
>>
>> Have you done a double blind test against dino oils under the same
>> circumstances in the same cars?
>
> "Double-blind" testing?
>
> What would make you suggest this methodology of engine oil "testing"?
>
>> No?
>>
>> Then how do you know Mobil 1 is better than dino?
>>
>> I used nothing but dino in my 92 Civic Si. I sold it with 120K on it a
>> few years ago; my nephew drove it for three years, then he sold it with
>> 145K on it. All dino.
>
> That's not very convincing "double-blind" testing, if that's what you
> are saying *you* did.
>
> !!!
>
> Did you put your 92 Civic Si in the shop to have them inspect the engine
> internally before you sold it each time? Get it on the dyno to compare
> initial levels when new and the results before you sold it? How do you
> know what it was other than just knowing that t he car started and ran
> for that length of time?
>
> You see my point?
>
>> When we did the Blackstone analysis at 120K, it came back "no
>> significant engine wear and plenty of lubricants left; you can easily
>> extend your oil change interval".
>
> Errr....how is that possible, especially when Blackstone Labratories
> tests *just* the oil sample you send them?
>
> I mean..they never looked at the car, so how can you say they said "no
> significant engine wear"?

because if the engine is wearing, wear product is present in the oil.
the proportions are directly correlated. no wear product, no wear.
it's very simple.


>
>> Mobil 1 is largely marketing. It may have some benefits under some
>> circumstances, but in a consumer Honda engine it's a waste of money.
>
> Can you prove that, and show a link that proves it?
>
>> Use dino. If you feel like it, change the oil at half the interval.
>
> That's not something I would be interested in at all with conventional
> oils.
>
>> You'll still save significant money while having all the benefits of
>> good lubrication and long engine life.
>
> I don't like conventional oils for the crap that gets in there from
> processing, so Ill stick with the clean stuff.
>
> And my original 1990 Accord has 192,000+ ( I just called my buddy that
> has it ), and used Mobile 1 all the way. Still running, strong too, with
> not one repair needed to the engine in 17 years.
>
> Not bad, eh?

with a honda, that's routine with conventional oils.

Polfus wrote:
>
> <nick@nowhere.com> wrote
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> On my sister's 08 Accord she is almost at the point of her
>> first oil change. I'm going to wait until between 15-20% to change it
>
> Do it at 15% or less only..Honda can tell if you change it early, which
> according to them it is if you change at 20%.
>
>> but I'm wondering should I use a dino oil on this change or a
>> synthetic blend before going fully synthetic. Also should I have one
>> more additional change after this one with the dino or synthetic blend
>> or will one be enough?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Nick
>
> You can go directly to full synthetic and not look back.
>
> I like Mobile 1.....whats your choice?
>

that's "m-o-b-i-l". no "e".

"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote

>> I like Mobile 1.....whats your choice?
>>
>
> that's "m-o-b-i-l". no "e".

Sorry..my bad.

Peace,
Polfus

In article <475cded5$0$8649$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
"Polfus" <nostringscouldsecureyou@thestation> wrote:

> > Have you done a double blind test against dino oils under the same
> > circumstances in the same cars?
>
> "Double-blind" testing?
>
> What would make you suggest this methodology of engine oil "testing"?

Because it's a good methodology for ANY testing.

In article <475cded5$0$8649$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
"Polfus" <nostringscouldsecureyou@thestation> wrote:

> > Then how do you know Mobil 1 is better than dino?
> >
> > I used nothing but dino in my 92 Civic Si. I sold it with 120K on it a
> > few years ago; my nephew drove it for three years, then he sold it with
> > 145K on it. All dino.
>
> That's not very convincing "double-blind" testing, if that's what you are
> saying *you* did.

I'm putting a counterpoint to your point.

Polfus wrote:
>
> "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote

<snip>

>> Mobil 1 is largely marketing. It may have some benefits under some
>> circumstances, but in a consumer Honda engine it's a waste of money.
>
> Can you prove that, and show a link that proves it?
>
>> Use dino. If you feel like it, change the oil at half the interval.
>
> That's not something I would be interested in at all with conventional
> oils.
>
>> You'll still save significant money while having all the benefits of
>> good lubrication and long engine life.
>
> I don't like conventional oils for the crap that gets in there from
> processing, so Ill stick with the clean stuff.
>
> And my original 1990 Accord has 192,000+ ( I just called my buddy that
> has it ), and used Mobile 1 all the way. Still running, strong too, with
> not one repair needed to the engine in 17 years.
>
> Not bad, eh?

Not bad at all; but you're arguing "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" here,
namely since you put 192k miles on your car and used Mobil 1, it's
because you used Mobil 1, which is simply not proven.

<not intended as a flame, BTW>

The consensus for the past few years in this newsgroup have suggested
that synthetic was the way to go. I would definitely like to see what
some 2003+ engines look like on dino oil following the new Maintenance
Minder schedule which can be between 5-7k miles. If you can also
comment on how frequently you changed your oil, that would help in the
discussion.




On Sun, 09 Dec 2007 21:00:51 -0500, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
<elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:

>In article <nh3pl35o2tdno2q13jnviqtilu9ng105pp@4ax.com>,
> nick@nowhere.com wrote:
>
>> I only use Mobil 1. I've been running it for years in my Integra and
>> my 95 and 99 Accords.
>
>Have you done a double blind test against dino oils under the same
>circumstances in the same cars?
>
>No?
>
>Then how do you know Mobil 1 is better than dino?
>
>I used nothing but dino in my 92 Civic Si. I sold it with 120K on it a
>few years ago; my nephew drove it for three years, then he sold it with
>145K on it. All dino.
>
>When we did the Blackstone analysis at 120K, it came back "no
>significant engine wear and plenty of lubricants left; you can easily
>extend your oil change interval".
>
>Mobil 1 is largely marketing. It may have some benefits under some
>circumstances, but in a consumer Honda engine it's a waste of money.
>Use dino. If you feel like it, change the oil at half the interval.
>You'll still save significant money while having all the benefits of
>good lubrication and long engine life.