Conventional oil hard to find?

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.

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.

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).

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.

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?

> 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/lubri...pecifications/

If you have something better by all means please let me and all know.

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.Â* 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? 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.Â* 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/lubri...pecifications/
>
>
> If you have something better by all means please let me and all know.


--

Xeno


Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

"Xeno" > wrote in message
...
> 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/lubri...pecifications/
>> If you have something better by all means please let me and all know.

On 28-03-2021 07:08 Xeno > wrote:

> Why do you get so anal about oil specs?

You and I are the only ones who understood that oil and oil filters don't
necessarily wear at the same rate at all times under all conditions.

Everyone else made all their decisions based on purely money & convenience.
To them any thought outside of money & convenience would be "anal" to them.

None of them even understood that the articles I listed said what they said.
Some even said the articles didn't say what the articles definitely said.

To them to UNDERSTAND what an article said is "being anal" about it.
That's because all they know is money and convenience (and they said so).

That girl even claimed factory manuals don't say what they say.
To that girl anything that a shop manual says would be anal to her.

Her mind is set forever at whatever she feels her mind should be set at.
Anything else (like understanding what the articles said) would be "anal."

I said many times it would be hard to find a bad oil and a bad oil filter
although I also noted what to look for in that oil and in that filter.

(Also I mentioned that certain oil additives could damage a catalytic
converter when people brought up the zinc additives which is clearly
something none of them had ever heard or thought about in their lives).

All they ever cared about (and they said so) was their money & convenience.
They said it many times that this was all they ever considered.

How can you NOT be considered anal with people THAT thoughtfully shallow?

To them just UNDERSTANDING something is being "anal" about it.
They couldn't even understand after many prompts what an article said.

Who is that ignorant to REPEATEDLY fail to understand those articles?
They REPEATEDLY failed to understand what the shop manuals actually say.

Why are they so ignorant?
All they cared about was their money and their convenience.

That's why.

At least they were very clear about that being the only thing that mattered.
Which is why anything more than that is to them being "anal" about it.

To understand oil & filters & service intervals was way too much for them.
To understand anything at greater than the level of money is "anal" to them.

"mike" > wrote in message
...
> On 28-03-2021 07:08 Xeno > wrote:
>
>> Why do you get so anal about oil specs?
>
> You and I are the only ones who understood that oil and oil filters don't
> necessarily wear at the same rate at all times under all conditions.

Another dead giveaway, Arlen.

> Everyone else made all their decisions based on purely money &
> convenience.

Another dead giveaway, Arlen.

> To them any thought outside of money & convenience would be "anal" to
> them.

> None of them even understood that the articles I listed said what they
> said.

Another dead giveaway, Arlen.

> Some even said the articles didn't say what the articles definitely said.
>
> To them to UNDERSTAND what an article said is "being anal" about it.
> That's because all they know is money and convenience (and they said so).
>
> That girl even claimed factory manuals don't say what they say.
> To that girl anything that a shop manual says would be anal to her.
>
> Her mind is set forever at whatever she feels her mind should be set at.
> Anything else (like understanding what the articles said) would be "anal."
>
> I said many times it would be hard to find a bad oil and a bad oil filter
> although I also noted what to look for in that oil and in that filter.
>
> (Also I mentioned that certain oil additives could damage a catalytic
> converter when people brought up the zinc additives which is clearly
> something none of them had ever heard or thought about in their lives).
>
> All they ever cared about (and they said so) was their money &
> convenience.
> They said it many times that this was all they ever considered.
>
> How can you NOT be considered anal with people THAT thoughtfully shallow?
>
> To them just UNDERSTANDING something is being "anal" about it.
> They couldn't even understand after many prompts what an article said.
>
> Who is that ignorant to REPEATEDLY fail to understand those articles?
> They REPEATEDLY failed to understand what the shop manuals actually say.
>
> Why are they so ignorant?
> All they cared about was their money and their convenience.
>
> That's why.
>
> At least they were very clear about that being the only thing that
> mattered.
> Which is why anything more than that is to them being "anal" about it.
>
> To understand oil & filters & service intervals was way too much for them.
> To understand anything at greater than the level of money is "anal" to
> them.

On Sun, 28 Mar 2021 14:16:03 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

> That¢s the way he is, its Arlen Holder with a new nick.

This coming from the nym-shifting senile Ozzie cretin, of course!

--
Richard addressing senile Rodent Speed:
"**** you're thick/pathetic excuse for a troll."
MID: >

On Sun, 28 Mar 2021 18:00:41 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:



> Another dead giveaway, Arlen.

Nope, just more trolling on your part, you really abnormal trolling senile
sociopath!

--
Bill Wright addressing senile Ozzie cretin Rodent Speed:
"Well you make up a lot of stuff and it's total ******** most of it."
MID: >

Xeno > wrote:
>
>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.

Yes. In most cases, the VI is breaking down faster than the base oil.

However, if you're driving an old car with a lot of blowby, you may find
that contamination of the oil becomes a problem before breakdown does.
On the other hand, if you're driving a new car in widely varying temperatures
you may find VI breakdown becomes an issue long before contamination.

>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.

Yes, this is true. Also we have many cars which use an algorithm to
estimate the state of the oil given the time and driving conditions,
and which can more precisely estimate proper oil change intervals.

>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.

Bingo.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On 3/28/21 10:28 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Xeno > wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>
> Yes. In most cases, the VI is breaking down faster than the base oil.
>
> However, if you're driving an old car with a lot of blowby, you may find
> that contamination of the oil becomes a problem before breakdown does.
> On the other hand, if you're driving a new car in widely varying temperatures
> you may find VI breakdown becomes an issue long before contamination.
>
>> 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.
>
> Yes, this is true. Also we have many cars which use an algorithm to
> estimate the state of the oil given the time and driving conditions,
> and which can more precisely estimate proper oil change intervals.
>
>> 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.
>
> Bingo.
> --scott
>
It's really hard for me to understand why this is such a long thread
that includes so many erudite discussions of motor oil chemistry and
operation.

Of course you change your filter every time you change your oil!

Here's why:
You're already underneath the vehicle.
The drain pan is in already place.
You already have oily hands and a greasy smear on your face.
You've already skinned your right hand knuckles and yelled Damn it!
Walmart sells a standard Fram oil filter for $3.88 while Fram's "Ultra
Synthetic 20,000 Mile Change Interval" filter goes for $8.57.

I haven't run the filter/car cost ratio/percentage yet...but I paid
$44,762 for my ride...

--
There are no dangerous weapons. There are only dangerous men.

On 03/28/2021 10:17 AM, Wade Garrett wrote:

> It's really hard for me to understand why this is such a long thread
> that includes so many erudite discussions of motor oil chemistry and
> operation.
>
> Of course you change your filter every time you change your oil!
>
> Here's why:
> You're already underneath the vehicle.
> The drain pan is in already place.

You forgot "You already broke the cheap Harbor Freight open-end wrench
on the drain plug and had to go find another one in your tool box.
While looking for the other wrench you find the 10mm socket you lost a
few months ago. While contemplating this miracle you forget you were
looking for the other wrench..."

> You already have oily hands and a greasy smear on your face.
> You've already skinned your right hand knuckles and yelled Damn it!
> Walmart sells a standard Fram oil filter for $3.88 while Fram's "Ultra
> Synthetic 20,000 Mile Change Interval" filter goes for $8.57.
>
> I haven't run the filter/car cost ratio/percentage yet...but I paid
> $44,762 for my ride...

When I bought the Corolla I decided I was never going to fix another car
thing. At some point "I'm getting too old for this ****" becomes the
driving force.

BTW, while walking I found both a regular and a deep 10mm 3/8 socket.
Different walks, different locations. This is really disturbing.

--
Cheers, Bev
"The day Microsoft makes something that doesn't suck is probably
the day they start making vacuum cleaners." --Ernst Jan Plugge