Oil Decision Time.

quote:

The coil was intermittent and the associated plug wire had a boot issue that compounded the miss. I noticed it as a very intermittent miss under moderate load change a year or more ago. It had gotten to be an actual PIA about a month or two ago. The check engine light hadn't yet come on when I went through inspection, so I passed.

If the misfire was not detected by the OBD II and the check engine light is not ON permanently and FLASHING when it is happening, complain to EPA and that is FREE FIX for you (irrespective of the mileage - as that is SYSTEM OBD II failure and the OEM is now subject to $25,000 fine for EVERY VERHICLE THEY SOLD IN USA that as the same "characteristics".

Document what you claim, send it to EPA registered mail and you will be rolling in money soon - alternately contact the MFG and ask to talk to "certification Engineer for EPA maters".

And tell then you will complain if they do not fix your car NOW and FREE of any charge.

While there is a limit on EMISSION PERFOMENCE DUARBLITY (for the useful life of the car) there is no limit on OBD II functionality and it is a very very serious matter - at a minimum a $90 million fine if they sold any more vehicles than the one you have, whatever that is (tried to look back on this another endless thread and could not find any reference to MAKE MODEL or MY.

quote:

Lamont B Dumont

In addition, please feel free to contact the following EPA representative with questions about OBD:

Holly Pugliese
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
2000 Traverwood Drive
Ann Arbor, MI 48105
Phone: 734 214-4288
E-mail: pugliese.holly@epa.gov

quote:

Originally posted by Captain Kirk:

quote:

Kirks quote according to my father is pretty much a blanket excuse. Most if not all auto makers claim a qt of oil/1000 miles is normal oil use. No one is happy hearing it if they use that much oil but that's what they will hear.

What is my quote...according to common sense!

My quote is a statement of fact!

If the so-called 'defective engines'(not my opinion),receive non-defective oil......the 'defective' engine issues---------GO AWAY!!!

I AM LIVING PROOF WITH MY NON-DEFECTIVE 1.8T!!

What does your 'father' have to say about that,AD.

READ what I said OK. Lets try another example, a little easier: If a person were to go to a dealer complaining about using a qt of oil in lets say 1500 miles, the dealer would call it normal oil use if there were no leaks. YOU GOT IT NOW? Synlube or not. They've been using 1000 miles/qt for decades now. A blanket excuse.

AD

quote:

Originally posted by ADFD1:

quote:

Originally posted by Captain Kirk:

quote:

Kirks quote according to my father is pretty much a blanket excuse. Most if not all auto makers claim a qt of oil/1000 miles is normal oil use. No one is happy hearing it if they use that much oil but that's what they will hear.

What is my quote...according to common sense!

My quote is a statement of fact!

If the so-called 'defective engines'(not my opinion),receive non-defective oil......the 'defective' engine issues---------GO AWAY!!!

I AM LIVING PROOF WITH MY NON-DEFECTIVE 1.8T...RUNNING ON SYNLUBE!!

What does your 'father' have to say about that,AD.

READ what I said OK. Lets try another example, a little easier: If a person were to go to a dealer complaining about using a qt of oil in lets say 1500 miles, the dealer would call it normal oil use if there were no leaks. YOU GOT IT NOW? Synlube or not. They've been using 1000 miles/qt for decades now. A blanket excuse.

AD

Funny thing,AD,.....I am not one of those-----PERSONS!!! GET IT!! MY ENGINES ARE NOT-------WORN OUT!!

I am not standing in the... 'worn-out-engine-line' at the dealer!!

WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO SAY EXACTLY,AD??

Lamont

quote:

As for the cataclysmic perverter, that's not relevant, since NJ only sticks the pipe for older cars that lack the plug-in diagnostic feature, like my '90 Miata.

Lamont,are you sure you live in NJ,like me!

Any converter issues now days in NJ.are far more relevant than the stick test days.

I managed to pass inspection on my cars with the converter off(test-pipe/no mirrors used) with a stick test years ago! Today,the check engine light comes on if the converter is bad/worn/missing.etc.........and you fail inspection---no stick test needed. CATALYTIC CONVERTERS ARE ABSOLUTELY RELEVANT IN NJ. YOU MAKE NO SENSE,LAMONT!

http://www.dmv.org/nj-new-jersey/smog-check.php

Lamont quoted:
The coil was intermittent and the associated plug wire had a boot issue that compounded the miss. I noticed it as a very intermittent miss under moderate load change a year or more ago. It had gotten to be an actual PIA about a month or two ago. The check engine light hadn't yet come on when I went through inspection, so I passed.
.................

That was some miss.........a bad coil----and a bad wire!!! AND NO CEL???

Now I see what you meant by calling your car a grocery getter....and barely that! I would never drive any car with a miss for a year. My buick miss was fixed in two days,and that was too long. Luckily, it was minor/intermittent! BTW........Cars don't run degraded to the point of being a PIA----without the CEL LIT...COME ON,LAMONT---YOU KNOW THAT!

I now also see why you have no sludge in the engine as you claimed---------FUEL DILUTION!!!

Lamont quoted:
The cat red herring makes me wonder if you're a real Joisey Bastid or just another wannabe like the cast from Jersey Shore and our new Governor. Or were you not the guy who claimed to be from Joisey? I haven't really been paying close enough attention to the social aspects of this thread.

---------LAMONT.....SPEAK FOR YOURSELF!!


Lamont,what is your background again????

I am starting to wonder with those stories of yours! They are technically----near impossible!! Car that runs terrible,and no check engine light???--- Any real tech will tell you that the PCM is almost too sensitive at throwing codes and lighting the CEL.......LONG BEFORE ANY DETECTABLE MISS---------LET ALONE,FOR A WHOLE YEAR!! BAD COIL/WIRE/AND MISS-NO CODE/CEL!! GET REAL! NO WAY!!!



THIS QUOTE FROM MIRO....NAILS IT PRETTY ACCURATELY!!!

((If the misfire was not detected by the OBD II and the check engine light is not ON permanently and FLASHING when it is happening, complain to EPA and that is FREE FIX for you (irrespective of the mileage - as that is SYSTEM OBD II failure and the OEM is now subject to $25,000 fine for EVERY VERHICLE THEY SOLD IN USA that as the same "characteristics".)))


Lamont.....just to be clear now-----------YOU'RE CLAIMING THAT THE OBD-II,FAILED....FOR A YEAR???? WAS IT YOUR AVALON(TOYOTA)??


This is the reason the old fashioned stick test is not needed........the OBD II SYSTEM NOW DOES THE JOB OF THE OLD STICK TEST!

http://www.aa1car.com/library/o2sensor.htm

AS YOU CAN SEE,LAMONT.........THE CAT IS VERY RELAVENT----------INCLUDING JOISEY CATS!!!

quote:

Originally posted by Captain Kirk:WORN OUT!!

I am not standing in the... 'worn-out-engine-line' at the dealer!!

WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO SAY EXACTLY,AD??

I'll try again Kirk since it seems you aren't grasping what I'm trying to say. A person buys a new car, any brand. He drives 1500 miles and uses a qt of oil. He brings it to the dealer and they check for leaks, NO LEAKS. They tell the person it is normal to use up to a qt of oil per 1000 miles. Simple enough.

It has nothing to do with Synlube or how great you and your cars are. It is a blanket excuse dealers use for oil consumption issues. I can't explain it any other way. Maybe someone else can!


BTW I'm not one of those people with worn out engines, and I don't use Synlube!
AD

PS I'd take Lamont's experiences and word over yours any day of the week! You aren't gaining points here or building any respect. You are entertaining though!

He just doesn't want to get it AD.

It's beyond their pay grade, but I know you'll get it: http://www.bimmerfest.com/foru...wthread.php?t=422965

Just had to repost that.

quote:

Originally posted by ADFD1:

quote:

Originally posted by Captain Kirk:WORN OUT!!

I am not standing in the... 'worn-out-engine-line' at the dealer!!

WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO SAY EXACTLY,AD??

I'll try again Kirk since it seems you aren't grasping what I'm trying to say. A person buys a new car, any brand. He drives 1500 miles and uses a qt of oil. He brings it to the dealer and they check for leaks, NO LEAKS. They tell the person it is normal to use up to a qt of oil per 1000 miles. Simple enough.

It has nothing to do with Synlube or how great you and your cars are. It is a blanket excuse dealers use for oil consumption issues. I can't explain it any other way. Maybe someone else can!


BTW I'm not one of those people with worn out engines, and I don't use Synlube!
AD

PS I'd take Lamont's experiences and word over yours any day of the week! You aren't gaining points here or building any respect. You are entertaining though!

Your point,Ad, really has no real relevance on this thread since most oil burners have some wear/sludge issues that have developed long after the break-in period. Most engines,once the rings seat, don't burn any significant oil until significant damage/wear/sludge has occurred many,many miles later-----using low grade, overworked/oxidized lubricant!!!

The so-called blanket statement you're referencing alludes to factory 'lemons' assuming the car never stops burning a quart/1000 miles of driving-----that is another issue altogether,and yes- it could apply to a much older high mileage engine---we know that,old news!!

The whole point of any oil thread,not-withstanding a defective engine.....is to preserve the 'like new' qualities of a sound engine for as long as possible. That is always the point in any oil forum,and my point as well----- So,AD,again...........WHAT WAS YOUR POINT?? That there are defective engines out there?--Really! WHO KNEW!!! Yes,deales/mfg's have a CYA clause that allows for a poor engine spec/flaw/whatever- to be "acceptable" when and where needed,so as to avoid billions in monetary losses over replacement engines. Gee,who woulda thunk they'd do that!
-----------------

AD QUOTED:
PS I'd take Lamont's experiences and word over yours any day of the week! You aren't gaining points here or building any respect. You are entertaining though![/QUOTE]

Really,AD?---ENLIGHTEN ME!---- SO FAR,LAMONT HAS NOT! What has he taught you to date...you didn't already know?? Let's see,so far Lamont has said that catalytic converters are irrelevant(In NJ)!!! I never knew that(still don't)--did you??

Well Kirk we somewhat agree.

As far as enlightening you about Lamont, use the search function you'll see the man is quite knowledgeable.

AD

quote:

Document what you claim, send it to EPA registered mail and you will be rolling in money soon - alternately contact the MFG and ask to talk to "certification Engineer for EPA maters".

Or, keep driving until the barely noticeable, extremely sporadic miss becomes enough of a concern to actually light the light. (For months, I wasn't sure if it was really happening or it was the somewhat harsh shifting of the tranny in my F-150.) Then fix it and go on with my life.

I guess you can only do that if your vehicle is a tool rather than the central aspect of your existence.

I'm turning off my notifications on this thread. Kirk has never been close to clear, but he's become about as coherent as a bunch of paint-ball splatters, and makes about as much sense. Heck, he might even be agreeing with me, for all I can tell.

quote:

Originally posted by Captain Kirk:

I've never seen an intelligible and factual rebuttal from you,Lamont---so instead you make a feeble 'attempt' to smear me....how typical when one is losing in a debate!! Still waiting for the converter rebuttal. That was a real foot-in-mouth gaffe!

Something you and your two buddies excell at.
Not a single rebuttal that is either intelligible, or factual. Many smear attempts that are worse than feeble.

Losing a debate indeed.

Okay then, what IS considered burning too much oil?

I don't have an opinion on the matter. Never had an oil burner, except for that '30-something Chevy that burned a gallon a week.

Ad-

quote:

Kirk in a beater I use dino oil. That echos what my father said and I think Lamont would agree. No point in $32/qt oil in a beater that will be sold off due to NY pot holes and rust when I lived back east.

Hey AD,I never said to put synlube in a beater car. Now we're off topic a bit!

You run Synlube in everything you own, don't you? Then here you told Lamont this:

In sum.........if you want your..."grocery getter" towed to the junk yard......... then run mineral oil in the engine! NOT ME! NO THANK YOU!

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Captain Kirk, Fri July 09 2010 05:23 PM

----------------------------------------

You really think dino is going to send his grocery getter to the junk heap? Read through your 650+ posts. You claim dino oil is no good, causes engines to fail and sludge up. There are quite a few people here who beg to differ.


AD

quote:

Originally posted by ADFD1:
You run Synlube in everything you own, don't you? Then here you told Lamont this:

In sum.........if you want your..."grocery getter" towed to the junk yard......... then run mineral oil in the engine! NOT ME! NO THANK YOU!



----------------------------------------


AD

Come on AD,that's Lamont's catch-phrase(grocer-getter)..so I used his catch phrase,big deal!!

You are correct----I run synlube in everything I own.......and none of them are beaters. If I had purchased a used beater just for fun to drive on the beach or something.....that would be a different story!

However,I really don't care about anyone as you say---"begging to differ" ---I go by the facts,science,and history and I have found that the 'crowd' is usually wrong much of the time. All those sludged up engines prove my point--------they(the crowd) were mostly running dino oil.

I hate to say this AD---but,what was your point--again!! I know I made mine..... loud and clear! I gave tons of links providing tons of proof.

If you don't agree.......then you are denying the facts,science,and history!

You may state that you won't change your ways,however-----I on the other hand,unlike you---look forward to new and better things. Synlube was just one of them!! No big deal---at least not for me! For you,that's another story!

One of his own links, that he posted more than once, states that one way to combat sludge is to use oil of the correct viscosity.

IIRC, a reasonable oci helps as well.

This "synlube" he boasts of using is not the correect viscosity of any vehicle in his sig. And "never chasnge the oil" does nothing to help.

Now, since he likes to present sites such as that as fact to support his claims, only one conclusion can be reached.

The cars in his sig are sludged.

quote:

Originally posted by Captain Kirk:

Come on AD,that's Lamont's catch-phrase(grocer-getter)..so I used his catch phrase,big deal!!

You are correct----I run synlube in everything I own.......and none of them are beaters. If I had purchased a used beater just for fun to drive on the beach or something.....that would be a different story!

However,I really don't care about anyone as you say---"begging to differ" ---I go by the facts,science,and history and I have found that the 'crowd' is usually wrong much of the time. All those sludged up engines prove my point--------they(the crowd) were mostly running dino oil.

I hate to say this AD---but,what was your point--again!! I know I made mine..... loud and clear! I gave tons of links providing tons of proof.

If you don't agree.......then you are denying the facts,science,and history!

You may state that you won't change your ways,however-----I on the other hand,unlike you---look forward to new and better things. Synlube was just one of them!! No big deal---at least not for me! For you,that's another story!

I go by facts and science. In my GF's Jeep I'm running Edge 0W20 and a Mobil 1 filter. A good Synthetic, using newer technology, Liquid titanium. Edge 0w20 is the only oil in the Edge line up using it IIRC. I'd have no problems running RL, PU, PP in it either. In my older Ford I run Penn YB dino.

Dino doesn't sludge engines, poor maint and poor design sludge engines. What oil do I prefer? Synthetic oil, because IMO it has advantages over dino, that is in an application worth using it in. That is how I've been taught, and how I've always felt.

There are probably millions if not over a billion cars in the world running problem free using dino oil. You make it sound that anyone using dino oil is driving an oil burning sludge monster, and that isn't so.

Trajan brings out a good point, from one of your links. Proper viscosity is very important to an engines well being. Very few newer cars call for a 50 grade oil.

AD

One of the problems, as more than one poster, Robert C in paticular, has pointed out, is that kirk has only ever posted anecdotes, not data.

Never has data been posted that shows that mineral oil is a cause of sludge. mineral oil is still made and sold by "big oil". New cars, such as the Mustang with the 5.0 Coyote engine, are factory filled with it.

We've seen links he has posted that showed, not "defective oil" as he claimed, but the results of running way over mfg recommended OCIs, or defective engines, or even using the wrong oil, or a combination of all three.

All this nonsense is because of the agenda that his own sig states, Pushing synlube.

Like AD says, synth is a better oil. I've said it as well. But in most cases, it's overkill.

Darn it, Trajan, you stole my thunder.

I was gonna remind kirk that anecdotes STILL don't constitute data!

Never have, never will.

No amount of shilling will make it so.

Look, I can screw up a little and it can cost millions.

Hell, I've screwed up and spent a half mill in a weekend.

But I LEARN from that. I don't hitch myself to an idea to the exclusion of all others.

Sure, sometimes it may be possible to do better. Sometimes I am really pushing the envelope trying to do better.

Hell, I'm working on an issue now that could save or cost billions if I am right or screw it up instead. Yeah, with a B.

But it takes DATA to make the decisions.
It takes testing. No matter how much I like the way the sales engineers talk or how much sense their spiel makes.

Data. Nothing else will do.

A complete discarding of pre-conceived notions and careful thought to eliminate confirmation bias are required to evaluate that data correctly.

Now, excuse me, it's been a long week and it's time to go drain and fill my Ultra Limited with proper synthetic oil and gear lubes of the correct viscosity and service class before this weekends road trip.

(It's nice when the kids are old enough to tend to themselves...)

RC-

quote:

I was gonna remind kirk that anecdotes STILL don't constitute data!

Have you read any of the links I pasted that were based on F-A-C-T ??????



Let's start from the top------------A-G-A-I-N!!!!!!! You guy's are slow learners,so we can now call this SUMMER SCHOOL!!!

FACTUAL LINK: AGAIN!!

http://www.schleeter.com/oil-sludge.htm

http://www.carbibles.com/engineoil_bible.html

http://webcache.googleusercont...=us&client=firefox-a

http://www.machinerylubricatio...udge-varnish-turbine


SYNTHETIC VS CONVENTIONAL......

http://www.autotropolis.com/wi...tic_vs._Mineral_Oils

http://www.carcraft.com/techar...ional_oil/index.html



THAT'S JUST FOR STARTERS,ROBERT C !!!! The only anecdotes I see are coming from you,Rob!!

quote:

Originally posted by Captain Kirk:


http://www.schleeter.com/oil-sludge.htm

The very link I refered to.

■On any vehicle, if you can't afford synthetic oil, check your owner's manual and insist on the correct weight of quality oil.
synlube isn't it.

quote:

Originally posted by Trajan:

quote:

Originally posted by Captain Kirk:


http://www.schleeter.com/oil-sludge.htm

The very link I refered to.

■On any vehicle, if you can't afford synthetic oil, check your owner's manual and insist on the correct weight of quality oil.
synlube isn't it.

This is also from the link,and it is the crux of the matter you seem to be avoiding!!

in the struggle to pass tougher federal emissions specifications, car manufacturers have raised engine operating temperatures and increased exhaust gas recirculation (EGR). In 1996, tighter federal emissions standards were enacted. Fuel mixtures have to run leaner, and leaner mixtures cause higher combustion temperatures. When nitrogen in the air is raised to higher temperatures it is converted into new contaminant cocktails. By 1997, sludge is appearing as a major problem.

After 1996, tighter emissions standards added pressure to the oiling system, and problems appeared.


The above statements from the link nails it. Yes,some people neglect changing their cheap mineral oil further compound a pre-existing condition and sludge up their engines that much faster-----but the majority of sludge is from using low tech oil in high tech engines,and that is a fact! That'S why sludge issues suddenly went up exponentially,yet the number of motorists/cars remained basically static.


This is also from the link and nails it again--just some more facts!!


Federal pressures for more fuel economy in cars and trucks led car manufacturers to design engines for lower viscosity motor oils. Lighter oils tend to break down faster under urban driving conditions.


I recommend synthetic motor oil to all my customers to prevent sludge. Why?

Synthetic lubricants cost just slightly more than conventional oils, but offer the best engine protection because: * synthetics remain stable at high temperatures (conventional oils break down faster at today's higher engine temps) * synthetics remain fluid at very low temperatures (conventional oils thicken) * additive packages are formulated with special chemicals for top cleaning and anti-oxidant protection
-----------------------------------------------------------

However,I use synlube,don't change it,and I don't have any sludge---including my cut open oil filters that are flawless and clean!

Aeration induced sludge information.

http://www.machinerylubricatio...oil-analysis-varnish

Take note to the references in the above link!

The so-called 'dirt' in motor oil(mineral/dino/G-III) did not come from the outside of your engine!! The source of dirt/insolubles is---the OIL ITSELF!! This is not new information! These particles are sludge/carbon are in fact-----ABRASIVE(cause wear),among other things!

quote:

The result envisioned is the creation of a submicron, carbonaceous resin particle at each location previously occupied by an air bubble. The degradation is a thermal-oxidative decomposition of the oil. These tar-like particles accumulate in the oil

because they are insoluble suspensions, they have a tendency to seek a more stable domicile. As they move about in the oil they make random contact with cool machine surfaces. The cooler oil at surface boundaries draws the particles near, to condense and adhere. One theory suggests that the particles migrate out of the oil by Van der Waals forces (weak attractive chemi-absorptive energy) while another considers electromechanical forces such as dielectrophoresis. Whatever the attraction, these polar microscopic specks of carbon matter will eventually adhere and populate the exposed metal walls. Initially the carbon residue may be gum-like and sticky but over time they can become thermally cured and form hard, enamel-like films.

-----------------------------------------------------


In case your wondering---Synlube does have anti-foam agents,unlike some other motor oils that do not,and yet needs it in the worst way!

Anecdotes still do not constitute data.

quote:

Originally posted by Trajan:
Anecdotes still do not constitute data.

So, give us some data then,Trajan, instead of your usual ANECDOTES!

Now that you understand the definition of data as displayed by your above post-----I assume data is just around the corner from you??

Nah,who am I kidding! Your not capable of providing data--like I have been,and will continue doing! You just don't have it---never did---never will!! Go back to the sidelines........'old boy'..where you belong!!!!!

quote:

Originally posted by Trajan:

quote:

Originally posted by Captain Kirk:

I've never seen an intelligible and factual rebuttal from you,Lamont---so instead you make a feeble 'attempt' to smear me....how typical when one is losing in a debate!! Still waiting for the converter rebuttal. That was a real foot-in-mouth gaffe!

Something you and your two buddies excell at.
Not a single rebuttal that is either intelligible, or factual. Many smear attempts that are worse than feeble.

Losing a debate indeed.

Data, not feeble smears are wanted.

The info, references, in the above posts make sense, Kirk. It's obvious that Synlube is doing a good job keeping your engine(s) clean. You are using products in your various machines that represent a lot of money. I'm certain that if you suspected that you were doing any harm to your various machines, you would stop using Synlube in a heartbeat. Your record keeping is very systematic and accurate. I'm not buying into the "viscosity issue." How many random samples were tested? How many different labs did the testing over how many samples? I may be wrong, but one or two samples tested by one or two labs may not be very very meaningful. I put more weight on your on-going, long-term "successful" usage. Tearing down those various pieces of machinery would be meaningful, too, but whose got the time and money for such extensive tests?

inHaliburton-

quote:

Tearing down those various pieces of machinery would be meaningful, too, but whose got the time and money for such extensive tests?

I agree inhaliburton, an engine tear down/'mike' up will reveal everything!

However,most engines-good or bad, don't get torn down unless there is a desire to fix vs trade in the car.

In my case,both now, and in the past with the older cars,the engines all ran like a tops. A tear down just for fun would be crazy,unless one is in the racing circuit!

There would also be tell-tale signs if an engine is getting worn,such as-burning oil,power loss,fuel economy drop,noise,smoke,etc. If none of those issues ever arise,life is good,and so is the oil!

I should also mention that cutting open the oil filters for inspection is very telling as well.

Using those filter mags isn't a bad idea either,especially during oil filter inspections-whether using Synlube oil,or another lubricant.

Well guy's... have a great weekend!

quote:

Originally posted by Captain Kirk:


In case your wondering---Synlube does have anti-foam agents,unlike some other motor oils that do not,and yet needs it in the worst way!

Name some oils that don't contain anti-foam agents. Facts please, not your speculation.

I think the major oil companies know how to blend oil. They don't go the Wal-Mart buy a qt of oil, rebottle it, tweak it, and call it their own, like some companies w/o addresses and business licenses do. Then plant shills on message boards trying to push product.

AD

quote:

Originally posted by ADFD1:

quote:

Originally posted by Captain Kirk:


In case your wondering---Synlube does have anti-foam agents,unlike some other motor oils that do not,and yet needs it in the worst way!

Name some oils that don't contain anti-foam agents. Facts please, not your speculation.

I think the major oil companies know how to blend oil. They don't go the Wal-Mart buy a qt of oil, rebottle it, tweak it, and call it their own, like some companies w/o addresses and business licenses do. Then plant shills on message boards trying to push product.

AD

Must be something new for synlube, anti foam agents. Meeting it's advertised viscosity in a pair of VOAs would be new too. And a valid business address.

Synlube shills are a perfect example of LOPSOD. (Long on promise, short on delivery.)

quote:

Originally posted by ADFD1:

Oil Consumption
The accepted rate of oil consumption for engines used in the vehicles referenced is 0.946 liter (1 qt) in 3200 km (2000 mi).

"Accepted rate" my arse.

Acceptable to GM when some poor sap who paid tens-of-thousands of dollar for a Good Money car tell his woes to a Service Salesperson who tells the poor sap, "That's normal oil consumption. Enjoy paying for a quart/liter of oil every 2000 miles, or sooner, for the rest of this car's life. Next!"

Behind the poor sap is a Good Money company executive to tells the same Good Money Service Salesperson the same story and gets, "Sure, we'll fix it under warranty."

quote:

Originally posted by inHaliburton:

quote:

Originally posted by ADFD1:

Oil Consumption
The accepted rate of oil consumption for engines used in the vehicles referenced is 0.946 liter (1 qt) in 3200 km (2000 mi).

"Accepted rate" my arse.

Acceptable to GM when some poor sap who paid tens-of-thousands of dollar for a Good Money car tell his woes to a Service Salesperson who tells the poor sap, "That's normal oil consumption. Enjoy paying for a quart/liter of oil every 2000 miles, or sooner, for the rest of this car's life. Next!"

Behind the poor sap is a Good Money company executive to tells the same Good Money Service Salesperson the same story and gets, "Sure, we'll fix it under warranty."

Hello,inHaliburton. I totally agree with you. I was once one of those 'saps' at the dealer many years ago. Those mechanics/reps talk down to the customers all the time thinking the customers are clueless.

This could be a factor in the downfall of many of the dealerships today!

quote:

Originally posted by ADFD1:

quote:

Originally posted by Captain Kirk:


In case your wondering---Synlube does have anti-foam agents,unlike some other motor oils that do not,and yet needs it in the worst way!

Name some oils that don't contain anti-foam agents. Facts please, not your speculation.

I think the major oil companies know how to blend oil. They don't go the Wal-Mart buy a qt of oil, rebottle it, tweak it, and call it their own, like some companies w/o addresses and business licenses do. Then plant shills on message boards trying to push product.

AD

I wouldn't be so sure about that AD.

Let's focus on engine oil foam issues for a while...

Some proof of oil foam in the link below....just for starters!!! In this case it looks like Redline is better at foaming than the other oils in this one example,just to make the case that foaming is an issue with many brands of lube.

http://www.kawasakimotorcycle....bout-engine-oil.html

If the oil is already prone to sludging---the foaming only agravates that issue further causing increased oxidation...besides all the other foam related issues!!!

I'm new on this forum so, Hello everybody.

On the subject of "MFG approved" oil.

On of my brother is in charge of the "replacement parts department" in a quite big OPEL dealer (I live in europe).
A few years back (5 or 6 he remember) they began to have customers having trouble with some of their engines loosing power after a few thousand Km. Everything was running fine except that the power was gradualy disappearing more and more every day.

Guess what it was ? The camshaft was almost totally worn out due to friction with the tappets!!!!
Yes, an almost round camsaft!!

He reported the failures to OPEL as did the other OPEL dealers he knows of, who had the same problem (my guess is that it must have been in other country too).

OPEL investigated the problem and solved it by sending to the dealers.....a different oil!!!! The original "MFG approved" oil that my brother bought for the servicing in their garage was apparently not so appropriate.

My point is that manufacturers don't necessarily knows what's best for their cars. They don't test everything, in every way possible because it would cost them too much.
Of course, this is an extreme example but I think it illustrates well the point.

When discussing "MFG approved" oil and "OEM original parts", lets not forget that the main goal of nearly every industry is to MAKE MONEY RIGHT KNOW !
Of course, long-term reputation is still (hopefully) a small part of the equation but, thanks to the very pressing stock exchange market we live in, this is becoming less of a concern for them. And if you think that "big oil" isn't contaminated, well, welcome in wonderland.

We are responsible too for this state of affair (not all of us hopefully): people don't want to keep their car, TV, computer,phone, camera, etc...forever. They want the newest.
So, the industry responded kindly with products that last just long enough for their "expected live-span".

I'm not saying that there isn't any "good" products out there, but they are vanishing more and more every day.

Caillou

Hello Caillou, Thank's for that enlightening post. Welcome to the Forum.

Regards, Paul.
in Canada.

Kirk my question was which oils don't have anti-foam agents? RL is one of the best, if not the very best oils on the market. Yes even better than Synlube.

I was hoping you'd have a list of oils that don't have any anti-foam agents in them.

AD

I'm pretty sure the oil that I used a gallon of each week that I ran in my Chevy did not have anti-foam additives, AD...

What oil did you use? Any good brand name oil dino or synthetic will resist foaming unless you grossly overfill the crankcase.

Have you taken the Synlube plunge yet?

AD

The oil came out of an unmarked steel drum fitted with a hand pump. This was around 1964. It was either SAE 40 or SAE 30. No W !

Nope, not yet. Truck still under warranty. Would have to change oil every 5000 km.

quote:

Originally posted by inHaliburton:
The oil came out of an unmarked steel drum fitted with a hand pump. This was around 1964. It was either SAE 40 or SAE 30. No W !

Nope, not yet. Truck still under warranty. Would have to change oil every 5000 km.

That is some vinatge oil.

According to Kirk/Miro there are no worries using Synlube in a new car under warranty. The dealer would have to prove the oil caused a problem. Honestly I wouldn't touch the stuff with a 10 foot pole so don't go by me. But according to them you'll have no problems.

I wonder if they'll back you up if you did use it and have a problem? Smart move on your part sir waiting it out!


AD