Safe and practical.
-Spyder
-Spyder
Is the 3,000 Mile Oil Change outdated (linky)
- Thread starter HangerHarley
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: andrewg
Originally Posted By: fokvoort
True about modern engines placing greater stress on albeit superior oils, but do you know objectively that the former cancels out the extended performance of the latter? A lot of UOAs posted here seem to contradict you.
How did you go about determining the OCIs you use in your current vehicles?
And are you really arguing that oil isn't a limited resource, or that even if it is we shouldn't be concerned?
It's silly to get on the 'limited resource' bandwagon when you participate on a website that many of it's members purchase and store cases upon cases of oil.
Your logic fails in several ways. 1) It works in reverse: it can just as easily be said that one very much should get on the limited resources bandwagon if others around them aren't. 2) You connect things that are unrelated: why does stockpiling oil for future use equate with wasting resources? If the oil was going to be used in future oil changes, it makes no difference if the oil was sitting in a home garage or down at the auto store -- same oil. The issue is wasting that oil by ditching it before its useful life has run out, not storing fresh oil in anticipation of using it. 3) Just because one belongs to a forum and might hold a conviction that others on that forum might not share is no reason not to express that conviction. Arguably, the opposite is the case. By your logic, there's no point expressing concern for, say, moral behavior, because we live in a world where not everyone behaves morally. 4) You treat one BITOG contingent as if it reflects the entire community: certainly some BITOGers aren't interested in environmental impact questions, but even a casual reading of threads here shows that some posters are concerned with the issue, so by your own logic it is therefor worth comment on.
Originally Posted By: andrewg
I'm not saying that this website promotes nor condones frequent oil purchases....but making a big deal about oil usage and/or getting worked up over it being a 'limited resource' is kind of odd.
Who got worked up? Note that I posed questions to Panzerman, but took no position. Make sure you've read what you're commenting on before you jump to conclusions.
Originally Posted By: andrewg
Not everybody must adhere nor subscribe to another members ideal OCI. As long as they are paying for the oil, and not dumping it illegally, they are doing nothing that any of us should point fingers at in an environmental sense.
That's certainly one opinion to have. But wastefulness of any kind is probably worth pointing out and trying to correct. This isn't about forcing anyone to conform to particular or ideal OCIs, it's about thinking in a slightly larger context than "I paid for this and I'll dispose of it appropriately and that's all that matters."
No worries, though, larger context isn't for everybody -- keep on truckin'.
Originally Posted By: fokvoort
True about modern engines placing greater stress on albeit superior oils, but do you know objectively that the former cancels out the extended performance of the latter? A lot of UOAs posted here seem to contradict you.
How did you go about determining the OCIs you use in your current vehicles?
And are you really arguing that oil isn't a limited resource, or that even if it is we shouldn't be concerned?
It's silly to get on the 'limited resource' bandwagon when you participate on a website that many of it's members purchase and store cases upon cases of oil.
Your logic fails in several ways. 1) It works in reverse: it can just as easily be said that one very much should get on the limited resources bandwagon if others around them aren't. 2) You connect things that are unrelated: why does stockpiling oil for future use equate with wasting resources? If the oil was going to be used in future oil changes, it makes no difference if the oil was sitting in a home garage or down at the auto store -- same oil. The issue is wasting that oil by ditching it before its useful life has run out, not storing fresh oil in anticipation of using it. 3) Just because one belongs to a forum and might hold a conviction that others on that forum might not share is no reason not to express that conviction. Arguably, the opposite is the case. By your logic, there's no point expressing concern for, say, moral behavior, because we live in a world where not everyone behaves morally. 4) You treat one BITOG contingent as if it reflects the entire community: certainly some BITOGers aren't interested in environmental impact questions, but even a casual reading of threads here shows that some posters are concerned with the issue, so by your own logic it is therefor worth comment on.
Originally Posted By: andrewg
I'm not saying that this website promotes nor condones frequent oil purchases....but making a big deal about oil usage and/or getting worked up over it being a 'limited resource' is kind of odd.
Who got worked up? Note that I posed questions to Panzerman, but took no position. Make sure you've read what you're commenting on before you jump to conclusions.
Originally Posted By: andrewg
Not everybody must adhere nor subscribe to another members ideal OCI. As long as they are paying for the oil, and not dumping it illegally, they are doing nothing that any of us should point fingers at in an environmental sense.
That's certainly one opinion to have. But wastefulness of any kind is probably worth pointing out and trying to correct. This isn't about forcing anyone to conform to particular or ideal OCIs, it's about thinking in a slightly larger context than "I paid for this and I'll dispose of it appropriately and that's all that matters."
No worries, though, larger context isn't for everybody -- keep on truckin'.
Quote: "That's certainly one opinion to have. But wastefulness of any kind is probably worth pointing out and trying to correct. This isn't about forcing anyone to conform to particular or ideal OCIs, it's about thinking in a slightly larger context than "I paid for this and I'll dispose of it appropriately and that's all that matters."
Well if you don't see the arrogance in this paragraph, then there certainly isn't much I can do to convince you otherwise.
If the last sentence in the above quote (which sums up my opinion very well) is thinking "small"....then you can call me 'tiny' from now on.
Well if you don't see the arrogance in this paragraph, then there certainly isn't much I can do to convince you otherwise.
If the last sentence in the above quote (which sums up my opinion very well) is thinking "small"....then you can call me 'tiny' from now on.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: andrewg
Quote: "That's certainly one opinion to have. But wastefulness of any kind is probably worth pointing out and trying to correct. This isn't about forcing anyone to conform to particular or ideal OCIs, it's about thinking in a slightly larger context than "I paid for this and I'll dispose of it appropriately and that's all that matters."
Well if you don't see the arrogance in this paragraph, then there certainly isn't much I can do to convince you otherwise.
If the last sentence in the above quote (which sums up my opinion very well) is thinking "small"....then you can call me 'tiny' from now on.
I think presuming someone's position, referring to it as silly, and using quotation marks around a catch-term they used in order to impugn it is, in fact, the noteworthy arrogance.
Interesting you chose this response and not one addressing points made related to the topic.
Quote: "That's certainly one opinion to have. But wastefulness of any kind is probably worth pointing out and trying to correct. This isn't about forcing anyone to conform to particular or ideal OCIs, it's about thinking in a slightly larger context than "I paid for this and I'll dispose of it appropriately and that's all that matters."
Well if you don't see the arrogance in this paragraph, then there certainly isn't much I can do to convince you otherwise.
If the last sentence in the above quote (which sums up my opinion very well) is thinking "small"....then you can call me 'tiny' from now on.
I think presuming someone's position, referring to it as silly, and using quotation marks around a catch-term they used in order to impugn it is, in fact, the noteworthy arrogance.
Interesting you chose this response and not one addressing points made related to the topic.
Originally Posted By: FZ1
"Waste" is a subjective/judgemental term. Most of us are just interested in the interaction of the oil and our vehicles. Interesting screen name.
Yes, waste is a "subjective" and "judgemental" term. It's also sometimes a valid one.
This is a forum where objective evidence and subjective interpretation exist together.
What does my screen name have to do with anything?
"Waste" is a subjective/judgemental term. Most of us are just interested in the interaction of the oil and our vehicles. Interesting screen name.
Yes, waste is a "subjective" and "judgemental" term. It's also sometimes a valid one.
This is a forum where objective evidence and subjective interpretation exist together.
What does my screen name have to do with anything?
Putting ones self in a position of 'correction' (your words) to declare what 'is' or 'is not' waste is simply arrogant. I don't need to further argue the point. While this forum certainly welcomes subjective opinions, I'd just as soon not see it inundated with those opinions slanted in terms of environmental elitism. Short OCI's and the use of synthetics has many points of worthy discussion here....but as I've seen in other threads here a few folks like to turn it into some moral judgment about the environment. Plenty of goofy websites exist for the 'greenies'.....just don't want to see it happen here.
Last edited:
I sense a lock coming.
-Spyder
-Spyder
Originally Posted By: andrewg
Putting ones self in a position of 'correction' (your words) to declare what 'is' or 'is not' waste is simply arrogant. I don't need to further argue the point. While this forum certainly welcomes subjective opinions, I'd just as soon not see it inundated with those opinions slanted in terms of environmental elitism. Short OCI's and the use of synthetics has many points of worthy discussion here....but as I've seen in other threads here a few folks like to turn it into some moral judgment about the environment. Plenty of goofy websites exist for the 'greenies'.....just don't want to see it happen here.
I see, you feel this is a place for "guys like you," other types allowed long as they don't start taking the place over. Oh, boy...
I say arrogance is when you categorize the expression of an opinion unappealing to you as arrogant.
The dialogue on this forum goes where the members in all their variety -- legitimate agreement and disagreement -- take it.
I, too, feel no need to argue this point further, and don't want to see this thread closed. If you have more you'd like to discuss, I welcome a PM from you.
Putting ones self in a position of 'correction' (your words) to declare what 'is' or 'is not' waste is simply arrogant. I don't need to further argue the point. While this forum certainly welcomes subjective opinions, I'd just as soon not see it inundated with those opinions slanted in terms of environmental elitism. Short OCI's and the use of synthetics has many points of worthy discussion here....but as I've seen in other threads here a few folks like to turn it into some moral judgment about the environment. Plenty of goofy websites exist for the 'greenies'.....just don't want to see it happen here.
I see, you feel this is a place for "guys like you," other types allowed long as they don't start taking the place over. Oh, boy...
I say arrogance is when you categorize the expression of an opinion unappealing to you as arrogant.
The dialogue on this forum goes where the members in all their variety -- legitimate agreement and disagreement -- take it.
I, too, feel no need to argue this point further, and don't want to see this thread closed. If you have more you'd like to discuss, I welcome a PM from you.
Patman
Staff member
Originally Posted By: yaris0128
I wouldnt waste good oil at 3k ever. Im ashamed to have done it in the past. But I didnt know! I DIDNT KNOW!!!
When I bought my first new car, I was changing it's oil every 3000km! (that's only 1864 miles!) It was a 88 Dodge Shadow ES Turbo, and even though turbos do beat up oil pretty good, looking back I still think I changed it far too often. I was using 10w30 Castrol XLR at the time.
I wouldnt waste good oil at 3k ever. Im ashamed to have done it in the past. But I didnt know! I DIDNT KNOW!!!
When I bought my first new car, I was changing it's oil every 3000km! (that's only 1864 miles!) It was a 88 Dodge Shadow ES Turbo, and even though turbos do beat up oil pretty good, looking back I still think I changed it far too often. I was using 10w30 Castrol XLR at the time.
- Status
Similar threads
