"Should I follow the 3 months/3,000 miles rule"
Only if you want to make the oil company's richer
Only if you want to make the oil company's richer
Should I follow the 3 months/3,000 miles rule?
- Thread starter AustinCooper
- Start date
- Status
My comment about Hondas running forever was meant as a joke...they are very reliable cars though.
Originally Posted By: StevieC
Critic,
You do know that Terry is working for major oil companies in North America and Europe doing independent analysis and contributing to new formulations. The UOA's and analysis that he is doing is just a side business to what he does everyday.
He also has been to court numerous times in the defense of people who have been facing a major battle with warranty claims when an engine grenades because of extended OCI's or non API brands and has always won.
The guy has always been straight with me, knowledgeable, scientific and always has been bang on in his recommendations and I completely trust him as do others that are also on here.
I wish everyone here had access to his private blog. There is really great info over there that would convince you of how well connected and respected he is.
To each their own though...
Stevie, you and I are both aware that Terry has stressed the confidentiality of his customers and of his company data. I have heard over the years that he has done work for the majors, but of course, this information has never been verified. I still find it puzzling though, as do a few other people, that major oil companies will hire someone such as Terry for lubricant consultation when major oil companies have teams of PHDs who are likely to be far more educated and experienced than Terry.
In addition, while I do not consider Terry to be an untrustworthy person (I have e-mail corresponded with him many times over the eyars), I do question some of the information he gives out and the “fine tuning” he often suggests to customers. Some of his recommendations do not seem realistic or necessary. Also, the issues he sometimes suggests to be common with certain vehicles have been unverifiable. I am not saying Terry is completely off-base, but considering the extremity of some of his recommendations, having other credible sources agree with him would be helpful. I would also like to say that having corresponded with a few OEM engineers, the lubricant issues that Terry brings up at times are not aligned with issues that OEMs are studying.
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
My friend,
You often express opinions that go well beyond any experience you might have to back them up.
Please show me where I did that, as I'd like to see. I have been on this site for more than five years and I always make an effort to only post factual information. When I do post personal opinions, I try to make it clear that they are personal opinions.
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
For you to actually question the credentials of Terry Dyson defies belief.
The post to which I reply is an exemplar of why Terry no longer bothers with this site.
I don't think anyone who has been here any length of time cares how high Terry Dyson's credibility ranks on your list.
Terry, while highly respected by some individuals, should not be placed on a pedestal and be considered unchallengeable. He too, is another member and it is perfectly fair to criticize him at times and challenge his statements. I am not the only individual to raise questions about Terry's business and practices. Below are some threads where other members have also raised similar concerns:
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb...rue#Post1303831
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb...rue#Post1429912
https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/posts/1892357/
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb...rue#Post1655714
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb...rue#Post1718842
https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/posts/1892357/
Like I've said, I have been on this forum for more than five years. I used to be a big fan of Terry Dyson, and I did have e-mail correspondence with him over the years. Unfortunately, the inconsistency of his recommendations have really forced me to question his agenda, knowledge and reasoning.
Critic,
You do know that Terry is working for major oil companies in North America and Europe doing independent analysis and contributing to new formulations. The UOA's and analysis that he is doing is just a side business to what he does everyday.
He also has been to court numerous times in the defense of people who have been facing a major battle with warranty claims when an engine grenades because of extended OCI's or non API brands and has always won.
The guy has always been straight with me, knowledgeable, scientific and always has been bang on in his recommendations and I completely trust him as do others that are also on here.
I wish everyone here had access to his private blog. There is really great info over there that would convince you of how well connected and respected he is.
To each their own though...
Stevie, you and I are both aware that Terry has stressed the confidentiality of his customers and of his company data. I have heard over the years that he has done work for the majors, but of course, this information has never been verified. I still find it puzzling though, as do a few other people, that major oil companies will hire someone such as Terry for lubricant consultation when major oil companies have teams of PHDs who are likely to be far more educated and experienced than Terry.
In addition, while I do not consider Terry to be an untrustworthy person (I have e-mail corresponded with him many times over the eyars), I do question some of the information he gives out and the “fine tuning” he often suggests to customers. Some of his recommendations do not seem realistic or necessary. Also, the issues he sometimes suggests to be common with certain vehicles have been unverifiable. I am not saying Terry is completely off-base, but considering the extremity of some of his recommendations, having other credible sources agree with him would be helpful. I would also like to say that having corresponded with a few OEM engineers, the lubricant issues that Terry brings up at times are not aligned with issues that OEMs are studying.
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
My friend,
You often express opinions that go well beyond any experience you might have to back them up.
Please show me where I did that, as I'd like to see. I have been on this site for more than five years and I always make an effort to only post factual information. When I do post personal opinions, I try to make it clear that they are personal opinions.
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
For you to actually question the credentials of Terry Dyson defies belief.
The post to which I reply is an exemplar of why Terry no longer bothers with this site.
I don't think anyone who has been here any length of time cares how high Terry Dyson's credibility ranks on your list.
Terry, while highly respected by some individuals, should not be placed on a pedestal and be considered unchallengeable. He too, is another member and it is perfectly fair to criticize him at times and challenge his statements. I am not the only individual to raise questions about Terry's business and practices. Below are some threads where other members have also raised similar concerns:
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb...rue#Post1303831
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb...rue#Post1429912
https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/posts/1892357/
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb...rue#Post1655714
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb...rue#Post1718842
https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/posts/1892357/
Like I've said, I have been on this forum for more than five years. I used to be a big fan of Terry Dyson, and I did have e-mail correspondence with him over the years. Unfortunately, the inconsistency of his recommendations have really forced me to question his agenda, knowledge and reasoning.
Last edited by a moderator:
Quote:
I would also like to say that having corresponded with a few OEM engineers, the lubricant issues that Terry brings up at times are not aligned with issues that OEMs are studying.
I'm curious. What lubricant issues are the OEMs studying?
Quote:
Unfortunately, the inconsistency of his recommendations have really forced me to question his agenda, knowledge and reasoning.
Critic, can you give some specifics on the inconsistent recommendations he's made?
Quote:
Also, the issues he sometimes suggests to be common with certain vehicles have been unverifiable.
Which issues?
EDIT: I realized I sounded harsh, but I just wanted specifics. Sorry if I made you feel defensive.
I would also like to say that having corresponded with a few OEM engineers, the lubricant issues that Terry brings up at times are not aligned with issues that OEMs are studying.
I'm curious. What lubricant issues are the OEMs studying?
Quote:
Unfortunately, the inconsistency of his recommendations have really forced me to question his agenda, knowledge and reasoning.
Critic, can you give some specifics on the inconsistent recommendations he's made?
Quote:
Also, the issues he sometimes suggests to be common with certain vehicles have been unverifiable.
Which issues?
EDIT: I realized I sounded harsh, but I just wanted specifics. Sorry if I made you feel defensive.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: prax
I would also like to say that having corresponded with a few OEM engineers, the lubricant issues that Terry brings up at times are not aligned with issues that OEMs are studying.
I'm curious. What lubricant issues are the OEMs studying?[/quote]
Sorry, what I meant to say is that the issues that Terry often describes and the paranoia he spreads are not in-line with the views about lubricants that a few OEM engineers have. As an example, Terry had a tendency of spreading paranoia about deposit issues, oil oxidation issues or brands not showing enough wear control capabilities. On the other hand, the OEM engineers I have corresponded with have a more “relaxed” (for the lack of a better term) view about engine lubrication, in that most brands are quite similar and there is very little to gain from extensive experimenting or from the pursuit of the perfect lubricant.
Also, Terry's belief that one can use consumer oil analysis to compare lubricants for an individual applicatio is something that is questionable, and has been well-documented (posted in one of the earlier links) so by major trade journals. The data used by Terry sometimes is also questionable because he cites personal and business experience, but at the same time, he does not conduct large-scale field and bench testing that major oil companies do. So, where's his information and experience coming from?
Originally Posted By: prax
Critic, can you give some specifics on the inconsistent recommendations he's made?
He has gotten some posters to swap out expensive Iridium spark plugs ridiculously early on vehicles. (Just search for which ones, it's pretty clear in the UOA section). He has made a number of people check for air intake leaks that do not exist, non-existent combustion efficiency issues, etc. I am also fairly certain it is him who has convinced some people to use RLI ATF in their Hondas, even when the fluid has not been recommended for use in Honda applications by RLI (per the data sheet, I just checked.)
Over the years, he has also gone from recommending OilExtreme, then to Schaeffers, then Redline, then Shell products and now RLI. He used to push Lube Control and Auto-RX products heavily, then that recommendation suddenly disappeared because supposedly RLI took care of everything. A number of members, such as Tooslick, tried products such as Lube Control and found virtually no benefit with them either.
Originally Posted By: prax
Also, the issues he sometimes suggests to be common with certain vehicles have been unverifiable.
First one that comes to mind is fuel dilution on Hondas. He has made a number of posts in the past about abnormally high fuel dilution on Honda vehicles, but I have yet to see ANY other sources confirm that Honda vehicles have issues with fuel dilution, or more so than any other make. I will have to think about and search for the other ones, but the Honda one really sticks out in my mind.
I would also like to say that having corresponded with a few OEM engineers, the lubricant issues that Terry brings up at times are not aligned with issues that OEMs are studying.
I'm curious. What lubricant issues are the OEMs studying?[/quote]
Sorry, what I meant to say is that the issues that Terry often describes and the paranoia he spreads are not in-line with the views about lubricants that a few OEM engineers have. As an example, Terry had a tendency of spreading paranoia about deposit issues, oil oxidation issues or brands not showing enough wear control capabilities. On the other hand, the OEM engineers I have corresponded with have a more “relaxed” (for the lack of a better term) view about engine lubrication, in that most brands are quite similar and there is very little to gain from extensive experimenting or from the pursuit of the perfect lubricant.
Also, Terry's belief that one can use consumer oil analysis to compare lubricants for an individual applicatio is something that is questionable, and has been well-documented (posted in one of the earlier links) so by major trade journals. The data used by Terry sometimes is also questionable because he cites personal and business experience, but at the same time, he does not conduct large-scale field and bench testing that major oil companies do. So, where's his information and experience coming from?
Originally Posted By: prax
Critic, can you give some specifics on the inconsistent recommendations he's made?
He has gotten some posters to swap out expensive Iridium spark plugs ridiculously early on vehicles. (Just search for which ones, it's pretty clear in the UOA section). He has made a number of people check for air intake leaks that do not exist, non-existent combustion efficiency issues, etc. I am also fairly certain it is him who has convinced some people to use RLI ATF in their Hondas, even when the fluid has not been recommended for use in Honda applications by RLI (per the data sheet, I just checked.)
Over the years, he has also gone from recommending OilExtreme, then to Schaeffers, then Redline, then Shell products and now RLI. He used to push Lube Control and Auto-RX products heavily, then that recommendation suddenly disappeared because supposedly RLI took care of everything. A number of members, such as Tooslick, tried products such as Lube Control and found virtually no benefit with them either.
Originally Posted By: prax
Also, the issues he sometimes suggests to be common with certain vehicles have been unverifiable.
First one that comes to mind is fuel dilution on Hondas. He has made a number of posts in the past about abnormally high fuel dilution on Honda vehicles, but I have yet to see ANY other sources confirm that Honda vehicles have issues with fuel dilution, or more so than any other make. I will have to think about and search for the other ones, but the Honda one really sticks out in my mind.
OEMs are relaxed because engine failures are rare. Post-warranty failures aren't common since most people don't treat their cars like rentals. I understand the skepticism surrounding UOA interpretation. It's not as scientific as people want it to be. Oil companies don't need it when they can afford engine tests and fleet testing which are more scientific.
His suggestions are unusual, but his service is unique and he is anal. Blackstone is not going to tell you how to fix a problem. As for recommending certain products, I don't see the problem. Products change, he finds better or cheaper stuff. Seems consistent to me.
Honda fuel dilution: I don't see how OEMs are going to track that kind of stuff. Blackstone underestimates fuel %. He also has a much lower tolerance for fuel dilution.
His suggestions are unusual, but his service is unique and he is anal. Blackstone is not going to tell you how to fix a problem. As for recommending certain products, I don't see the problem. Products change, he finds better or cheaper stuff. Seems consistent to me.
Honda fuel dilution: I don't see how OEMs are going to track that kind of stuff. Blackstone underestimates fuel %. He also has a much lower tolerance for fuel dilution.
I'm going with Prax on his points...
I never dealt with Terry D. but this is how I see it. I constantly read posters "claim" his opinion, why is that? Why bring this into threads, and then when asked for more detailed info the regular reply is the disclosure agreement? Is it to make the point somehow more valid without actually providing any proof? Are claims of Terry's "quotes", not even confirmed
by Terry, be considered as proof?
I always read Terry said this and that, I don't care, he's not personally posting here and I bet he doesn't want a third party “quoting” his opinions either, so I'm with Critic on this one, if Terry is not posting here personally, then what he may or may not have said or suggested, which is always hidden behind his disclosure, does not make the point automatically valid. JMO
by Terry, be considered as proof?
I always read Terry said this and that, I don't care, he's not personally posting here and I bet he doesn't want a third party “quoting” his opinions either, so I'm with Critic on this one, if Terry is not posting here personally, then what he may or may not have said or suggested, which is always hidden behind his disclosure, does not make the point automatically valid. JMO
I'm sorry I have posted like that in the past (I admit to it) and I won't do it again.
Quote:
I never dealt with Terry D. but this is how I see it. I constantly read posters "claim" his opinion, why is that? Why bring this into threads, and then when asked for more detailed info the regular reply is the disclosure agreement? Is it to make the point somehow more valid without actually providing any proof? Are claims of Terry's "quotes", not even confirmed
by Terry, be considered as proof?
That's a good point. It reminds me of the kid in 'A Christmas Story" with his secret decoder ring. He finally get to use it and it says, Be Sure to Drink Your Ovaltine and the kid says A Crummy Commercial.
Personally haven't used his services, and with regular oil and filter changes, whether dino or synthetic, I couldn't/can't justify the cost-benefit.
Back to the OP's question, see my previous post on this thread.
I never dealt with Terry D. but this is how I see it. I constantly read posters "claim" his opinion, why is that? Why bring this into threads, and then when asked for more detailed info the regular reply is the disclosure agreement? Is it to make the point somehow more valid without actually providing any proof? Are claims of Terry's "quotes", not even confirmed
by Terry, be considered as proof?
That's a good point. It reminds me of the kid in 'A Christmas Story" with his secret decoder ring. He finally get to use it and it says, Be Sure to Drink Your Ovaltine and the kid says A Crummy Commercial.
Personally haven't used his services, and with regular oil and filter changes, whether dino or synthetic, I couldn't/can't justify the cost-benefit.
Back to the OP's question, see my previous post on this thread.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,798
Quote:
then what he may or may not have said or suggested, which is always hidden behind his disclosure, does not make the point automatically valid. JMO
As could a plethora of proclamations from a variety of alleged experts world/sector/industry wide. It's hard to cross examine a variety of articles, for example. Shall they never be quoted simply because their lack of disclosure is the default mode of their publication? You don't even get to ask the question to be denied.
They don't post here either
..or am I missing something? I'd suggest that anyone doing this quoting is "suggesting" without outright violation of the agreement to spur discussion in that direction.
..but..how you read it is up to you
then what he may or may not have said or suggested, which is always hidden behind his disclosure, does not make the point automatically valid. JMO
As could a plethora of proclamations from a variety of alleged experts world/sector/industry wide. It's hard to cross examine a variety of articles, for example. Shall they never be quoted simply because their lack of disclosure is the default mode of their publication? You don't even get to ask the question to be denied.
They don't post here either
..or am I missing something? I'd suggest that anyone doing this quoting is "suggesting" without outright violation of the agreement to spur discussion in that direction.
..but..how you read it is up to you
I looked at Chris B.'s UOA. http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb...534#Post1215534
Pretty bad. Not sure what to say, but I think some engines simply can't be saved and that while TD is good, he's not perfect. Chris also mentioned some other posters who shared his sentiments. I wonder what their UOA look like.
Oh, and another UOA showing GC is not great stuff.
Pretty bad. Not sure what to say, but I think some engines simply can't be saved and that while TD is good, he's not perfect. Chris also mentioned some other posters who shared his sentiments. I wonder what their UOA look like.
Oh, and another UOA showing GC is not great stuff.
Should I follow the 3 months/3,000 miles rule?
Yes, if you want to contribute to the revenue/profit of the oil companies and quick lubes.
No, if you want to keep your pocket full of money, just follow the recommendations from owner manual because the car companies know what they are doing.
Yes, if you want to contribute to the revenue/profit of the oil companies and quick lubes.
No, if you want to keep your pocket full of money, just follow the recommendations from owner manual because the car companies know what they are doing.
Okay,Critic, you ask, so I'll tell you.
Many, if not most, of the opinions that you express, as well as the threads that you start, are based upon what you have garnered from the 'net concerning cars you've never owned, tires you've never used, or oils you've never tried.
I avoid writing about things with which I have no personal experience.
When I state that one can use a 15W-50 or -40 in a 5W-30 application in warm weather with no downside, I base this upon having done, and doing, so.
When I write that Michelins are consistently the best choice in tires, I do so based upon my experience with them, as well as Goodyears, Firestones, Generals, Bridgestones, Khumos, Hankooks and Pirellis.
When I write that GC is very nice in a Subaru flat four, it's only because I have found it to be so.
When I recommend the BMW e36 as a fine and fun daily driver, it is because I smile on every drive home with the top down, and have had zero problems with the car.
When I opine on the great suspension of the W123, it is based upon my ownership experience with two of them.
When I write anything about Hondas, it is based upon the six we have had, going back to a '76 Civic my wife bought new, none of which left us with >120K.
And so on.
My point was that you often base your posts upon what you have read.
You are probably a Saturn guru.
The other stuff, maybe not so much.
Many, if not most, of the opinions that you express, as well as the threads that you start, are based upon what you have garnered from the 'net concerning cars you've never owned, tires you've never used, or oils you've never tried.
I avoid writing about things with which I have no personal experience.
When I state that one can use a 15W-50 or -40 in a 5W-30 application in warm weather with no downside, I base this upon having done, and doing, so.
When I write that Michelins are consistently the best choice in tires, I do so based upon my experience with them, as well as Goodyears, Firestones, Generals, Bridgestones, Khumos, Hankooks and Pirellis.
When I write that GC is very nice in a Subaru flat four, it's only because I have found it to be so.
When I recommend the BMW e36 as a fine and fun daily driver, it is because I smile on every drive home with the top down, and have had zero problems with the car.
When I opine on the great suspension of the W123, it is based upon my ownership experience with two of them.
When I write anything about Hondas, it is based upon the six we have had, going back to a '76 Civic my wife bought new, none of which left us with >120K.
And so on.
My point was that you often base your posts upon what you have read.
You are probably a Saturn guru.
The other stuff, maybe not so much.
I dont think you need to own a Honda to see some of them consistently produce higher fuel numbers in UOA than many other cars. However I have seen nothing that makes me think its enough to reduce life span. That said if choosing one air filter element over another at replacement time will reduce this tendency and still filter well I dont see the harm in doing so.
In my opinion Terry Dyson is worth hiring when you have an engine with a known problem or a UOA that is sending up red flags. You hire a consultant because they are more knowledgeable than you. You get no guarantee they are infallible. If you have an essentially normal engine with an average UOA dont go looking for problems that dont exist.
In my opinion Terry Dyson is worth hiring when you have an engine with a known problem or a UOA that is sending up red flags. You hire a consultant because they are more knowledgeable than you. You get no guarantee they are infallible. If you have an essentially normal engine with an average UOA dont go looking for problems that dont exist.
Agreed!
Hondas have a pretty rich fuel map.
Everyone knows this.
I do think that any comments upon Honda (or any other make) reliability or durability should be limited to those who have actually used them as daily drivers, however.
However, I want a Dyson analysis on the Subie, just because I feel that it is worth the money.
Nothing wrong with the flat four, I just want someone with vast experience to look at the oil.
If you're going to pay for a UOA, you might also pay for the expertise to interpret it.
Hondas have a pretty rich fuel map.
Everyone knows this.
I do think that any comments upon Honda (or any other make) reliability or durability should be limited to those who have actually used them as daily drivers, however.
However, I want a Dyson analysis on the Subie, just because I feel that it is worth the money.
Nothing wrong with the flat four, I just want someone with vast experience to look at the oil.
If you're going to pay for a UOA, you might also pay for the expertise to interpret it.
Originally Posted By: mopar_monkey
honda says run it till your at 15%, but they use to say under sever driving (which most people fall under) to change it at 3,750.
Where does it say anything about severe service, that appears no where in the manual that's for sure. From the manual "The 15 and 10 percent oil life indicator reminds you that the time is coming soon to take your vehicle in for the required maintaince". It later states "If the message SERVICE does not appear more then 12 months after the display is reset, change the engine oil every year" Its very clear when the OLM reaches 15-10% schedule a change at the dealer, or start to think about buying the oil and filter to do it yourself. There is NO severe service schedule, on that car.
honda says run it till your at 15%, but they use to say under sever driving (which most people fall under) to change it at 3,750.
Where does it say anything about severe service, that appears no where in the manual that's for sure. From the manual "The 15 and 10 percent oil life indicator reminds you that the time is coming soon to take your vehicle in for the required maintaince". It later states "If the message SERVICE does not appear more then 12 months after the display is reset, change the engine oil every year" Its very clear when the OLM reaches 15-10% schedule a change at the dealer, or start to think about buying the oil and filter to do it yourself. There is NO severe service schedule, on that car.
- Status
