Like disposable oil filters and oil every 3k miles.
I am the Lorax, I speak for the trees(future).
The big question: Does synthetic oil increase the life of your engine?
- Thread starter MinnesotaNole
- Start date
- Status
I am the Lorax, I speak for the trees(future).
This is a common misperception. The real problem is not about disposable filters and oil, or disposable anything really. Those only represent the branches of the problem, not the root.
The real problem is that we are increasing our numbers on this planet at the rate of 1 million people EVERY FOUR DAYS! (Yes, you read that correctly.)
Until we do something to address this, no amount of conservation efforts, however how well intended, will do any good whatsoever.
Most people are unaware of how many people are being added because in the newspaper you only see the obituaries, never anything about the newborns.
(Most of the births are in third world countries anyway.)
Someday soon there will be no tigers left in the wild, no cheetahs, no elephants, and indeed very few trees. Our relentlessly increasing numbers will drive them from their natural habitats to the point where they no longer exist. We will have no one to blame but ourselves, and our failure to address the REAL problem.
Part of the problem is everyone loves a new baby.
But until we start to limit the numbers of our new arrivals, we are headed for a very major world catastrophe at some unknown point in the future. If we don't do something now to solve the problem, Mother Nature will have to solve the problem for us.
Sorry about the rant, but these may be the truest words you will ever read.
There is something out there called a used car market. When I am done with the vehicle, somebody is getting a good used cars, at a bargain!
Take care of a car and what do you get at the end of it's life, maybe $100 more?? That's not going to pay for years of synthetic use.
I don't treat my car as disposable. However, there is a point in time when it makes financial/business sense to move on to a new car and let somebody happy to buy a used car get the one I took so good care of.
It probably makes a difference what type of work you do, and what your needs are. If you take clients in your vehicle, you probably need to maintain a car that's not much older than 5 years.
Those who have mechanic friends or have the time/ability to do work on their own can probably keep a car a very long time before the cost of maintenance and breakdowns exceeds the cost of getting a new car.
OT: An expert once told me the best thing you can do for the planet is to stop having children.
Take care of a car and what do you get at the end of it's life, maybe $100 more?? That's not going to pay for years of synthetic use.
I don't treat my car as disposable. However, there is a point in time when it makes financial/business sense to move on to a new car and let somebody happy to buy a used car get the one I took so good care of.
It probably makes a difference what type of work you do, and what your needs are. If you take clients in your vehicle, you probably need to maintain a car that's not much older than 5 years.
Those who have mechanic friends or have the time/ability to do work on their own can probably keep a car a very long time before the cost of maintenance and breakdowns exceeds the cost of getting a new car.
OT: An expert once told me the best thing you can do for the planet is to stop having children.
Couldn't agree with you more. China was boo-ed for imposing the 1 child law, however their population growth has leveled off, and should set an example to the rest of the world. We are looking at a very real catastrophe about to happen in the near future.quote:
Originally posted by Rexman:
This is a common misperception. The real problem is not about disposable filters and oil, or disposable anything really. Those only represent the branches of the problem, not the root.
The real problem is that we are increasing our numbers on this planet at the rate of 1 million people EVERY FOUR DAYS! (Yes, you read that correctly.)
Until we do something to address this, no amount of conservation efforts, however how well intended, will do any good whatsoever.
Most people are unaware of how many people are being added because in the newspaper you only see the obituaries, never anything about the newborns.
(Most of the births are in third world countries anyway.)
Someday soon there will be no tigers left in the wild, no cheetahs, no elephants, and indeed very few trees. Our relentlessly increasing numbers will drive them from their natural habitats to the point where they no longer exist. We will have no one to blame but ourselves, and our failure to address the REAL problem.
Part of the problem is everyone loves a new baby.
But until we start to limit the numbers of our new arrivals, we are headed for a very major world catastrophe at some unknown point in the future. If we don't do something now to solve the problem, Mother Nature will have to solve the problem for us.
Sorry about the rant, but these may be the truest words you will ever read.
should we kill ourselves and let the world rot on it's own? I like synthetic but in my experience the newer petro oils are pretty good.
[ August 25, 2003, 04:19 PM: Message edited by: Steve S ]
[ August 25, 2003, 04:19 PM: Message edited by: Steve S ]
True but not really the problem from my POV. If we only count those babies lucky enough to be born to parents who love them and take care of them, there would be a lot fewer babies. The maximum population that the Earth can feed, clothe and support with comfort is not a constant but rather a function of technology. Cleaning up the environment is a luxury that can be enjoyed only by people who are affluent enough that they don't spend 100% of their time just trying to survive. The solution for the human race is more technology and applying it wisely. Both of these rely on freedom and responsibility, as these together are the only way to engender the creativity and innovation neccessary to our survival.
[ August 25, 2003, 05:10 PM: Message edited by: MRC01 ]
A few thoughts:
1) Synthetic may or may not make cars last longer. Even for those of us that keep our cars a long time (over 200,000 miles) it is questionable whether we will see the benifits of longer life.
2) It appears undisputable that Sythetic allows for longer oil changes. If you double your change interval from mineral oil, you are probably doing a big favor for the enviroment (disposal, energy used recycling, etc.)
3) The people most likely to create, are those who should least do so.
4) The threat of starvation due to overpopulation is very real in third world countries. Their reproductive rates are through the roof and they are constantly suffering from famine. At some point, rightfully, wrongly, sinfully or not, it will have to be addressed.
Cary
1) Synthetic may or may not make cars last longer. Even for those of us that keep our cars a long time (over 200,000 miles) it is questionable whether we will see the benifits of longer life.
2) It appears undisputable that Sythetic allows for longer oil changes. If you double your change interval from mineral oil, you are probably doing a big favor for the enviroment (disposal, energy used recycling, etc.)
3) The people most likely to create, are those who should least do so.
4) The threat of starvation due to overpopulation is very real in third world countries. Their reproductive rates are through the roof and they are constantly suffering from famine. At some point, rightfully, wrongly, sinfully or not, it will have to be addressed.
Cary
Unfortunately you may be right on this. I say “unfortunately” because technology is always a two-edged sword, is it not? There is always a hidden price to pay for its benefits.
Technology harnesses the power of the atom, and then someone builds a suitcase nuclear bomb that can take out a major city (these devices do exist). Technology builds us a 737, and a bunch of crazies decide it would be fun to crash a couple into the twin towers.
Look at the automobile—a terrific invention, but three million lives have been lost on American highways in seven decades, and 25 million badly injured in accidents. (I lost a co-worker earlier this year--a great gal only 27 yrs. old.) Pains me to say that, because I love cars and driving and our lives would be much less interesting without them.
Sure, it’s possible technology will find a way to feed 12 billion people instead of the 6 billion we have now. But then what is the hidden cost? To live in a world without lush rainforests, a world without wildlife? Already the ozone layer is about shot, the polar caps are melting, and the weather is starting to get squirrelly on us. Better to stop producing so many people now and preserve what quality of life we have left.
Back-on-topic:
[ August 25, 2003, 10:08 PM: Message edited by: Rexman ]
More of the smart people could have more than 2.3 children in North America.
Why is it that everyone on the Jerry Springer Show has 6 kids from 3 marrages, no job, and no ?
All which has nothing to do with a lack of lubrication, but too much of it.
So we don't have a supply problem, just a distribution problem that can be licked.
Why is it that everyone on the Jerry Springer Show has 6 kids from 3 marrages, no job, and no ?
All which has nothing to do with a lack of lubrication, but too much of it.
So we don't have a supply problem, just a distribution problem that can be licked.
The jerry springer show is a classic problem in self-selection. Do people go on that show because they are stupid? Or is that the only type of people that want to go on the show? Personally, I try to watch the show about every 6 months and can stand about 5 seconds. But, hey Springer laughs all the way to the bank....
America is actually in population decline. People in general are having less kids than ever. Its the unchecked illegal immigration that is changing demographics and swelling population.
Average children per family is in the 1.4-1.6 range. The higher the income and/or education the less likely to have kids.
And, finally, I think synthetic oil increases the life of an engine in two ways: greater film strength keeps metal from rubbing metal wearing the engine out slower and less sludge.
Dan
[ August 25, 2003, 12:09 PM: Message edited by: Dan4510 ]
America is actually in population decline. People in general are having less kids than ever. Its the unchecked illegal immigration that is changing demographics and swelling population.
Average children per family is in the 1.4-1.6 range. The higher the income and/or education the less likely to have kids.
And, finally, I think synthetic oil increases the life of an engine in two ways: greater film strength keeps metal from rubbing metal wearing the engine out slower and less sludge.
Dan
[ August 25, 2003, 12:09 PM: Message edited by: Dan4510 ]
Having and raising children is the most serious thing one can do in this life. Many do not take it seriously enough.
Children should not a consideration if one just wants company, or cute little people around.
We live in a free society, there will never be a quota on children in our lifetimes. Once a child is brought into this world it deserves the utmost attention and respect. I can't tell you how many times I have seen children less than 6 years old (sometimes less than 3), threatened with "one across the lips" as discipline.
This behavior frightens me.
[ August 25, 2003, 12:12 PM: Message edited by: GROUCHO MARX ]
There is no doubt synthetics are superior lubricants, but there's no way of knowing if they'll make your engine last longer - unless you compare identical vehicles, driven exactly the same way, under the exact same conditions. My daily drivers rust to pieces just the same on dino or synthetic!
.
Joel
Joel
I think, the answer to the original question is a resounding YES. But let me qualify that.
All other things being equal, a good synthetic should certainly reduce engine wear over the long haul, as compared to a non-synthetic oil.
Is the difference significant enough to make a meaningful difference to the average person?
That's debatable.
All other things being equal, a good synthetic should certainly reduce engine wear over the long haul, as compared to a non-synthetic oil.
Is the difference significant enough to make a meaningful difference to the average person?
That's debatable.
is there any documented evidence of anyone taking a car over 250k miles using synthetic by itself in a brand new car? I've talked to a few honda accord owners who have gotten 300k miles out of their car using dino. don't get my wrong, I think synthetic is great but is different in everyone's application. I only drive 10k miles a year, so 200k will take me 20 years.
Hi,
Robbie Alexander - my trucks average 1 lts per 6300 kms of Delvac 1.
The oil is not consumed at all for about the first 30000 kms or so after an OC.
They then start to use more nearing the end of the 100000 OC cycle
The top up oil plays an essential part in restoring "some" TBN
We run the dipstick midway from "Full" to "Add" and add oil two litres at a time
These engines are now at about 900000 kms without dissaembly and have been fitted with a Mann-Hummel by-pass centrifuge from new
Regards
Robbie Alexander - my trucks average 1 lts per 6300 kms of Delvac 1.
The oil is not consumed at all for about the first 30000 kms or so after an OC.
They then start to use more nearing the end of the 100000 OC cycle
The top up oil plays an essential part in restoring "some" TBN
We run the dipstick midway from "Full" to "Add" and add oil two litres at a time
These engines are now at about 900000 kms without dissaembly and have been fitted with a Mann-Hummel by-pass centrifuge from new
Regards
Patman
Staff member
Why not just run it right at the full mark?
Ah, perhaps Doug has encountered the "disappearing oil" phenomenon we talked about on another thread.
Whenever you fill it all the way to the full mark, a 1/2 quart disappears somehow.
P. S. (My theory is-- it is taken as a sacrifice by the oil gods for all the oil they provide for us.
Hi,
well no oil "Gods" for lubricant sacrifice here!
Over millions of kms experience with these engines we are sure that the top two/four litres are indeed "sacrificial". The oil capacity ( filters/sump ) of these engines is 38 litres
This issue has oft been discussed with Oil Companies and some Engine Makers. "We" think it has to do with the calibration of dipsticks, operational use ( city/country ) and a number of other matters too
Many years ago Mercedes Benz sold a V8 450hp diesel engine with a wrongly calibrated dipstick and the engines ran with about 4 litres short - in a sump of 25 litres. This produced high in sump oil temps and excessive consumption. The wrong calibration was due to the configuration of the sump
In short - we always run "midway to Add" based on experience - may the Gods be happy!
Regards
well no oil "Gods" for lubricant sacrifice here!
Over millions of kms experience with these engines we are sure that the top two/four litres are indeed "sacrificial". The oil capacity ( filters/sump ) of these engines is 38 litres
This issue has oft been discussed with Oil Companies and some Engine Makers. "We" think it has to do with the calibration of dipsticks, operational use ( city/country ) and a number of other matters too
Many years ago Mercedes Benz sold a V8 450hp diesel engine with a wrongly calibrated dipstick and the engines ran with about 4 litres short - in a sump of 25 litres. This produced high in sump oil temps and excessive consumption. The wrong calibration was due to the configuration of the sump
In short - we always run "midway to Add" based on experience - may the Gods be happy!
Regards
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
