I change the oil in my cars every 6 months… : )
I think most of us here are intelligent enough to consider the source and make our own decisions.
if a widget maker fund s a scientific study that says widgets are perfect, I take the study with a grain of salt.
there are scientific studies on both sides of many issues
For those with an insatiable appetite for oil change debates (over 1000 comments):
(There is one interesting comment about the myth of Fram oil filters voiding Dodge diesel warranties.)
Carl Sagan was a real scientist, with a PhD in astrophysics from Columbia, taught physics at Harvard and Columbia
Just for the record…Carl Sagan taught at Cornell. Received his BS and PHd from University Chicago.
Of course real scientists, like Dr. Sagan, readily acknowledge that their conclusions are only theories. Posers like Al Gore think they know all the answers already.
My daughter worked with several of the Global Warming scientists with the undergraduate work at MIT. And even a couple more for her Masters at Harvard. All believed that the earth is getting warmer (way too much evidence to ignore it). All believed that Man had some hand in it. But most have stopped making statements of what will be the outcome of global warming because the Earth is a too chaotic system to make predictions. But they make predictions of what COULD happen. And what might happen. But making long term predictions are just too difficult. Al Gore takes these possible scenarios and runs with it. Which many scientists cringe at.
The science is only "settled" in the minds of politicians, not in the minds of scientists.
EXACTLY. There are many scientists who believe that global warming exists and yet are trying to disprove it some of the evidence. When global warming prediction was first introduced the scientific community scoffed at it. They thought it was total garbage - so they went about trying to disprove it. Trying to disprove global warming was happening - many scientists actually proved that it was happening.
If you don't believe that the EPA is out of control, you're welcome to your opinion.
Is the EPA out of control…In many ways YES…but in other ways…they aren’t. To this day in NH we still have companies polluting our waters. There’s MILLIONS of gallons of untreated sewage dumped in the Merrimack every year. We have power plants that still dump toxic Mercury into the environment - http://www.environmentnewhampshire.org/reports/nhe/new-hampshires-biggest-mercury-polluters. The EPA is POWERLESS to stop it. We have coal slurry spills every year in this country…and the EPA is POWERLESS to do stop it. I don’t want to give the EPA more power…NOT because they are abusing it…but they because they aren’t fixing anything. They aren’t even working on the Clean Air and Clean water which was their original charter.
California used oil tests to increase the oil change interval for several vehicle types and all achieved substantially extended lifetimes. The Department of General Services used 212 oil tests to justify extended the automobile fleet drain intervals from 6000 to 10,000 miles. Caltrans used 39 oil tests to extend the drain interval from 6000 to 18,000 miles on their 2 and 3 axle trucks. The Dept of Forestry and Fire Protection used 42 tests to justify changing drain intervals from 5000 to 18,000 miles on their 2 and 3 axle trucks. The Dept of Corrections used 100 tests to alter the drain interval from 10,000 to 50,000 miles on their buses. The link below shows the test report released in 2007 that documents the tests. The report is about high efficiency oil filters, but if you read it closely, it is clear that the oil lasts as long as the filters. And they don’t use just any oil. It has increased ZDDP levels to buffer the oil longer, and they mention synthetic oils. While it was not clear that they used synthetic oils when not required, it seems safe to assume that they did use them.
While you may not choose to do it, you can’t realistically deny that when oil tests are properly used in a closely monitored test program, significantly extended oil drain intervals are achieved without catastrophic results.
I have more of an appetite for an environmental debate but I see I ve already been flagged as off topic…
Off Topic!!!
They’re just upset that you overlooked inviting us all to an oyster feast.
I’d help keep their reproduction in check.
Yosemite
“I guess whoever said that they would be afraid that people don’t check their oil enough now and by 15,000 mile they may be running dry. They hit the nail on the head.”
That would be me…followed by db4690.
I can see 15k oil changes being interpreted by the automotively-impaired as permission to not lift the hood for 15k miles, rather than their current practice of not lifting the hood for 5k or 6k miles.
Mike, I stand corrected on Dr. Sagan’s school. Mea Culpa.
The Earth is undergoing a warming trend right now, one well within the normal variation of the Earth’s history that we’ve been able to identify right. The question is to what extent we’re responsible and to what extent we can actually change this trend. The science is very uncertain on this. We simply do not know enough.
Having said that, I’ll repeat something I’ve said before. When the Clean Air Act was passed and the EPA formed, rivers were brown from industrial waste, the air over LA was thick enough to butter on bread, and the oceans were awash with trash and filth. The EPA in its early years did a great deal of good. But, as you’ve pointed out, they’re no longer do. They’re behind initiatives like banning incandescent light bulbs in favor of CFL bulbs, which contain mercury vapor, and other political agendas. They’ve grown so big that they and so out of control, so powerful, so astray of the Clean Air Act’s intentions, that they’ve gotten a SCOTUS decision allowing them to regulate CO2, a gas that, while its impact may be subject to debate, is not included in their charter. Regulation of CO2 should be going through legislative vetting, not unilaterally determined by the EPA to be subject to their authority. The EPA is now making their own laws. not creating regulations to ensure compliance with laws created by the houses of congress.
Al Gore is simply a politician who has found a cause (or perhaps it would be more accurate to say the cause found him) to pontificate on. He has, however, disclosed the current Nobel prize committee to be a highly politicized bunch. Alfred Nobel must have rolled over in his grave when that particular award was announced.
"Al Gore is simply a politician . . . "
Make that ex-politician . . . for several years, now
while I’m pretty liberal, I recognize that Al Gore is . . .
A muckraker
A movie maker
A greedy sellout
An opportunist
etc.
Hello - I understand and acknowledge that the oil-change debate does touch upon issues related to environmental impacts, but as I’ve watched the discussion unfold, the last couple of pages have evolved primarily into a discussion about environmental regulations, the political aspects thereof, and global warming science. I’m not picking a side, but could you please redirect the thread back to the auto domain? Thank you.
Oops
Perhaps I should flag myself off topic
If that were only possible . . .
I accept my part in the drifting of the thread. I’ll try to do better in the future.
Humbly yours,
TSM
Science is not about accepting anything blindly. Quite the contrary. What it isn’t , is remaining in a state of suspended animation refusing to even consider that which the vast majority of those we depend on for everything else until conflicts with our greed. We flock to science in every time of need then hide behind opinion when it suits us otherwise. I have been deeply involved in math and. science for four decades. Science is not about blindly accepting anything, it’s about considering everything then promoting following the path that betters mankind and not a select few. The number of times scientific opinion of a majority has lead us astray pales in comparison to the number of times greed has.
The same old, same old list of denials, regardless of what the topic is.
I don’t believe it.
If it is true, there is nothing we can do about it.
It there is something we can do about it, it’s too expensive.
Of we can afford it, it wasn’t my fault and it’s not my responsibility.
The last reason is the most egregious because it denies our responsibility to our fellow man.
Doesn’t matter what it is. From global climate change, to the pollution of lakes and streams to the ozone layer to you name it. Denial is the antithesis of blind acceptance and is practice obediently by those who don’t understand what science is all about. Using " blind acceptance" as a reference to the scientific method of making decisions that affect us all is denial in it’s ultimate form and in reality, " blindly accepting " to remain uninformed of the true nature of the scientific community.
Dag, we’ve already gotten a reminder from the moderator that the thread should be brought back to car topics to preclude closure, and IMHO rightfully so. Perhaps you missed Carolyn’s post? She has been tremendously patient with us IMHO.
And now, anybody got any car related comments about oil changes?
Same, just responding to your two cents worth with mine…we are in a discussion relative to believing what Whitey’s supposition is all about. Everyone makes assertions about Whitey’s motives. I made none. But I certainly have some right to respond to your dissertation with a shorter one. I can certainly relate the original topic to our comments, and especially how it relates to Carl Sagan’s opinion. After all, isn’t that what longer oil changes are at least in part, all about. Isn’t it the scientific community that supports them ?
darn. I had a whole well thought ought post asking db to be nice, leave it in the past, now is the time for unity, rubbing salt in the wound and all that written. then I hit the wrong button…
dag. I don t think anyone is actually disagreeing with you. I just think they were saying the sometimes people use science for for a tool to get what they want, by manipulating data or skewing result of studies to fit their political agenda, but I might be wrong.
Hi @wesw
Agree. I see whitey’s suggestion of using a scientific approach of an oil analysis as developing your own data. I don’t see how anyone can say it isn’t valid as no one is manipulating “your” data. That’s what a scientific method is all about. Science will often give you a % of chance of what will occur. It’s up to each of us to use that information as we see fit.
Regardless, we’ve drifted way off topic and we need to restrain ourselves from responding to posts that are keeping us on this road that we’ve wrong-turned onto. I would not want to abuse Carolyn’s generosity.
I think it’s safe to conclude that we have varying opinions on the benefits and costs of prolonged durations between oil changes, as well as the industry and individual motivations behind them. The subject always gets political on both sides, it’s a highly politicized subject through no fault of ours, but we should be more disciplined than to let ourselves be drawn into the politics and simply state our individual preferences and technical knowledge and let it go at that.
there seems to be significant interest in alternative energy sources and the environment here. maybe It would be a good topic for the index?