I have searched long and hard for this article I read it in Consumer reports back in 96. This is the article that led me to do oil changes at 5000mi instead of 3000mi and not to use oil treatments anymore. Enjoy!!!!!!

Sorry people here is the site.

http://www.xs11.com/stories/croil96.htm

 

I have read this article also. However, I have been using synthetic oil in my vehicles for years and with synthetic oils, you don't have to change your oil as often. You can even go 10k-15K between oil changes. BMW and Mercedes use synthetic oils in their new vehicles also.

 

Yeah, I am using Durablend from Valvoline. I could probably do the 6000mi before changing. I am doing a lot of stop and go in Boston.

 

I respectfully disagree. Engine oil becomes contaminated with moisture from atmospheric condensation and acidic residues from fuel combustion. These potentially damaging contaminants are not trapped by the oil filter.

It is true that synthetic oils resist breakdown due to high temperatures and high bearing pressures better than conventional "dino" oils. However, they become contaminated just as quickly and should be changed at 7.5K miles or sooner.

 

Daniel, if the user is only driving at intervals shorter than about 5 miles at one shot and the engine is never reaching operating temperatures, then yes, I would agree w/ you and even would suggest a shorter change interval. But as long as this is not the case, I can safely recommend going to at LEAST 5-10k on some synthetics. Amsoil is one maker that suggests and recommends the user go to 12-25k or more between changes. Of course regular filter changes are a part of this program. Shing, Bill and myself have spent the money on oil analysis and it's proven that the oil is in fine condition after 10k. Shing even went as far as using Mobil 1, that DOESN'T push for extended drain intervals. Now on to the subject of contaimination. The oil filter is designed to catch particles down to a certian size. Particles that are smaller than that are suspended by the oil and are circulated though the system w/o touching anything. These "contaiminates" you talk about ie.. water. These would only serve to dilute or weaken the oil? If that is the case, then the test results by Blackstone labs have not shown it. In fact after xxxx miles, there is a section that measures h20. But it's more of a measure of coolant leackage into the oil rather than condensation. I can provide 1-3 articles dealing w/ the myths/truths of synthetics. Let me know if you want me to post them for your review.

 

What really matter to the oil change intervals is the condition of which you drive and live under.

 

read 12k on Amsoil with one filter.....currently going another 12k on a new filter......


I summary:

- 3k is a waste of money.
- If a car is actually driven everyday, anything below 10k has been lab proven here to be a waste of money.....

Jeff,

The only "backing down" Amsoil does regarding short drive intervals is to change the oil once a year rather than 25k....

 

I've read the oil analysis and accept it at face value. The safety of "stretching" the oil change frequency depends on driving habits, as you pointed out. It also depends on the amount of sulfur in the gasoline, and this can vary from region to region and season to season. Some crude stocks are "sweet" (having little sulfur) and some are not. Gasoline is graded according to Anti-Knock Index but we consumers are uninformed as regards sulfur. We know more about the ingredients in the beer we drink than the fuel we burn.

I'm not saying you are wrong. Your viewpoint is based on scientific investigation and hard numbers. I admire that approach. However, I am leery of generalizing your findings to everyone.

You are changing filters on a regular basis, and that is as it should be. How much money are you saving by using the same oil for a long time? I have a different point of view on this subject. I use "dino" engine oil and change it more frequently than Nissan requires.

 

What really matter to the oil change intervals is the condition of which you drive and live under. I feel that when the oil turns brown, it should be changed. somewhere in that brown coloration is some form of dirt or contaminants that could not be caught by the filters.

 

So, where's the article??

DW

 

Daniel, I believe if the sulfur in the gas was causing a problem, the analysis from Blackstone would show a problem. By using the extended drain intervals, it can actually be cheaper to use synthetics than dino oil. Plus all of the low/high temp flowability and the much greater film strength. There is of course the enviromental benefits of changing the oil when it's needed, not when a large marketing firm tells you to. I bet that even with dino oil, if you had the analysis done, it would be fine at 7500.

 

I must need more rest. The site is posted at the top now but here it is again:
http://www.xs11.com/stories/croil96.htm

 

I don't believe that Jeff, Bill, or myself are generalizing findings to everyone. We've made it pretty clear that its a syntheic oil we are dealing with and a quality oil filter. But having said that... I think our tests do cover a broader range of "audience" than normal. We all drive maximas and live in certainly very different regions with very different driving habits. This should rule out the "you live in a nice climate" or "you drive slow" arguements. All three of us seem to have come to the conclusion that if one:
1) uses a quality oil, Amsoil or Mobil 1 in our cases
2) uses a quality oil filter, Nissan or Toyota

then:

1) changing oil at 3000 miles is a waste
2) you can safely extend the drain period till at the very least 6000 miles.

Who much do I save? A lot. I easily put 1000 miles on the Maxima each week. If I were to do the "3000 mile" period, I would be changing oil every 3 weeks... and at a tune of $40 a pop(give or take on synthetic change), that would be $680 a year. Not to mention the time involved. By chaning my oil at 9000 miles, I am only looking at $240 a year. Sure what's another $440 a year... it's nothing you say... but that is not the point. The point is there was no need to go with the more expensive plan so why should I? I liken it to the arguement of not using 100 octane gas. You don't benefit from it, so why should you spend the extra money? You don't really benifit from changing oil every 3000 miles, so why would you?

Telling everyone to change oil at 3000 is just as much a generalization as if we were to say it's safe for everyone(not just maximas) to change their oil at 9000. The facts as they are in scientific numbers is this: When using a quality synthetic and a quality filter, it is safe to extend oil change period over the Jiffy Lube 3000 miles.

The only thing I can say is this: if it makes you feel better doing it at 3000, then go for it.... after all, it's hard to price a piece of mind. But just know that your oil is not bad at 3000 miles... and don't go by the color of the oil... it's never a good judge of the condition of the oil.

-shing

 

I agree on a lot of your points except this one. I just think that the coloration can tell you that the oil is getting dirty. I am not going to say it's losing its protective state but I drove a limo for a company and they forgot to change the oil one time and the oil was black like ink. I am not going to let my oil get that dirty and then think that the oil is still ok.

 

I'm troubled by the use of the word 'stretching'. It doesn't make sense to me to replace something that doesn't need replacing....If the oil is still good, it's still good. If it's oxidized, it needs changing......

The oil analyses are basically for my peace of mind and cost doesn't really concern me. Less than $50 compared to several grand for a new motor doesn't cause me much grief.

I've been fascinated by how much stuff can be seen with an analysis: air filtration, oil filtration, how the engine is wearing, what, if anything, is contaminating the oil (water, fuel, insolubles, etc.).

I think the 25k/once-a-year oil changes and lab analysis is best just so you can check to see how your motor is doing each year......seems like a good 'check-up' to me.

 

Nope. Not in the least. Oil color is not a good way to determine the oil's condition. ONLY A OIL ANALYSIS CAN TELL YOU THAT.

 

 

Hey if you drive a lot of miles in a short time frame than you should be using synthetic oil. I drive about 1000 miles a month and change it every 3k with Dino oil and a filter. I think its cheap insurance to change it every three thousand. You might have scientific proof that its ok to go to 5k or more, but $10 to me every 3 months for my cars $4,000 engine is VERY cheap insurance!

Not to mention that when it comes out of my car, its black. I know that means its doing its job. However, I feel better when there is fresh oil in me expensive VQ.

You don't agree? Fine...I am not trying to get anyone to agree with me. I just think that what you are trying to prove is sound, but not what I would practice or have practiced!

Good luck!
SHUMAx

 

Whatever, sometimes numbers don't line up with everyone's applications. My oil gets dark and I change it. At 5000mi is where needs to be changed in my ride.

 

Okay, just don't forget to change the tires when they are only 1/3 worn also. It's probably alot better insurance anyway. What good is the engine when you just hydroplaned off into the guardrail becuase your tires only have 1/3 depth tread left?

 

Whatever what? Number not lining up with everyone's applications? What does that mean exactly? Look at 5000 mi for dino oil is a nice good figure. At least it's not the 3000 mile oil change hype that alot of people are using.

But again, you just cannot accurately determine the oil's condition by the color. Any comment w/o some decent data is unfounded hearsay at the very best.

If you say " I know my oil can go longer but I do it anyway " That's fine. But to say "I change my oil every 3000 miles becuase it's dark, it's dirty(w/o any data to back it up) and becuase the 10th grader at Jiffy Lube said so", well that's just slightly ignorant, don't you think?

 

Hey if you drive a lot of miles in a short time frame than you should be using synthetic oil.

Agreed.

I drive about 1000 miles a month and change it every 3k with Dino oil and a filter.

3k is a waste of money.

I think its cheap insurance to change it every three thousand.

The only thing you're insuring against is the loss of employment in Mobile 1's middle management.

You might have scientific proof that its ok to go to 5k or more, but $10 to me every 3 months for my cars $4,000 engine is VERY cheap insurance!

I guess I should stop letting facts get in the way of a good story.

Not to mention that when it comes out of my car, its black.

Big deal. What did the oil analysis conclude? Oh, wait, nevermind, your eyes can apparently tell the amount of insolubles, gas, coolant, boron, silicon, lead, etc. in the oil by visual inspection.

I know that means its doing its job. However, I feel better when there is fresh oil in me expensive VQ.

That's fine. I just hate the marketing of '3k or your car is gonna kill over' message.

You don't agree?

Basically.

Fine...I am not trying to get anyone to agree with me.

Well, Mobile 1 and Jiffy Lube definitely agree with you.



I just think that what you are trying to prove is sound, but not what I would practice or have practiced!

I'm still dumbfounded as to how I have gone 76k (currently at 110k) on my 94 and only performed 6 oil changes......

 

It's funny that people will change their oil every 3000 miles but will go every last inch of 60k or more between spark plug changes. Since everyone is in the mood for opinion and hearsay, I'm gonna add that a few bad sparkplugs could do more damage to an engine than a few thousand extra miles on synthetics will ever will.

 

Whatever what? Whatever means I am paying you no attention. You need to calm down and what makes you think because you got a lot to say that people are going to listen to you? I could care less of what you are trying to start an argument over. You have an opinion and my proof to you is already posted on my first submission. There is no big difference in wear with all the hype that the companies have started about their oils. It's ignorant to think that your point is the only correct one.

READ BEFORE YOU COMMENT!!!

http://www.xs11.com/stories/croil96.htm

 

Aside from the fact that Consumer Reports article is flawed to some extent (it doesn't simulate real driving conditions, but only one set of driving conditions), you have it mixed up as to who is stating an opinion (the color of oil is directly related to its condition) and what is fact (an oil analysis).....

But, whatever, buy some Jiffy Lube and Mobile 1 stock and continue the disinformation campaign.....

 

Whatever man. What makes you think that ONE consumer report article is the end-all proof? I can provide 2-3 acticles that provide much better evidence to the contrary. And BTW your the one that needs to calm down. Where have I raised my voice(internet voice)? I'm trying to have a discussion here and your getting all excited.

Do what you want, BUT BE READY TO BACK YOU STATEMENTS UP, if you post something. You really don't want me to shoot a billion holes in the Consumer Reports test and burst your bubble do you?

It's really funny when people explain their views, get their feelings hurt when no good evidence comes up and resort to flames when there's nothing left to post.

I could post 2-3 articles for you to read then say "read before your post your one article" but that wouldn't get us anywhere would it?

 

Dude, how can you tell me that Consumer Report is flawed and they didn't simulate real world driving condition? They documented the proof for people who wanted to know the real truth. Consumer report is look at as a good source of information and testing. Hell, they used NYC taxi cabs and you say it's not real world? What real world? Driving on a highway to your every destination? Please, tell me what you mean?

 

there is a handy search feature that discusses all of this stuff ad nauseum.......and where Jeff shoots others down several times.......

"Oil Analysis" "Amsoil" "Mobile 1", etc. will get you a bunch of informative posts about this stuff.....

 

Read this first and tell me what you think. :0

http://mr2.com/TEXT/synth_oil.txt

 

I'm too lazy to shoot down the CR article, would you take care of that, please.

Thanks!

 

Then read this one.

http://www.micapeak.com/info/oiled.html

 

I read this already and I agree with it. Consumer Report's study is about engine wear. This is why I created this post. They proved that no matter what oil they used, it didn't make any meaningful difference in wear.

 

Did you read the first link?

And I quote the article;
"""To summarize the findings and conclusions, the test facility responsible
for the demonstration submitted this statement: "The data presented in
this report indicates that the Amsoil synthetic SAE 10W-40 passenger-car
motor oil formulation...provided protection of the test engines from
excessive wear and deposit formation, far beyond the normal 3,000-mile
change interval." In fact, the level of protection was such that those
engines in which the original synthetic oil was run for the entire
duration of the (60,000-mile) test showed less wear than did the Control
Group vehicles using premium, 10W-40 petroleum oil and 3,000-mile drain
intervals.""

This directly contradicts the Consumer Reports article. And to add, this test was also done on a taxi cab. Maybe we should ask Consumer Reports what "meaningful amounts of wear is" becuase this quote deals w/ actual numbers where CR just uses "meaningful" whatever that means.

 

this is hard to find.....it's only at the end of EVERY post I make.......so it's really not THAT visible....

 

No actual numbers? Read.

No brand performed best
If you've been loyal to one brand, you may be surprised to learn that every oil we tested was good at doing what motor oil is supposed to do. More extensive tests, under other driving conditions, might have revealed minor differences. But thorough statistical analysis of our data showed no brand-not even the expensive synthetics-to be meaningfully better or worse in our tests.

After each engine ran about 60,000 miles (and through 10 months of seasonal changes), we disassembled it and measured the wear on the camshaft, valve lifters, and connecting-rod bearings. We used a tool precise to within 0.00001 inch to measure wear on the key surfaces of the camshaft, and a tool precise to within 0.0001 inch on the valve lifters. The combined wear for both parts averaged only 0.0026 inch, about the thickness of this magazine page. Generally, we noted as much variation between engines using the same oil as between those using different oils. Even the engines with the most wear didn't reach a level where we could detect operational problems.

We measured wear on connecting rod bearings by weighing them to the nearest 0.0001 gram. Wear on the key surface of each bearing averaged 0.240 gram - about the weight of seven staples. Again, all the tested oils provided adequate protection.

Our engineers also used industry methods to evaluate sludge and varnish deposits in the engine. Sludge is a mucky sediment that can prevent oil from circulating freely and make the engine run hotter. Varnish is a hard deposit that would remain on engine parts if you wiped off the sludge. It can make moving parts stick.

All the oils proved excellent at preventing sludge. At least part of the reason may be that sludge is more apt to form during cold startups and short trips, and the cabs were rarely out of service long enough for their engine to get cold. Even so, the accumulations in our engines were so light that we wouldn't expect sludge to be a problem with any of these oils under most conditions.

Variations in the buildup of varnish may have been due to differences in operating temperature and not to the oils. Some varnish deposits were heavy enough to lead to problems eventually, but no brand consistently produced more varnish than any other.

The bottom line. In our tests, brand didn't matter much as long as the oil carried the industry's starburst symbol (see "It's not just oil," article 3 of 4). Beware of oils without the starburst; they may lack the full complement of additives needed to keep modem engines running reliably.

One distinction: According to the laboratory tests, Mobil 1 and Pennzoil Performax synthetics flow exceptionally easily at low temperatures - a condition our taxi tests didn't simulate effectively. They also had the highest viscosity under high-temperature, high-stress conditions, when a thick oil protects the engine. Thus, these oils may be a good choice for hard driving in extreme temperatures.

 

"""After each engine ran about 60,000 miles (and through 10 months of seasonal changes), we disassembled it and measured the wear on the camshaft, valve lifters, and connecting-rod bearings. We used a tool precise to within 0.00001 inch to measure wear on the key surfaces of the camshaft, and a tool precise to within 0.0001 inch on the valve lifters. The combined wear for both parts averaged only 0.0026 inch, about the thickness of this magazine page. Generally, we noted as much variation between engines using the same oil as between those using different oils. Even the engines with the most wear didn't reach a level where we could detect operational problems. """

It's too bad that the thickness of a magazine page is alot of wear. And it didn't say which had more wear or not. It just say none had MORE wear. I wonder which one did?

"""We measured wear on connecting rod bearings by weighing them to the nearest 0.0001 gram. Wear on the key surface of each bearing averaged 0.240 gram - about the weight of seven staples. Again, all the tested oils provided adequate protection. """"

I'm not really intested in adequate. Going dino oil for 15k is adequate also. right?

""All the oils proved excellent at preventing sludge. At least part of the reason may be that sludge is more apt to form during cold startups and short trips, and the cabs were rarely out of service long enough for their engine to get cold. Even so, the accumulations in our engines were so light that we wouldn't expect sludge to be a problem with any of these oils under most conditions. ""

BIG ASSUMPTION!

""Variations in the buildup of varnish may have been due to differences in operating temperature and not to the oils. Some varnish deposits were heavy enough to lead to problems eventually, but no brand consistently produced more varnish than any other. """

May have been? Another big assumption.

 

If you really disagree with this test, you should let them know. You are going by what you read and I am going by what I read. Prove your point to the people who did the test. Us going back and forth like this really doesn't mean anything and we are not getting anywhere.

 

I'm just getting started, how about you?

There's nothing to disagree about to CR. In their article they plainly state their assemptions and don't state them as fact. It's the reader that mistakes these assumptions as truths w/o really thinking about the parameters of the test and the results that are printed.

They would basicly agree w/ what I said becuase would just be restating what they printed.

No comments on my link?

 

what exactly are you talking about? Are we talking about when to change oil? which oil is best? what?

Remember the only claim that the CR is stating is that "...all the tested oils provided adequate protection." That's it... I will agree that almost all oil on the shelf today will provide "adeqate protection". but I am not one to settle for good enough. If we move away from providing "adequate protection", then synthetics will be best.

There are two discussions here... I still maintain that by my own research, not someone else's... that 3000 miles is a waste of money... and color is not a good judge. My oil always come out dark dark brown. But when it goes to the lab, the oil is always ok... ALWAYS. If oil was a judge, than I's have to say that my oil should have been bad based on the color.

As for it being a safe insurance... it probably is for a piece of mind. But the fact is at 7500 miles the oil is no where near break down point... in other words, the oil protects just as well at 7500 as it did at 3000 miles. If it makes you feel better changing at 3000 miles... then so be it. But remeber, Jiffy Lube could have said 5000 miles a long time ago and we'd be making arguing over 5000 vs 7500.

One last point... more proof that 3000 is a waste. If you look at most owners manual... it says 3750 for extreme conditions... that's even more than the 3000 that everyone is pushing.

-Shing

 

I have about 95K miles on my car, have been changing the oil after the car hit every 3000 miles. Are you saying that I should be doing it every 6000 instead?