Oil, why not follow owner's manual recommendation?
abj...@sbcglobal.net
I am reading a 2010 Subaru owner's manual, it
shows a chart of recommended engine oil viscosities
for a given ambient temperature range. For cars
operating in temps above -5 degrees Fahrenheit
it recommends using 10w-30, 10w-40, or 10w-50 oils.
About 90% of US drivers fall into this category,
99.9% of the time.
Why is it that so many people decide not to follow
this recommendations and pour oils of 5w-30, or
5w-40 viscosities?
The manual shows a second chart where 5w-30,
and 5w-40 are shown along the entire temperature
spectrum, from less than -20 to above 100 degrees F.
Meaning these oils are also permissable, but they
are not a perfect match!
I do not understand the logic behind the use of these
thinner oils. Do people no longer care about their
engines, and prefer a thinner oil for better fuel efficiency
alone. Why then stop at 5w-30, and not pour 0w-30,
or 0w-20, or even thinner (0w-10 will soon be available).
Basia
abj...@sbcglobal.net
wrote:
This is a 2010 Subaru Legacy owner's manual.
Basia
AD
wrote:
when your claimed 10% of the population in snowbelt
drives their cars at -5F will outstrip the wear protection vs 5w
during warmer times.
FWIW mazda specifies 5w-20 for rx-8 and I would not be surprised if
some morons
ruined their wenkels with 10w-40. I suppose they would've been better
with 0w-20 you seem to have so much disdain for.
If I were in snowbelt or were a california skler type I'd stay away
from 10w
semisynthetic on a late model car in snowbelt Sept through May.
If you live in redneck states or run straight synthetic indeed 10w
could work just fine.
I run 75w-80 in the rear diff of my ancient RWD beater.
And that (dino) gear oil looks a lot like motor oil viscosity wise :^)
My car mechanic was delighted to pump this fluid: e-a-s-y
Cameo
news:14268c3a-a9df-4fe5...@j13g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
>
> I am reading a 2010 Subaru owner's manual, it
> shows a chart of recommended engine oil viscosities
> for a given ambient temperature range. For cars
> operating in temps above -5 degrees Fahrenheit
> it recommends using 10w-30, 10w-40, or 10w-50 oils.
>
> About 90% of US drivers fall into this category,
> 99.9% of the time.
>
> Why is it that so many people decide not to follow
> this recommendations and pour oils of 5w-30, or
> 5w-40 viscosities?
My '94 Honda Accord Owner's Manual recommends 5W-30 oil, regardless of
the season.
abj...@sbcglobal.net
> On May 14, 4:16 am, "ba...@sbcglobal.net" <abjj...@sbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
>
> > shows a chart of recommended engine oil viscosities
> > for a given ambient temperature range. For cars
> > operating in temps above -5 degrees Fahrenheit
> > it recommends using 10w-30, 10w-40, or 10w-50 oils.
>
> > About 90% of US drivers fall into this category,
> > 99.9% of the time.
>
> > Why is it that so many people decide not to follow
> > this recommendations and pour oils of 5w-30, or
> > 5w-40 viscosities?
>
> > and 5w-40 are shown along the entire temperature
> > spectrum, from less than -20 to above 100 degrees F.
> > Meaning these oils are also permissable, but they
> > are not a perfect match!
>
> > I do not understand the logic behind the use of these
> > thinner oils. Do people no longer care about their
> > engines, and prefer a thinner oil for better fuel efficiency
> > alone. Why then stop at 5w-30, and not pour 0w-30,
> > or 0w-20, or even thinner (0w-10 will soon be available).
>
> The damage from 10w oil that does not flow on a rare day
> when your claimed 10% of the population in snowbelt
> drives their cars at -5F will outstrip the wear protection vs 5w
> during warmer times.
OK that makes sens as a precaution, in autumn,
winter time, ...but why pour this thin stuff year round
in places like Florida, Texas, California.
Are people that desperate for a miniscule gain in
fuel economy?
I live in the Sierras, in Reno, Nevada and since
new have always used nothing but synthetic 15w-50
in my 2000 Impreza, ...other cars also get thicker oil
15w-40, or 10w-40.
We have occasional cold spells here, too. The engine
in the Impreza is supertight, almost like new despite
80k miles. It gets good protection at higher rpms.
I drive in mountains frequently. I cannot imagine
putting anything thiner tan 10w-30 here no matter
what.
5w-30, 5w-40, this stuff is basically for arctic conditions.
Why do people insist on it? I cannot make much sense
of it (Wankels aside).
Basia
Nobody > (Revisited)
>
> 5w-30, 5w-40, this stuff is basically for arctic conditions.
> Why do people insist on it? I cannot make much sense
> of it (Wankels aside).
>
Try starting a (not-warmed/non-coldprepped/not-plugged-in) car at -30°F
or worse. with "base" 30w. It can be done... but it usually takes 15-30
minutes and some head-scratching to get there. Some of the 'old tricks'
like 36v to the starter work, but that takes skill, preparation and balls.
Same car, 3 weeks later (no plugin,the juice is off, transformer pole's
down) Now has 'base' 5W (5x30).
Unless the car was on it's last gasp, it's running with (at worst) 20
seconds of cranktime and some free-air fuel. OK, maybe 2 minutes to go
thru a few cold restarts.
Just because you live in a supposedly warm place, don't be surprised if
you find yourself in sub-freezies sometime.
--
"Shit this is it, all the pieces do fit.
We're like that crazy old man jumping
out of the alleyway with a baseball bat,
saying, "Remember me motherfucker?"
Jim “Dandy” Mangrum
abj...@sbcglobal.net
> "ba...@sbcglobal.net" <abjj...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
Honda is supposedly working on new oil viscosity
recommendation of 0w-10 !!!
Their chief chemist says the new upcoming engines are,
or will be designed to handle such. No word on longevity/durability.
I think they presume the public will believe it to be unaffected (?).
But how?
With such thin oil almost every start will be a cold start!
How else?
One of the reasons to use a somewhat thicker oil is
to have it cling better to internals and prevent cold starts.
This 0w-10 stuff is bound to drain into the pan entirely in
about an hour or so depending on ambient temperature.
A 10w-30 oil in 100 degree plus weather drains nearly
completely into the pan in just several hours, resulting
in a complete cold start!
I would never put anything thinner than 10w-30 in my
Subies engine, despite the fact that as horizontal engines
they don't drain oil completely into the pan.
Basia
abj...@sbcglobal.net
wrote:
I forgot to add, depending on how frequently
you drive you want an oil that cover the internals
until you start the engine next time.
If it is a daily driver, and in cool weather,
a 5w-30 might do the job, i.e. not drain into
the pan entirely in 12 hours or so. If the car
is driven only a few days a week, a 10w-30,
or 15w-40 is better. During hot weather
a 20w-50 is much better. If the car is driven
ocassionally, say once or twice a month,
its a good idea to use a straight 30. It'll
cling to parts for a long time preventing rust
and a complet cold start even after days.
A complete cold start is when the engine gets
worn most.
Basia
1 Lucky Texan
wrote:
I think tighter clearances demand lower viscosities. Perhaps with CAD,
modern alloys and modern machining, they can achieve design parameters
that work better with lower viscosities.
John
I don't understand what your point is about using a thinner oil if the
manual states 5w is fine for -20 to +100F. You just answered your own
question.
Personally, there's no way I'm having a 10w oil in when it is anywhere
below 20F. I can certainly hear the difference on start-up
For your question about 0w-30 or 0w-20, the manual does not state to use
it, so....why would you? Moot point
--
John
John
for Dec-Mar and 10w-30 Apr-Nov
BTW, our Honda Odyssey calls for 0w-20 YEAR ROUND!
--
John
cl...@snyder.on.ca
The specified clearances have not changed any significant amount in
the last 30 years.
cl...@snyder.on.ca
I have ALWAYS used a minimum of base 10w oils in all my cars here in
Ontario Canada. My current vehicle uses 10W40 Synthetic - but
everything else I've ever owned used 10W40 standard oil in cold
weather and 20W50 in summer.
cl...@snyder.on.ca
But the 0W20 is synthetic, which behaves differently.
abj...@sbcglobal.net
You are very logical, but the manual shows
two charts, one specifies three viscosity grades
which are progressively thicker and aligned with
rising temperatures, and looks something like this:
-5F ----->10w-30, 10w-40, 10w-50
...the other shows only two thinner grades
along the entire temperature spectrum, and looks
like this:
-20F <---- 5w-30, 5w-40 ----> 100F
Why two different recommendations?
Both 5w-40, and 10w-50 cannot protect
exactly the same way. One must be
better/worse in some aspects than the other.
What is the point of recommending two different
grades for same operating conditions?????
To stir up confusion?
Or is it perhaps because manufacturers are being
pushed into recommending fuel conserving oil grades,
but cannot easily abandon the idea that slightly
thicker oils protect the machinery far better?
I suspect that is exactly the case!
Basia
abj...@sbcglobal.net
> >I think tighter clearances demand lower viscosities. Perhaps with CAD,
> >modern alloys and modern machining, they can achieve design parameters
> >that work better with lower viscosities.
> The specified clearances have not changed any significant amount in
> the last 30 years.
They may be a bit tighter nowadays, but not by very much.
The Subie 2.5L engine specifications I think are the same
for more than a decade.
But, once you accept the arguments for thinner oil
(better cooling, fuel efficiency) and start using a ultra-thin
oil that does little or nothing to prevent cold starts (because
it drains into the pan too fast),
...the logic changes into one favoring progressively
thinner oils, as these flow better and the pump can
push them faster to were the oil needs to be.
Basia
John
>>> modern alloys and modern machining, they can achieve design parameters
>>> that work better with lower viscosities.
>> The specified clearances have not changed any significant amount in
>> the last 30 years.
>
> The Subie 2.5L engine specifications I think are the same
> for more than a decade.
>
> and start using a ultra-thin oil that does little or nothing
> to prevent cold starts (because it drains into the pan
> too fast),
>
> ...the logic changes into one favoring progressively
> thinner oils, as these flow better and the pump can
> push them faster to were the oil needs to be.
>
> Basia
>
>
especially at colder temps, was to get the flow moving more freely vs.
the thicker weight possibly not flowing as quickly and thus causing
limited oil starvation on startup.
--
John
cl...@snyder.on.ca
>On May 16, 12:43 pm, cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:
>
>> >I think tighter clearances demand lower viscosities. Perhaps with CAD,
>> >modern alloys and modern machining, they can achieve design parameters
>> >that work better with lower viscosities.
>>
>> The specified clearances have not changed any significant amount in
>> the last 30 years.
>
>
>They may be a bit tighter nowadays, but not by very much.
>The Subie 2.5L engine specifications I think are the same
>for more than a decade.
>
>But, once you accept the arguments for thinner oil,
>and start using a ultra-thin oil that does little or nothing
>to prevent cold starts (because it drains into the pan
>too fast),
>
>...the logic changes into one favoring progressively
>thinner oils, as these flow better and the pump can
>push them faster to were the oil needs to be.
>
>Basia
>
The "theory" is that thin oil pumps faster, so the "dry start" doesn't
last as long. Personally, I'm not sure I buy it. I still like an oil
with a bit of body to it.
1 Lucky Texan
Although it may be less of an issue for our boxer engines, the greater
use of anti-drainback valves in oil filters may figure into this
discussion as well. At least, I think that's a somewhat recent
development/becoming more common. anyone?
1 Lucky Texan
wrote:
I occasionally read rumors of owner's manuals in other countries,
without CAFE-type regulations, recommending higher vis. oil for the
same engines sold in the States where the 5w-w'ever range is
recommended. Any way to confirm this?
abj...@sbcglobal.net
I can't find seem to find any Polish Subaru
owner's manuals online. There are some
abbreviated versions but they don't go into
oil recommendations.
Basia
AD
Carl,
the repair shops here use translated Haynes, I checked :-))))))
Most people (here) run 10w-40 for some reason. probably because
most of the cars on the road have high mileage and the tolerances
on a 120k+ miler are not what they used to be on the maiden voyage of
the car :-)
I guess 10w40 flows some but I don't give a shit. 5w-30 flows better
in local (cold)
winter and the engine does not have to push thick sludge around. But,
then,
it's a beater. Still, I'll run 5w30 when my A4 arrives.
I run 20w-50 in my bikes when I lived in bloody hot kaulifornia
though.
10w-40 in cars since skiing trips were rare.
Is that viscosity-vs-temperature chart so difficult to grasp in adjust
to your area temperature ranges?
Also if you leave in the bloody hot sunbelt why the heck do you need
subaru to begin with?
Get a rear wheel driver, pour your favorite 20w50 in it and have fun.
AD
Reno is hardly sierras. It's on the other end of the slopes.
Thick oil makes sense for you unless you go skiing all the time.
> new have always used nothing but synthetic 15w-50
> in my 2000 Impreza, ...other cars also get thicker oil
> 15w-40, or 10w-40.
>
> We have occasional cold spells here, too. The engine
Yeah, it took me like 30 minutes to warm my brother's car up
while I was waiting for him to get off the slopes in Tahoe.
I guess the oil shop poured 20w-something for him.
I would imagine the engine was not doing so good despite the load
until the coolant temp needle have finally moved.
> 5w-30, 5w-40, this stuff is basically for arctic conditions.
0w is for arctic tractors. 5w is for snowbelt.
> Why do people insist on it? I cannot make much sense
Why there are so many subarus in palo alto? It makes no sense,
the inhabitants are no longer in new england: old habits die hard
or they want to get out of california hell back to the east coast.
who knows
abj...@sbcglobal.net
> > I live in the Sierras, in Reno, Nevada and since
>
> Reno is hardly sierras. It's on the other end of the slopes.
Maybe not downtown Reno, but western Reno
is definetely Sierras. I am at 5000 feet above
sea level, that is about 500 feet above downtown.
There are plenty of houses several hundred feet
higher, well into the Sierras. The city has grown.
> Thick oil makes sense for you unless you go skiing all the time.
>
> > new have always used nothing but synthetic 15w-50
> > in my 2000 Impreza, ...other cars also get thicker oil
> > 15w-40, or 10w-40.
I forgot to add that the car is garaged.
> > We have occasional cold spells here, too. The engine
>
> Yeah, it took me like 30 minutes to warm my brother's car up
> while I was waiting for him to get off the slopes in Tahoe.
> I guess the oil shop poured 20w-something for him.
> I would imagine the engine was not doing so good despite the load
> until the coolant temp needle have finally moved.
The Lake is at 6000 feet, but the water has a moderating
effect on temps. Morning lows are not much cooler than
in Reno, sometimes higher.
> > 5w-30, 5w-40, this stuff is basically for arctic conditions.
>
> 0w is for arctic tractors. 5w is for snowbelt.
>
> > Why do people insist on it? I cannot make much sense
>
> Why there are so many subarus in palo alto? It makes no sense,
> the inhabitants are no longer in new england: old habits die hard
> or they want to get out of california hell back to the east coast.
> who knows
A lot of Asians buy Subarus. It is a fairly well regarded
marque in Japan.
The thin/thicker oil debate is kind of over in the US
as the public was convinced that thinner oil means
better protection at start-up (this is not necessarily
true). Now it is basically a race for the thinnest most
watery fuel saving thing, ...oil, pardon me. Honda
will soon introduce cars that run on 0w-10.
If gas goes above 6$ who knows what else will come.
Supposedly, a guy in Miami was denied warranty by
Ford, because he was was using 15w-40 in his Lincoln.
In Miami, of all places. Weird, very weird.
Basia
bugalugs
Here in New Zealand the owners manual for my 02 GT Legacy (twin turbo)
recommends SG 10W-30,SH 10W-30, SJ 5W-30 The car was built in Japan and
the manual is a translation of the manual for a JDM.
I run Castrol Magnatec which is 10w 40.
--
If a Man is speaking in a forest, And there isn't a woman around to hear
him, is he still wrong?
cl...@snyder.on.ca
They've been around and common since the late sixties - and poor
quality ones have been a problem since day one. Many a lifter noise
problem and overhead oiling problem has been directly contributed to
by certain brands of filters that have been notorious for leaky
drainback valves. A lot of them were orange
cl...@snyder.on.ca
It IS true. When I was in Burkina a number of years back, NOTHING
recommended anything thinner than 10W40 - but then again it was HOT
over there. 15W40 and 20W50 were very common.
AD
wrote:
> watery fuel saving thing, ...oil, pardon me. Honda
> will soon introduce cars that run on 0w-10.
So you are disputing the competence of a fairly large
and well reputed automaker?
They could've licensed wenkel. Someone got to guzzle
gas in these overly prius times.
> If gas goes above 6$ who knows what else will come.
> Supposedly, a guy in Miami was denied warranty by
> Ford, because he was was using 15w-40 in his Lincoln.
>
40w is not thick enough?
He should have sued if the oil weight was the only
reason for the warranty denial. I bet he did.
Oh, and I know this does not apply to you specifically, since you run
synthetic
but here there is a lot of bitching from people who inherited
their cars from americans and found their engines fairly sludged
up, presumably because of the all american preference for dyno oil.
Or lack of preferences (anything-will-do) resulting in the oil change
chains
pouring the cheapest low grade stuff.
abj...@sbcglobal.net
> On May 17, 1:10 pm, "ba...@sbcglobal.net" <abjj...@sbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
>
> > watery fuel saving thing, ...oil, pardon me. Honda
> > will soon introduce cars that run on 0w-10.
>
> So you are disputing the competence of a fairly large
> and well reputed automaker?
Its not about competence it is about choice,
and being informed,.
Car and oil manufacturers have a preference for
fuel conservation these days. It comes at a cost!
Diagrams like these (I forget what they are called-spider?)
show specifics:
Since I drive a relatively underpowered car, 2.2L engine,
frequently in the mountains, and have to rev it,
my individual preference is for better engine durability
and wear protection. That is why I use a thicker
15w-50 oil that does not meet newest oil specs.
Has plenty of body and anti-wear agents ZDDP (zinc),
but is not the best fir fuel conservation.
> They could've licensed wenkel. Someone got to guzzle
> gas in these overly prius times.
I actually wanted to buy a Prius, but it is bad in the mountains.
> > If gas goes above 6$ who knows what else will come.
> > Supposedly, a guy in Miami was denied warranty by
> > Ford, because he was was using 15w-40 in his Lincoln.
>
> 40w is not thick enough?
> He should have sued if the oil weight was the only
> reason for the warranty denial. I bet he did.
>
> Oh, and I know this does not apply to you specifically, since you run
> synthetic
> but here there is a lot of bitching from people who inherited
> their cars from americans and found their engines fairly sludged
> up, presumably because of the all american preference for dyno oil.
> Or lack of preferences (anything-will-do) resulting in the oil change
> chains
> pouring the cheapest low grade stuff.
I think the American habit of using dino oil in low revving,
push-rod or large displacement engines is very sensible.
Sure there is a cost to it, some sludge in later engine life.
6 quarts of costly synthetic in some 3.8L V6 low rpm
push-rod is a waste of money. Had one of these- used
dino Castrol 20w-50, and Valvoline straight 40. This was
in hot Las Vegas. Engine didn;t use a drop of oil at 184k
miles when I got rid of it.
Basia
AD
wrote:
> On May 18, 5:11 am, AD <isq...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 17, 1:10 pm, "ba...@sbcglobal.net" <abjj...@sbcglobal.net>
> > wrote:
>
> > > watery fuel saving thing, ...oil, pardon me. Honda
> > > will soon introduce cars that run on 0w-10.
>
> > So you are disputing the competence of a fairly large
> > and well reputed automaker?
>
> Its not about competence it is about choice,
> and being informed,.
>
> Car and oil manufacturers have a preference for
> fuel conservation these days. It comes at a cost!
> Diagrams like these (I forget what they are called-spider?)
> show specifics:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/3zjakkc
>
> Since I drive a relatively underpowered car, 2.2L engine,
> frequently in the mountains, and have to rev it,
> my individual preference is for better engine durability
> and wear protection. That is why I use a thicker
> 15w-50 oil that does not meet newest oil specs.
> Has plenty of body and anti-wear agents ZDDP (zinc),
> but is not the best fir fuel conservation.
>
> > They could've licensed wenkel. Someone got to guzzle
> > gas in these overly prius times.
>
> I actually wanted to buy a Prius, but it is bad in the mountains.
>
Speaking from experience? I don't like that car
but I don't see why would it be bad on long steep overpasses of I-395
at two digit speeds. Automatic tranny could not shift down far enough?
> > > If gas goes above 6$ who knows what else will come.
> > > Supposedly, a guy in Miami was denied warranty by
> > > Ford, because he was was using 15w-40 in his Lincoln.
>
> > 40w is not thick enough?
> > He should have sued if the oil weight was the only
> > reason for the warranty denial. I bet he did.
>
> > Oh, and I know this does not apply to you specifically, since you run
> > synthetic
> > but here there is a lot of bitching from people who inherited
> > their cars from americans and found their engines fairly sludged
> > up, presumably because of the all american preference for dyno oil.
> > Or lack of preferences (anything-will-do) resulting in the oil change
> > chains
> > pouring the cheapest low grade stuff.
>
> I think the American habit of using dino oil in low revving,
> push-rod or large displacement engines is very sensible.
I was not talking about large displacement engines.
Most of the cars imported from the states are low displacement
since tariffs are 1.5 less per cc under 2.5Liters where I live.
I guess like you said it did not register with the majority of
the populace these ain't the small block days anymore.
> Sure there is a cost to it, some sludge in later engine life.
> 6 quarts of costly synthetic in some 3.8L V6 low rpm
> push-rod is a waste of money. Had one of these- used
> dino Castrol 20w-50, and Valvoline straight 40. This was
> in hot Las Vegas. Engine didn;t use a drop of oil at 184k
> miles when I got rid of it.
>
> Basia
straight 40 as in 40 viscosity no mattter what the temps ?
As in 40w-40? :-----------------------O
Yeah, cheap castrol 20w-50 is what I used in all of my cars and bikes
while i lived in Norcal. If I were unfortunate enough
to subject myself to that again I'd probably use 10w-40.
5w-40 for winter months if skiing was on the menu,.
Surprisingly, the only cars that did not eat oil on me was 93
taurus (V-6, auto_ and the beater I drive now. All the japs (2 subs
and mazda)
ate some oil.
Considering that amsoil seems to make even less sense
for most people who I assume are in the same boat with
the machinery that eats up a quart or two in 2000 miles.
my yamaha Gts1000A was gulping something like a quart to
the tune of 300 miles or so. Not that I mind.
It seems that high revs go hand in hand with oil guzzling.
Cameo
news:9f74dd19-ec09-4da2...@z7g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> I think the American habit of using dino oil in low revving,
> push-rod or large displacement engines is very sensible.
> Sure there is a cost to it, some sludge in later engine life.
> 6 quarts of costly synthetic in some 3.8L V6 low rpm
> push-rod is a waste of money. Had one of these- used
> dino Castrol 20w-50, and Valvoline straight 40. This was
> in hot Las Vegas. Engine didn;t use a drop of oil at 184k
> miles when I got rid of it.
Basia, I hope you don't take this wrong, but it's so rare to see a woman
in these tech news groups, especially one who knows as much as you do.
Are you an engineer or something? Just wondering, not because I think
women are not capable of such things. They just don't seem to have other
interests.
abj...@sbcglobal.net
> Basia, I hope you don't take this wrong, but it's so rare to see a woman
> in these tech news groups, especially one who knows as much as you do.
> Are you an engineer or something? Just wondering, not because I think
> women are not capable of such things. They just don't seem to have other
> interests.
Thanks Cameo, ...you flatter me, I invite you to visit
my youtube page:
http://www.youtube.com/user/usereddie215?feature=mhee#p/a
:))))
Basia
Cameo
> Thanks Cameo, ...you flatter me, I invite you to visit
> my youtube page:
> http://www.youtube.com/user/usereddie215?feature=mhee#p/a
I sure could use a dash cam like that. But those SF streets seem to be
almost deserted. That's not how I remember them.
abj...@sbcglobal.net
> "ba...@sbcglobal.net" <abjj...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
The camera was actually roof mounted,
in a box placed on thick rubber foam to
dampen vibrations and bumps. The whole
setup was attached to the roof with plenty
of duct tape. The streets are empty cause
it was a Sunday morning.
I remember not being able to keep up with
a pictured Corvettes acceleration. These
things are fast compared to a 2.2 L Subie.
Basia
abj...@sbcglobal.net
> On May 18, 11:50 pm, "ba...@sbcglobal.net" <abjj...@sbcglobal.net>
> > I actually wanted to buy a Prius, but it is bad in the mountains.
>
> Speaking from experience? I don't like that car
> but I don't see why would it be bad on long steep overpasses of I-395
> at two digit speeds. Automatic tranny could not shift down far enough?
Test driven only. It doesn't handle corners
at higher speeds nearly as well as a my Subaru.
AWD, and a boxer's low center of gravity make
a difference. The heavy Prius battery sits fairly
low, but still, it is not a very good car for handling.
> >(...)
> > Sure there is a cost to it, some sludge in later engine life.
> > 6 quarts of costly synthetic in some 3.8L V6 low rpm
> > push-rod is a waste of money. Had one of these- used
> > dino Castrol 20w-50, and Valvoline straight 40. This was
> > in hot Las Vegas. Engine didn;t use a drop of oil at 184k
> > miles when I got rid of it.
>
> > Basia
>
> straight 40 as in 40 viscosity no mattter what the temps ?
> As in 40w-40? :-----------------------O
During summer only.
Las Vegas can be beastly hot. 100+ temps, from
early June till middle of September, all day long.
There is a difference between 20w-50 and straight
40 in such heat. The 40 seems to stick or cling to
metal much better. I would probably not use such
thick oil in a overhead valve engine, but pushrods
can handle thicker oil very well.
> Yeah, cheap castrol 20w-50 is what I used in all of my cars and bikes
> while i lived in Norcal. If I were unfortunate enough
> to subject myself to that again I'd probably use 10w-40.
> 5w-40 for winter months if skiing was on the menu,.
> Surprisingly, the only cars that did not eat oil on me was 93
> taurus (V-6, auto_ and the beater I drive now. All the japs (2 subs
> and mazda) ate some oil.
Similarly here. GM's V6, both 3.8 and 2.8L, had almost
no oil consumption.
> Considering that amsoil seems to make even less sense
> for most people who I assume are in the same boat with
> the machinery that eats up a quart or two in 2000 miles.
> my yamaha Gts1000A was gulping something like a quart to
> the tune of 300 miles or so. Not that I mind.
>
> It seems that high revs go hand in hand with oil guzzling.
Higher revs can make up for smaller size/displacement,
but at a cost. Nothing is perfect.
Basia
Cameo
> The camera was actually roof mounted,
> in a box placed on thick rubber foam to
> dampen vibrations and bumps. The whole
> setup was attached to the roof with plenty
> of duct tape.
Your car must have looked like a Google mapping car then. ;-)
> The streets are empty cause
> it was a Sunday morning.
Should have thought of that.
> I remember not being able to keep up with
> a pictured Corvettes acceleration. These
> things are fast compared to a 2.2 L Subie.
I wonder what the Corvette driver must have though of you chasing
him/her. Could have been an interesting situation.
abj...@sbcglobal.net
> "ba...@sbcglobal.net" <abjj...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
:)))))
The atmosphere is festive in SF and particularly Castro,
during Pride week, ...mine wasn't the only car/Subie chasing
them :))). It was a pair, Jane and Terry, celebrating
their 26-th year together, and a poster couple for the
gay community. The didn't mind.
Basia
AD
wrote:
> On May 19, 7:08 am, AD <isq...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 18, 11:50 pm, "ba...@sbcglobal.net" <abjj...@sbcglobal.net>
> > > I actually wanted to buy a Prius, but it is bad in the mountains.
>
> > Speaking from experience? I don't like that car
> > but I don't see why would it be bad on long steep overpasses of I-395
> > at two digit speeds. Automatic tranny could not shift down far enough?
>
> Test driven only. It doesn't handle corners
> at higher speeds nearly as well as a my Subaru.
> AWD, and a boxer's low center of gravity make
> a difference. The heavy Prius battery sits fairly
> low, but still, it is not a very good car for handling.
>
that alone pushes it off my current and future shopping lists.
I was curious though about your claim that it does not have
enough power in the mountains. When I was perusing I-395
there were no priuses in existence hence i never saw one in action
on long steep upgrades.
> Similarly here. GM's V6, both 3.8 and 2.8L, had almost
> no oil consumption.
>
Well, V6-8 coupled with an automatic are hardly even trying to make
use
of the power they are capable of providing. no surprise here.
> > Considering that amsoil seems to make even less sense
> > for most people who I assume are in the same boat with
> > the machinery that eats up a quart or two in 2000 miles.
> > my yamaha Gts1000A was gulping something like a quart to
> > the tune of 300 miles or so. Not that I mind.
>
> > It seems that high revs go hand in hand with oil guzzling.
>
> Higher revs can make up for smaller size/displacement,
> but at a cost. Nothing is perfect.
>
ok, I want to clarify that I do not consider oil consumption
to be a flaw.In my view it's merely a feature
of relatively high revving 4 pot engines.
cl...@snyder.on.ca
True - to a point.My Corolla and Tercel in the '80s never used more
than a quart in 3000miles with over 200,000 miles on them.
My 2.6 MitsuShitty in the 1985 LeBaron , after the rebuild that was
absolutely required when I bought it, never went down 1/4" on the
dipstick between changes in the 4 or 5 years we drove it.
My PT Cruiser, at 150,000ish KM doesn't go down noticeably between
changes, even though it does "mark it's territory" on the driveway.
My daughter's old Colt 200 never used oil with over 200,000km on the
clock, while her '95 Neon ALWAYS used at least a quart between changes
- up to about a quart (or a liter) every 1500Km by the time she got
rid of it at just under 200,000Km.