I started using homemade waxoil a few years back, and I gave up trying to spray it. I had to stop every 5 minutes and unclog the sprayer and it got old quick. Now I just buy a few cheap paint brushes of various sizes, and throw them out when I'm done. I put down a cheap plastic drop cloth, put on some old disposable clothes, and have at it. I fill a wide plastic container with hot water, and put my waxoil container in it and let it float as I "paint" the waxoil onto the bottom of the car.
Makes a horrific mess of my clothes and the drop cloth, when I'm done I just bundle them all up and into the trash they go.
I have started to make my waxoil probably a lot thicker than some would, very heavy on the wax part, just an ounce or two of oil, and just enough mineral spirits to keep it as a somewhat fluid slurry. When I heat it up in the hot water, it gets fairly thin, but still a bit too heavy to spray. When it cools to room temperature, it ends up looking like thin, oily peanut butter. It goes on pretty well with the paint brushes, but spraying it is pretty much not going to work.
If only Alanis Morrissett could include a verse about this.
October is a strange month for tyre pressures here.
One year we are snowed in and can't get to work. Next year (literally same day) town is fire risk, and major roads closed. Next year (literally...same day) I was acting site manager and had to call a snow day.
Millions of cars make it to the junkyard without it after leading long lives with the corrosion protection that comes from the factory. Don't you think if that wasn't the case, they would do something about it ?
... Contrary to popular belief, you can't filter out the wear metals with a bypass filter, they will continue to increase over time. The only reason that the wear metals have started to decrease on this engine is due to the 2000-2500 miles bypass filter changes.
I am going to disagree here. A typical cellulose or syn media filter has no ability (none whatsoever) to discern what it captures or passes in terms of wear metals. I catches stuff based on size, not composition. If we assume that your assertion is fair ( let's say the media is absolute at 2um; anything that size and larger is caught by this filter set-up), then ANY PARTICLE presented to the media will be caught if large enough (2um+). Because wear particles come in all sizes, there is not only a presumption, but nearly an assurance, that while the filter does reduce damaging abrasive particle load, it also removes the evidence of wear wear as well. Since a UOA using typical spectral analysis can see stuff from sub-micron up to around 5um in size, then the BP element you're using most certainly is removing evidence of wear that would exist between 2-5um in size. In short, PCs can see size but not composition, whereas UOAs can see composition but not size. It is completely unfair to attribute the ability of one to another, and therefore we cannot reasonably make assertions such as what you did; that the BP element somehow is not reducing the PC of wear metals in the range of 2-5um.
As a quick, off the cuff, example, the data would be affected thusly: - anything smaller than 2um will be seen by the UOA (wear metals, silica, etc), but not stopped by the BP element - between 2um and 5um, stuff still can be seen by the UOA, but the percentage present is altered by the capture ratio of the BP element - anything larger than 5um cannot be seen by the UOA, but still will be stopped by the media
You cannot accurately state that "Contrary to popular belief, you can't filter out the wear metals with a bypass filter ..." That is absurd. Your statement that "they will continue to increase over time" is correct, but that is because the particles below 2um are still accumulating in the sump and therefore the count goes up in the UOA. Some of the wear evidence is lost to the BP filter. In fact, even a typical FF filter will remove metal particles, but because that typical FF filter is absolute around 20um or so, there's no way a UOA would know any difference.
Just thinking. Vehicles spec'd for Xw30 are a result of bearing tolerances, no? Newer vehicles can use Xw20 due to tighter internal tolerances ...
Same "Newer vehicles" with same design, clearance ... and tolerance (limits of variation) in different countries (with similar temp range) have different oil spec. Typically lower viscosity in U.S. ... and I always wondered why until I read about CAFE on bitog.
Whatever the reason (cafe or not), the different spec never made sense to me! So without researching too much or trying to get a PhD on this subject, till further notice, the cafe thing makes a logical sense! At least for me.
Also, significant evidence exists that the TBC may well control wear far more than vis. The wear trends directly correlated to the TCB layer thickness.
Daresay they would, but outside of a rather well funded research programme, one has no knowledge of one's TCB layer thickness.
Originally Posted by dnewton3
Don't change oil based on inputs. Let the wear data talk, and listen to what it has to say. Don't buy a lube for what it has in the bottle; buy it based on how well your engine does with it.
I can read the bottle for free
I can't get a UOA for free, and in any case its questionable( and has been questioned on here in the past) whether the "wear data" provided by a standard UOA elemental analysis accurately represents wear.
As for the TCB, there are manners in which it can indeed be measured. I believe there are 7 or 8 SAE studies on this very topic of TCB. The study I quoted (2007-01-4133) refers to several previous ones and builds on the info therein.
As for the bottle vs. UOA comment, I think you're a bit lost. You cannot understand TBN or Vis of USED oil from a bottle label. One must UOA to get that kind of info. However, my point is that those are INPUTS to an equation, whereas wear metals are a result. My comments previously are sound; there's no evidence that directly links TBN/TAN and/or Vis to wear data; there is no correlation. And without correlation, there can be no causation; that is an immutable fact. We can see countless hundreds of UOAs that show TBN low, or TBN crossed over by TAN, and yet the wear data goes completely unaffected. I do acknowledge that if the OCI were run long enough, then the escalation of these attributes would at some point, take control and be a problem. But that is the ENTIRE POINT OF DOING UOAs. UOAs are a tool to manage the OCI via the relationship between inputs and outputs. You track the inputs and manage the outputs. Just because TBN drops to some arbitrary level, if there is no shift in wear data, there is no cause for an OCI. The shift in the input (drop of TBN or increase in vis) is only catalyst that should cause one to pay closer attention to wear, in that a change MIGHT be coming in the future. But the input change is NOT, in and of itself, a reason to OCI.
The topic of UOAs and wear metals has been covered ad nausea-um. UOAs are not perfect, but neither are other means of measuring wear such as tear downs, component weight measurement, etc; all have pros and cons. UOAs, however, are by far the quickest, cheapest method over the alternatives, and UOAs have been shown to have wear data correlation to PCs as well as TBC formation and wear layers. No matter how much you would object, UOAs are reasonably accurate, cheap, quick and (most of the time) very trustworthy. UOAs are a good way to known how well things are wearing in otherwise healthy equipment. UOAs can also at times be used to determine the onset of major catastrophes, but are not an assurance that they can catch all preeminent doom.
Sunflower oil alone would creep into thin gap but it might not stay there, and in this location it'll get behind the headlining and grow mould.
As I said.
By popular request?
Hatchback floor had some fairly bad rust under the paint. The hatch leaks, and there were rat droppings in this area so maybe rat urine was also a factor. (I washed the whole floor down with just-boiled water with some diesel in it, giving myself a bit of diesel dermatitis when I wiped it up. Should have worn gloves.)
Power-abrading "dry" works quite well on things like rusted brake drums, but on painted components you seem to end up polishing the bare metal, which reduces the amount of aluminium deposited, as here.
If you abrade the oiled rust, it, and the loosened paint, forms part of a thicker coating, though it doesn't look as good.
I can re-treat it, but that detracts a little from the one-shot simplicity of the method.
I got that one weekend when I as stuck with a common rail pressure code and limp on wife's Captiva (plug and play tuning box upset it badly, and she needed to get to work next day)…$250 on a Sunday arv...this IS Australia...nothing's cheap.
I have a Blazer and a Grand Cherokee. No complaints about either and they are both very reliable.
The Blazer with the base push button transfer case will be vacuum actuated. Mine had a bad switch and was allowing ATF from the t case to get sucked into the intake as well as the HVAC dash actuators. The 4x4 actuator under the hood was full of ATF too. The only symptom was that I was only getting air out of my defrost and feet. 4WD worked fine. The Blazer will most likely need intake manifold gaskets, cooling system repair/ flush, and ball joints. I just went ahead and bought the loaded A arms that came with ball joints and bushings. Once these bugs are repaired, you are good to go IMO. Bought it with 124k on it.
My Jeep has been pretty trouble free aside from normal wear and tear items. It has a 2" lift and slightly oversize Goodyear DuraTrac tires. The crank position sensor went out around 135k, radiator 190k, AC condenser 192k. I had to take the front end apart for the condenser so I went ahead and did the water pump, timing chain (had well over 1/2" of play), and timing chain cover gasket. I used all Mopar or US made parts. I think right now it has a cracked flex plate that needs addressed. I've had it since 96k and love it.