My 2001 Civic LX manual transmission has almost 60k miles. I think the
original engine oil was special because the dealership refused to
change it until I had about 7500 miles. Then I changed the oil every
5000-6000 miles, I figured my driving is between normal (10k) and
severe (5k).

Anyway, I read here about synthetic, and while I am going to search and
find more information about synthetic oil (benefits, cost, oil change
frequency, drawbacks), I though to ask you guys if it is too late for
this engine to switch to synthetic.

if synthetic was all that great, why does not Honda use synthetic right
from the beginning? just curious.

thanks

 

chibitul wrote:
> My 2001 Civic LX manual transmission has almost 60k miles. I think the
> original engine oil was special because the dealership refused to
> change it until I had about 7500 miles. Then I changed the oil every
> 5000-6000 miles, I figured my driving is between normal (10k) and
> severe (5k).
>
> Anyway, I read here about synthetic, and while I am going to search and
> find more information about synthetic oil (benefits, cost, oil change
> frequency, drawbacks), I though to ask you guys if it is too late for
> this engine to switch to synthetic.
>
> if synthetic was all that great, why does not Honda use synthetic right
> from the beginning? just curious.
>
> thanks
>
because it's really not necessary! go to a junk yard and look at all
the hondas with 300k or more on the clock. those motors are usually not
in bad shape, and they've been running ordinary cheapo oil.

[genuine] synthetics /can/ be superior, but if the oil's base stock is
of sufficient quality and the additive package is as good or even better
than a synthetic, why do it? marketing can be a good thing because no
one would ever use a new product if they didn't hear about it, but a
successful marketing machine does not necessarily mean superior product.
the word "microsoft" springs to mind.

i've just looked at tegger's post with the "no sludge" article. i've
seen motors like that without using synthetics. quality definitely
matters, and all oils are not created equal, but anti-sludge is a
function of additives, not base.

 

"jim beam" <nospam@example.net> wrote
> [genuine] synthetics /can/ be superior, but if the oil's base stock is
> of sufficient quality and the additive package is as good or even better
> than a synthetic, why do it?

Because of the convenience of having to do fewer (synthetic) oil changes.

To the original poster: New car oil is IIRC break-in oil, so it's not the
same as what you or the dealer would put in (be it synthetic or not)
subsequently anyway.

From my recollection of reading here and elsewhere, it's not at all too late
to switch to synthetic for your 2001 Civic, 60k miles.

Keep checking back.

 

chibitul wrote:
> My 2001 Civic LX manual transmission has almost 60k miles. I think the
> original engine oil was special because the dealership refused to
> change it until I had about 7500 miles. Then I changed the oil every
> 5000-6000 miles, I figured my driving is between normal (10k) and
> severe (5k).
>
> Anyway, I read here about synthetic, and while I am going to search and
> find more information about synthetic oil (benefits, cost, oil change
> frequency, drawbacks), I though to ask you guys if it is too late for
> this engine to switch to synthetic.
>
> if synthetic was all that great, why does not Honda use synthetic right
> from the beginning? just curious.
>
> thanks
>
-------------------

At least one of your questions is answered here . .

http://www.mototuneusa.com/break_in_secrets.htm

I'm not sure if I agree with everything said, but it's starting to make
sense to me. . .

'Curly'

 

In article <42DA874A.20008@interbaun.com>,
"motsco_ _" <"motsco_ _"@interbaun.com> wrote:

> At least one of your questions is answered here . .
>
> http://www.mototuneusa.com/break_in_secrets.htm
>
> I'm not sure if I agree with everything said, but it's starting to make
> sense to me. . .

I like the guy's short answer: "The Short Answer: Run it Hard !"

According to the Corvette engineers, he's 100% correct.

 

motsco_ _ wrote:
> chibitul wrote:
>
>> My 2001 Civic LX manual transmission has almost 60k miles. I think the
>> original engine oil was special because the dealership refused to
>> change it until I had about 7500 miles. Then I changed the oil every
>> 5000-6000 miles, I figured my driving is between normal (10k) and
>> severe (5k).
>>
>> Anyway, I read here about synthetic, and while I am going to search and
>> find more information about synthetic oil (benefits, cost, oil change
>> frequency, drawbacks), I though to ask you guys if it is too late for
>> this engine to switch to synthetic.
>>
>> if synthetic was all that great, why does not Honda use synthetic right
>> from the beginning? just curious.
>>
>> thanks
>>
> -------------------
>
> At least one of your questions is answered here . .
>
> http://www.mototuneusa.com/break_in_secrets.htm
>
> I'm not sure if I agree with everything said, but it's starting to make
> sense to me. . .
>
> 'Curly'
>
that article is amazing. i've seen engines run hard from new, and they
can turn to crap in a few thousand miles, blue smoke, no compression...
i just love it when some kid comes up with a "solution" to a problem
that's occupied the best & brightest for over a hundred years, and had
millions of dollars dumped into research. just amazing.

there was a great one in the news recently about some kid that had a
"solution" for creating hydrogen for the upcoming "hydrogen economy" -
he was out there touting for funding, you know the routine. his
"solution"? sodium! water is the most abundant source of hydrogen, so
if you can liberate hydrogen from water, you have a plentiful supply of
hydrogen, right? now, as any junior chemist knows, sodium liberates
hydrogen when reacted with water, so, that was the premise of this kid's
"solution". trouble is, obtaining the sodium is way more energy
intensive than something like direct electroytic reduction of water, so
apart from the fact that you have, er, an "environmental situation" with
all the sodium hydroxide you've created, you're wasting energy on an
entirely superfluous fabrication route.

it's just hilarious that people come up with this stuff without the
slightest shame. but hey, the beauty of the internet is no barriers to
entry. and the beastliness of the internet is, you guessed it, no
barriers to entry.

 

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article <42DA874A.20008@interbaun.com>,
> "motsco_ _" <"motsco_ _"@interbaun.com> wrote:
>
>
>>At least one of your questions is answered here . .
>>
>>http://www.mototuneusa.com/break_in_secrets.htm
>>
>>I'm not sure if I agree with everything said, but it's starting to make
>>sense to me. . .
>
>
> I like the guy's short answer: "The Short Answer: Run it Hard !"
>
> According to the Corvette engineers, he's 100% correct.
>
maybe that's why g.m. are in such trouble?

the break-in achieves two things:

1. the cylinder walls have to glaze.

2. the journal bearings have to seat properly.

running hard from new prevents both. if no glaze forms, oil consumption
remains high as sealing is less complete and the wear rate remains high
because the glaze is harder than the metal substrate [irrelevant for
racing engines, but not for consumer road vehicles]. if journal
bearings are run hard before they've seated themselves, you can have
patches where there is little or no hydrodynamic film and metal on
metal. as the journals are such soft metal, they can quickly get ripped
and suddenly, you have a rebuild & regrind on your hands.

there /is/ validity in not running /too/ slow as that can create
excessive carbon buildup, and the journals seat fairly quickly with the
high-precison build we generaly have today, but confusing the potential
for a quicker break-in with the ability to run hard from new is somewhat
misplaced.

 

chibitul wrote:
> if synthetic was all that great, why does not Honda use synthetic right
> from the beginning? just curious.

cost. and its not necessary. i use it myself, but only because i dont
drive a lot and like to do the 7500mile interval... which ends up being
every 2 years.

 

In article <ip6dna96fNapjkbfRVn-3A@comcast.com>,
SoCalMike <mikein562athotmail@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > if synthetic was all that great, why does not Honda use synthetic right
> > from the beginning? just curious.
>
> cost. and its not necessary. i use it myself, but only because i dont
> drive a lot and like to do the 7500mile interval... which ends up being
> every 2 years.

In the meantime, your synthetic oil is full of water due to short trips
and never getting up to temperature for any time--which means you should
have shorter change intervals.

 

>
> At least one of your questions is answered here . .
>
> http://www.mototuneusa.com/break_in_secrets.htm
>
> I'm not sure if I agree with everything said, but it's starting to make
> sense to me. . .
>

Perhaps it might work for a sport bike, but I wouldn't try the same break-in
technique on my brand new car. I've broken in 5 new engines and put over
100,000km on each of them (or more) and in every case, the engines were the
best part of the cars, when it was time to retire them. So, i'm keeping with
the same technique which has worked for me.

Under 1000km or so.
1. Avoid long drives, short city trips is preferable with frequent cool
downs.
2. Keep the accelerator and RPM under 70% and try to babe the engine.

After 1000km.
1. Time to investigate the higher rpms... in increments...
2. Don't hesitate to redline the car (especially if it's a high revving
engine) but try to avoid full throttle redline and don't let it linger
there.

After 2000km or so
1. Anything goes.
2. Try to get about 10 minutes or regular driving before going hard on the
engine
3. If your driving habit is very aggressive (like mine) and getting the
maximum of performance out of the engine is a priority (assuming you plan
on having the engine for more then 5 years), then use the good oil.

Pars