| 2011 motor oil changes [message #88451] |
Sun, 13 June 2010 19:06  |
bryant374
Messages: 563
Registered: May 2004
Location: Pleasant Valley, NY 12569
Karma: 1
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Apparently motor oil standards are about to change again for 2011. Looks like it is going to be an ongoing battle to prevent our old flat tappet engines from being destroyed.
See this link for interesting information:
http://www.joegibbsdriven.com/trainingcenter/tech/motoroilchange.html
Bill Bryant
PO 1976~PB (owned 34 years)
1914 Ford (owned 70 years)
1965 Corvette (owned 39 years)
GMC Motorhome History
|
|
|
|
| Re: 2011 motor oil changes [message #88480 is a reply to message #88451] |
Sun, 13 June 2010 21:59  |
JohnL455
Messages: 4447
Registered: October 2006
Location: Woodstock, IL
Karma: 12
|
Senior Member |
|
|
The news just keep getting better doesn't it. I wonder how even recent cars that are designed for SM will do on SN.
John Lebetski
Woodstock, IL
77 Eleganza II
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] 2011 motor oil changes [message #88485 is a reply to message #88480] |
Sun, 13 June 2010 22:11 |
Ken Henderson
Messages: 8726
Registered: March 2004
Location: Americus, GA
Karma: 9
|
Senior Member |
|
|
We have to remember that the objective is to get tighter and tighter
CONTROL, regardless of the cost. Making even last year's engines
obsolete is not too high a cost under that philosophy.
Ken H.
On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 10:59 PM, John R. Lebetski <gransport@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
> The news just keep getting better doesn't it. I wonder how even recent cars that are designed for SM will do on SN.
> --
> John Lebetski
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
List Information and Subscription Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
Ken Henderson
Americus, GA
www.gmcwipersetc.com
Large Wiring Diagrams
76 X-Birchaven
76 X-Palm Beach
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] 2011 motor oil changes [message #88491 is a reply to message #88485] |
Mon, 14 June 2010 01:56 |
Ken Burton
Messages: 10030
Registered: January 2004
Location: Hebron, Indiana
Karma: 10
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Time to stock up is now. Go by a 55 gallon barrel of your favorite oil now. Sams sells Rotella in 55 gallon barrels.
Ken Burton - N9KB
76 Palm Beach
Hebron, Indiana
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] 2011 motor oil changes [message #88493 is a reply to message #88485] |
Mon, 14 June 2010 02:31 |
|
|
Who exactly is making these standards change? Sounds like some political douchebaggery by some government hacks bought offf by someone...
| Ken Henderson wrote on Sun, 13 June 2010 22:11 |
We have to remember that the objective is to get htighter and tighter
CONTROL, regardless of the cost. Making even last year's engines
obsolete is not too high a cost under that philosophy.
Ken H.
On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 10:59 PM, John R. Lebetski <gransport@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
> The news just keep getting better doesn't it. I wonder how even recent cars that are designed for SM will do on SN.
> --
> John Lebetski
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
List Information and Subscription Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
|
73 Canyon Lands, (a.k.a. The Yellow Submarine) West Los Angeles CA
|
|
|
|
| Re: 2011 motor oil changes [message #88502 is a reply to message #88451] |
Mon, 14 June 2010 08:01 |
fred v
Messages: 999
Registered: April 2006
Location: pensacola, fl.
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
i don't believe there is a gov't. conspiracy here to get old engines off the road. they probably just don't care if this is a result. oil is still available and additives will always be available.
Fred V
'77 Royale RB 455
P'cola, Fl
|
|
|
|
| Re: 2011 motor oil changes [message #88512 is a reply to message #88502] |
Mon, 14 June 2010 09:42 |
 |
Matt Colie
Messages: 8547
Registered: March 2007
Location: S.E. Michigan
Karma: 7
|
Senior Member |
|
|
| fred v wrote on Mon, 14 June 2010 09:01 |
i don't believe there is a gov't. conspiracy here to get old engines off the road. they probably just don't care if this is a result. oil is still available and additives will always be available.
|
Sorry Fred,
But there actually is just a plan (it can't be called a conspiracy unless to objective is hidden). It has been in place for about three decades.
About that time a report was published that came as a complete surprise to the legislators. At that time, 90% of the vehicles in use were over 9 years old and had accumulated more than 100k miles. Wealthy people (like legislators) lease and don't understand the economics of running a paid-for car. Some auto execs have been surprised this way as well, but few of them still have jobs.
It started with the elimination of lead additives and reduction of true motor-octane in road fuels (I had to abandon a loved car for that one). Leaded motor fuels were mandated out of existence long before the demand would have made economic sense to do so. Man - Even my '65 Jeep (230 OHC-6) said in the manual it needed 92 motor octane "Regular" fuel for proper operation - That's a JEEP PICKUP for crying out loud. At least it would run on what became premium fuel.
Then the mandatory introduction of OBD I & II systems with the required"run worse on fault mode" (this did not have the success it was expected to have because the old mechanics were still working).
Emissions certifications and government sponsored buy-back programs (cash for clunkers was not the first) were supposed to have made a much bigger dent in the old car population. But, the emissions testing is big where the old cars live. The first two buy-back programs were simply not cost effective for the driver of a paid-for car.
Then there was an effort to make it difficult to register a vehicle that did not have front airbags and anti-lock brakes, but the best they could do was to try to pressure insurance companies to raise rates on the un-equipped vehicles. That met with bad response because so many states do not have insurance requirements or those they have are not effectively enforced.
The recent push has been to eliminate things that can possibly foul the O2 sensor and exhaust catalysts. (Like ZDDP and some others in fuel and lube oil). The original emissions requirement was that the system would be effective for 50k miles. Then it was moved to 100k, and they are looking for more, but the technology is just not there yet - that won't stop the requirement.
Just stand back and watch. Wait until the folks that bought into the hybrid myth find out what a battery replacement costs. Most of those are on leases and not owned by the driver. Keep it until the lease expires and give it back. Don't look back as you leave. A Prius with a bad battery is just horrible on fuel.
Matt
Matt & Mary Colie - Chaumière -'73 Glacier 23 - Members GMCMI, GMCGL, GMCES
Electronically Controlled Quiet Engine Cooling Fan with OE Rear Drum Brakes with Applied Control Arms
SE Michigan - Near DTW - Twixt A2 and Detroit
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] Octane number [message #88543 is a reply to message #88528] |
Mon, 14 June 2010 13:12 |
|
Matt Colie
Messages: 8547
Registered: March 2007
Location: S.E. Michigan
Karma: 7
|
Senior Member |
|
|
| emerystora wrote on Mon, 14 June 2010 12:23 |
One thing that is often overlooked in discussions of Octane numbers is that the method of calculating Octane numbers that are posted on gasoline pumps has changed
When our GMCs were made the method posted was the Research octane method.
There is another method of calculating Octane. That is the Motor
Octane method. That is about 10 points less that the Research Octane method.
The number posted on gas pumps today is the average of the Research and the Motor methods. If you look closely at pumps they will often say. "(ROM + MOT) / 2"
So, what used to be called 92 Octane is now called 87 Octane.
So, your old '65 Jeep would run just fine on today's 87 Octane as will our GMC 455 or 403 engines. Ignore what is called for in the old Operating Manuals. Just subtract about 5 from what it says and you will be fine.
Emery Stora
|
Emery,
I so seldom have anything to say or add to what you write that I just have to here.
The Jeeps manual specified 92 motor octane. It was correct. When tried to run it on 87R+M/2, it was real disagreeable about the idea. I backed of the timing 1* at a time until it got driveable, but then the exhaust temp was high enough to be scary. I gave the vehicle back to a younger member of the original owner's family only a few years ago. It had been run on premium for the intervening 15 years.
Premium and stock timing worked fine with most gas. Even that was marginal enough that I twice took samples of fuel sold as premium to back to our lab and ran on the company CFRs (special engine for measuring octane) - we had one each calibrated for research and motor. The next call was to the Michigan Department of Agriculture (the government agency that had interest in such things). They often asked that I fax them the documentation and sometimes reimbursed the company for the testing. (They had to own it to use it as evidence.)
My coach's 455 - it has had work done, but I do not have the specifics. It does have a stock carb (AFAIK), standard ignition converted to electronic with CD, standard gap (0.038) runs just fine on current pump regular.
Matt
Matt & Mary Colie - Chaumière -'73 Glacier 23 - Members GMCMI, GMCGL, GMCES
Electronically Controlled Quiet Engine Cooling Fan with OE Rear Drum Brakes with Applied Control Arms
SE Michigan - Near DTW - Twixt A2 and Detroit
|
|
|
|
GMCforum
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
