Might sound dumb but im a girly girl lol
But... is it just the same as premium petrol and standard?What would happen if I used part synthetic instead of fully synethtic oil?
If its recommended you use flly symthetic you shold. It can withstand higher tempretures than part synthetic and will prevent ware on the engine betterWhat would happen if I used part synthetic instead of fully synethtic oil?
You need to check the owners manual for your car. It will say which type of oil you can use. Fully synthetic is usually better though...
Its not an easy question to answer. I worked in a plant making lubricants for an oil company and there are hundreds of different oil formulations. We used 280 different additives and produced Oils of varying degrees of ';sythetic-ness';.
There are two major factors in designing an engine oil, and believe me they are ';designed';.
The first is reducing wear to the engine of course.
The second is maximising engine performance.
Normal mineral oil is a product of crude oil distillation, it comes in different viscosites or thicknesses if you will.
Thick oil naturally protects wear between surfaces but creates more drag between them.
Thin oil is poor at preventing wear but good for engine perfomance.
As oil heats up it gets thinner and thinner, this is a pain to designers because they want the engine to be protected all the time, not just when its cold.
So they add chemicals to the oil to make its viscocity change less with engine temperature. These chemicals are artificially made or sythetic in nature, and they put a great deal of them into better quality oils.
So a semi-sythetic oil will have maybe 30% of one of these chemcials added to it. They are expensive. Fully sythetic oil is where they remove the mineral oil completely from the blend, so its pricey.
Should you use it??????
Well that largely depends on the age of the engine, its a bit of a waste putting very expensive oil in an old engine, you are better off putting a semi-sythetic oil in and making sure you change it + the oil filter regularly.
Fully synthetic is better, but if you don't have a very high performance car then semi synthetic will serve you just as well, you will never know the difference.
You get more mileage in between oil changes with fully synthetic oil. I change oil every 10000 km if I use FS oil. 5000 kilometers on other oils.
Thursday, January 7, 2010
What leads people to think that the war in Iraq is about oil?
Is such a point of view indicative of a very narrow and overly simplified mindset? What facts support this view? Feel free to elaborate.What leads people to think that the war in Iraq is about oil?
while it is extremely narrow and over-simplified...there is a huge amount of war profiteering going on in Iraq as a result of the US invasion. when you take a look at who is profiting, its obviously a piece of the puzzle...or at the very least, highly suspicious.
--edit--
tbird, the 9/11 terrorists did not come from Iraq. Its people like you who make us ';forget'; 9/11 because we know it had nothing to do with the invasion of Iraq. Get a clue.What leads people to think that the war in Iraq is about oil?
First I'm going to tell you to study your history of the region begining with the Eisenhower Administration's overthrow of the Iranian government.
And Second, I'm going to tell you to forget most of what you've heard and read in the news media -- rarely ever do any of them tell you the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Having said that, shall we begin?
Just from the 1980's forward:
Reagan backed Saddam Hussein because he was at war with Iran. We sold the Iraq's all kinds of weapons and technology (WMD). When the oil tankers passing through the region became targets, Reagan reflagged them and provided naval escort. This was to ensure and insure the world's economy based on oil.
Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait for their oil and their sea port. The U.N. turned a blind eye and did nothing. Bush (senior) gathered a coalition of military forces and pushed Saddam back across the border (Desert Shield/Storm). The U.N. was then asked to broker a cease fire agreement -- this should have been a wise move politically so that no one could accuse the U.S. of being motivated to ';steal'; the Iraqi oil. Having stopped at the border instead of chasing them back to Bagdad also was to define the U.S. as a liberator and not a conqueror.
Throughout the Clinton years, nothing was really done to uphold the cease fire agreement. Saddam thumbed his nose at the U.N. and the west and the U.N. accepted Saddam's bribe money in the ';Food For Oil Program.'; In all, 17 sanctions of the C.F. agreement were violated and after months of failed diplomacy, the U.S. again amassed a coalition of forces to do the U.N.'s dirty work -- Operaton Iraq Freedom.
No sooner had the majority of hostilities ended and a new government about to be elected by the people and brought into power, a wave of violence swept the nation. Car bombings, shootings, death squads, etc., all backed by Iran and Syria in an attempt first to scare the people into not voting and later to simply destabilize the newly formed government and demoralize the American people. Motive?
According to World Economy Today magazine, Iran's oil industry is all state run. While the people are paying all of 38 cents a gallon at the pumps, the profits are not being used in R %26amp; D, but are instead being funnelled into social programs. Iran's policy towards foreign investment and drilling is less than friendly to the degree that only the Italians are willing to work with them and this is at a loss. Meanwhile, Iran, sitting atop of the world's third largest known oil deposit was unable to export even a single drop of oil last year. Their wells are now all over 50 years old and are declining in production at a rate of 13% per year. Last year, Iran had to actually import oil to meet its own supply and demand issues.
Should the U.S. lose faith and heart and decide to pull out of Iraq before their government has a chance to solidify and strengthen itself to a point of self survival in the face of foreign and domestic enemies, it will most surely fall. Iran stands to gain a great deal should we leave. This also explains Iran's motive for building a nuclear power program whose biproduct by the way, is weapons grade plutonium. Remember, Iran supports and exports terrorism. So, is it genuinely for electricity? Or are there alterior motives?
Does this make sense? Is this not a strong case to believe it IS about oil? And yes, the concern/fear about WMD was legitimate. Carter gutted the CIA, leaving us blind and dependent upon foreign intel.. And Reagan sold Saddam the technology, which he later used on his own people, having declared them enemies of the state.
The fact that the war is about OIL leads me to think the war in Iraq is about OIL.
If this war was about oil, we failed. Especially concerning the Fact that Iraq's oil production has dropped, and the war has increased world oil prices due to instability in Iraq. The insurgency frequently targets Iraqi oil pipelines, forcing oil supplies to be disrupted constantly.
Perhaps a conspiracy could be derived in that it has allowed domestic American companies to increase in profits from our oil wells. Anyways, the reasoning behind Iraq is not their, this was a stupid conflict, that's my justification for this engagement.
Yes. Americans are ignorant, and American politicians are greedy. Instead of our elected representatives enlightening us, they capitalize off our ignorance, and say things like ';this was a war concocted in Texas for political gain';- Ted Kennedy.
I GUESS THESE GUYS THOUGHT THE OIL WAS FOR THEM BUT THEY FOUND OUT BUSH WAS TRYING TO BUILD A VIABLE ECONOMY FOR AMERICAN GOODS.
One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.';
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.
';If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program.';
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.
';Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.';
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.
';He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.';
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
';[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.';
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.
';Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.';
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.
';Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.';
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.
';There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.';
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.
';We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.';
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.
';We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.';
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
';Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.';
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
';We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction.';
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.
';The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons...';
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.
';I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force 鈥?if necessary 鈥?to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.';
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.
';There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.';
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,
';He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do.';
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.
';In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.';
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
';We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. ';[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.
The liberals are against the War, and anytime they are against something, liberals use the media to spread their lies.
well one reason might be is that Iraq has oil...
Its always about money and control.
They're parroting something they heard someone say on television or they read on a protester's sign.
Because this is something that can be explained in one and two syllable words.
In order to understand our strategy for winning the war on terror you will have to read several pages - who is going to do that?
the media and the rising oil prices
The US is obviously stealing Iraqi oil. That is why it is so cheap now.
Other dictatorial regimes have been left alone by this administration. There are countries where people are captured and sold into slavery, where genocide is being carried out, and where women and children are raped and tortured everyday. Iraq is not the only place with an absence of democracy and an abundance of human suffering. There are places in this world that harbor threats much greater than Saddam Hussein (N. Korea for example), yet this administration has not invaded them. The only difference between Iraq and all of the other places listed above, is that Iraq is one of the largest oil-producing nations in the world. In fact, the only reason we are spreading our influence in the Middle East, and not in Africa, is because the Africans don't have the resources that we desire.
Oil is a major factor, though not in the way most understand it, as an easily dismissible contention allowed by the Administration and its media puppets. Saudi Arabia has openly stated that it doesn't want (and hasn't for some time) Iraqi oil on the market. Consider the following in that context.
Saudi Arabia (along with China) carries most of our foreign debt. At any time they could call that debt and, literally, destroy our economy. The damage caused by such an action would be immeasurable and would take years (if it would be possible at all) to recover from.
Estimates immediately after the Iraqi invasion were that oil production would meet or exceed pre-invasion levels within ';2 - 3 months'; and would be the main funding source for the occupation and rebuilding efforts in Iraq.
As of this time, 5 years later, Iraqi oil production is only a fraction of pre-invasion levels, even though no significant actions have been taken by the ';evil doers'; that would limit that level of production and equipment and personnel necessary to meet prior levels are (and have been) in place and/or readily available.
Connect the dots.
.
If it's not about oil then it's about nothing more than control. Who in this world gave the President the right to go and change a government and invade a country just because they don't think about the world as he does? Who put him in the place to work as a freedom guardian, defending all those who don't even know where the USA is in a map? all those who didn't even ask for help? because they think different? I say we should let them live the way they want to, if they want to kill each other that's their problem, not ours. Let's remember it all started about mass destruction weapons, and they never found them... what are they doing there? Liberty? they don't want it, they don't care... why do we get there, cause they don't live and think like us and we think we are right and they are wrong? If they thought so, they woould do something themselves. Take Japan, Germany, China... they all have worked and reconstructed themselves and have risen after total destruction (except china, which was miserable) War produces money.
It is so amazing how fast people forget about 911. Jest I remind you 3000 Americans died on an invasion on American soil. Who did this, terrorist from the countries of Afghanistan and Iraq. Now I hope that helps people to please not to forget 911.
while it is extremely narrow and over-simplified...there is a huge amount of war profiteering going on in Iraq as a result of the US invasion. when you take a look at who is profiting, its obviously a piece of the puzzle...or at the very least, highly suspicious.
--edit--
tbird, the 9/11 terrorists did not come from Iraq. Its people like you who make us ';forget'; 9/11 because we know it had nothing to do with the invasion of Iraq. Get a clue.What leads people to think that the war in Iraq is about oil?
First I'm going to tell you to study your history of the region begining with the Eisenhower Administration's overthrow of the Iranian government.
And Second, I'm going to tell you to forget most of what you've heard and read in the news media -- rarely ever do any of them tell you the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Having said that, shall we begin?
Just from the 1980's forward:
Reagan backed Saddam Hussein because he was at war with Iran. We sold the Iraq's all kinds of weapons and technology (WMD). When the oil tankers passing through the region became targets, Reagan reflagged them and provided naval escort. This was to ensure and insure the world's economy based on oil.
Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait for their oil and their sea port. The U.N. turned a blind eye and did nothing. Bush (senior) gathered a coalition of military forces and pushed Saddam back across the border (Desert Shield/Storm). The U.N. was then asked to broker a cease fire agreement -- this should have been a wise move politically so that no one could accuse the U.S. of being motivated to ';steal'; the Iraqi oil. Having stopped at the border instead of chasing them back to Bagdad also was to define the U.S. as a liberator and not a conqueror.
Throughout the Clinton years, nothing was really done to uphold the cease fire agreement. Saddam thumbed his nose at the U.N. and the west and the U.N. accepted Saddam's bribe money in the ';Food For Oil Program.'; In all, 17 sanctions of the C.F. agreement were violated and after months of failed diplomacy, the U.S. again amassed a coalition of forces to do the U.N.'s dirty work -- Operaton Iraq Freedom.
No sooner had the majority of hostilities ended and a new government about to be elected by the people and brought into power, a wave of violence swept the nation. Car bombings, shootings, death squads, etc., all backed by Iran and Syria in an attempt first to scare the people into not voting and later to simply destabilize the newly formed government and demoralize the American people. Motive?
According to World Economy Today magazine, Iran's oil industry is all state run. While the people are paying all of 38 cents a gallon at the pumps, the profits are not being used in R %26amp; D, but are instead being funnelled into social programs. Iran's policy towards foreign investment and drilling is less than friendly to the degree that only the Italians are willing to work with them and this is at a loss. Meanwhile, Iran, sitting atop of the world's third largest known oil deposit was unable to export even a single drop of oil last year. Their wells are now all over 50 years old and are declining in production at a rate of 13% per year. Last year, Iran had to actually import oil to meet its own supply and demand issues.
Should the U.S. lose faith and heart and decide to pull out of Iraq before their government has a chance to solidify and strengthen itself to a point of self survival in the face of foreign and domestic enemies, it will most surely fall. Iran stands to gain a great deal should we leave. This also explains Iran's motive for building a nuclear power program whose biproduct by the way, is weapons grade plutonium. Remember, Iran supports and exports terrorism. So, is it genuinely for electricity? Or are there alterior motives?
Does this make sense? Is this not a strong case to believe it IS about oil? And yes, the concern/fear about WMD was legitimate. Carter gutted the CIA, leaving us blind and dependent upon foreign intel.. And Reagan sold Saddam the technology, which he later used on his own people, having declared them enemies of the state.
The fact that the war is about OIL leads me to think the war in Iraq is about OIL.
If this war was about oil, we failed. Especially concerning the Fact that Iraq's oil production has dropped, and the war has increased world oil prices due to instability in Iraq. The insurgency frequently targets Iraqi oil pipelines, forcing oil supplies to be disrupted constantly.
Perhaps a conspiracy could be derived in that it has allowed domestic American companies to increase in profits from our oil wells. Anyways, the reasoning behind Iraq is not their, this was a stupid conflict, that's my justification for this engagement.
Yes. Americans are ignorant, and American politicians are greedy. Instead of our elected representatives enlightening us, they capitalize off our ignorance, and say things like ';this was a war concocted in Texas for political gain';- Ted Kennedy.
I GUESS THESE GUYS THOUGHT THE OIL WAS FOR THEM BUT THEY FOUND OUT BUSH WAS TRYING TO BUILD A VIABLE ECONOMY FOR AMERICAN GOODS.
One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.';
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.
';If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program.';
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.
';Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.';
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.
';He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.';
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
';[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.';
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.
';Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.';
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.
';Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.';
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.
';There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.';
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.
';We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.';
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.
';We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.';
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
';Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.';
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
';We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction.';
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.
';The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons...';
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.
';I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force 鈥?if necessary 鈥?to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.';
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.
';There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.';
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,
';He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do.';
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.
';In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.';
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
';We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. ';[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.
The liberals are against the War, and anytime they are against something, liberals use the media to spread their lies.
well one reason might be is that Iraq has oil...
Its always about money and control.
They're parroting something they heard someone say on television or they read on a protester's sign.
Because this is something that can be explained in one and two syllable words.
In order to understand our strategy for winning the war on terror you will have to read several pages - who is going to do that?
the media and the rising oil prices
The US is obviously stealing Iraqi oil. That is why it is so cheap now.
Other dictatorial regimes have been left alone by this administration. There are countries where people are captured and sold into slavery, where genocide is being carried out, and where women and children are raped and tortured everyday. Iraq is not the only place with an absence of democracy and an abundance of human suffering. There are places in this world that harbor threats much greater than Saddam Hussein (N. Korea for example), yet this administration has not invaded them. The only difference between Iraq and all of the other places listed above, is that Iraq is one of the largest oil-producing nations in the world. In fact, the only reason we are spreading our influence in the Middle East, and not in Africa, is because the Africans don't have the resources that we desire.
Oil is a major factor, though not in the way most understand it, as an easily dismissible contention allowed by the Administration and its media puppets. Saudi Arabia has openly stated that it doesn't want (and hasn't for some time) Iraqi oil on the market. Consider the following in that context.
Saudi Arabia (along with China) carries most of our foreign debt. At any time they could call that debt and, literally, destroy our economy. The damage caused by such an action would be immeasurable and would take years (if it would be possible at all) to recover from.
Estimates immediately after the Iraqi invasion were that oil production would meet or exceed pre-invasion levels within ';2 - 3 months'; and would be the main funding source for the occupation and rebuilding efforts in Iraq.
As of this time, 5 years later, Iraqi oil production is only a fraction of pre-invasion levels, even though no significant actions have been taken by the ';evil doers'; that would limit that level of production and equipment and personnel necessary to meet prior levels are (and have been) in place and/or readily available.
Connect the dots.
.
If it's not about oil then it's about nothing more than control. Who in this world gave the President the right to go and change a government and invade a country just because they don't think about the world as he does? Who put him in the place to work as a freedom guardian, defending all those who don't even know where the USA is in a map? all those who didn't even ask for help? because they think different? I say we should let them live the way they want to, if they want to kill each other that's their problem, not ours. Let's remember it all started about mass destruction weapons, and they never found them... what are they doing there? Liberty? they don't want it, they don't care... why do we get there, cause they don't live and think like us and we think we are right and they are wrong? If they thought so, they woould do something themselves. Take Japan, Germany, China... they all have worked and reconstructed themselves and have risen after total destruction (except china, which was miserable) War produces money.
It is so amazing how fast people forget about 911. Jest I remind you 3000 Americans died on an invasion on American soil. Who did this, terrorist from the countries of Afghanistan and Iraq. Now I hope that helps people to please not to forget 911.
My 2003 Toyota is leaking oil and I think it might need new gaskets. How much should I expect to pay?
I've got a 2003 Toyota Corolla CE which until now has given me zero trouble. But I noticed last week it's been leaking oil, and pretty significantly at that. I'm thinking I might need new gaskets - but then again I know very little about cars. Any idea what I could be looking at spending?My 2003 Toyota is leaking oil and I think it might need new gaskets. How much should I expect to pay?
Take out a second mortgage on your house.
Take out a second mortgage on your house.
Whats the difference between motor oil formulas?
Does anybody know the difference between the formulas?
Examples 5W-30, 10W-30, 10W-40, 20W-50 ?
just a question thats been bugging me..Whats the difference between motor oil formulas?
To put it to you in layman's term is...the first number is the weight or viscosity of the oil. the second number is the additives they have added to protect the motor as if it were that weight. The higher the number is thicker the more the oil SEEMS to protect. I use an example like this...think of pancake syrup. when it is cold it is hard to pour, but when you heat it up the easier it is. Oil is the same way, when it's cold it is thicker that it is when it is hot. The hotter the oil is the thinner it is which causes your oil pressure to drop. It's not a good idea to put the thicker oil in because the added pressure will cause your bearing to wear away quicker because of the friction and heat. I hope that I explained it enough for you to understand.
Examples 5W-30, 10W-30, 10W-40, 20W-50 ?
just a question thats been bugging me..Whats the difference between motor oil formulas?
To put it to you in layman's term is...the first number is the weight or viscosity of the oil. the second number is the additives they have added to protect the motor as if it were that weight. The higher the number is thicker the more the oil SEEMS to protect. I use an example like this...think of pancake syrup. when it is cold it is hard to pour, but when you heat it up the easier it is. Oil is the same way, when it's cold it is thicker that it is when it is hot. The hotter the oil is the thinner it is which causes your oil pressure to drop. It's not a good idea to put the thicker oil in because the added pressure will cause your bearing to wear away quicker because of the friction and heat. I hope that I explained it enough for you to understand.
When and where should I take my new Honda Accord for an oil change?
I have a 2007 Accord with close to 6K miles on it. The dashboard computer is telling me the oil still has 30% of its life. Should I just change the oil, since I've driven 6K miles or listen to the odometer and wait. Also, is it worth getting the oil changed at the dealer?When and where should I take my new Honda Accord for an oil change?
I highly recommend you take your vehicle to a Honda dealership for your oil change. You should forge a relationship with your dealership because if you always take your vehicle there they will be more likely to find a problem before it becomes an issue. They get to know your vehicle and they keep all the records on their computer system. They will also call you when it's time to bring it in for a maintenance check. In our dealership we find those customers who bring their vehicles in to us always have their small problems caught early because we get to know their vehicles.
I think you'll find that they aren't anymore expensive then some of the quickie lube type places. You should also know that if something were to happen during or because of having your vehicle serviced other than a dealership it could (and I'm only saying - could) void your warranty. Is it really worth the couple of dollars you may or may not save to take that chance?
As for the frequency of the oil change - though you may not have reached the recommended mileage it also depends on how long ago you in fact purchased the vehicle. If for instance you purchased your 2007 a year ago and even though you've only driven it 6km it is should be taken in for an oil change. So while I agree with the previous poster about waiting until ';it'; tells you to change your oil you should also consider the length of time since your last one.
Maintaining your Honda regularly not only keeps your warranty in good standing it also helps to retain ';value';. It's a well known fact that Honda's tend to hold value very well and when your go to sell it you will find that having a service record at a dealership is an added feature prospective buyers are looking for.When and where should I take my new Honda Accord for an oil change?
Just take it to a respectable lube place somewhere in town. Taking it to the dealer will cost you more and the service is not that much better. But you may want to take it to the dealer on the first change to change the break in fluids.
take it to dealer. more than likely there is a light that won't go off unless the dealer resets it. there is one on my moms 05 corolla.
I work for a GM dealership, which of course is not a Honda dealership, but GM is recommending that people wait until the ';change engine oil'; light comes on to change the oil. Actually, we are cheaper than the ';quick lube'; places in town. If you want genuine honda filters and parts used on your car I truely recommend you take it to the Honda dealership.
Even though Honda recommends oil changes every 7,500 or so miles, I always and very religiously change my Honda's oil every 3,000 miles.
You can take it anywhere, but be advised that some companies such as Jiffy-Lube and SpeeDee have been written up in the Better Business Bureau, which means that they have provided poor quality service to their customers. Pay no more than $30.
Ask around town for suggestions on an oil change place.
most places that change oil for a living use the buzz words warranty approved,also the are meticulious at looking at everything for any service they can sell you
Take it to a Honda Dealership. They use better oil and care more for your car and won't do a crappy job because Honda Quality depends on good oil.
I highly recommend you take your vehicle to a Honda dealership for your oil change. You should forge a relationship with your dealership because if you always take your vehicle there they will be more likely to find a problem before it becomes an issue. They get to know your vehicle and they keep all the records on their computer system. They will also call you when it's time to bring it in for a maintenance check. In our dealership we find those customers who bring their vehicles in to us always have their small problems caught early because we get to know their vehicles.
I think you'll find that they aren't anymore expensive then some of the quickie lube type places. You should also know that if something were to happen during or because of having your vehicle serviced other than a dealership it could (and I'm only saying - could) void your warranty. Is it really worth the couple of dollars you may or may not save to take that chance?
As for the frequency of the oil change - though you may not have reached the recommended mileage it also depends on how long ago you in fact purchased the vehicle. If for instance you purchased your 2007 a year ago and even though you've only driven it 6km it is should be taken in for an oil change. So while I agree with the previous poster about waiting until ';it'; tells you to change your oil you should also consider the length of time since your last one.
Maintaining your Honda regularly not only keeps your warranty in good standing it also helps to retain ';value';. It's a well known fact that Honda's tend to hold value very well and when your go to sell it you will find that having a service record at a dealership is an added feature prospective buyers are looking for.When and where should I take my new Honda Accord for an oil change?
Just take it to a respectable lube place somewhere in town. Taking it to the dealer will cost you more and the service is not that much better. But you may want to take it to the dealer on the first change to change the break in fluids.
take it to dealer. more than likely there is a light that won't go off unless the dealer resets it. there is one on my moms 05 corolla.
I work for a GM dealership, which of course is not a Honda dealership, but GM is recommending that people wait until the ';change engine oil'; light comes on to change the oil. Actually, we are cheaper than the ';quick lube'; places in town. If you want genuine honda filters and parts used on your car I truely recommend you take it to the Honda dealership.
Even though Honda recommends oil changes every 7,500 or so miles, I always and very religiously change my Honda's oil every 3,000 miles.
You can take it anywhere, but be advised that some companies such as Jiffy-Lube and SpeeDee have been written up in the Better Business Bureau, which means that they have provided poor quality service to their customers. Pay no more than $30.
Ask around town for suggestions on an oil change place.
most places that change oil for a living use the buzz words warranty approved,also the are meticulious at looking at everything for any service they can sell you
Take it to a Honda Dealership. They use better oil and care more for your car and won't do a crappy job because Honda Quality depends on good oil.
What exactly does Marvel Mystery Oil do for your engine?
My dad swears using Marvel Mystery Oil keeps his engine running like new and claims his high mileage (390k) is because of using it at every oil change. What exactly is marvel Mystery oil made from and how does it keep an engine running clean or like new?What exactly does Marvel Mystery Oil do for your engine?
As a fellow MMO user I agree with your dad. I love the stuff and use it in everything from my two Hondas to my Chevy and lawn equipment. I'm in the same boat as you are, father uses it religiously and I guess I just ran with the ';tradition';. One thing I can tell you is that he had a 55 ford with a 272 wide block which he drove from '65 until he finally got tired of it and bought another truck in '99. The only two things that went wrong with that trucks' engine were the fuel filter needed changed on occasion and it needed a valve job in 1999 (it didn't have harded valve seats).
So what does it do? Well in the oil I can tell you this much - when we took the 272 apart to do a valve job the inside of that ';running for 30+ years'; did not have one spec of sludge - like it was put together the day before.
You can also add MMO to the oil which acts like an upper cylinder lubricant. Lead used to perform this function but as you can guess, you can't buy leaded gasoline anymore, for quite a while actually. New cars have harded valve seats (what lead use to help lubricate) but I still think it's a good thing to have a upper cylinder lubricant. MMO also helps to keep your fuel system clean... add a little at each fill up instead of waiting for a problem then ';trying'; to clean it with fuel injector cleaner.
Anyhow... not too scientific but do what I did, go with your father's experiences.
Go over to MMO website and read up on it.What exactly does Marvel Mystery Oil do for your engine?
It is called mystery oil because they will not release the formula . What it is , is an upper cylinder lube . It actually is more important now with unleaded gas than it used to be . The stuff works . It will also free up a motor that has set for a while and the piston rings have stuck .
its a mystery...they throw whatever scraps they've got in and melt it dwn...its a mystery what ya get...i had an old bananna in one once...go with a good brand, with an engine guarentee and a synthetic...if u do chose synthetic, stick with it, its bad to switch back in forth.....good luck!
edit: hah, i swear i didnt see that guy said that as well^ lol. i guess great minds think alike! lol
No more than regular oil changes. It's called ';Mystery'; oil to lure suckers into buying it.
its a mystery....skin care products
As a fellow MMO user I agree with your dad. I love the stuff and use it in everything from my two Hondas to my Chevy and lawn equipment. I'm in the same boat as you are, father uses it religiously and I guess I just ran with the ';tradition';. One thing I can tell you is that he had a 55 ford with a 272 wide block which he drove from '65 until he finally got tired of it and bought another truck in '99. The only two things that went wrong with that trucks' engine were the fuel filter needed changed on occasion and it needed a valve job in 1999 (it didn't have harded valve seats).
So what does it do? Well in the oil I can tell you this much - when we took the 272 apart to do a valve job the inside of that ';running for 30+ years'; did not have one spec of sludge - like it was put together the day before.
You can also add MMO to the oil which acts like an upper cylinder lubricant. Lead used to perform this function but as you can guess, you can't buy leaded gasoline anymore, for quite a while actually. New cars have harded valve seats (what lead use to help lubricate) but I still think it's a good thing to have a upper cylinder lubricant. MMO also helps to keep your fuel system clean... add a little at each fill up instead of waiting for a problem then ';trying'; to clean it with fuel injector cleaner.
Anyhow... not too scientific but do what I did, go with your father's experiences.
Go over to MMO website and read up on it.What exactly does Marvel Mystery Oil do for your engine?
It is called mystery oil because they will not release the formula . What it is , is an upper cylinder lube . It actually is more important now with unleaded gas than it used to be . The stuff works . It will also free up a motor that has set for a while and the piston rings have stuck .
its a mystery...they throw whatever scraps they've got in and melt it dwn...its a mystery what ya get...i had an old bananna in one once...go with a good brand, with an engine guarentee and a synthetic...if u do chose synthetic, stick with it, its bad to switch back in forth.....good luck!
edit: hah, i swear i didnt see that guy said that as well^ lol. i guess great minds think alike! lol
No more than regular oil changes. It's called ';Mystery'; oil to lure suckers into buying it.
its a mystery....
What would happen if the oil level in my engine was twice what it shoud be?
For say 2 months, what could the outcome for the engine be???What would happen if the oil level in my engine was twice what it shoud be?
If you have ran the car for two months the the chances are that there is not twice as much oil in the engine, as there would be signs, to much oil pressure will blow seals and gaskets.
If you say the engine has blown then you need it examined by an independent agent to asses what caused it to go, once that is done then you can decide who is to blame, but in uk under sale of goods act the car is guaranteed for 3 months in any event so the garage should be liable.What would happen if the oil level in my engine was twice what it shoud be?
Your engine wouldn't go for two months with far too much oil - it would smoke, blow seals %26amp; be a very expensive fix.
If it's run OK for two months, then either there isn't as much oil in as you think, or the dipstick is marked incorrectly, or being read wrong.
Re your additional info, then you could struggle - the handbook suggests that you check your oil level weekly, so you'll need to be prepared to pay for the repairs yourself. If you'd checked the oil previously, you'd have avoided the problem.
If I were you, I'd try %26amp; front it out %26amp; get the garage to pay anyway. Don't admit to not checking the oil in the inteceding two months!
when an engine is over filled with oil, the weights on the crank shaft come in contact with the oil and acts like a blender or egg beater. as the engine runs the oil will start to turn to foam. when this happens the lubrication ability of the oil is reduced greatly. In fact if unchecked the engine will cease to get any oil at all and will cause the moving parts to come in contact with one another. if you have gone 2 months your lucky. most engines that are over filled this much rarely make it more then a few weeks. if you can prove that the dealership is responsible, then they should pay for the engine. However with the amount of time that has passes. It may be difficult to prove.
very hard to answer. the thing about dealerships is that the majority of money made isn't from selling cars, its from all the maintenance crap they tell you to come and do as part of the warranty and how much they charge for flushes and other crap. Its a very shady business to be completely honest so I doubt you'll see a penny out of them for this. But having too much oil is just as bad, if not worse than not having any because this causes excess pressure on the seals causing them to leak as well as many internal problems. But when the seals leak you should be able to smell it if not see it. i have an audi that leaks from the seals onto the engine block and it smells like burnt rubber. sucks
Yes, but make sure you tell them that you have checked the oil level and other items under the bonnet on a regular basis. Also insist that the car has not been ill treated at any time. As regards to your question about the oil level being far to high, then yes it could cause seals to blow and even the engine to be badly damaged.
if your engine oil is twice what it should be........who did your last oil change? if it was one of those oil change guys or a dealer and your engine got ruined you might have legal recourse to a new engine. or at least a rebuild. If your engine is ';making oil';....you have an internal water leak and more problems. do a full tilt oil change with someone you trust and see if it happens again. And check your radiator while you're at it.
I'm afraid they're going to say it was okay when it left them and you must have added the oil later. You won't be able to prove otherwise. I might also add I'm surprised you didn't notice.
that,s a good way of blowing a seal or gasket. if you bought the car(as is) then it,s your problem. it,s better to have the oil a little low then too full.
Overfilling your engine by twice could cause
serious problems..Oil splash onto rods, cylinder walls etc.
Is dealership liable ??
Depends on your warranty..
a slow death sentence for the engine, too much can be as fatal as too little, it may be too late already but drain it down to the correct level immediately and pray
If you have ran the car for two months the the chances are that there is not twice as much oil in the engine, as there would be signs, to much oil pressure will blow seals and gaskets.
If you say the engine has blown then you need it examined by an independent agent to asses what caused it to go, once that is done then you can decide who is to blame, but in uk under sale of goods act the car is guaranteed for 3 months in any event so the garage should be liable.What would happen if the oil level in my engine was twice what it shoud be?
Your engine wouldn't go for two months with far too much oil - it would smoke, blow seals %26amp; be a very expensive fix.
If it's run OK for two months, then either there isn't as much oil in as you think, or the dipstick is marked incorrectly, or being read wrong.
Re your additional info, then you could struggle - the handbook suggests that you check your oil level weekly, so you'll need to be prepared to pay for the repairs yourself. If you'd checked the oil previously, you'd have avoided the problem.
If I were you, I'd try %26amp; front it out %26amp; get the garage to pay anyway. Don't admit to not checking the oil in the inteceding two months!
when an engine is over filled with oil, the weights on the crank shaft come in contact with the oil and acts like a blender or egg beater. as the engine runs the oil will start to turn to foam. when this happens the lubrication ability of the oil is reduced greatly. In fact if unchecked the engine will cease to get any oil at all and will cause the moving parts to come in contact with one another. if you have gone 2 months your lucky. most engines that are over filled this much rarely make it more then a few weeks. if you can prove that the dealership is responsible, then they should pay for the engine. However with the amount of time that has passes. It may be difficult to prove.
very hard to answer. the thing about dealerships is that the majority of money made isn't from selling cars, its from all the maintenance crap they tell you to come and do as part of the warranty and how much they charge for flushes and other crap. Its a very shady business to be completely honest so I doubt you'll see a penny out of them for this. But having too much oil is just as bad, if not worse than not having any because this causes excess pressure on the seals causing them to leak as well as many internal problems. But when the seals leak you should be able to smell it if not see it. i have an audi that leaks from the seals onto the engine block and it smells like burnt rubber. sucks
Yes, but make sure you tell them that you have checked the oil level and other items under the bonnet on a regular basis. Also insist that the car has not been ill treated at any time. As regards to your question about the oil level being far to high, then yes it could cause seals to blow and even the engine to be badly damaged.
if your engine oil is twice what it should be........who did your last oil change? if it was one of those oil change guys or a dealer and your engine got ruined you might have legal recourse to a new engine. or at least a rebuild. If your engine is ';making oil';....you have an internal water leak and more problems. do a full tilt oil change with someone you trust and see if it happens again. And check your radiator while you're at it.
I'm afraid they're going to say it was okay when it left them and you must have added the oil later. You won't be able to prove otherwise. I might also add I'm surprised you didn't notice.
that,s a good way of blowing a seal or gasket. if you bought the car(as is) then it,s your problem. it,s better to have the oil a little low then too full.
Overfilling your engine by twice could cause
serious problems..Oil splash onto rods, cylinder walls etc.
Is dealership liable ??
Depends on your warranty..
a slow death sentence for the engine, too much can be as fatal as too little, it may be too late already but drain it down to the correct level immediately and pray
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)