OCI, not when but why?

diyer2 · Saturday at 01:27 PM

IF,IF,IF. If they cared about quality instead of profit and this applies to any company, what a concept.

Grumpy Bear · Saturday at 01:31 PM

https://precisionlubrication.com/articles/oil-filter-efficiency/

On 6/19/2026 at 9:23 AM, Atlas said:

@Grumpy Bear the conclusion from your post about doubling engine life has me curious. Are we literally talking an expected life of 250,000 miles potentially becomes 500,000 miles with a step up in filtration for fresh oil at "the oil factory" when it's bottled? I know you said that's a single variable among many, but, that's significant if the implication extends that far into a real world use case. I would think the oil marketing folks would really eat that up and make it known.

For them it is a problem of $$$$ and compliance. To cover both they have to lie from the heart.

Government wants low waste oil numbers so the bar needs to be very low on contamination to met that requirement.

Consumer wants cheap maintenance (perceived cost). Again requiring a low bar.

OEM wants high margins at a cost effective warranty rate and lots of repeat customers. More low bar.

Filter manufacture wants the same thing the OEM wants. See the pattern?

Consumers are fickle and also want perfection requiring a HIGH bar. Inconsistent with all of the above.

Consumers can be, when the put their minds to it, inquisitive, love winning arguments which requires some useful information to be available to support them. And this is where it gets sticky and the lies begin.

Information needs a solid well grounded point of reference if we are to compare in a useful way. There is a standard for this. ISO 4548-12. This standard sets the particle size at a specific Beta ratio and darn few are faithful to its intent.

If they don't state the test method they change the particle size or the Beta ratio to hit a perceived favorable standard. They obscure the information in a way as to prevent direct comparisons leaving the consumer with one method. UOA's with an ISO 4406 test result. Pricey and not allot of labs willing to do the work. Lobby work happens everywhere, not just at the seat of government.

Edited yesterday at 12:52 AM by Grumpy Bear

KARNUT · Sunday at 12:16 PM

It isn’t all that bad in the world with purchasing power versus quality. My first car had just basic equipment. My oil choice was conventional oil. The life expectancy was around 100K miles. During that time you could expect to change all the accessories. Today with inflation you can buy the equivalent. It comes fully loaded with 4 doors. The life expectancy passes 100K miles replacing no accessories. If reaching that milestone is your goal you simply follow the recommended service intervals. If you want more miles simply do more maintenance. When in doubt you can check the internet or YouTube for information. The selling of any product hasn’t changed since the beginning of time. The power of the buyer has. The price of the product hasn’t changed much with inflation. The buying public wants more. Competition and the buying public has put the sellers in a box. The greed is on both sides. You can still get more for less. You just have to do with less. That used to be popular. The buying public has changed . It’s the sellers that are trying to keep up. As Grumpy tries to inform the readers in this case with maintenance. If you want more. More effort is required. That information wasn’t available this easily just a few years ago. I believe the public has more power. Getting information is easier.

Grumpy Bear · 2026-06-22T01:27:09Z

13 hours ago, KARNUT said:

It isn’t all that bad in the world with purchasing power versus quality. My first car had just basic equipment. My oil choice was conventional oil. The life expectancy was around 100K miles. During that time you could expect to change all the accessories. Today with inflation you can buy the equivalent. It comes fully loaded with 4 doors. The life expectancy passes 100K miles replacing no accessories. If reaching that milestone is your goal you simply follow the recommended service intervals. If you want more miles simply do more maintenance. When in doubt you can check the internet or YouTube for information. The selling of any product hasn’t changed since the beginning of time. The power of the buyer has. The price of the product hasn’t changed much with inflation. The buying public wants more. Competition and the buying public has put the sellers in a box. The greed is on both sides. You can still get more for less. You just have to do with less. That used to be popular. The buying public has changed . It’s the sellers that are trying to keep up. As Grumpy tries to inform the readers in this case with maintenance. If you want more. More effort is required. That information wasn’t available this easily just a few years ago. I believe the public has more power. Getting information is easier.

I don't think so.

Cars? Our experience will diverge there as well. I was buying cars with 200K (1970's) when I started and quite a few were pretty solid cars. (My early stuff was 1964 to 1968) Some stinkers but not the dismal picture painted above. Now that said, yes, a dealer wouldn't talk to you if your car had more than 60K on the clock and lot cars were 60K or less except the back row where 100-120K was the auction bought for dirt for us poor losers. Kids in my county were not allowed to wear long pants if they couldn't rebuild and repair every part of that beast.

I will agree that many parts are now better. Alternators and charging systems are an envy. But I replaced few water pumps or power steering pumps then. Rebuilt carburetors but replaced few. Mufflers are another place of OEM improvement. Stainless? We didn't have no stink'n stainless. :crackup:

As long as humans are in charge of governance this $$$$ situation will not improve.

The purchasing power of a dollar in 1955 is significantly higher than in 2025, meaning that a dollar could buy more goods and services in 1955 compared to 2025 due to inflation over the years. For example, what you could buy for $1 in 1955 would require approximately $10.50 in 2025.

Calculator.net

inflationtool.com

Comparison of Purchasing Power: 1955 vs 2025

The purchasing power of a dollar has changed significantly from 1955 to 2025 due to inflation. Below is a breakdown of how much more money is needed in 2025 to match the buying power of a dollar in 1955.

Purchasing Power Overview

Year	Equivalent Value of $1 in 1955
1955	$1.00
2025	$10.50

Key Points

Inflation Impact: The value of money decreases over time due to inflation, meaning that the same amount of money buys fewer goods and services in the future.
Example of Inflation: What could be purchased for $1 in 1955 would require approximately $10.50 in 2025. This illustrates how inflation has eroded the purchasing power of the dollar over the decades.

Understanding these changes in purchasing power is crucial for financial planning and assessing economic conditions over time.

Wikipedia

Calculator.net

Edited yesterday at 01:28 AM by Grumpy Bear

Grumpy Bear · 2026-06-22T01:30:23Z

My post above is the direct reason for my outsized interest in keeping what I have for as long as possible. My memory isn't as short as some.

KARNUT · 2026-06-22T02:45:29Z

58 minutes ago, Grumpy Bear said:

My post above is the direct reason for my outsized interest in keeping what I have for as long as possible. My memory isn't as short as some.

We’ll have to agree to disagree. I didn’t experience or know anyone who had a decent car after 100K miles in the 60s through the 80s that were daily commuter vehicles. Unless they were collector vehicles. Of course things cost more due to inflation. But we also make more money. The biggest money drains these days are things people think they need today versus what we require back in the day. Like cell phones and internet as examples. Another example is where you live. Cost of living varies from state to state. I would need twice the money to live in NJ vs Texas in retirement. The car you recently purchased was less than my first car with inflation at 3000$ in 1973. I didn’t have air, electric windows, cruise etc. Purchasing power is equivalent, you just have to do the research.

Grumpy Bear · 2026-06-22T03:20:08Z

34 minutes ago, KARNUT said:

Of course things cost more due to inflation. But we also make more money.

Point of the post sir was that while both wages and cost are rising EVERYWHERE; the cost is rising faster EVERYWHERE than the ability to buy EVERYWHERE. We're not going down the location rabbit hole. I'm aware of what economic migration is. I've lived in four states including Texas.

It's what "Purchasing Power" means.

I'm not telling you what I think. I'm telling what the government, your government, data shows.

It wasn't an argument. It wasn't a suggestion. It was a statement of FACT. You are absolutely entitled to your own opinion. Your not entitled to your own facts. If you and I were, they wouldn't be facts.

fact /făkt/

noun

Knowledge or information based on real occurrences.
"an account based on fact; a blur of fact and fancy."
Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed.
"Genetic engineering is now a fact. That Chaucer was a real person is an undisputed fact."
A real occurrence; an event.
"had to prove the facts of the case."

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition • More at Wordnik

If you'd like to disagree call your Senator or Representative and let him know his departments are in error. But you and I? We are not doing this.

Edited yesterday at 03:22 AM by Grumpy Bear

KARNUT · 2026-06-22T04:11:41Z

24 minutes ago, Grumpy Bear said:

Point of the post sir was that while both wages and cost are rising EVERYWHERE; the cost is rising faster EVERYWHERE than the ability to buy EVERYWHERE. We're not going down the location rabbit hole. I'm aware of what economic migration is. I've lived in four states including Texas.

It's what "Purchasing Power" means.

I'm not telling you what I think. I'm telling what the government, your government, data shows.

It wasn't an argument. It wasn't a suggestion. It was a statement of FACT. You are absolutely entitled to your own opinion. Your not entitled to your own facts. If you and I were, they wouldn't be facts.

fact /făkt/

noun

Knowledge or information based on real occurrences.
"an account based on fact; a blur of fact and fancy."

Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed.
"Genetic engineering is now a fact. That Chaucer was a real person is an undisputed fact."

A real occurrence; an event.
"had to prove the facts of the case."

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition • More at Wordnik

If you'd like to disagree call your Senator or Representative and let him know his departments are in error. But you and I? We are not doing this.

I’ve own several successful businesses. I’ve bought homes and lived in different states. I’d witness several generations buy homes and survive in different economic circumstances. You get awful sippy when people have different experiences than you do. You live a life. I’ve lived a life. It seems our experience has been different. You can point out generalized statistics. Some people learn how to thrive when the odds are against them. Living in different states does make a difference in a persons quality of life and economic outcomes and opportunities. That’s a fact Jack. It’s my truth, my life. Hard work and long hours the right environment made my families life easier. And yes moving to a different state increased the odds of that happening. Stats are generalized. People who thrive don’t make excuses. They beat the odds. Others get mad and point to those statistics. I guess that’s you. My post pointed out how you helped people beat the odds. Somehow your panties got in a wad. Go figure.

KARNUT · 2026-06-22T11:01:34Z

You want proof, Grumpy man?

KARNUT · 2026-06-22T11:10:49Z

6 minutes ago, KARNUT said:

You want proof, Grumpy man?

KARNUT · 2026-06-22T11:12:34Z

KARNUT · 2026-06-22T11:16:17Z

KARNUT · 2026-06-22T11:18:21Z

Ok Grumpy I’ll leave you to it. Have a nice day.

KARNUT · 2026-06-22T11:24:51Z

3 minutes ago, KARNUT said:

Ok Grumpy I’ll leave you to it. Have a nice day.

Oops I did leave one stat out, pay. High pay for an equipment operator in 1974 was 5$ per hour. Today it’s 25-45$ per hour. Specialties and unions pays are higher. Now I’ll leave you to it.