TrevorK wrote:Without meaning to be rude I think it's time to impart a life lesson on to you.

"Listen to understand, not to respond".

It's clear that you do not care to understand half of what I am saying and instead pick out keywords and phrases to formulate your response while you read through the rest of the post. While you can do as you please I urge you to think of the phrase above in your everyday life and see what sort of positive changes it makes.

ImStricken wrote:dude you are DEAD wrong. most people send their cars to the junk yard because the engine or tranny is shot. YOU KNOW HOW I KNOW THAT? I MANAGE A JUNK YARD lol. i dont care what the other issues like RUST, accident, etc come into play. we are not talking about those reasons. we are talking about ENGINE & TRANNY OIL AND THE NUMBER ONE REASON ENGINES DIE IS BECAUSE OF SLUDGE OR WORN PISTON RINGS. (and thats where your oil comes into play)
the higher quality oils create better barriers for the moving parts, thus reducing wear, thus increasing engine life. they also dont sludge up as fast.

So let me get this straight. Your evidence that a properly maintained engine using conventional oil is having issues directly related to conventional vs synthetic is based on cars that are sent to the junkyard? Really?

Just think about what you're saying. You're claiming that people who drive their cars into the ground (or, are so old they are not worth fixing) are properly maintaining their vehicles and that you (and your staff) are qualified to actually diagnose the precise cause of engine failure? If so, I applaud your junkyard for not taking in cars without the proper maintenance records and doing thorough engineering/oil analysis to determine if and why the engine failed. However I suspect this is not case.

Again, none of your post relates to the cause of catastrophic vehicle failure (as in it is scrapped for parts) as a result of properly maintaining it with conventional oil vs synthetic.

wrong again mate. 91 isnt "cleaner" than 87. and 112(race fuel) isnt cleaner than 91. octane prevents early ignition thats all. its basically a retardant.
engines all run different compression ratio's. if you compress pure gasoline enough it explodes easily. so when the basic 4 cycle engine(which we have) hit its 2nd cycle (1intake, 2compression, 3power, 4exhuast) which is compression, and the fuel explodes to early due to the compression = you have pre-ignition that will not allow the engine to run right, and will cause serious knock, and will ruin your engine. so manufacturers realized that 87 fuel is pretty much the lowest our cars can run on without developing pinging & knocking- because of the explosiveness of gasoline. but our knock sensors adjust to the timing of the ignition of the fuel. so we are fine to run 87 in a car that says super, and to run super in a car that says 87. nothing to do with cleanliness

Here we go again. I clearly state "I have done no research" and "take this only as an example" yet receive an arrogant reply.

So, I will do a little research for you. In my country we have a couple large gas stations and their links below indicate their 91 octane fuel is cleaner burning:
http://retail.petro-canada.ca/en/fuelsavings/140.aspx
http://www.shell.ca/home/content/can-en ... ll_vpower/
Therefore, the 91 octane fuel that is available to purchase does burn cleaner than the 87 octane fuel sold at the same stations and your theory is incorrect.

Oh wait, but now I'm going to hear the argument of "Well, it's the additives in the gas. I know that you cannot typically purchase gas without these additives but in a theoretical world where you could then the higher octane wouldn't make it burn cleaner". OK, fair enough. Let's assume we live in this make believe world.

Higher octane ratings relate to the ability to resist detonation of the fuel. Now the question is, does the detonation of fuel cause poor burning? Does this poor burning leave a by product that we could consider it "dirty"?
I'm not even going to attempt to investigate this properly because it is irrelevant with the fuel available at the retail level. If you are going to attempt to prove this I'd definitely recommend backing it with a little research.

Lastly you seem to prove my example 100% when you state that, with the knock sensors in place, our engines do not need the higher quality fuel and it is not worth the extra money. Stating that not everything that is "better" is necessarily worth while.


I'm not here to pick a fight, as far as I'm concerned we're having a discussion. What's important isn't who is right and who is wrong (and there's is no saying we cannot both be right or wrong) but the knowledge that you gain from it. For example, until reading a post (I think by you?) I paid no attention on how to remove the clips found all over the Rogue and came across the clips the other day while cleaning my grill. Yet I learned from that post how to do it because I didn't focus on refuting what they said but focused on understanding what they said (obviously a simple example). No single person knows everything there is to know and most certainly without formal education and training in the topic at hand cannot expect to come close.

Listening to understand leads to a healthier discussion. Listening to reply just leads to crap.

I applaud your junkyard for not taking in cars without the proper maintenance records and doing thorough engineering/oil analysis to determine if and why the engine failed

Again, none of your post relates to the cause of catastrophic vehicle failure (as in it is scrapped for parts) as a result of properly maintaining it with conventional oil vs synthetic.

Higher octane ratings relate to the ability to resist detonation of the fuel. Now the question is, does the detonation of fuel cause poor burning? Does this poor burning leave a by product that we could consider it "dirty"?

I'm not here to pick a fight, as far as I'm concerned we're having a discussion. What's important isn't who is right and who is wrong (and there's is no saying we cannot both be right or wrong) but the knowledge that you gain from it.

ImStricken wrote:oh we take anything in! lol metal is still worth plenty money but removing the valve covers and you can see exactly the "life" this engine had.

absolutely man! im not here to prove anyone wrong and me right. im here to chat, learn, share, and socialize with fellow rogue members. i love engine/car talk. the more you & i talk- not only are we learning and sharing, other quietly reading along are learning. this is a win-win no matter who is wrong or right. (like i mentioned before, the past 3 days i have been fighting with an admin on another site. from his "im never wrong" demeanor, to his insults & name calling- id never want to be that guy. so please dont feel that this is arguing or anything hostile. its just 'guy talk')