What about engine flushing?
What about engine flushing? Although there is an effect, there is also a risk!
Sometimes when I go to a car supplies shop, engine oil change,
"Because the inside of the engine is dirty, how about flushing the engine together?"
"Flushing will restore (resurrect) fallen power and fuel economy."
I think that there are many people feeling, there are things that have been advised.
Even at the uncle's shop, " Customers are asking by strangers, but what about flushing?" Is sometimes a customer.However, those who are thinking of flushing the engine,
The mileage is many and the year has passed, fuel efficiency and power are falling.
I do not have regular engine oil change and the condition of the engine is not good
There are lots of people who feel that the condition of the car is getting worse.By using a best engine degreaser it will help you on cleaning your car or motor.
In such a case, there are many cases that the condition of the engine improves by flushing, but on the contrary it gets worse (the engine will be broken).So, flushing after the condition has gone down may be said to be a "double-edged sword" with risk!
What is engine flushing? What is the effect?
Simply put, it is "cleaning the inside of the dirty engine, removing dirt" .
Clean the engine oil line (oil pan, valve-operating system, piston etc.) with the dedicated flushing oil (flushing agent).With this, it is possible to take dirt (sludge) which can not be removed with engine oil alone.
Well, if you are comparing it with products for home use, it is a place called "pipe man".There are several kinds of flushing methods, but it is like touching the shop's way and the degree of the engine (dirty condition) and construction cost.
Construction cost (goods and labor) is quite different depending on the type of product and store, but it is around 2,000 yen ~ 8,000 yen .
If it says what effect it has, because the interior of the engine becomes beautiful,
- Power recovery (acceleration improves)
- Improve fuel economy
- Idling is stabilized
It is said that there are effects such as.Looking at the effect on cost, I think that "I do not like flushing?", But it is unlikely that I can honestly realize the effect so far.
By the way, if you flush,
In the first place, is flushing necessary?
Oddan thinks that it is not necessary to do flushing if it is a regular ride (general use environment) and regular engine oil change is done.Generally it is not possible to get dirt (sludge) enough to make the engine feel bad if you are doing "Replacing engine oil at 3,000 Km - 6,000 Km".
The engine oil also contains ingredients that will remove dirt, and there are also oil elements that take the dirt off, so I think that it is not necessary if it is normal.For that purpose it is "engine oil change and element exchange" .
However, if you own a car with sports cars or hobbies,
"I want to keep the condition (performance) of the engine always in good condition"
I think that it is good to flush regularly from the idea of etc.By flushing, the power does not rise, so I can not feel the effect, but it is good for the engine.Flushing on the grounds of bad condition is risky!
I think that it is better to do a flang, the best reason to recommend,
Engine oil change is not done periodically, soiling has accumulated (oil is too dirty when changing oil)
And that is it.If it is about an ordinary multi-car or one or two oil change cycle, it will not be a problem even if flushing, and I think that dirt can be taken cleanly.I can not feel or can not feel it, but there are effects.
However, flushing is considerably higher risk if you are a car that has not exchanged oil for tens of thousands of Km or if you are a car that has only a few oil changes in the past with a multi-run car.
Because it is not the feeling that the interior of the engine is dirty, such as this car, it is often that it is becoming a muddy with sludge sticking.
In such a situation, I think that sludge (sludge and tar) stuck will certainly peel off when flushing normally.
Less few: need for a conscious lifestyle
Juliet Shore is a sociological professor at Boston College. Before teaching at Boston College, I taught at the Faculty of Economics at Harvard University and the Committee on Degrees in Women's Studies (Female Studies Institute) for 17 years. She graduated from Wesleyan University and received a PhD in economics from the University of Massachusetts.
Mr. Shore has written extensively on the relationship of work with Americans and "Reduced Americans - Reduction of Unexpected Leisure" became a best seller. The latest work is "True Wealth: How and Why Millions of Americans are created a time-rich, ecologically-light, small-scale, high-satisfaction economy (true richness: millions of Americans, Methods and reasons for creating a rich, ecologically burdensome, small-scale, satisfactory economy) "(published in the past as" Preniture - New <Richness> economics ") . This book deals with economics and sociology of ecological decline and suggests dramatically changing ideas on consumer goods and values and lifestyles. Mr. Shore currently writes about environmental sustainability issues and the relationship between the birth of the movement to encourage American lifestyle and economy and conscious consumption and the sustainability of the environment. She is a co-founder and director of Center for a New American Dream is a national organization that promotes sustainability.
According to the report, despite the economic downturn, it seems that record purchasing levels were seen during Thanksgiving weekend heading for Christmas. From the standpoint of criticizing consumerism, what do you think about this news?
I do not know how much meaning these events are. The pattern of shopping has changed. There was considerable purchasing behavior in the same period of 2011, but when you look at the whole, the expenditure is the same. Consumers will increase spending if the economy is doing well, employment is upward, debt is reduced. That can be predicted.
The recession was a matter of debt rather than a problem of expenditure. In other words, "Oh, it's a bad thing to spend money" was not a problem. Environmental protection activists often think about things from this point of view, but that is not a very useful point of view. Speaking of the vacation season, there are other things to consider in addition to shopping. It is a point related to movement and meals.
Purchasing goods and services as part of a home footprint is not as important as food and movement. We tend to pay attention to shopping and product purchase. Because people overcame with such behavior and have moral criticism against shopping. But in our lives very important parts other than shopping are often invisible.
What is the correct lesson to learn from this recession? Where should we head from now?
We should stop looking at the overall growth rate of the economy and start to look at what we use economic resources. It is necessary to pay attention to growth and personal consumption, not to argue from a macroeconomic point of view, but investment and what to invest. We should shift to a clean energy system and get out of fossil fuels. It is very important in problems such as public health, ecological burden and fairness of the world. That is the most important lesson.
Transformation of the energy system involves many public investment and various execution plans. Various transformations are required, such as conversion from expressway to public transportation. For example, it is related to the balance between investment and consumption, investment in human resources, human beings, education, welfare. Such change will greatly improve welfare and such transformation is very important for future productivity and welfare, especially when considering the evolution of the economy. We live in a complex world. We need to expand ecological knowledge.
What is the role played by the environment in that case?
Our economy is an economy that treats nature as free goods. We need to treat nature as scarce goods and shift to a paradigm to use in a sustainable manner. To that end, we must reformulate agriculture and manufacturing methods, and we must deeply know the ecological know-how. Now we do not have much Information. And our economic system does not give people the incentive to learn it.
Is there anything that makes the future optimistic in the movement of the government?
I am pleased that President Obama is finally talking about climate change. It is time for us people to put our words into action now.
I think Americans do not want to sacrifice convenience, but what do you think? Is not it hard to abandon convenience?
It is not a matter of sacrifice. I named the book "pre-dressed" (enough to be) also because we wanted to clarify that we can enrich in the most important things and that it is not a sacrifice. I think that what deteriorates the earth will also deteriorate human happiness. So, from the ecological point of view, the unsustainable old-fashioned economy is unsustainable for human beings. If you change the system, you can restore the earth and human beings will be happier.
I also disagree with the idea of sacrifice and the idea that work, goods and the environment can be offset. That is not correct. In the very narrow sense it will be correct. In other words, if you do not allow yourself to make a change, or if you can not escape from something very dysfunctional, exclusive and unfair, such as the current system. The idea of us to must do sacrifice to solve the climate problem is, after all, moral criticism.
Do various economic organizations share these issues equally?
People who gain huge profits by burning the earth with fossil fuels are only a part. They are global elite. People are at the top of the distribution with a tremendously big footprint. But for most people what you can do to reduce footprint involves a transformation from a destructive, unhealthy and industrialized economy to an organic, regional and healthy economy. This will improve the quality of people's lives.
Please assume us in 2050. Suppose that every correct change has already been realized. What change is it? What is the result?
In my imagination 2050 years, people take regular work, work on average 16 to 20 hours in the official economy, and get a certain salary. They meet the demand in various ways. For example, we are doing some self-sufficiency activities, such as cultivating and growing food with high-tech and ecological knowledge (a technique that obtains high productivity with a small labor force). People have programmable 3D printers to make small scale goods. The family is a small factory. People are involved in various peer-production activities. It is a collaboration that is already realized in the world of information software and culture on the web like Wikipedia, for example. It is not aimed at profit, it is cooperative, high quality, work according to each economic model.
There will also be exchange activities among cooperators that can be realized with many activities and cultures. I am considering peer production at accommodation places and stay places. Like Couchsurfing or AirBnB (Air Bnb), collaborators provide their homes to people at no charge or at a low price. Transportation means and peer production of food have already been realized.
In my foreseeable future, people are getting more time to produce things. In other words, if the working hours are only 20 hours, you can make clothes, make oven dishes, and exchange services with neighbors. It is a shared economy, it is an economy of collaboration between humans. This economy frees people from heavy lifestyle and long working hours. Because most of these activities are regional and creative. In the first place, people like to have a wide choice of how to spend their time. It is a new economics of home production.
You are writing about the relation between the "working too" American and the environment. Please tell me about that.
For my latest work and my research in general, that is a big theme. Twenty years ago, I wrote a book about long working hours. In the context of economics and culture, I criticized the influence of excessive working hours on community and family life. Recently, we are considering relating carbon, climate and working hours. Countries with short working hours have low carbon emissions and low ecological footprints. This point will become very important from now on. So, what did we learn from the economic downturn?
One big lesson is that we should allocate labor more equitably. If we stick to the current long working hours culture, it would be difficult to create enough work to hire all domestic workers. It is necessary to shorten working hours, but it is not a bad thing if we can share our work fairly.
My idea is to turn full-time workers into short working schedules. In order to reduce carbon emissions, this will be very important. My statistics survey shows. In other words, shortening working hours is a key element in the way to reducing carbon emissions.
© Copyright My Blog