On Saturday, February 9, 2019 at 4:07:08 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Saturday, 9 February 2019 00:51:59 UTC, Fox's Mercantile wrote:
On 2/8/19 4:27 PM, tabbypurr wrote:

I've gone & chilled. No I'm not obsessed, it's just, what's the word, I'm seeing a long thread of groupthink.

A b) & c) are debateable. Whether B c) results in the need to run it every 2 weeks is at best unlikely.

And yet, you just had to argue.

I chose to discuss it. It's how it works here. The notion that an engine has a minimum run time that is when the oil exceeds 100C is a simple fiction. That you object to that doesn't change it.


NT

OMG, are you guys politicians, OCD engineers, or techno weenies wanna be's?
If the OP fretted over all the fly **** in pepper in this thread s/he probably never would accomplish the goal. The OP isn't building a Mars rover (been there, done that) and needs to know quiescent current draw down to the nano amp,or if it is 0.002 ma or 0.100 ma, or if the OP going to do an oil analysis to determine %of H2O that, if left in the engine long enough will rust away 500 lbs of cast iron and degrade aluminum.
Abstraction and pragmatism goes a long way and can save LOTS of time and energy: Run the car approximately every 10-14 days, for approximately 20-30 mins, while varying the rpm every so often but try to keep RPM a around 800-1000RPM to effectively charge the battery.
If oil condition is suspect, change it and filter when the guy gets out of the hospital. Case closed. sheesh dont sweat the small things and don't pet the furry things....

Given all the overthink that seems to have been elicited in this thread, I am surprised no one suggested reparking the car by a 10 degree clockwise rotation every time the engine is run so the UV light from the sun would degrade the interior components equally....