On Sun, 18 Dec 2011 10:19:15 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On Sun, 18 Dec 2011 07:03:12 -0800 (PST), BobR
wrote:




But consider all of the above there isn't any need to do 3,000 mile oil
changes for lots of vehicles. Longevity of engines that haven't had it
done and oil tests of fleets back that up.-

Give me one valid reason why that shouldn't be the sole discretion of
the public and not the state.

I've not see where anyone says the state should tell you when to
change oil. The state is, however, educating people that the
manufacturer knows better than the oil change store that has a vested
interest in selling you a profit making service.

And the average car owner needs to learn how to read their owner's
manual.And understand it. And then take responsibility for their
decisions - not blaming Chrysler, Honda, Toyota, and others when their
engines "coke up" because of insufficinet oil change frequency (which
HAS been directly implicated in all of the above).

As a manufacturer giving a warranty on wear, it is in their best
interest to avoid repairs. If they say longer is OK, it probably is.
They don't want to be doing ring and bearings at 50,000 miles on all
the cars they've sold. That was a common repair at that point in the
1950's. Now, the warranty is often 100k.

If better than 80% make it past warranty with no issues, and 90+%
without serious issues, the manufacturer is totally satisfied. Even if
80% had problems at 20% past warranty. They are making vehicles to be
uneconomical to repair after warranty so they can continus to sell
cars. They don't want to make the mistakes Studebaker made in the
fifties and sixties.