On Dec 19, 7:46*am, George wrote:
On 12/18/2011 10:03 AM, BobR wrote:



On Dec 18, 6:49 am, *wrote:
On 12/17/2011 12:10 PM, wrote:

On Sat, 17 Dec 2011 10:11:41 -0500,
wrote:

On 12/16/2011 11:02 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On Fri, 16 Dec 2011 13:16:57 -0500, John Gilmer
* * wrote:

We just got a 2012 KIA van. * The manual recommends a 7,500 mile
interval in "normal" use. * Even the first change (for the run in) isn't
schedules until 7,500 miles.

I think I will likely go for 5k miles between changes.

At least you are out of the 1950's schedule and up to the 1990's or
so. *I've used 7500 miles for a number of years now and have put
200,000 miles on a couple of engines with no *problems. *As have many
car owners.

Me too. Lubricants have come a long way.

Much more important than the (rather insignificant) improvements to
lubricants is the removal of lead and Phosphorous from fuels - and the
current reduction in sulphur levels will help even more.
Also, the electronic engine controls and fuel injection that reduce
fuel dilution by HUGE amounts, and reduce the carbon load on the oil
as well.

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 thought the point was that California was only trying to change the
thinking about frequent oil changes

Maybe so but with California's history of big bother laws it is only a
matter of time.