On Fri, 26 Aug 2011 19:03:55 -0700 (PDT), Harry K
wrote:

On Aug 26, 8:53*am, Steve Barker wrote:
On 8/24/2011 9:02 PM, Metspitzer wrote:

All the oil change places still put 3000 in the window sticker.

Good advice. *Oil SHOULD be changed every 3000 miles.

--
Steve Barker
remove the "not" from my address to email

I hope yu have advised the auto makers world wide of this remarkable
requirement. They need to change their manuals ASAP.

They already have.

In article ,
Steve Barker wrote:

suit yourself. you're probably right, given most you yuppies won't keep
the vehicle long enough to matter. Might just as well not change it at
all if you're only gonna keep it 50,000 miles or 2 years. Why bother.?

I once drove 100 miles to look at a used car with 50,000 miles on it. I
asked the seller for service receipts and he said the car had never
needed any service. "What about oil changes?" I inquired. And the answer
was a sneering "I never bother with stuff like that."

"Erik" wrote in message
...

The big killer is combustion byproducts. Since engines are a lot cleaner
burning than they once were, this is reduced somewhat. The manuals on my
cars
recommend 7500mi for light service and 3000mi for severe duty. Look up
the
meaning of "severe duty" and it includes pretty much everything except
non-stop interstate driving in 70F, dry, weather.

This is true! Or 'light service' could be described as 7,500 miles, all
run in one 'trip', on a dyno, mounted in a clean room. Not 'real world
usage...

Rant mode on:

Rant all you want, but the truth does not bear you out. Yes, some people
should change at 3000 miles, but most would be wasting their money. Some
others should change at 5000 miles. I know of plenty of cars in the
100,000 to 200,000 mile range with no engine problems at higher intervals.
The people that warranty my engine for 100,000 miles would not tell me to
change at 75000 miles if it was going to cost them money.

Sorry, you were right 40 years ago, but not in 2011.

On Fri, 26 Aug 2011 19:46:59 -0700, Smitty Two
wrote:

In article ,
Steve Barker wrote:

suit yourself. you're probably right, given most you yuppies won't keep
the vehicle long enough to matter. Might just as well not change it at
all if you're only gonna keep it 50,000 miles or 2 years. Why bother.?

I once drove 100 miles to look at a used car with 50,000 miles on it. I
asked the seller for service receipts and he said the car had never
needed any service. "What about oil changes?" I inquired. And the answer
was a sneering "I never bother with stuff like that."

Did you buy the car?

On Fri, 26 Aug 2011 18:19:44 -0500, Steve Barker
wrote:

On 8/26/2011 5:14 PM, Larry W wrote:
In articlevp6dnc486MLvXMrTnZ2dnUVZ_gKdnZ2d@giganews. com,
Steve wrote:
On 8/24/2011 9:02 PM, Metspitzer wrote:
All the oil change places still put 3000 in the window sticker.

Good advice. Oil SHOULD be changed every 3000 miles.

--
Steve Barker
remove the "not" from my address to email

True from the perspective of a Jiffy Lube franchisee, but not necessary for
the vast majority of vehicles using modern oil and built in the last 3
decades or so.



suit yourself. you're probably right, given most you yuppies won't keep
the vehicle long enough to matter. Might just as well not change it at
all if you're only gonna keep it 50,000 miles or 2 years. Why bother.?

I don't know how often the oil was changed on the Grand Am my daughter
bought with 120K on it. I *do* know that for the next 120K she
changed the oil when the car told her to. [probably 5-6-7K]

At 240K the suspension & body were beyond her comfort level so she
traded it in-- but the engine in that thing was perfect.

I've pretty much 'waited for the light' since 1995 when my Taurus had
one. When the light hadn't come on for 5k the first time I checked
with my mechanic & he said the computers in modern cars are smarter
than the drivers- listen to them.

The Taurus got traded when the transmission got unbearable [150k or
so] -- The impala has had the same treatment and is at 130k and never
uses oil.

Jim

wrote:

-snip-
Most cars come with stainless exhausts now - and those that don't -
put them on at first replacement. My first Aerostar exhaust went at
about 30 months - the replacement stainless lasted untill the guy I
sold it to scrapped it at 300,000km, about 15 years or so later.

I just got a rumble in my 2001 Impala at 126K & went to see when the
last time I had replaced the exhaust system. Never. [I did get a
muffler 5 years ago]

So I crawl under to see what I'm up against. I need the $6 chunk
of pipe that adapted from the muffler to the exhaust. [and a rubber
donut, and a hanger]

That's another one of those un-noticed advantages of our 'overpriced'
modern cars.

How many 'routine maintenance' jobs are no longer necessary- oil
intervals, spark plug intervals, points, condensers, tires, batteries,
exhaust systems. . .. .?

Jim

On Sat, 27 Aug 2011 07:21:58 -0400, Jim Elbrecht
wrote:


How many 'routine maintenance' jobs are no longer necessary- oil
intervals, spark plug intervals, points, condensers, tires, batteries,
exhaust systems. . .. .?

Jim

Used to do spring and fall full tune-ups to keep mine solid.
You forgot carb choke adjustment.
That all ended in '91 when I bought an '88 Celebrity with 2.8.
Never picked up my timing light or dwell meter again.
World of difference after electronics and fuel injection.
Nobody much talks about, but I guess metallurgy is the biggest
contributor to engine longevity, not newer oils.
Not needing valve jobs and no cylinder blow-by makes me think that.
You could keep the old ones tuned and change the oil every 2000 miles,
but valves and rings/walls would go bad before 100k miles.
At least that was my experience.

--Vic

"Jim Elbrecht" wrote
At 240K the suspension & body were beyond her comfort level so she
traded it in-- but the engine in that thing was perfect.

The Taurus got traded when the transmission got unbearable [150k or
so] -- The impala has had the same treatment and is at 130k and never
uses oil.

Jim

Your experience is much the same as mine. Engines today are incredibly good
compared to the rest of the machine. Automatics transmissions are far
better than the old Power Glide, but still not as good as the typical
engine.

I bought a LeSabre in 2001. I really like that car for the first 40,000
miles. Then, heated seat was first to go. Dealer wanted $675 for replace
it. Both rear windows had broken mechanisms and would slide down so I
propped them up with wood braces. Brakes lines rusted out, transmission
was rebuilt, climate control went nuts. Cold on one side, hot on the other
and varied with the heat or AC. Wheel bearing went, a $300 repair. A few
other not serious but annoying problems happened.

Gave the car to my grandson after 10 years, but the engine still ran smooth
as the day it was built.

aemeijers wrote:
On 8/26/2011 5:53 PM, Metspitzer wrote:
(snip)

The amount of money government spends "creating jobs" is just
throwing money at the problem. The most effective way our
government could create jobs would be to only spend government money
on American made products and legal American workers.

While I mostly agree with you in principle, I'm afraid that ship has
long since sailed. A whole lot of what the government buys is no
longer made in this country, period. The factories aren't even THERE
anymore. Congress did pass the so-called 'Buy America' act several
years back which tried to require what you advocate, but I'm not sure
they even try to enforce it any more. Try to buy a computer (for
example) that isn't mainly China or Pacific-rim sourced. And the
gummint buys a Whole Lotta computers.

Besides which, the concept is flawed. Buyers should be able to get the best
value for their needs, irrespective of its origin. In the case of, say,
China, we (individuals or governments) buy computers from them because that
product is the best value for the price. They, in turn, buy stuff from us
(wheat, airplanes, Hello Kitty products) because they, in turn, get the best
value.

Artificial restraints of trade ("Buy American", tariffs, taxes, "prevailing
wage" rules, etc.) and various forms of protectionism are an overall drag on
the economy.

In his book, "An Inquiry Into the Wealth of Nations," Adam Smith illustrated
a cheese-wine dilemma. France made excellent wine and mediocre cheese. Just
the reverse was true for Italy. France instituted a severe tariff on
imported cheese to protect its domestic cheese-makers. Italy did the same
with wine. The consumers in France ended up with ghastly cheese while the
imbibers in Italy had to drink terrible wine.

The only people who benefited were the makers of indifferent cheese in
France and the incompetent vintners in Italy.

On Sat, 27 Aug 2011 07:43:20 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

aemeijers wrote:
On 8/26/2011 5:53 PM, Metspitzer wrote:
(snip)

The amount of money government spends "creating jobs" is just
throwing money at the problem. The most effective way our
government could create jobs would be to only spend government money
on American made products and legal American workers.

While I mostly agree with you in principle, I'm afraid that ship has
long since sailed. A whole lot of what the government buys is no
longer made in this country, period. The factories aren't even THERE
anymore. Congress did pass the so-called 'Buy America' act several
years back which tried to require what you advocate, but I'm not sure
they even try to enforce it any more. Try to buy a computer (for
example) that isn't mainly China or Pacific-rim sourced. And the
gummint buys a Whole Lotta computers.

Besides which, the concept is flawed. Buyers should be able to get the best
value for their needs, irrespective of its origin. In the case of, say,
China, we (individuals or governments) buy computers from them because that
product is the best value for the price. They, in turn, buy stuff from us
(wheat, airplanes, Hello Kitty products) because they, in turn, get the best
value.


Tariffs and protectionism work well when a country has industrial
policy. We have none.
No energy policy, no industrial policy.
Just dopes fighting in Congress and a President with no real policy
vision I can see.
That's why unemployment is so high, and will worsen.

Artificial restraints of trade ("Buy American", tariffs, taxes, "prevailing
wage" rules, etc.) and various forms of protectionism are an overall drag on
the economy.

This economy? Looks like it "drags" just fine all by itself, with
essentially laissez faire trade policy and no industrial policy.
Hey, that reminds me,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkExpbnjsX8
No sense in trying to solve a problem by using as a "solution" what
got them into trouble in the first place.
As I see it, the virtual de-industrialization of America is the
problem.
Since I spent my first 10 years after the Navy working in factories
producing goods sold here and for export, some might think me
prejudiced. But I don't think so.
http://www.businessinsider.com/deind...closing-2010-9


In his book, "An Inquiry Into the Wealth of Nations," Adam Smith illustrated
a cheese-wine dilemma. France made excellent wine and mediocre cheese. Just
the reverse was true for Italy. France instituted a severe tariff on
imported cheese to protect its domestic cheese-makers. Italy did the same
with wine. The consumers in France ended up with ghastly cheese while the
imbibers in Italy had to drink terrible wine.

The only people who benefited were the makers of indifferent cheese in
France and the incompetent vintners in Italy.


Adam Smith is dead, and so is the pastoral world of yore.
I can make my own cheese and wine.
For most manufactured goods I have to buy foreign.
That's why "they" have jobs and we don't.
It won't last though. People without jobs can buy nothing.
Unless the Fed can somehow keep printing money to pass out.
It's all a dream within a dream.
It was good while it lasted.

--Vic

On Sat, 27 Aug 2011 07:21:58 -0400, Jim Elbrecht
wrote:

wrote:

-snip-
Most cars come with stainless exhausts now - and those that don't -
put them on at first replacement. My first Aerostar exhaust went at
about 30 months - the replacement stainless lasted untill the guy I
sold it to scrapped it at 300,000km, about 15 years or so later.

I just got a rumble in my 2001 Impala at 126K & went to see when the
last time I had replaced the exhaust system. Never. [I did get a
muffler 5 years ago]

So I crawl under to see what I'm up against. I need the $6 chunk
of pipe that adapted from the muffler to the exhaust. [and a rubber
donut, and a hanger]

That's another one of those un-noticed advantages of our 'overpriced'
modern cars.

How many 'routine maintenance' jobs are no longer necessary- oil
intervals, spark plug intervals, points, condensers, tires, batteries,
exhaust systems. . .. .?

Jim
You can pretty much cont on being able to drive 200,000km on a new
car with nothing more than tires, brakes, oil changes,a serpentine
belt and one set of spark plugs - if you put the miles on fast enough.

Possibly a couple of wheel bearings or CV joints, and a timing belt if
it has one. Even the hoses often last that long.

But if that car has not had preventative maintenance, anyone buying it
at that point can be in for a whole world of hurt.

Without antifreeze service, the rad is most likely finished. The fuel
pump is on borrowed time if the fuel filter has never been changed -
the transmission is ready to die if the fluid has never been changed -
it will likely need all the front end joints and rubbers replaced, and
if the oil has not been changed on an "adequate" schedule the chain
tensioners (if it has a timing chain) are "done" and the valve lash
adjusters and variable valve timing apparatus are likely ready to call
it a day any time as well.
If the plugs were not changed on time it might need a new catalytic
converter to pass the E-Test too.

On Sat, 27 Aug 2011 06:58:17 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Sat, 27 Aug 2011 07:21:58 -0400, Jim Elbrecht
wrote:


How many 'routine maintenance' jobs are no longer necessary- oil
intervals, spark plug intervals, points, condensers, tires, batteries,
exhaust systems. . .. .?

Jim

Used to do spring and fall full tune-ups to keep mine solid.
You forgot carb choke adjustment.
That all ended in '91 when I bought an '88 Celebrity with 2.8.
Never picked up my timing light or dwell meter again.
World of difference after electronics and fuel injection.
Nobody much talks about, but I guess metallurgy is the biggest
contributor to engine longevity, not newer oils.
Not needing valve jobs and no cylinder blow-by makes me think that.
You could keep the old ones tuned and change the oil every 2000 miles,
but valves and rings/walls would go bad before 100k miles.
At least that was my experience.

--Vic
The metalurgy has not advanced very much at all over the last 30
years - and in some cases has gone backwards. The newer oils, in many
cases, are no "better" than the old oils - in some ways, even worse
(less EP additives, for instance), but the engines last longer because
of the removal of lead and all the required dispersant additives from
the fuel, and the much better fuel control of EFI. A lot less acid
buildup in the oil, and a lot less fuel dilution of the oil, which
translates to a lot less oxidation of the oil - less carbon buildup in
the oil, less corrosion of bearings and rings, less varnish build-up
etc.

As for tolerances, the bearing clearances, in absolute terms, have
also not changed - but the consistancy and surface finish have
improved a lot. Both on bearings/journals, cyls/rings, and combustion
chambers. This means a LOT less wear -
Untill the additive package in the oil is exhausted, allowing the oil
to oxidize and the bearings etc to etch -and the rings to stick, and
sludge to block the oil galleries, and all the other nasty stuff that
Chrysler, Honda, and Toyota had to deal with over the last decade with
the "coking" problems that have been in the news.

The ONLY thing that causes those problems is failure to maintain oil
quality - either inferior oil in the first place, leaving the oil in
too long, or both.

Theinfamous 2.6 liter Mitsubishi "hemi" in chrysler products a number
of years ago did not have oil burning or engine rattling (timing chain
) problems if the oil was changed often enough. The Chrysler 2.7 V6
did not have coking problems and pre-mature failure issues if the oil
was changed "often enough" Likewize with Toyota and Honda.

If you drove the car under what the manual identifies as "severe
conditions" (90% of urban north american drivers do) and went by the
"normal" schedule, you had grief - almost guaranteed.

Friends working in all 3 dealerships report that the've never seen an
"overmaintained" vehicle in for any of those issues. NEVER.

"Overmaintained" meaning a minimum of 2 oil changes a year and a
maximum of 6000km per oil change.

"Steve Barker" wrote in message
...
On 8/24/2011 9:02 PM, Metspitzer wrote:
All the oil change places still put 3000 in the window sticker.

Good advice. Oil SHOULD be changed every 3000 miles.

--
Steve Barker

And while you're at it, don't forget to change the air in the tires. You
SHOULD change the air in your tires every 3,000 miles, unless you live in
the inner city, where there is pollution, and then 1,500 is advised. In
some metropolises, daily changes are suggested.

HTH

Steve

"Ed Pawlowski" wrote


Sorry, you were right 40 years ago, but not in 2011.

Are you saying things have changed in a mere forty years?

Steve

The amount of money government spends "creating jobs" is just throwing
money at the problem. The most effective way our government could
create jobs would be to only spend government money on American made
products and legal American workers.

Just to be fair here, it should be noted that most jobs "created" are in the
government sector to ease the three day workload of existing government
workers.

Steve

"Steve B" wrote

And while you're at it, don't forget to change the air in the tires. You
SHOULD change the air in your tires every 3,000 miles, unless you live in
the inner city, where there is pollution, and then 1,500 is advised. In
some metropolises, daily changes are suggested.

HTH

Steve

You still use air? For about $70 you can have them nitrogen filled.

"Steve B" wrote in message
news

"Ed Pawlowski" wrote


Sorry, you were right 40 years ago, but not in 2011.

Are you saying things have changed in a mere forty years?

Steve


Yes. My dipstick still works but I don't use it as often.

In article ,
"Ed Pawlowski" wrote:

"Steve B" wrote

And while you're at it, don't forget to change the air in the tires. You
SHOULD change the air in your tires every 3,000 miles, unless you live in
the inner city, where there is pollution, and then 1,500 is advised. In
some metropolises, daily changes are suggested.

HTH

Steve

You still use air? For about $70 you can have them nitrogen filled.



100% nitrogen is bad for your tires. I use a special high-performance
gas blend. It's 78% nitrogen. Gives you all the benefit of nitrogen with
none of the drawbacks.

suit yourself. *you're probably right, given most you yuppies won't keep
the vehicle long enough to matter. *Might just as well not change it at
all if you're only gonna keep it 50,000 miles or 2 years. *Why bother.?

--
Steve Barker

Not necessary to get your back up, Steve. You claim good results at a
3000 mile interval, and no one doubts that. Many if not most posts
here are claming similar results at longer intervals. This is
consistent with guidance from many if not most auto manufacturers. So
when you make the declarative statement:

"Good advice. Oil SHOULD be changed every 3000 miles. ",

it begs to be challenged.

By the way, this yuppie has never sold or traded a car before
140-160K.

On Sat, 27 Aug 2011 16:32:23 -0400, "Ed Pawlowski" wrote:


"Steve B" wrote in message
news

"Ed Pawlowski" wrote


Sorry, you were right 40 years ago, but not in 2011.

Are you saying things have changed in a mere forty years?

Steve


Yes. My dipstick still works but I don't use it as often.

Certainly, having just had our 40th anniversary, I can attest that dipstick
usage changes over 40 years. ;-)

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 27 Aug 2011 16:32:23 -0400, "Ed Pawlowski"
wrote:


"Steve B" wrote in message
news

"Ed Pawlowski" wrote


Sorry, you were right 40 years ago, but not in 2011.

Are you saying things have changed in a mere forty years?

Steve


Yes. My dipstick still works but I don't use it as often.

Certainly, having just had our 40th anniversary, I can attest that
dipstick
usage changes over 40 years. ;-)

But the last use was still as good as the first!

On 8/26/2011 8:05 PM, wrote:
Most cars come with stainless exhausts now - and those that don't -
put them on at first replacement. My first Aerostar exhaust went at
about 30 months - the replacement stainless lasted untill the guy I
sold it to scrapped it at 300,000km, about 15 years or so later.

The removal of lead from Gasoline helped both oil life and exhaust
system life. Plus, a hot catalytic converter upstream helps also.

On Sat, 27 Aug 2011 18:47:01 -0400, "Ed Pawlowski" wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 27 Aug 2011 16:32:23 -0400, "Ed Pawlowski"
wrote:


"Steve B" wrote in message
news
"Ed Pawlowski" wrote


Sorry, you were right 40 years ago, but not in 2011.

Are you saying things have changed in a mere forty years?

Steve


Yes. My dipstick still works but I don't use it as often.

Certainly, having just had our 40th anniversary, I can attest that
dipstick
usage changes over 40 years. ;-)

But the last use was still as good as the first!

Maxwell House?

Vic Smith wrote:
On Sat, 27 Aug 2011 07:43:20 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

aemeijers wrote:
On 8/26/2011 5:53 PM, Metspitzer wrote:
(snip)

The amount of money government spends "creating jobs" is just
throwing money at the problem. The most effective way our
government could create jobs would be to only spend government
money on American made products and legal American workers.

While I mostly agree with you in principle, I'm afraid that ship has
long since sailed. A whole lot of what the government buys is no
longer made in this country, period. The factories aren't even THERE
anymore. Congress did pass the so-called 'Buy America' act several
years back which tried to require what you advocate, but I'm not
sure they even try to enforce it any more. Try to buy a computer
(for example) that isn't mainly China or Pacific-rim sourced. And
the gummint buys a Whole Lotta computers.

Besides which, the concept is flawed. Buyers should be able to get
the best value for their needs, irrespective of its origin. In the
case of, say, China, we (individuals or governments) buy computers
from them because that product is the best value for the price.
They, in turn, buy stuff from us (wheat, airplanes, Hello Kitty
products) because they, in turn, get the best value.


Tariffs and protectionism work well when a country has industrial
policy. We have none.
No energy policy, no industrial policy.
Just dopes fighting in Congress and a President with no real policy
vision I can see.
That's why unemployment is so high, and will worsen.

Artificial restraints of trade ("Buy American", tariffs, taxes,
"prevailing wage" rules, etc.) and various forms of protectionism
are an overall drag on the economy.

This economy? Looks like it "drags" just fine all by itself, with
essentially laissez faire trade policy and no industrial policy.
Hey, that reminds me,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkExpbnjsX8
No sense in trying to solve a problem by using as a "solution" what
got them into trouble in the first place.
As I see it, the virtual de-industrialization of America is the
problem.
Since I spent my first 10 years after the Navy working in factories
producing goods sold here and for export, some might think me
prejudiced. But I don't think so.
http://www.businessinsider.com/deind...closing-2010-9



Oh, we do have "policies."

For example, Canada just completed a "Free Trade" agreement with Columbia.
Columbia will now buy Canadian wheat at 15% less than American. The current
administration's "policy" is to NOT submit the Columbian Free Trade Treaty
to the Senate.

I'm not sure what you mean by "industrial policy." If you mean a
government-directed plan to favor some industries and control the direction
of development, Japan tried that and it failed miserably. Authoritarian
governments have also tried setting quotas and goals (i.e. Soviet Five-Year
Plans and the like) which have also failed miserably. Not to be discouraged,
OUR government is meddling in the same thing with ethanol subsidies and
grants for "clean energy" development.

On Sat, 27 Aug 2011 17:59:50 -0500, "
wrote:

On Sat, 27 Aug 2011 18:47:01 -0400, "Ed Pawlowski" wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 27 Aug 2011 16:32:23 -0400, "Ed Pawlowski"
wrote:


"Steve B" wrote in message
news
"Ed Pawlowski" wrote


Sorry, you were right 40 years ago, but not in 2011.

Are you saying things have changed in a mere forty years?

Steve


Yes. My dipstick still works but I don't use it as often.

Certainly, having just had our 40th anniversary, I can attest that
dipstick
usage changes over 40 years. ;-)

But the last use was still as good as the first!

Maxwell House?
Good to the last ounce.

wrote:

Certainly, having just had our 40th anniversary, I can attest that
dipstick
usage changes over 40 years. ;-)

But the last use was still as good as the first!

Maxwell House?

I think it was a beer that used that tag line. I know Schafer is the one
beer to have when you're having more than one.

On 8/27/2011 4:00 PM, ed_h wrote:

suit yourself. you're probably right, given most you yuppies won't keep
the vehicle long enough to matter. Might just as well not change it at
all if you're only gonna keep it 50,000 miles or 2 years. Why bother.?

--
Steve Barker

Not necessary to get your back up, Steve. You claim good results at a
3000 mile interval, and no one doubts that. Many if not most posts
here are claming similar results at longer intervals. This is
consistent with guidance from many if not most auto manufacturers. So
when you make the declarative statement:

"Good advice. Oil SHOULD be changed every 3000 miles. ",

it begs to be challenged.

By the way, this yuppie has never sold or traded a car before
140-160K.






if you actually READ the owners manual, you'll see they suggest 3,000
mile intervals for sever service. Most all of our daily driving will
fall into that category. I don't trade vehicles at all, i junk them.
And I change oil at 3,000 miles. Many of my vehicles have gone beyond
300,000 miles and don't use ANY oil. ('cept that bigblock chevy, LOL)



--
Steve Barker
remove the "not" from my address to email

On 8/26/2011 6:56 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:


The big killer is combustion byproducts. Since engines are a lot cleaner
burning than they once were, this is reduced somewhat. The manuals on my cars
recommend 7500mi for light service and 3000mi for severe duty. Look up the
meaning of "severe duty" and it includes pretty much everything except
non-stop interstate driving in 70F, dry, weather.

exactly.

--
Steve Barker
remove the "not" from my address to email

On 8/26/2011 9:17 PM, Erik wrote:
The big killer is combustion byproducts. Since engines are a lot cleaner
burning than they once were, this is reduced somewhat. The manuals on my cars
recommend 7500mi for light service and 3000mi for severe duty. Look up the
meaning of "severe duty" and it includes pretty much everything except
non-stop interstate driving in 70F, dry, weather.

This is true! Or 'light service' could be described as 7,500 miles, all
run in one 'trip', on a dyno, mounted in a clean room. Not 'real world
usage...

Rant mode on:

Modern conventional oil's don't 'break down' in short trip usage, but
rapidly becomes more and more contaminated with water and acids...
leading to bearing deterioration, sludge issues, and hardening of seals.
Note that modern oils are still wonderful lubricants even after being
run well beyond their recommended change intervals... it's contaminates
that are the issue. (Dirt becomes more of an issue if the oil is run
long enough cause a filter bypass to open, or if you get a bum oil or
air filter. Modern oil and air filters are for the most part very good.)

If your 'average' trip is on the order of more than 20 min or so, oil
will routinely reach sufficient temperatures, and maintain them long
enough too boil off most (but not all) contaminates. These are
eliminated by the PCV. For 'long' trips, yes, 5 or 6 thousand miles
change intervals are fine.

But if your normal usage is short (or dusty) trips, contaminates rapidly
become more and more concentrated. It's here where you should do changes
every 3,000 miles, OR 90 DAYS, which ever comes first! 90 days as in
actually marking it on the calendar, and ignoring the odometer unless
it's racked up over 3k miles!

Remember, that water and acid are continuously at work, even when the
vehicle is just sitting parked. (Expensive synthetic oils contaminate
just like conventional's by the way.) 3k change intervals also minimize
dirt issues in the event you happen on a a bad oil or air filter too...
it happens on occasion.

If you don't care about the car, or trade every couple of years, run it
as long as you want! On the other hand, you can get a LOT of dependable
service out of most any engine by regularly changing oil. (Do the
coolant every year too... that's a rant for another day.)

Four oil changes a year isn't that big a deal...

Rant off.

Erik

Well said. And correct.

--
Steve Barker
remove the "not" from my address to email

On 8/26/2011 10:11 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

"Erik" wrote in message
...

The big killer is combustion byproducts. Since engines are a lot cleaner
burning than they once were, this is reduced somewhat. The manuals on
my cars
recommend 7500mi for light service and 3000mi for severe duty. Look
up the
meaning of "severe duty" and it includes pretty much everything except
non-stop interstate driving in 70F, dry, weather.

This is true! Or 'light service' could be described as 7,500 miles, all
run in one 'trip', on a dyno, mounted in a clean room. Not 'real world
usage...

Rant mode on:

Rant all you want, but the truth does not bear you out. Yes, some people
should change at 3000 miles, but most would be wasting their money. Some
others should change at 5000 miles. I know of plenty of cars in the
100,000 to 200,000 mile range with no engine problems at higher
intervals. The people that warranty my engine for 100,000 miles would
not tell me to change at 75000 miles if it was going to cost them money.

Sorry, you were right 40 years ago, but not in 2011.

Nothing has changed. And i'd like to see the engine builder that
recommends the 75,000 mile oil changes.

--
Steve Barker
remove the "not" from my address to email

On 8/26/2011 7:05 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 25 Aug 2011 20:56:09 -0700 (PDT), Harry K
wrote:

On Aug 25, 8:35 am, Vic wrote:
On Thu, 25 Aug 2011 14:30:05 GMT, Red
wrote:





Harry wrote in news:9f59ffdf-0a25-469d-a2d9-
:

On Aug 24, 7:22 pm, wrote:
On Aug 24, 9:02 pm, wrote:

All the oil change places still put 3000 in the window sticker.

My truck has a built in feature that puts a message up on the dash
readout when it's time to change oil. The owners manual says that the
message is based on a lot of things, including length of trips,
temperature, and driving habits, and to change oil when I get the
message, or at 7000 miles, whichever is sooner. The message typically
pops up at around 6000-7500 miles.

The factory dealer's service department still puts on the 3000 mile
sticker, though.

I do at 3,000. Been around 6 years since I read the manual but IIRC
it give 3,000 for 'severe service'. Since most of my driving is only
4 miles to town and 4 back that certainly is sever service as it never
gets properly warmed up.

Harry K

You probably go through a lot of exhaust fixes.

4 miles should be enough to heat up the exhaust well.
Probably. Can't say I ever checked it.

--Vic- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Never have had to fix any car exhausts but to keep SWMBO happy I chnge
cars often. Now my truck....I need to replace the whole thing again.
Everything aft of the muffler stub is gone...as in dropped off
somewhere on the road. This is the second time for it and I bought it
used. Currently at 150,000

Harry K
Most cars come with stainless exhausts now - and those that don't -
put them on at first replacement. My first Aerostar exhaust went at
about 30 months - the replacement stainless lasted untill the guy I
sold it to scrapped it at 300,000km, about 15 years or so later.

They are not stainless, they are aluminized steel. Stainless is a
terrible material for exhaust systems. Cracks too easy.


--
Steve Barker
remove the "not" from my address to email

On 8/26/2011 9:03 PM, Harry K wrote:
On Aug 26, 8:53 am, Steve wrote:
On 8/24/2011 9:02 PM, Metspitzer wrote:

All the oil change places still put 3000 in the window sticker.

Good advice. Oil SHOULD be changed every 3000 miles.

--
Steve Barker
remove the "not" from my address to email

I hope yu have advised the auto makers world wide of this remarkable
requirement. They need to change their manuals ASAP.

Harry K

the manuals already say 3,000 mi under sever service. 95% of people fit
this category.

--
Steve Barker
remove the "not" from my address to email

On 8/27/2011 1:33 PM, Steve B wrote:
"Steve wrote in message
...
On 8/24/2011 9:02 PM, Metspitzer wrote:
All the oil change places still put 3000 in the window sticker.

Good advice. Oil SHOULD be changed every 3000 miles.

--
Steve Barker

And while you're at it, don't forget to change the air in the tires. You
SHOULD change the air in your tires every 3,000 miles, unless you live in
the inner city, where there is pollution, and then 1,500 is advised. In
some metropolises, daily changes are suggested.

HTH

Steve



NOW you're being a smart alec, asshole, dumsunobitch.

--
Steve Barker
remove the "not" from my address to email

On Aug 28, 7:08*pm, Steve Barker wrote:
On 8/26/2011 9:03 PM, Harry K wrote:

On Aug 26, 8:53 am, Steve *wrote:
On 8/24/2011 9:02 PM, Metspitzer wrote:

All the oil change places still put 3000 in the window sticker.

Good advice. *Oil SHOULD be changed every 3000 miles.

--
Steve Barker
remove the "not" from my address to email

I hope yu have advised the auto makers world wide of this remarkable
requirement. *They need to change their manuals ASAP.

Harry K

the manuals already say 3,000 mi under sever service. *95% of people fit
this category.

--
Steve Barker
remove the "not" from my address to email

Hmmm...seems I tied that to the wrong person. I thought I was
replying to someone saying it didn't need to be changed for some
ungodly number of miles. My bad.

Harry K

"Steve Barker" wrote

the manuals already say 3,000 mi under sever service. 95% of people fit
this category.


Doubt it. Just thinking about my neighbors, of nine cars I know of. three
fit into the severe category. Of ten cars at work, two definitely do, two
are questionable. While my informal survey is not scientific, it is a far
cry from the 95% figure you use.

Fact is, no one can give an absolute number of miles for large groups of
people. The best way, of course, would be oil testing. Some cars to have
some soft of algorithm that does give you a time to change based on driving
habits, miles, etc. If the people that are covering the warranty give
higher miles, I'd say they are rather sure of the numbers.

the manuals already say 3,000 mi under sever service. *95% of people fit
this category.

--
Steve Barker


Now there is another claim that's going to need some backup.

I think I'm a pretty typical driver, and the system built into my car
usually says it's time to change at around 7000 miles.

There may not be a precise definition of "severe service", but I'd be
skeptical of any definition that came from anyone selling oil or
filters.

On Sun, 28 Aug 2011 21:05:06 -0500, Steve Barker
wrote:

On 8/26/2011 7:05 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 25 Aug 2011 20:56:09 -0700 (PDT), Harry K
wrote:

On Aug 25, 8:35 am, Vic wrote:
On Thu, 25 Aug 2011 14:30:05 GMT, Red
wrote:





Harry wrote in news:9f59ffdf-0a25-469d-a2d9-
:

On Aug 24, 7:22 pm, wrote:
On Aug 24, 9:02 pm, wrote:

All the oil change places still put 3000 in the window sticker.

My truck has a built in feature that puts a message up on the dash
readout when it's time to change oil. The owners manual says that the
message is based on a lot of things, including length of trips,
temperature, and driving habits, and to change oil when I get the
message, or at 7000 miles, whichever is sooner. The message typically
pops up at around 6000-7500 miles.

The factory dealer's service department still puts on the 3000 mile
sticker, though.

I do at 3,000. Been around 6 years since I read the manual but IIRC
it give 3,000 for 'severe service'. Since most of my driving is only
4 miles to town and 4 back that certainly is sever service as it never
gets properly warmed up.

Harry K

You probably go through a lot of exhaust fixes.

4 miles should be enough to heat up the exhaust well.
Probably. Can't say I ever checked it.

--Vic- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Never have had to fix any car exhausts but to keep SWMBO happy I chnge
cars often. Now my truck....I need to replace the whole thing again.
Everything aft of the muffler stub is gone...as in dropped off
somewhere on the road. This is the second time for it and I bought it
used. Currently at 150,000

Harry K
Most cars come with stainless exhausts now - and those that don't -
put them on at first replacement. My first Aerostar exhaust went at
about 30 months - the replacement stainless lasted untill the guy I
sold it to scrapped it at 300,000km, about 15 years or so later.

They are not stainless, they are aluminized steel. Stainless is a
terrible material for exhaust systems. Cracks too easy.
No, aluminized steel is eighties technology. Original exhaust on the
'96 Mystique was stainless. Exhaust on my 2002 PT Cruiser is
stainless. Exhaust on my daughter's Civic is stainless. Virtually
every downpipe in the last 20 years is stainless.

Every exhaust I've replaced on my vehicles in the last 20+ years has
been replaced with stainless

On Sun, 28 Aug 2011 22:47:51 -0400, "Ed Pawlowski"
wrote:


"Steve Barker" wrote

the manuals already say 3,000 mi under sever service. 95% of people fit
this category.


Doubt it. Just thinking about my neighbors, of nine cars I know of. three
fit into the severe category. Of ten cars at work, two definitely do, two
are questionable. While my informal survey is not scientific, it is a far
cry from the 95% figure you use.

Fact is, no one can give an absolute number of miles for large groups of
people. The best way, of course, would be oil testing. Some cars to have
some soft of algorithm that does give you a time to change based on driving
habits, miles, etc. If the people that are covering the warranty give
higher miles, I'd say they are rather sure of the numbers.


I was a dealer service manager for 10 years. At that time.
aproxemately 10% of my 600+ regular customers' driving patterns fit
the "normal" schedule, while about 70% were definitely "severe" and
the other roughly 20% were borderline - or they met several of the
requirements for "severe" at least part of the year. There is not
just the two extremes - so some customers stretched the change
interval part way - changing at 4000 miles (6000km) etc.

In article ,
Steve Barker wrote:

They are not stainless, they are aluminized steel. Stainless is a
terrible material for exhaust systems. Cracks too easy.


There ARE stainless steel exhaust systems available. I have personal
experience with their application for at least 15 years now. In my
29 years experience as a fleet mechanic, supervisor, and manager,
I have observed no tendency for stainless exhaust systems to crack
at any greater frequency than non-stainless systems. An appropriate type
of stainless steel is an excellent material for exhaust systems.

--
Better to be stuck up in a tree than tied to one.

Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf. lonestar.org

On Sun, 28 Aug 2011 20:21:30 -0700 (PDT), ed_h
wrote:



the manuals already say 3,000 mi under sever service. Â*95% of people fit
this category.

--
Steve Barker


Now there is another claim that's going to need some backup.

I think I'm a pretty typical driver, and the system built into my car
usually says it's time to change at around 7000 miles.

There may not be a precise definition of "severe service", but I'd be
skeptical of any definition that came from anyone selling oil or
filters.
How about from the car manufacturer???
The manual for my 2002 PT Cruiser says Schedule "B" - 5000KM or 3000
miles oil change interval is required "If you usually operate your
vehicle under one or more of the following conditions:
-Day or night temperatures below 32F (0C)
-Stop and go driving
-Extensive engine idling
-Driving in dusty conditions
-Short trips of less than 10 miles (16km)
-More than 50% of your driving is at sustained high speeds during hot
weather, above 32C (90f)
-Trailer towing
-Taxi, delivery or police service (commercial use)
-If equiped for and running E85 fuel

NOTE - ONE OR MORE.

Well, I drive less than 16km per day, 90% of the time - and that is
split into 2 or more trips - so I am DEFINITELY in the "Schedule B"
category.
During aproxemately 6 months per year night temperatures are below 0C,
so EVERYONE in Waterloo falls into the "Schedule B" category half of
the year.
Anyone driving during rush hour is in gridlock for a good part of the
comute - putting them in the "schedule B" category.

In the summer, if long distance commuting, a good part of the drive
(say from Waterloo to Toronto) will be sustained high speed driving
during the summer - which is also getting pretty close to "schedule B"

-