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.

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.

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.

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.

The manufacturers do however have an interest in having the vehicle wear
out shortly after the warranty expires so you buy another.

On 12/17/2011 12:46 PM, Steve Barker wrote:
On 12/16/2011 8:22 AM, HeyBub wrote:
"The long-held notion that the oil should be changed every 3,000 miles
is so
prevalent that California officials have launched a campaign to stop
drivers
from wasting millions of gallons of oil annually because they have their
vehicles serviced too often."

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-f...,4554184.story


But if California drivers cut way back on oil changes, what will keep the
storm drains lubricated?




3000 it is here. always has been, always will be. No multi-vis **** either.


You do know that good synthetics offer the benefits of multi-viscosity
oils without (or with a significantly reduced amount of) viscosity
improvers, which I assume is the reason that you don't like multi-vis oils?

nate


--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

On 12/17/2011 06:28 PM, IGot2P wrote:
On 12/17/2011 11:46 AM, Steve Barker wrote:
On 12/16/2011 8:22 AM, HeyBub wrote:
"The long-held notion that the oil should be changed every 3,000 miles
is so
prevalent that California officials have launched a campaign to stop
drivers
from wasting millions of gallons of oil annually because they have their
vehicles serviced too often."

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-f...,4554184.story



But if California drivers cut way back on oil changes, what will keep
the
storm drains lubricated?




3000 it is here. always has been, always will be. No multi-vis ****
either.


Did you just wake up from a 30 year sleep?

I disagree with his stance on multi-vis oils, but I do think that the
oil change monitor on some newer cars is giving too much credit to the
oils available. If I can hear and feel the difference in the engine
after an oil change, that says to me that significant degradation of the
oil has occurred, to the point where something is out of spec (the
variable valve timing mechanism maybe?) And this in a car where I was
so nervous about the OCIs recommended ('08 Impala) that I've been paying
extra out of my pocket for synthetic oil. FWIW in that car it seems
that the oil life monitor tends to recommend an oil change about every
7500 miles; less in winter where there may be more idling (warming up
engine while scraping ice off windows etc.)

nate


--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

On 12/18/2011 10:19 AM, 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.

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.

Do you want your car to be worn out at 120K? By the time I'm finished
with most of my vehicles they have far more miles than that on it. My
pickemup truck is close to 150K miles now, although it's a festering POS.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

Robert Green wrote:

Is your house a vehicle? Does it move around on its own?? Or do
you have to steer it???

Is this Alt.Car.Repair? The subject at least deserved an OT marking.
Too subtle, I guess.

One COULD say that many machines involved in home repair have oil-changing
issues: lawnmowers, edgers, chainsaws, personal vibrators, and so on.

But you raise a good point, and I'm sorry. I started this thread. What
happened was I thought this was of interest to many folks. I don't subscribe
to alt.car.repair and this group seemed to be the closest, plus this group
is filled with experts, experience, and elan.

With a couple of obvious exceptions.

On Sun, 18 Dec 2011 11:21:50 -0500, Nate Nagel
wrote:




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.

Do you want your car to be worn out at 120K? By the time I'm finished
with most of my vehicles they have far more miles than that on it. My
pickemup truck is close to 150K miles now, although it's a festering POS.

nate

No, but changing oil at 3000 miles is still a waste. I've had cars go
200k with changes at 5k to 7.5k.

Never had an oil related problem except in one car, an '83 Olds
Cutlass. It started to act up before the first oil change when the
filter clogged and pressure dropped, but still lasted over 100k. It
was a company car and I had the oil changed frequently, but still did
not matter. It was a crap engine and did not last all that long in
any car. I had a short block put in and it lasted about 60k. The old
232 V-6 was noted for short life.

The last two GM 3800 cars I had were 10 years apart and both had
superb running engines at 150k, but the rest of the car was going to
crap. At 15 years, the Regal started in a second and still got the
same fuel mileage as when new, never used oil between changes at 7.5k.
Had the original exhaust when I traded it in '07. Brakes did not last
long, AC was repaired three times, body was starting to rust, etc,.
The dealer gave me $100 for it and it was transportation to go pick up
my new car.
..

On Sun, 18 Dec 2011 10:41:08 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:




But you raise a good point, and I'm sorry. I started this thread. What
happened was I thought this was of interest to many folks.

It is. I see no reason to be sorry. Many of us have used oil in the
garage too.

On Sat, 17 Dec 2011 23:10:42 -0500, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

I hope someone can find it on the net, and post a link. I suspect that the
manufacture of ethanol takes more energy than it produces. so, ethanol in
the gasoline both damages vehicles and also increases our use of petroleum.
http://www.alternativeenergyprimer.c...l-as-fuel.html
One such link.


Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.

"Al Goar" wrote in message
m...

This is yet another example of a wasteful and useless Kalifornia
program...sort of like the US government's ethanol fuel scam.

Can't find the cite right now, but 5 years ago or so, when you took
into account all the energy required to plant,cultivate, and harvest
the corn, icluding the natural gas used to produce the nitrogen
fertilizer, there was something like a 5% net energy deficit, not
including transportation to end market. With the new hybrids that are
currently being supplied by ADM they are now claiming up to something
like 7% net energy gain, in real world numbers.

On Sun, 18 Dec 2011 07:49:12 -0500, George
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.
There are LOTS of engines on the road that do NOT require 5000km
(3000 mile) oil changes, but there are many more that SHOULD have them
and don't, than there are those that do and don't need it.

Definitely a LOT more engines on the road that are dangerously
under-serviced than those that are over-serviced. And the situation
is getting worse by the year - not better. (due in part to economic
conditions, but also due to the proponents of "extended drain" not
telling the whole truth.

Mechanics work on a lot more "grungy" engines than clean ones.

On Sun, 18 Dec 2011 05:07:05 -0800 (PST), Bob_Villa
wrote:

On Dec 17, 11:46Â*am, Steve Barker wrote:
On 12/16/2011 8:22 AM, HeyBub wrote:

"The long-held notion that the oil should be changed every 3,000 miles is so
prevalent that California officials have launched a campaign to stop drivers
from wasting millions of gallons of oil annually because they have their
vehicles serviced too often."

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-f...20111215,0,455...

But if California drivers cut way back on oil changes, what will keep the
storm drains lubricated?

3000 it is here. Â*always has been, always will be. Â*No multi-vis ****
either.

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

You MUST be old and set in your ways...WTF!
Or mabee he's just smarter than the average newsnet user.

On Dec 18, 10:47*am, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On Sun, 18 Dec 2011 11:21:50 -0500, Nate Nagel
wrote:



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.

Do you want your car to be worn out at 120K? *By the time I'm finished
with most of my vehicles they have far more miles than that on it. *My
pickemup truck is close to 150K miles now, although it's a festering POS..

nate

No, but changing oil at 3000 miles is still a waste. *I've had cars go
200k with changes at 5k to 7.5k.
o

That is probably dependent on how the car is driven. In the aviation
business the recommendation for changing the oil is not based on miles
flown but on the hours of use put on the engine. Were the same to be
applied to autos the change interval might range from 2500 miles for a
car driven only on city streets to 7k miles for one only driven on
highways at a fairly constant speed. The auto companies will tend to
err on the conservative side with the knowledge that those people who
do a lot of highway driving will probably not change their oil as
frequently.

Never had an oil related problem except in one car, an '83 Olds
Cutlass. *It started to act up before the first oil change when the
filter clogged and pressure dropped, but still lasted over 100k. *It
was a company car and I had the oil changed frequently, but still did
not matter. * It was a crap engine and did not last all that long in
any car. *I had a short block put in and it lasted about 60k. The old
232 V-6 was noted for short life.

The last two GM 3800 cars I had were 10 years apart and both had
superb running engines at 150k, but the rest of the car was going to
crap. *At 15 years, the Regal started in a second and still got the
same fuel mileage as when new, never used oil between changes at 7.5k.
Had the original exhaust when I traded it in '07. Brakes did not last
long, AC was repaired three times, body was starting to rust, etc,.
The dealer gave me $100 for it and it was transportation to go pick up
my new car.
.

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.

On Sun, 18 Dec 2011 13:18:42 -0500, wrote:

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.

What? Making butt-ugly cars? How do you explain the Honda Element? ;-)

On 12/18/2011 01:46 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sun, 18 Dec 2011 13:18:42 -0500, wrote:

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

What? Making butt-ugly cars? How do you explain the Honda Element? ;-)

Really? Making butt-ugly cars was not Studebaker's sin. I submit for
your approval the 53-55 coupe and hardtop, the subsequent Hawk series,
or the '58 (sedan-based) hardtop. Even the Lark kind of grows on you
after a while. In the timeframe mentioned I think Studebaker's worst
styling sins were basing the 53-55 sedans off of the "Loewy Coupe"
styling and the '58 headlight pods...

nate


--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

used oil can be refined again and resold as new or new refined, its
essentially the same as brand new oil....

so its not really used up.

and if excess consumption of stuff is any issue at all perhaps all
americans need to look at the flood of cheap chinese merchandise,
thats cheap and made cheap, to be tossed quickly.

if you look at all the energy put into cheap merchandise, it must be
more than excess oil changes

On Sun, 18 Dec 2011 13:52:56 -0500, Nate Nagel wrote:

On 12/18/2011 01:46 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sun, 18 Dec 2011 13:18:42 -0500, wrote:

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

What? Making butt-ugly cars? How do you explain the Honda Element? ;-)

Really? Making butt-ugly cars was not Studebaker's sin. I submit for
your approval the 53-55 coupe and hardtop, the subsequent Hawk series,
or the '58 (sedan-based) hardtop. Even the Lark kind of grows on you
after a while. In the timeframe mentioned I think Studebaker's worst
styling sins were basing the 53-55 sedans off of the "Loewy Coupe"
styling and the '58 headlight pods...

I suppose someone things the Honda Element and the Cube are cool looking, too.
;-)

On 12/18/2011 01:57 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sun, 18 Dec 2011 13:52:56 -0500, Nate wrote:

On 12/18/2011 01:46 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sun, 18 Dec 2011 13:18:42 -0500, wrote:

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

What? Making butt-ugly cars? How do you explain the Honda Element? ;-)

Really? Making butt-ugly cars was not Studebaker's sin. I submit for
your approval the 53-55 coupe and hardtop, the subsequent Hawk series,
or the '58 (sedan-based) hardtop. Even the Lark kind of grows on you
after a while. In the timeframe mentioned I think Studebaker's worst
styling sins were basing the 53-55 sedans off of the "Loewy Coupe"
styling and the '58 headlight pods...

I suppose someone things the Honda Element and the Cube are cool looking, too.
;-)


Show me a Honda that has ever been exhibited at the MOMA.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

On Sun, 18 Dec 2011 14:10:22 -0500, Nate Nagel wrote:

On 12/18/2011 01:57 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sun, 18 Dec 2011 13:52:56 -0500, Nate wrote:

On 12/18/2011 01:46 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sun, 18 Dec 2011 13:18:42 -0500, wrote:

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

What? Making butt-ugly cars? How do you explain the Honda Element? ;-)

Really? Making butt-ugly cars was not Studebaker's sin. I submit for
your approval the 53-55 coupe and hardtop, the subsequent Hawk series,
or the '58 (sedan-based) hardtop. Even the Lark kind of grows on you
after a while. In the timeframe mentioned I think Studebaker's worst
styling sins were basing the 53-55 sedans off of the "Loewy Coupe"
styling and the '58 headlight pods...

I suppose someone things the Honda Element and the Cube are cool looking, too.
;-)


Show me a Honda that has ever been exhibited at the MOMA.

You're sinking deeper. ;-)

On 12/16/2011 8:22 AM, HeyBub wrote:
"The long-held notion that the oil should be changed every 3,000 miles is so
prevalent that California officials have launched a campaign to stop drivers
from wasting millions of gallons of oil annually because they have their
vehicles serviced too often."

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-f...,4554184.story

But if California drivers cut way back on oil changes, what will keep the
storm drains lubricated?

LOL, you're assuming that a lot of people are doing their own oil
changes. In my city they pick up used oil with the recycling, and it's
extremely rare to see oil left out for pick-up. I've never noticed
anyone on my street other than me having it out, and have only seen it
once at another house in my neighborhood. OTOH, don't assume that an oil
change place is disposing of hazardous wastes properly:
http://cupertino.patch.com/articles/jiffy-lube-pays-for-environmental-regulations-violations.

The 3000 mile oil change has been beaten into people's heads for so long
(and it continues with the gawd-awful quick lube places that do it for
obvious reasons).
http://bostonherald.com/business/automotive/view/2011_1204repair_shop_that_messed_it_up_should_pay_ up
Bottom line is that the severe service interval, generally at 5000
miles, is already overkill for most cars, but at least it's better than
3000 miles.

There has never been any benefit shown on modern engines with
multi-weight oils of 3000 mile changes. If a 3000 mile oil change is
cheap insurance then why not change the oil every 500 miles for even
more cheap insurance. In fact, too-frequent oil changes are bad for the
engine, not good.

On Sun, 18 Dec 2011 14:02:44 -0800, SMS
wrote:

On 12/16/2011 8:22 AM, HeyBub wrote:
"The long-held notion that the oil should be changed every 3,000 miles is so
prevalent that California officials have launched a campaign to stop drivers
from wasting millions of gallons of oil annually because they have their
vehicles serviced too often."

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-f...,4554184.story

But if California drivers cut way back on oil changes, what will keep the
storm drains lubricated?

LOL, you're assuming that a lot of people are doing their own oil
changes. In my city they pick up used oil with the recycling, and it's
extremely rare to see oil left out for pick-up. I've never noticed
anyone on my street other than me having it out, and have only seen it
once at another house in my neighborhood. OTOH, don't assume that an oil
change place is disposing of hazardous wastes properly:
http://cupertino.patch.com/articles/jiffy-lube-pays-for-environmental-regulations-violations.

The 3000 mile oil change has been beaten into people's heads for so long
(and it continues with the gawd-awful quick lube places that do it for
obvious reasons).
http://bostonherald.com/business/automotive/view/2011_1204repair_shop_that_messed_it_up_should_pay_ up
Bottom line is that the severe service interval, generally at 5000
miles, is already overkill for most cars, but at least it's better than
3000 miles.

There has never been any benefit shown on modern engines with
multi-weight oils of 3000 mile changes. If a 3000 mile oil change is
cheap insurance then why not change the oil every 500 miles for even
more cheap insurance. In fact, too-frequent oil changes are bad for the
engine, not good.
I keep hearing that but have never seen any proof. (other than
stripped oil drain plugs)

On 12/18/2011 2:02 PM, SMS wrote:


Bottom line is that the severe service interval, generally at 5000
miles, is already overkill for most cars, but at least it's better than
3000 miles.

There has never been any benefit shown on modern engines with
multi-weight oils of 3000 mile changes. If a 3000 mile oil change is
cheap insurance then why not change the oil every 500 miles for even
more cheap insurance. In fact, too-frequent oil changes are bad for the
engine, not good.

My manual on all three of my AMERICAN made cars recommends 3000 mile
changes for severe service. About 90% of users fall into this category.
Also, please advise the group here, how too frequent changes harms the
engine please. We're all ears.

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

On Dec 18, 7:28*pm, wrote:


There has never been any benefit shown on modern engines with
multi-weight oils of 3000 mile changes. If a 3000 mile oil change is
cheap insurance then why not change the oil every 500 miles for even
more cheap insurance. In fact, too-frequent oil changes are bad for the
engine, not good.

*I keep hearing that but have never seen any proof. (other than
stripped oil drain plugs)

You're not taking into account zero oil pressure until the new filter
is filled-up!

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?

On 12/18/2011 10:33 AM, Pete C. wrote:

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.

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.

The manufacturers do however have an interest in having the vehicle wear
out shortly after the warranty expires so you buy another.

But modern vehicles have come a very long way. I remember when I was a
kid it was common for engines to be a frequent problem and they seldom
outlasted the car. Now you change the oil every 7,000 and the engine is
still good after the car falls apart.

3,000 mile oil changes are just not necessary for most vehicles.

On 12/17/2011 12:25 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On Sat, 17 Dec 2011 09:46:25 -0800, Steve Barker
wrote:



3000 it is here. always has been, always will be. No multi-vis ****
either.


Amazing. The rest of the world is just so wrong.

Well 100s of millions (maybe billions) of miles of actual "testing" with
no problems could be wrong...

On Mon, 19 Dec 2011 04:59:09 -0800 (PST), Bob_Villa
wrote:

On Dec 18, 7:28Â*pm, wrote:


There has never been any benefit shown on modern engines with
multi-weight oils of 3000 mile changes. If a 3000 mile oil change is
cheap insurance then why not change the oil every 500 miles for even
more cheap insurance. In fact, too-frequent oil changes are bad for the
engine, not good.

Â*I keep hearing that but have never seen any proof. (other than
stripped oil drain plugs)

You're not taking into account zero oil pressure until the new filter
is filled-up!
Which is not NECESSARILY a function of changing oil as it happens on
every startup on engines using cheap oil filters like some FRAMs with
defective anti-drainback valves - and can be totally eliminated with a
pre-charger (which you WILL see on new cars before too long)

On 12/19/2011 03:03 PM, Steve Barker wrote:
On 12/19/2011 9:55 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 19 Dec 2011 04:59:09 -0800 (PST), Bob_Villa
wrote:

On Dec 18, 7:28 pm, wrote:


There has never been any benefit shown on modern engines with
multi-weight oils of 3000 mile changes. If a 3000 mile oil change is
cheap insurance then why not change the oil every 500 miles for even
more cheap insurance. In fact, too-frequent oil changes are bad for
the
engine, not good.

I keep hearing that but have never seen any proof. (other than
stripped oil drain plugs)

You're not taking into account zero oil pressure until the new filter
is filled-up!
Which is not NECESSARILY a function of changing oil as it happens on
every startup on engines using cheap oil filters like some FRAMs with
defective anti-drainback valves - and can be totally eliminated with a
pre-charger (which you WILL see on new cars before too long)

that 3 to 5 seconds is inconsequential to the wear. Especially
considering the engine is warmed up and freshly lubed 20 min prior.

Most modern filters do not "drain back" especially if they are in an
upright vertical orientation.


base-up, yes, but Frams will drain back if mounted base down. That's
personal experience talking there...

Personally I like to pre-fill the filter when changing oil if the
orientation of the filter allows it. Probably doesn't make that much
difference, but why bother taking the chance?

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

On 12/19/2011 9:55 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 19 Dec 2011 04:59:09 -0800 (PST), Bob_Villa
wrote:

On Dec 18, 7:28 pm, wrote:


There has never been any benefit shown on modern engines with
multi-weight oils of 3000 mile changes. If a 3000 mile oil change is
cheap insurance then why not change the oil every 500 miles for even
more cheap insurance. In fact, too-frequent oil changes are bad for the
engine, not good.

I keep hearing that but have never seen any proof. (other than
stripped oil drain plugs)

You're not taking into account zero oil pressure until the new filter
is filled-up!
Which is not NECESSARILY a function of changing oil as it happens on
every startup on engines using cheap oil filters like some FRAMs with
defective anti-drainback valves - and can be totally eliminated with a
pre-charger (which you WILL see on new cars before too long)

that 3 to 5 seconds is inconsequential to the wear. Especially
considering the engine is warmed up and freshly lubed 20 min prior.

Most modern filters do not "drain back" especially if they are in an
upright vertical orientation.

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

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.

Regarding stop and go, slow speed use in the context of severe service:
Few usage patterns would be more likely to fall in this category than
inner city delivery service. Fleet operators, unlike quickie oil change
establishments, dealer service departments, independant shops, DIY auto
supply stores. etc. have no incentive other than to operate and maintain
their fleets in the most cost effective manner. They have demonstrated that
it is not necessary to change oil at 3000 mile intervals to get reasonable
longevity from modern engines using modern fuels and oils. By reasonable
I mean engine life of at least 150,000 to 200,000 miles.




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

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

On 12/19/2011 05:11 PM, Larry W wrote:
Regarding stop and go, slow speed use in the context of severe service:
Few usage patterns would be more likely to fall in this category than
inner city delivery service. Fleet operators, unlike quickie oil change
establishments, dealer service departments, independant shops, DIY auto
supply stores. etc. have no incentive other than to operate and maintain
their fleets in the most cost effective manner. They have demonstrated that
it is not necessary to change oil at 3000 mile intervals to get reasonable
longevity from modern engines using modern fuels and oils. By reasonable
I mean engine life of at least 150,000 to 200,000 miles.


I'd be awful disappointed if my engine wore out at only 150-200K miles.

nate


--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

On 12/19/2011 08:09 PM, Steve Barker wrote:
On 12/19/2011 2:48 PM, Nate Nagel wrote:
On 12/19/2011 05:11 PM, Larry W wrote:
Regarding stop and go, slow speed use in the context of severe service:
Few usage patterns would be more likely to fall in this category than
inner city delivery service. Fleet operators, unlike quickie oil change
establishments, dealer service departments, independant shops, DIY auto
supply stores. etc. have no incentive other than to operate and maintain
their fleets in the most cost effective manner. They have demonstrated
that
it is not necessary to change oil at 3000 mile intervals to get
reasonable
longevity from modern engines using modern fuels and oils. By reasonable
I mean engine life of at least 150,000 to 200,000 miles.


I'd be awful disappointed if my engine wore out at only 150-200K miles.

nate


well i think we'd have to define "wore out". are we talking a quart in
3000 oil consumption? How about a rod knocking? Maybe just a flat cam,
and all else is fine. How about a timing chain failure? Any ONE of these
items do not qualify for a "worn out" engine in my opinion. Now if we're
talking major oil consumption (more than 3 quarts in between 3000 mile
oil changes) , Oil pressure next to nil due to worn cam and main
bearings, and lifters clattering , all this using straight 50 weight
oil, then i think we'd probably be talking worn out. I had a cam go flat
and ruined roller lifters in a 6.9 diesel that i had religiously changed
the oil in every 3000 miles. That's FORTY FIVE oil changes in the
135,000 miles before failure. What caused it? Multi-vis oil was the
determination from Ford. They put in a new engine for free. I still have
the service dept yellow copies.


I'd hope no internal work at all! It's possible; I had a Scirocco with
almost 250K miles that compression checked within specs for a new engine
when I sold it. Don't know what the running oil pressure was; oddly, it
had an oil temp gauge but no oil pressure gauge. I had one, but never
bought the bracket to install it in place of the ashtray. It didn't use
any noticeable amount of oil, either; I checked it maybe every other
fill up or so but hardly ever topped it up. Only time I had an issue w/
oil was when I let the car sit for almost a year and the seal around the
oil fill cap dried up and shrank. Had to get a new cap to seal it up
(this was an '84, before VW installed the oil deflector over the cam,
had it been a later model I might never have noticed.)

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

On Dec 16, 10:22*am, "HeyBub" wrote:
"The long-held notion that the oil should be changed every 3,000 miles is so
prevalent that California officials have launched a campaign to stop drivers
from wasting millions of gallons of oil annually because they have their
vehicles serviced too often."

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-f...20111215,0,455...

But if California drivers cut way back on oil changes, what will keep the
storm drains lubricated?

It will be just a matter of time before California outlaws oil
changes. Run the poor car until the oil turns to mud and kills the
car. And then they will declare solid sludge as unlawful and a
carcinogen.

On Mon, 19 Dec 2011 18:21:39 -0500, Nate Nagel
wrote:

On 12/19/2011 08:09 PM, Steve Barker wrote:
On 12/19/2011 2:48 PM, Nate Nagel wrote:
On 12/19/2011 05:11 PM, Larry W wrote:
Regarding stop and go, slow speed use in the context of severe service:
Few usage patterns would be more likely to fall in this category than
inner city delivery service. Fleet operators, unlike quickie oil change
establishments, dealer service departments, independant shops, DIY auto
supply stores. etc. have no incentive other than to operate and maintain
their fleets in the most cost effective manner. They have demonstrated
that
it is not necessary to change oil at 3000 mile intervals to get
reasonable
longevity from modern engines using modern fuels and oils. By reasonable
I mean engine life of at least 150,000 to 200,000 miles.


I'd be awful disappointed if my engine wore out at only 150-200K miles.

nate


well i think we'd have to define "wore out". are we talking a quart in
3000 oil consumption? How about a rod knocking? Maybe just a flat cam,
and all else is fine. How about a timing chain failure? Any ONE of these
items do not qualify for a "worn out" engine in my opinion. Now if we're
talking major oil consumption (more than 3 quarts in between 3000 mile
oil changes) , Oil pressure next to nil due to worn cam and main
bearings, and lifters clattering , all this using straight 50 weight
oil, then i think we'd probably be talking worn out. I had a cam go flat
and ruined roller lifters in a 6.9 diesel that i had religiously changed
the oil in every 3000 miles. That's FORTY FIVE oil changes in the
135,000 miles before failure. What caused it? Multi-vis oil was the
determination from Ford. They put in a new engine for free. I still have
the service dept yellow copies.

It was NOT Multi-Vis oil that killed your cam, it was a defective cam.
It was not an unheard of problem


I'd hope no internal work at all! It's possible; I had a Scirocco with
almost 250K miles that compression checked within specs for a new engine
when I sold it. Don't know what the running oil pressure was; oddly, it
had an oil temp gauge but no oil pressure gauge. I had one, but never
bought the bracket to install it in place of the ashtray. It didn't use
any noticeable amount of oil, either; I checked it maybe every other
fill up or so but hardly ever topped it up. Only time I had an issue w/
oil was when I let the car sit for almost a year and the seal around the
oil fill cap dried up and shrank. Had to get a new cap to seal it up
(this was an '84, before VW installed the oil deflector over the cam,
had it been a later model I might never have noticed.)

nate
Camshaft, bearing, or timing chain failures are ALL lubrication
related failures unless material defects exist - and MOST engines
today, with sufficient oil changes and decent oil, will go over
200,000 MILES without failure, and without excessive (1 qt/1000 miles
or more) oil consumption. And without deposit accumulation.

On 12/19/2011 06:32 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 19 Dec 2011 18:21:39 -0500, Nate
wrote:

On 12/19/2011 08:09 PM, Steve Barker wrote:
On 12/19/2011 2:48 PM, Nate Nagel wrote:
On 12/19/2011 05:11 PM, Larry W wrote:
Regarding stop and go, slow speed use in the context of severe service:
Few usage patterns would be more likely to fall in this category than
inner city delivery service. Fleet operators, unlike quickie oil change
establishments, dealer service departments, independant shops, DIY auto
supply stores. etc. have no incentive other than to operate and maintain
their fleets in the most cost effective manner. They have demonstrated
that
it is not necessary to change oil at 3000 mile intervals to get
reasonable
longevity from modern engines using modern fuels and oils. By reasonable
I mean engine life of at least 150,000 to 200,000 miles.


I'd be awful disappointed if my engine wore out at only 150-200K miles.

nate


well i think we'd have to define "wore out". are we talking a quart in
3000 oil consumption? How about a rod knocking? Maybe just a flat cam,
and all else is fine. How about a timing chain failure? Any ONE of these
items do not qualify for a "worn out" engine in my opinion. Now if we're
talking major oil consumption (more than 3 quarts in between 3000 mile
oil changes) , Oil pressure next to nil due to worn cam and main
bearings, and lifters clattering , all this using straight 50 weight
oil, then i think we'd probably be talking worn out. I had a cam go flat
and ruined roller lifters in a 6.9 diesel that i had religiously changed
the oil in every 3000 miles. That's FORTY FIVE oil changes in the
135,000 miles before failure. What caused it? Multi-vis oil was the
determination from Ford. They put in a new engine for free. I still have
the service dept yellow copies.

It was NOT Multi-Vis oil that killed your cam, it was a defective cam.
It was not an unheard of problem


I'd hope no internal work at all! It's possible; I had a Scirocco with
almost 250K miles that compression checked within specs for a new engine
when I sold it. Don't know what the running oil pressure was; oddly, it
had an oil temp gauge but no oil pressure gauge. I had one, but never
bought the bracket to install it in place of the ashtray. It didn't use
any noticeable amount of oil, either; I checked it maybe every other
fill up or so but hardly ever topped it up. Only time I had an issue w/
oil was when I let the car sit for almost a year and the seal around the
oil fill cap dried up and shrank. Had to get a new cap to seal it up
(this was an '84, before VW installed the oil deflector over the cam,
had it been a later model I might never have noticed.)

nate
Camshaft, bearing, or timing chain failures are ALL lubrication
related failures unless material defects exist - and MOST engines
today, with sufficient oil changes and decent oil, will go over
200,000 MILES without failure, and without excessive (1 qt/1000 miles
or more) oil consumption. And without deposit accumulation.

Yup, we're just arguing over what "sufficient" and "decent" are

Some engines (Toyota, VW turbos) need specific oils to avoid coking or
sludging, apparently. so RTFM people!

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

On Dec 19, 7:09*pm, Steve Barker wrote:
On 12/19/2011 2:48 PM, Nate Nagel wrote:







On 12/19/2011 05:11 PM, Larry W wrote:
Regarding stop and go, slow speed use in the context of severe service:
Few usage patterns would be more likely to fall in this category than
inner city delivery service. Fleet operators, unlike quickie oil change
establishments, dealer service departments, independant shops, DIY auto
supply stores. etc. have no incentive other than to operate and maintain
their fleets in the most cost effective manner. They have demonstrated
that
it is not necessary to change oil at 3000 mile intervals to get
reasonable
longevity from modern engines using modern fuels and oils. By reasonable
I mean engine life of at least 150,000 to 200,000 miles.

I'd be awful disappointed if my engine wore out at only 150-200K miles.

nate

well i think we'd have to define "wore out". *are we talking a quart in
3000 oil consumption? *How about a rod knocking? *Maybe just a flat cam,
and all else is fine. *How about a timing chain failure? *Any ONE of
these items do not qualify for a "worn out" engine in my opinion. *Now
if we're talking major oil consumption (more than 3 quarts in between
3000 mile oil changes) , Oil pressure next to nil due to worn cam and
main bearings, and lifters clattering , all this using straight 50
weight oil, then i think we'd probably be talking worn out. *I had a cam
go flat and ruined roller lifters in a 6.9 diesel that i had religiously
changed the oil in every 3000 miles. *That's *FORTY FIVE oil changes in
the 135,000 miles before failure. *What caused it? *Multi-vis oil was
the determination from Ford. *They put in a new engine for free. *I
still have the service dept yellow copies.

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

Ford has a history of "soft" cam problems...

On Dec 19, 5:40*pm, Nate Nagel wrote:


Some engines (Toyota, VW turbos) need specific oils to avoid coking or
sludging, apparently. *so RTFM people!

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.http://members.cox.net/njnagel

What is "coking"...is this a "foreign" term?

On 12/19/2011 07:07 PM, Bob_Villa wrote:
On Dec 19, 5:40 pm, Nate wrote:


Some engines (Toyota, VW turbos) need specific oils to avoid coking or
sludging, apparently. so RTFM people!

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.http://members.cox.net/njnagel

What is "coking"...is this a "foreign" term?


Not really, it's when you have an engine with parts that tend to get
real hot and heat soak when you shut the engine down and the oil stops
circulating (a perfect example would be a turbocharger) it can actually
cause the oil to turn into hard (relatively) bits of carbon. For that
reason, if I had an engine with a turbocharger that wasn't water-cooled
with some sort of electric water circulation pump (to provide
after-shutdown cooling) I'd only run synthetic (and I believe that the
only oils that meet VW spec for the 1.8T engines are in fact synthetics.)

This is also the reason that in the early days of turbochargers it was
recommended to let the engine idle for a minute or two before shutdown
if it'd been driven hard.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

On Mon, 19 Dec 2011 22:11:32 +0000 (UTC),
(Larry W) wrote:

Regarding stop and go, slow speed use in the context of severe service:
Few usage patterns would be more likely to fall in this category than
inner city delivery service. Fleet operators, unlike quickie oil change
establishments, dealer service departments, independant shops, DIY auto
supply stores. etc. have no incentive other than to operate and maintain
their fleets in the most cost effective manner. They have demonstrated that
it is not necessary to change oil at 3000 mile intervals to get reasonable
longevity from modern engines using modern fuels and oils. By reasonable
I mean engine life of at least 150,000 to 200,000 miles.


The context of "short trip" in every severe schedule I've seen is the
car often doesn't get fully warmed up.
Inner city delivery cars get warmed up in daily use.
Taxis are included in that group.
Consumer Reports used taxis in a failed test of oil change intervals.
Among many flaws in that test, the most glaring was,
"Duh, I'm not a taxi driver!"

No test has ever been done for any of my cars using my driving
pattern. Never.
When a car is going to be sold at 150-200k miles on the odo it's value
is about nil - to me, anyway..
Mostly because I figure the owner didn't change the oil enough.
So if the car will get there on 10k oil changes, bottom line is better
for the fleet operator.

You know some unethical sellers will load the crankcase with Crisco to
dampen rod knocking, right?
First thing I do with any car I'm looking to buy is warm it up and
pull the dipstick, then smell it.
If it smells like fried chicken I walk.

Somebody said if 3000k mile changes are good, why not 500 miles?
Well, if 7500 mile changes are good, why not 40k mile changes?
A car reaching 150-200k miles and running means what?
How tight is it? What's the compression ratio?
How much blowby? What's the MPG compared to new?
How much longer will it go before a lube-related failure occurs?

I don't care what oil change interval anybody uses.
Except for my own.
Why are there so many people that can't keep their noses out of
everybody else's business?

--Vic