Unquestionably Confused wrote:

> Definitely! The problem is that the motoring public has been
> brainwashed by that 3,000 oil & filter mantra. Too bad also that the
> service personnel at the dealerships are bucking the change as well.
> Within the last 18-24 months I read articles indicating that GM is
> going nuts trying to get their dealers to go along with GM's oil
> change recommendations as indicated by the on-board computerized oil
> change indicators now on most of their better vehicles.

Uh...this is not true! Our dealership goes along with GM's extended
oil change intervals. It's not us that is the problem, it's the customers.
They don't like the extended oil change intervals. A lot of the Caddy
owners are older folks who are used to their 3 month/5000 kilometer
service intervals. Cadillac owners get free oil changes, but "only" when
the oil change light comes on. We get a lot of these people just paying
for an oil change because they don't want to wait for the oil change
light to come on.

Personally, I prefer the old 3 month/5000 kilometer interval for my
own cars, but I will say that I've seen nothing in the last 10 years that
indicates that extended oil change intervals do any damage to engines.
Engine oil is so obviously better then it used to be. We almost never
see engine failures that were rampant in the 80's....rod bearing, main
bearing, crank failures...cam failures...etc.

> Speaking of which, I always changed filters with the oil - even when I
> was doing my own changes. Browsing through the manual for my new
> Accord EX V-6 it appears that Honda wants an oil change ONLY at
> ~10,000 (or as indicated by the oil life computer) but no filter. Am
> I reading that correctly?

Hello. Why are you questioning the manufacturer's recommendation?
"THEY" should know best about "THEIR" engine...right? Or are you
just a little bit uncomfortable because "you've" always changed the oil
filter with the oil change? See....even you find it hard to switch over
to a new way of doing things.

I've always driven old 100 dollar beaters. I've often just spun on a new
oil filter instead of changing the oil, as they burn/leak so much oil that
the oil is constantly being replenished. I've never had an engine failure
yet.

Ian

 

In article <yKnBg.325641$Mn5.322642@pd7tw3no>,
"shiden_kai" <V-L-M@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Why are you questioning the manufacturer's recommendation?
> "THEY" should know best about "THEIR" engine...right?

I would be MUCH more comfortable if I knew that the recommendations were
coming directly from engineers, unsullied by the hands of marketing
people.

Marketing people have one goal: sell more cars. To do that, they make
the cars more attractive to the consumer. To make the cars more
attractive, they make sure they can fill a positive checklist with as
many checkmarks as possible, to compete with the next guy. One of those
checkmarks is, for example, "100,000 mile tuneup interval". Another
would be extended time/distance oil changes.

When I read the owner's manual for some of this, I have no idea if the
recommendation came directly from engineering, directly from marketing,
or is somewhere in the middle.

 

In article <yKnBg.325641$Mn5.322642@pd7tw3no>,
"shiden_kai" <V-L-M@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Why are you questioning the manufacturer's recommendation?
> "THEY" should know best about "THEIR" engine...right?

I would be MUCH more comfortable if I knew that the recommendations were
coming directly from engineers, unsullied by the hands of marketing
people.

Marketing people have one goal: sell more cars. To do that, they make
the cars more attractive to the consumer. To make the cars more
attractive, they make sure they can fill a positive checklist with as
many checkmarks as possible, to compete with the next guy. One of those
checkmarks is, for example, "100,000 mile tuneup interval". Another
would be extended time/distance oil changes.

When I read the owner's manual for some of this, I have no idea if the
recommendation came directly from engineering, directly from marketing,
or is somewhere in the middle.

 

In article <yKnBg.325641$Mn5.322642@pd7tw3no>,
"shiden_kai" <V-L-M@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Why are you questioning the manufacturer's recommendation?
> "THEY" should know best about "THEIR" engine...right?

I would be MUCH more comfortable if I knew that the recommendations were
coming directly from engineers, unsullied by the hands of marketing
people.

Marketing people have one goal: sell more cars. To do that, they make
the cars more attractive to the consumer. To make the cars more
attractive, they make sure they can fill a positive checklist with as
many checkmarks as possible, to compete with the next guy. One of those
checkmarks is, for example, "100,000 mile tuneup interval". Another
would be extended time/distance oil changes.

When I read the owner's manual for some of this, I have no idea if the
recommendation came directly from engineering, directly from marketing,
or is somewhere in the middle.

 

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:

> I would be MUCH more comfortable if I knew that the recommendations
> were coming directly from engineers, unsullied by the hands of
> marketing people.

A lot of my post was tongue in cheek, poking a bit of fun
at some other posters.

> Marketing people have one goal: sell more cars. To do that, they
> make the cars more attractive to the consumer. To make the cars more
> attractive, they make sure they can fill a positive checklist with as
> many checkmarks as possible, to compete with the next guy. One of
> those checkmarks is, for example, "100,000 mile tuneup interval".
> Another would be extended time/distance oil changes.

The extended oil change is a marketing thing for GM. Our District
Service Manager pushes this because it looks good for GM to
be "green", make the vehicles "appear" as though they are
"maintenance free"....etc. Of course it conflicts with the dealership
in that we like to get the vehicles in more often. GM also would
be quite happy if the vehicles stay out of the dealerships, as we
end up finding all sorts of problems with the vehicles which are
still covered under warranty. GM is not that interested in fixing
problems during the warranty period.

Ian

 

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:

> I would be MUCH more comfortable if I knew that the recommendations
> were coming directly from engineers, unsullied by the hands of
> marketing people.

A lot of my post was tongue in cheek, poking a bit of fun
at some other posters.

> Marketing people have one goal: sell more cars. To do that, they
> make the cars more attractive to the consumer. To make the cars more
> attractive, they make sure they can fill a positive checklist with as
> many checkmarks as possible, to compete with the next guy. One of
> those checkmarks is, for example, "100,000 mile tuneup interval".
> Another would be extended time/distance oil changes.

The extended oil change is a marketing thing for GM. Our District
Service Manager pushes this because it looks good for GM to
be "green", make the vehicles "appear" as though they are
"maintenance free"....etc. Of course it conflicts with the dealership
in that we like to get the vehicles in more often. GM also would
be quite happy if the vehicles stay out of the dealerships, as we
end up finding all sorts of problems with the vehicles which are
still covered under warranty. GM is not that interested in fixing
problems during the warranty period.

Ian

 

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:

> I would be MUCH more comfortable if I knew that the recommendations
> were coming directly from engineers, unsullied by the hands of
> marketing people.

A lot of my post was tongue in cheek, poking a bit of fun
at some other posters.

> Marketing people have one goal: sell more cars. To do that, they
> make the cars more attractive to the consumer. To make the cars more
> attractive, they make sure they can fill a positive checklist with as
> many checkmarks as possible, to compete with the next guy. One of
> those checkmarks is, for example, "100,000 mile tuneup interval".
> Another would be extended time/distance oil changes.

The extended oil change is a marketing thing for GM. Our District
Service Manager pushes this because it looks good for GM to
be "green", make the vehicles "appear" as though they are
"maintenance free"....etc. Of course it conflicts with the dealership
in that we like to get the vehicles in more often. GM also would
be quite happy if the vehicles stay out of the dealerships, as we
end up finding all sorts of problems with the vehicles which are
still covered under warranty. GM is not that interested in fixing
problems during the warranty period.

Ian

 

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article <yKnBg.325641$Mn5.322642@pd7tw3no>,
> "shiden_kai" <V-L-M@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Why are you questioning the manufacturer's recommendation?
>> "THEY" should know best about "THEIR" engine...right?
>
> I would be MUCH more comfortable if I knew that the recommendations were
> coming directly from engineers, unsullied by the hands of marketing
> people.
>
> Marketing people have one goal: sell more cars. To do that, they make
> the cars more attractive to the consumer. To make the cars more
> attractive, they make sure they can fill a positive checklist with as
> many checkmarks as possible, to compete with the next guy. One of those
> checkmarks is, for example, "100,000 mile tuneup interval". Another
> would be extended time/distance oil changes.
>
> When I read the owner's manual for some of this, I have no idea if the
> recommendation came directly from engineering, directly from marketing,
> or is somewhere in the middle.
>
somewhere in the middle. the engineers know the wear rates, the
marketing folk know their competition, and they both figure out the
place they need to be. in the current market, very few people keep a
car more than 100k, or not first owners, so that's where the attention
goes - for every manufacturer in the world. [the small euro stuff
concentrates only on the first 100kkm and manufacturers actively seek
accelerated failure rates after that!] if you have a motor that
routinely makes 300k on 7.5k change intervals [honda], why not bring the
life expectancy down by extending change interval to 10k or even 20k?
the motor will still make 100k easily, the marketing folk are happy, the
first owner is happy, and ultimately honda is happy because at the end
of the day, they get to sell more cars.

it used to be that the way the japanese broke into the market was by
quality & longevity because it was a differentiator, but today their
position is so solid, people will still buy their cars even if life
expectancy drops in half because domestics are /still/ so much worse!
timing chains anyone?

 

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article <yKnBg.325641$Mn5.322642@pd7tw3no>,
> "shiden_kai" <V-L-M@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Why are you questioning the manufacturer's recommendation?
>> "THEY" should know best about "THEIR" engine...right?
>
> I would be MUCH more comfortable if I knew that the recommendations were
> coming directly from engineers, unsullied by the hands of marketing
> people.
>
> Marketing people have one goal: sell more cars. To do that, they make
> the cars more attractive to the consumer. To make the cars more
> attractive, they make sure they can fill a positive checklist with as
> many checkmarks as possible, to compete with the next guy. One of those
> checkmarks is, for example, "100,000 mile tuneup interval". Another
> would be extended time/distance oil changes.
>
> When I read the owner's manual for some of this, I have no idea if the
> recommendation came directly from engineering, directly from marketing,
> or is somewhere in the middle.
>
somewhere in the middle. the engineers know the wear rates, the
marketing folk know their competition, and they both figure out the
place they need to be. in the current market, very few people keep a
car more than 100k, or not first owners, so that's where the attention
goes - for every manufacturer in the world. [the small euro stuff
concentrates only on the first 100kkm and manufacturers actively seek
accelerated failure rates after that!] if you have a motor that
routinely makes 300k on 7.5k change intervals [honda], why not bring the
life expectancy down by extending change interval to 10k or even 20k?
the motor will still make 100k easily, the marketing folk are happy, the
first owner is happy, and ultimately honda is happy because at the end
of the day, they get to sell more cars.

it used to be that the way the japanese broke into the market was by
quality & longevity because it was a differentiator, but today their
position is so solid, people will still buy their cars even if life
expectancy drops in half because domestics are /still/ so much worse!
timing chains anyone?

 

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article <yKnBg.325641$Mn5.322642@pd7tw3no>,
> "shiden_kai" <V-L-M@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Why are you questioning the manufacturer's recommendation?
>> "THEY" should know best about "THEIR" engine...right?
>
> I would be MUCH more comfortable if I knew that the recommendations were
> coming directly from engineers, unsullied by the hands of marketing
> people.
>
> Marketing people have one goal: sell more cars. To do that, they make
> the cars more attractive to the consumer. To make the cars more
> attractive, they make sure they can fill a positive checklist with as
> many checkmarks as possible, to compete with the next guy. One of those
> checkmarks is, for example, "100,000 mile tuneup interval". Another
> would be extended time/distance oil changes.
>
> When I read the owner's manual for some of this, I have no idea if the
> recommendation came directly from engineering, directly from marketing,
> or is somewhere in the middle.
>
somewhere in the middle. the engineers know the wear rates, the
marketing folk know their competition, and they both figure out the
place they need to be. in the current market, very few people keep a
car more than 100k, or not first owners, so that's where the attention
goes - for every manufacturer in the world. [the small euro stuff
concentrates only on the first 100kkm and manufacturers actively seek
accelerated failure rates after that!] if you have a motor that
routinely makes 300k on 7.5k change intervals [honda], why not bring the
life expectancy down by extending change interval to 10k or even 20k?
the motor will still make 100k easily, the marketing folk are happy, the
first owner is happy, and ultimately honda is happy because at the end
of the day, they get to sell more cars.

it used to be that the way the japanese broke into the market was by
quality & longevity because it was a differentiator, but today their
position is so solid, people will still buy their cars even if life
expectancy drops in half because domestics are /still/ so much worse!
timing chains anyone?

 

"Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote >

> Comparing oil changes to insurance is simply stupid. They aren't
> equivalent at all. You buy insurance to help when crap happens. You
> don't change oil to help when your engine fails. How will an oil change
> give you the money to buy a new engine?

Most people buy insurance to protect themselves from financial loss. I would
consider a destroyed engine a "financial loss". Therefore, if frequent oil
changes were instrumental in preventing engine failure, they would be good
insurance.

Dave

 

"Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote >

> Comparing oil changes to insurance is simply stupid. They aren't
> equivalent at all. You buy insurance to help when crap happens. You
> don't change oil to help when your engine fails. How will an oil change
> give you the money to buy a new engine?

Most people buy insurance to protect themselves from financial loss. I would
consider a destroyed engine a "financial loss". Therefore, if frequent oil
changes were instrumental in preventing engine failure, they would be good
insurance.

Dave

 

"Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote >

> Comparing oil changes to insurance is simply stupid. They aren't
> equivalent at all. You buy insurance to help when crap happens. You
> don't change oil to help when your engine fails. How will an oil change
> give you the money to buy a new engine?

Most people buy insurance to protect themselves from financial loss. I would
consider a destroyed engine a "financial loss". Therefore, if frequent oil
changes were instrumental in preventing engine failure, they would be good
insurance.

Dave

 

In article <kPadnR-MffcIgkvZnZ2dnUVZ_q6dnZ2d@speakeasy.net>,
jim beam <nospam@example.net> wrote:

> in the current market, very few people keep a
> car more than 100k, or not first owners, so that's where the attention
> goes - for every manufacturer in the world.

Right.

So for a second owner, where the manufacturer has no interest, a
decrease in oil change intervals is cheap insurance--no matter what the
owner's manual says.

 

In article <kPadnR-MffcIgkvZnZ2dnUVZ_q6dnZ2d@speakeasy.net>,
jim beam <nospam@example.net> wrote:

> in the current market, very few people keep a
> car more than 100k, or not first owners, so that's where the attention
> goes - for every manufacturer in the world.

Right.

So for a second owner, where the manufacturer has no interest, a
decrease in oil change intervals is cheap insurance--no matter what the
owner's manual says.