On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 17:22:06 +0000 (UTC), Tegger <tegger@tegger.c0m>
wrote:

>Considering your desire to abide by the Owner's Manual, I assume you
>will use the correct Honda-specified fluids when it's time to change
>them? Honda fluids are more expensive.

Yes, with one exception. The service facility I plan to use (a
different Honda dealer) has always given me excellent and prompt
service. Their prices have generally been lower than independents
(e.g. timing belt replacement). They use Castrol GTX, so that is
probably what I will go with.


Elliot Richmond
Itinerant astronomy teacher
Freelance science writer

 

In article <30k7c35q7egk3b30qsdsp8fjoa4ekn8jq0@4ax.com>,
Elliot Richmond <xmrichmond@xaustin.xrr.xcom> wrote:

> I do not think that going beyond service recommendations is cost
> effective anyway. One could change oil every 1000 miles, every 10,000
> miles or somewhere in between. Where is the point at which more
> frequent oil changes do so little good, that they are simply not
> worthwhile? Clearly every 1000 miles is too often. But is 10,000
> miles too long an interval?

Keep in mind that for the most part, those service intervals are
heavily, heavily influenced by the marketing group. They absolutely
need to compete on that level with everyone else who's claiming no need
for service for 100K miles or whatever. Marketing groups serve their
own needs, no one else's.

Also, the car makers are building them to be obsolete. And for the most
part, the sheeple respond. When you see things like "7500 mile oil
change interval" or "we'll tell you when", it may be true--or it may be
that "if you follow our generous interval, nothing bad will happen to
you during the 3 or so years you own this car before your stupid burning
lust to spend $30K takes over and you go buy a new one".

For the information you're looking for, you need to find where the
engineers go for beer and wings and buy them a round one night.

Going beyond service recommendations is not always a waste of money.
There is a point beyond which it's throwing money away, of course. But
given the variability of manufacturing, it may be that you have the
engine that doesn't quite respond as well to the 7500 mile intervals as
another car might--but will be very happy with a 5000 mile interval, for
example.

You wouldn't know that until after the engine blew up, so what do you do?

 

In article <30k7c35q7egk3b30qsdsp8fjoa4ekn8jq0@4ax.com>,
Elliot Richmond <xmrichmond@xaustin.xrr.xcom> wrote:

> I do not think that going beyond service recommendations is cost
> effective anyway. One could change oil every 1000 miles, every 10,000
> miles or somewhere in between. Where is the point at which more
> frequent oil changes do so little good, that they are simply not
> worthwhile? Clearly every 1000 miles is too often. But is 10,000
> miles too long an interval?

Keep in mind that for the most part, those service intervals are
heavily, heavily influenced by the marketing group. They absolutely
need to compete on that level with everyone else who's claiming no need
for service for 100K miles or whatever. Marketing groups serve their
own needs, no one else's.

Also, the car makers are building them to be obsolete. And for the most
part, the sheeple respond. When you see things like "7500 mile oil
change interval" or "we'll tell you when", it may be true--or it may be
that "if you follow our generous interval, nothing bad will happen to
you during the 3 or so years you own this car before your stupid burning
lust to spend $30K takes over and you go buy a new one".

For the information you're looking for, you need to find where the
engineers go for beer and wings and buy them a round one night.

Going beyond service recommendations is not always a waste of money.
There is a point beyond which it's throwing money away, of course. But
given the variability of manufacturing, it may be that you have the
engine that doesn't quite respond as well to the 7500 mile intervals as
another car might--but will be very happy with a 5000 mile interval, for
example.

You wouldn't know that until after the engine blew up, so what do you do?

 

In article <30k7c35q7egk3b30qsdsp8fjoa4ekn8jq0@4ax.com>,
Elliot Richmond <xmrichmond@xaustin.xrr.xcom> wrote:

> I do not think that going beyond service recommendations is cost
> effective anyway. One could change oil every 1000 miles, every 10,000
> miles or somewhere in between. Where is the point at which more
> frequent oil changes do so little good, that they are simply not
> worthwhile? Clearly every 1000 miles is too often. But is 10,000
> miles too long an interval?

Keep in mind that for the most part, those service intervals are
heavily, heavily influenced by the marketing group. They absolutely
need to compete on that level with everyone else who's claiming no need
for service for 100K miles or whatever. Marketing groups serve their
own needs, no one else's.

Also, the car makers are building them to be obsolete. And for the most
part, the sheeple respond. When you see things like "7500 mile oil
change interval" or "we'll tell you when", it may be true--or it may be
that "if you follow our generous interval, nothing bad will happen to
you during the 3 or so years you own this car before your stupid burning
lust to spend $30K takes over and you go buy a new one".

For the information you're looking for, you need to find where the
engineers go for beer and wings and buy them a round one night.

Going beyond service recommendations is not always a waste of money.
There is a point beyond which it's throwing money away, of course. But
given the variability of manufacturing, it may be that you have the
engine that doesn't quite respond as well to the 7500 mile intervals as
another car might--but will be very happy with a 5000 mile interval, for
example.

You wouldn't know that until after the engine blew up, so what do you do?

 

In article <Xns998E87D4489EDtegger@207.14.116.130>,
Tegger <tegger@tegger.c0m> wrote:

> Considering your desire to abide by the Owner's Manual, I assume you
> will use the correct Honda-specified fluids when it's time to change
> them? Honda fluids are more expensive.

wait--hold that--

--they're more expensive to purchase. They are NOT more expensive to
operate the car with.

It's the cheapest man who spends the most.

 

In article <Xns998E87D4489EDtegger@207.14.116.130>,
Tegger <tegger@tegger.c0m> wrote:

> Considering your desire to abide by the Owner's Manual, I assume you
> will use the correct Honda-specified fluids when it's time to change
> them? Honda fluids are more expensive.

wait--hold that--

--they're more expensive to purchase. They are NOT more expensive to
operate the car with.

It's the cheapest man who spends the most.

 

In article <Xns998E87D4489EDtegger@207.14.116.130>,
Tegger <tegger@tegger.c0m> wrote:

> Considering your desire to abide by the Owner's Manual, I assume you
> will use the correct Honda-specified fluids when it's time to change
> them? Honda fluids are more expensive.

wait--hold that--

--they're more expensive to purchase. They are NOT more expensive to
operate the car with.

It's the cheapest man who spends the most.

 

On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 15:07:27 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
<elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:

>Also, the car makers are building them to be obsolete.

This may be true, but I see no compelling evidence. When I was a kid
in high school, an automobile with 50,000 miles was due for a major
overhaul. 100,000 miles on an engine was so rare that it was a news
worth event. Now cars go 250,000 miles with no replaced engine parts
at all except for maybe spark plugs and timing belt. And they still
have good power and compression.

I had my 93 Honda far longer than any other car I ever owned and I
tend to keep 'em for a long time. It was still running great and as
far as I could tell had another 100,000 miles in it. Some plastic bits
had broken off, but they were easy to replace.


Elliot Richmond
Itinerant astronomy teacher
Freelance science writer

 

On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 15:07:27 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
<elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:

>Also, the car makers are building them to be obsolete.

This may be true, but I see no compelling evidence. When I was a kid
in high school, an automobile with 50,000 miles was due for a major
overhaul. 100,000 miles on an engine was so rare that it was a news
worth event. Now cars go 250,000 miles with no replaced engine parts
at all except for maybe spark plugs and timing belt. And they still
have good power and compression.

I had my 93 Honda far longer than any other car I ever owned and I
tend to keep 'em for a long time. It was still running great and as
far as I could tell had another 100,000 miles in it. Some plastic bits
had broken off, but they were easy to replace.


Elliot Richmond
Itinerant astronomy teacher
Freelance science writer

 

On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 15:07:27 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
<elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:

>Also, the car makers are building them to be obsolete.

This may be true, but I see no compelling evidence. When I was a kid
in high school, an automobile with 50,000 miles was due for a major
overhaul. 100,000 miles on an engine was so rare that it was a news
worth event. Now cars go 250,000 miles with no replaced engine parts
at all except for maybe spark plugs and timing belt. And they still
have good power and compression.

I had my 93 Honda far longer than any other car I ever owned and I
tend to keep 'em for a long time. It was still running great and as
far as I could tell had another 100,000 miles in it. Some plastic bits
had broken off, but they were easy to replace.


Elliot Richmond
Itinerant astronomy teacher
Freelance science writer

 

In article <3199c35adh3k3k771htc1ehd4hkhvees0c@4ax.com>,
Elliot Richmond <xmrichmond@xaustin.xrr.xcom> wrote:

> >Also, the car makers are building them to be obsolete.
>
> This may be true, but I see no compelling evidence. When I was a kid
> in high school, an automobile with 50,000 miles was due for a major
> overhaul. 100,000 miles on an engine was so rare that it was a news
> worth event. Now cars go 250,000 miles with no replaced engine parts
> at all except for maybe spark plugs and timing belt. And they still
> have good power and compression.

Let's just say that longevity at best is a byproduct of other design and
engineering decisions. The main decisions have to do with lowering the
cost to build the car while making people happy for about 3 years. If
in the course of doing so they end up making a car that lasts longer, so
be it.

 

In article <3199c35adh3k3k771htc1ehd4hkhvees0c@4ax.com>,
Elliot Richmond <xmrichmond@xaustin.xrr.xcom> wrote:

> >Also, the car makers are building them to be obsolete.
>
> This may be true, but I see no compelling evidence. When I was a kid
> in high school, an automobile with 50,000 miles was due for a major
> overhaul. 100,000 miles on an engine was so rare that it was a news
> worth event. Now cars go 250,000 miles with no replaced engine parts
> at all except for maybe spark plugs and timing belt. And they still
> have good power and compression.

Let's just say that longevity at best is a byproduct of other design and
engineering decisions. The main decisions have to do with lowering the
cost to build the car while making people happy for about 3 years. If
in the course of doing so they end up making a car that lasts longer, so
be it.

 

In article <3199c35adh3k3k771htc1ehd4hkhvees0c@4ax.com>,
Elliot Richmond <xmrichmond@xaustin.xrr.xcom> wrote:

> >Also, the car makers are building them to be obsolete.
>
> This may be true, but I see no compelling evidence. When I was a kid
> in high school, an automobile with 50,000 miles was due for a major
> overhaul. 100,000 miles on an engine was so rare that it was a news
> worth event. Now cars go 250,000 miles with no replaced engine parts
> at all except for maybe spark plugs and timing belt. And they still
> have good power and compression.

Let's just say that longevity at best is a byproduct of other design and
engineering decisions. The main decisions have to do with lowering the
cost to build the car while making people happy for about 3 years. If
in the course of doing so they end up making a car that lasts longer, so
be it.

 

Elliot Richmond wrote:
>
> On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 21:26:00 -0700, Eric <say.no@spam.now> wrote:
>
> >This page might be of interest to you...
> >http://www.high-road.com/maintenance/maintenance.htm
> >
> >Eric
>
> It is interesting, but this is from a company that provides (sells)
> service. For example, it has that 3000 mile oil change recommendation.
> No automobile manufacturer has a recommended oil change interval that
> short. Most are going to longer intervals.

So, you asked for service mileage recommendations and I gave you a link for
a well researched list based on roughly 25 years of empirical evidence (one
of the owners of that shop is not just a "salesman" but also has a degree in
mechanical engineering). However, all you appear to have done is shoot it
down since you have already made your mind up about oil change intervals.
While I'm not going to argue over the recommended length of oil change
intervals, I really don't care when you change your oil or if you never do,
one thing seems clear to me, you have already made up your mind and really
didn't want a list of service mileage recommendations or you wouldn't have
shot it down simply because you disagreed with only 2.5% of the information
in the list.

 

Elliot Richmond wrote:
>
> On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 21:26:00 -0700, Eric <say.no@spam.now> wrote:
>
> >This page might be of interest to you...
> >http://www.high-road.com/maintenance/maintenance.htm
> >
> >Eric
>
> It is interesting, but this is from a company that provides (sells)
> service. For example, it has that 3000 mile oil change recommendation.
> No automobile manufacturer has a recommended oil change interval that
> short. Most are going to longer intervals.

So, you asked for service mileage recommendations and I gave you a link for
a well researched list based on roughly 25 years of empirical evidence (one
of the owners of that shop is not just a "salesman" but also has a degree in
mechanical engineering). However, all you appear to have done is shoot it
down since you have already made your mind up about oil change intervals.
While I'm not going to argue over the recommended length of oil change
intervals, I really don't care when you change your oil or if you never do,
one thing seems clear to me, you have already made up your mind and really
didn't want a list of service mileage recommendations or you wouldn't have
shot it down simply because you disagreed with only 2.5% of the information
in the list.