In article <37ecc39c568r35ep90ep8496o2v8avbuoa@4ax.com>,
Elliot Richmond <xmrichmond@xaustin.xrr.xcom> wrote:

> Okay, if you think I was asking for somebody on the list to supply a
> maintenance schedule

Well, let's see. What are we supposed to take from what you originally
said:

In article <auc6c3h58i85rchcamapffi1t4iirpijt6@4ax.com>,
Elliot Richmond <xmrichmond@xaustin.xrr.xcom> wrote:

> Particularly, I wanted to know
> if there really was a mileage schedule that supplemented the
> maintenance minders.

When you come to the newsgroup and say something like that, the
implication (remember "conversational implicature"?) is that you're
asking the readers if THEY know of a mileage schedule.

The implication is NOT that you're just talking to hear yourself talk.

But, apparently you were talking just to hear yourself talk.

 

Elliot Richmond <xmrichmond@xaustin.xrr.xcom> wrote in
news:3199c35adh3k3k771htc1ehd4hkhvees0c@4ax.com:

> 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.



Nor do I. I do see copious evidence of cost-cutting, especially on non-
critical components. This is not the same as building in obsolescence.



> 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.



My dad had 140,000 miles on his '58 Dodge Regent (Royal) by 1970. It was
the talk of the neighborhood at the time. The engine smoked and the 2-
speed automatic leaked badly.



> 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.


Try over 400K these days.




--
Tegger

The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/

 

Elliot Richmond <xmrichmond@xaustin.xrr.xcom> wrote in
news:3199c35adh3k3k771htc1ehd4hkhvees0c@4ax.com:

> 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.



Nor do I. I do see copious evidence of cost-cutting, especially on non-
critical components. This is not the same as building in obsolescence.



> 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.



My dad had 140,000 miles on his '58 Dodge Regent (Royal) by 1970. It was
the talk of the neighborhood at the time. The engine smoked and the 2-
speed automatic leaked badly.



> 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.


Try over 400K these days.




--
Tegger

The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/

 

Elliot Richmond <xmrichmond@xaustin.xrr.xcom> wrote in
news:3199c35adh3k3k771htc1ehd4hkhvees0c@4ax.com:

> 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.



Nor do I. I do see copious evidence of cost-cutting, especially on non-
critical components. This is not the same as building in obsolescence.



> 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.



My dad had 140,000 miles on his '58 Dodge Regent (Royal) by 1970. It was
the talk of the neighborhood at the time. The engine smoked and the 2-
speed automatic leaked badly.



> 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.


Try over 400K these days.




--
Tegger

The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/

 

"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in news:elmop-
D7ADAB.15072716082007@nntp1.usenetserver.com:

> 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.



That, and the desire to not **** off the environment lobby, which has
considerable political clout these days. Long oil change intervals are
supposed to be more "environmentally friendly".

And a 10K interval IS too long if you're not using a synthetic.



--
Tegger

The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/

 

"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in news:elmop-
D7ADAB.15072716082007@nntp1.usenetserver.com:

> 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.



That, and the desire to not **** off the environment lobby, which has
considerable political clout these days. Long oil change intervals are
supposed to be more "environmentally friendly".

And a 10K interval IS too long if you're not using a synthetic.



--
Tegger

The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/

 

"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in news:elmop-
D7ADAB.15072716082007@nntp1.usenetserver.com:

> 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.



That, and the desire to not **** off the environment lobby, which has
considerable political clout these days. Long oil change intervals are
supposed to be more "environmentally friendly".

And a 10K interval IS too long if you're not using a synthetic.



--
Tegger

The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/

 

Tegger wrote:
> Elliot Richmond <xmrichmond@xaustin.xrr.xcom> wrote in
> news:3199c35adh3k3k771htc1ehd4hkhvees0c@4ax.com:
>
>> 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.
>
>
>
> Nor do I. I do see copious evidence of cost-cutting, especially on non-
> critical components. This is not the same as building in obsolescence.

there /definitely/ is built-in obsolescence, but it depends on
manufacturer. honda & toyota are finally rumored to be getting into it,
but for the vintage vehicles we drive, it's not an issue.

it's quite a difficult engineering task. in terms of technology
development, it used to be detroit closely followed by the euros. did a
project on it at uni. the crazy thing is, some of it costs more to
implement, but it pays back with increased sales.


>
>
>
>> 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.
>
>
>
> My dad had 140,000 miles on his '58 Dodge Regent (Royal) by 1970. It was
> the talk of the neighborhood at the time. The engine smoked and the 2-
> speed automatic leaked badly.
>
>
>
>> 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.
>
>
> Try over 400K these days.

japanese, not domestic. they're better than they were, but when chevy
make a big deal out of 200k, you know that's stratospheric for them.
contrast that with the high mileage club over at toyota.com!

 

Tegger wrote:
> Elliot Richmond <xmrichmond@xaustin.xrr.xcom> wrote in
> news:3199c35adh3k3k771htc1ehd4hkhvees0c@4ax.com:
>
>> 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.
>
>
>
> Nor do I. I do see copious evidence of cost-cutting, especially on non-
> critical components. This is not the same as building in obsolescence.

there /definitely/ is built-in obsolescence, but it depends on
manufacturer. honda & toyota are finally rumored to be getting into it,
but for the vintage vehicles we drive, it's not an issue.

it's quite a difficult engineering task. in terms of technology
development, it used to be detroit closely followed by the euros. did a
project on it at uni. the crazy thing is, some of it costs more to
implement, but it pays back with increased sales.


>
>
>
>> 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.
>
>
>
> My dad had 140,000 miles on his '58 Dodge Regent (Royal) by 1970. It was
> the talk of the neighborhood at the time. The engine smoked and the 2-
> speed automatic leaked badly.
>
>
>
>> 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.
>
>
> Try over 400K these days.

japanese, not domestic. they're better than they were, but when chevy
make a big deal out of 200k, you know that's stratospheric for them.
contrast that with the high mileage club over at toyota.com!

 

Tegger wrote:
> Elliot Richmond <xmrichmond@xaustin.xrr.xcom> wrote in
> news:3199c35adh3k3k771htc1ehd4hkhvees0c@4ax.com:
>
>> 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.
>
>
>
> Nor do I. I do see copious evidence of cost-cutting, especially on non-
> critical components. This is not the same as building in obsolescence.

there /definitely/ is built-in obsolescence, but it depends on
manufacturer. honda & toyota are finally rumored to be getting into it,
but for the vintage vehicles we drive, it's not an issue.

it's quite a difficult engineering task. in terms of technology
development, it used to be detroit closely followed by the euros. did a
project on it at uni. the crazy thing is, some of it costs more to
implement, but it pays back with increased sales.


>
>
>
>> 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.
>
>
>
> My dad had 140,000 miles on his '58 Dodge Regent (Royal) by 1970. It was
> the talk of the neighborhood at the time. The engine smoked and the 2-
> speed automatic leaked badly.
>
>
>
>> 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.
>
>
> Try over 400K these days.

japanese, not domestic. they're better than they were, but when chevy
make a big deal out of 200k, you know that's stratospheric for them.
contrast that with the high mileage club over at toyota.com!

 

Tegger wrote:
> "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in news:elmop-
> D7ADAB.15072716082007@nntp1.usenetserver.com:
>
>> 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.
>
>
>
> That, and the desire to not **** off the environment lobby, which has
> considerable political clout these days. Long oil change intervals are
> supposed to be more "environmentally friendly".
>
> And a 10K interval IS too long if you're not using a synthetic.

it depends. the latest engine computers keep combustion pretty clean,
and that leads to better oil life.

 

Tegger wrote:
> "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in news:elmop-
> D7ADAB.15072716082007@nntp1.usenetserver.com:
>
>> 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.
>
>
>
> That, and the desire to not **** off the environment lobby, which has
> considerable political clout these days. Long oil change intervals are
> supposed to be more "environmentally friendly".
>
> And a 10K interval IS too long if you're not using a synthetic.

it depends. the latest engine computers keep combustion pretty clean,
and that leads to better oil life.

 

Tegger wrote:
> "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in news:elmop-
> D7ADAB.15072716082007@nntp1.usenetserver.com:
>
>> 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.
>
>
>
> That, and the desire to not **** off the environment lobby, which has
> considerable political clout these days. Long oil change intervals are
> supposed to be more "environmentally friendly".
>
> And a 10K interval IS too long if you're not using a synthetic.

it depends. the latest engine computers keep combustion pretty clean,
and that leads to better oil life.

 

On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 06:39:21 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
<elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:

>Well, let's see. What are we supposed to take from what you originally
>said:
>
>In article <auc6c3h58i85rchcamapffi1t4iirpijt6@4ax.com>,
> Elliot Richmond <xmrichmond@xaustin.xrr.xcom> wrote:
>
>> Particularly, I wanted to know
>> if there really was a mileage schedule that supplemented the
>> maintenance minders.
>
>When you come to the newsgroup and say something like that, the
>implication (remember "conversational implicature"?) is that you're
>asking the readers if THEY know of a mileage schedule.

The only implication I can construct is that the statement was
directed to the service manager at the facility that had sent the
message to me.

Here is the original paragraph in question:

>So, I replied to the email from the service facility, explaining that
>all of the information I had was that the car would tell me when it
>needed service and if the service manager knew something I did not
>know, then he should share it with me. Particularly, I wanted to know
>if there really was a mileage schedule that supplemented the
>maintenance minders.

You did not quote that part about "replied to the service facility."

The question of whether I thought there really was a mileage schedule
had, I thought, already been settled. Here is the previous paragraph:

>Well, I dug out the owners manual, and looked for a schedule. Instead,
>it told me that the computer would tell me when the car needed
>service. No mileage schedule. I remembered the collective wisdom of
>this group and that this subject was discussed, so I dug through the
>archives. No mileage schedule. I searched the internet. No mileage
>schedule.

Notice the repetition for emphasis: "No mileage schedule." It was not
a question; it was a statement.

Eric, and possibly others, were misled by my message and interpreted
it as a request for information, in spite of the fact that I began
the message with.

>I thought the group might appreciate this short tale.

Clearly, my "tale" was not clear to some. But, I am now done with it.
The rest of you may continue to discuss it if you wish, but I would
suggest moving on to some other subject. Such as:

Do synthetics really extend the life of an engine when coupled with an
extended oil change interval to compensate for the extra cost of
synthetics over conventional oils?

Do synthetics really reduce dependency on petroleum based products to
any significant degree considering that in the time it takes to
"consume" five quarts of oil, which can actually be recycled, the car
will consume over 300 gallons of gasoline.


Elliot Richmond
Itinerant astronomy teacher
Freelance science writer

 

On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 06:39:21 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
<elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:

>Well, let's see. What are we supposed to take from what you originally
>said:
>
>In article <auc6c3h58i85rchcamapffi1t4iirpijt6@4ax.com>,
> Elliot Richmond <xmrichmond@xaustin.xrr.xcom> wrote:
>
>> Particularly, I wanted to know
>> if there really was a mileage schedule that supplemented the
>> maintenance minders.
>
>When you come to the newsgroup and say something like that, the
>implication (remember "conversational implicature"?) is that you're
>asking the readers if THEY know of a mileage schedule.

The only implication I can construct is that the statement was
directed to the service manager at the facility that had sent the
message to me.

Here is the original paragraph in question:

>So, I replied to the email from the service facility, explaining that
>all of the information I had was that the car would tell me when it
>needed service and if the service manager knew something I did not
>know, then he should share it with me. Particularly, I wanted to know
>if there really was a mileage schedule that supplemented the
>maintenance minders.

You did not quote that part about "replied to the service facility."

The question of whether I thought there really was a mileage schedule
had, I thought, already been settled. Here is the previous paragraph:

>Well, I dug out the owners manual, and looked for a schedule. Instead,
>it told me that the computer would tell me when the car needed
>service. No mileage schedule. I remembered the collective wisdom of
>this group and that this subject was discussed, so I dug through the
>archives. No mileage schedule. I searched the internet. No mileage
>schedule.

Notice the repetition for emphasis: "No mileage schedule." It was not
a question; it was a statement.

Eric, and possibly others, were misled by my message and interpreted
it as a request for information, in spite of the fact that I began
the message with.

>I thought the group might appreciate this short tale.

Clearly, my "tale" was not clear to some. But, I am now done with it.
The rest of you may continue to discuss it if you wish, but I would
suggest moving on to some other subject. Such as:

Do synthetics really extend the life of an engine when coupled with an
extended oil change interval to compensate for the extra cost of
synthetics over conventional oils?

Do synthetics really reduce dependency on petroleum based products to
any significant degree considering that in the time it takes to
"consume" five quarts of oil, which can actually be recycled, the car
will consume over 300 gallons of gasoline.


Elliot Richmond
Itinerant astronomy teacher
Freelance science writer