Stephen <stephen_hope@xyzworld.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

>>WHAT?!?!?!
>>
>>I don't let Dino oil go more than 5K! I change my synthetic at 4.5K.
>>
>>Works for me. Last three cars all had well over 250,000 on them.

God alone knows what change regime my c900 T16's had in it's 19yrs, but
it's rapidly approaching 200k with no lubrication-related problems
whatsoever.

> Saabs in the UK are supposed to use fully synthetic oil - much more
> expensive, but longer between services (and few sludge problems).

Does _anybody_ but the pikiest cheapskates use anything less than semi-
synth these days? Especially in a turbo, why on earth would you use dino?

> my 03 V6 TiD Saab is one of the few that has recommended changes of only
> 12,000 miles (the more recent 1.9 diesels are 18000 miles, and i think
> the petrols even more).

No, they're all 18k.

Saab have had problems with sludge, too - but that's down to a cockup on
some breather designs - rectified by redesigning the breathers.

 

On 12 May 2009 19:44:46 GMT, Adrian <toomany2cvs@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Saabs in the UK are supposed to use fully synthetic oil - much more
>> expensive, but longer between services (and few sludge problems).
>
>Does _anybody_ but the pikiest cheapskates use anything less than semi-
>synth these days? Especially in a turbo, why on earth would you use dino?

The synthetic vs. non difference needs to be accounted for in these
discussions of change intervals, especially when manufacturer
recommended. That said, using non-synthetic with a turbo car is a
really bad idea.

>> my 03 V6 TiD Saab is one of the few that has recommended changes of only
>> 12,000 miles (the more recent 1.9 diesels are 18000 miles, and i think
>> the petrols even more).
>
>No, they're all 18k.

As someone noted earlier, most Americans are obsessed with 3k change
intervals from the dino days. Even with synthetic, they only go 5K.
There are some quality differences in oils from the USA to Europe, but
they don't account for the change interval differences except through
tradition.

Keep in mind that in the USA these intervals came up when oil was dirt
cheap and it was inexpensive for the owner and cheap insurance for the
manufacturer to change the oil frequently. It was only when some Euro
cars started pushing the change interval that American manufacturers
sat up and took notice that this was actually a marketing feature.


>Saab have had problems with sludge, too - but that's down to a cockup on
>some breather designs - rectified by redesigning the breathers.

Yes, I believe the 9~5 is on revision #5 or 6 at last count. We never
saw these problems before 2002 or so. Toyota likewise never had any
problems until some changes a few years ago.

One difference was that Toyota vehemently denied any responsibility
and blamed it all on owners failing to change oil for years, fighting
it until the wave of complaints on the Internet overwhelmed them and
the grudgingly gave in. Saab, OTOH, acknowledged the problem and has
paid for many,many repairs without complaint. It remains to be seen if
the new Saab will have the same level of service.

 

On Tue, 12 May 2009 17:27:41 -0400, me <noemail@nothere.com> wrote:

>Keep in mind that in the USA these intervals came up when oil was dirt
>cheap and it was inexpensive for the owner and cheap insurance for the
>manufacturer to change the oil frequently. It was only when some Euro
>cars started pushing the change interval that American manufacturers
>sat up and took notice that this was actually a marketing feature.

They took the Lead out of gasoline. It was never in diesel IIRC.
The Lead deposits were a problem that caused a need for
oil changes.

Any thoughts on the original claims about various makes &
bad heads?
--
Cliff

 

On 2009-05-12 01:42:45 -0500, Adrian <toomany2cvs@gmail.com> said:

> yoda <yoda@Dagobah.net> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
> saying:
>
>> On 2009-05-11 01:22:16 -0500, Adrian <toomany2cvs@gmail.com> said:
>>
>>> Hachiroku ハチ�ク <Trueno@e86.GTS> gurgled happily, sounding much like
>>> they were saying:
>>>
>>>> You have to do SOME maintenance! Were these the people like the ones
>>>> that came into the service department when I was there, NEVER changed
>>>> their oil (one documented case of 15,000 miles without an oil change!)
>>>> and then wonder why the car blew up?
>>>
>>> Gosh! FIFTEEN THOUSAND miles?
>>>
>>> FFS, that's less than the recommended service interval on most new cars
>>> over here... You 'merkins and your outdated obsession with changing the
>>> oil every ten minutes.
>
>> Where's "over here"? US miles are different than kilometers, ya know...
>
> Just as well I'm not in a KM country, then. I wonder... If I was, d'you
> think I'd have mentioned that? Yes, I think I might have...

Yes, sorry about that. Just making sure. Didn't mean what it sounded like.

>
>> I can't think of anyplace that lets cars go 15K miles between oil
>> changes, unless it's one of those arab countries where cars are much
>> more expendable than they are here.
>
> <shrug> Your lack of imagination is not my problem.
>
> Here in the UQ, 18k miles/two years is not unusual as a service interval
> for recent cars, including for both current Saabs. Very few cars here
> "die" because of worn out engines.

Oh no - no lack of imagination here - I can apparently imagine all
kinds of things. What I DO lack is specific knowledge, but I'm starting
to piece some of it together. I still don't know what the UQ is? Sorry,
dumbass american here.

So, is this 18K/2 years thing really working out as well as a more
frequent service interval, statistically speaking? I see that this
thread is crossposted all over the place - lets say if we took
otherwise identical cars, and used the euro 18k/2 year thing on one,
and did the murican 5k thing on the other, would both cars drive as
well after 250K miles? I'm posting this from the acura group, and
getting hondas and acuras to go 250k is not unusual here in the
southern usa, where instant oil change places are everywhere, and it's
not considered a big deal to change the oil regularly (I.E. 5k or so).
And I know from my own experience of changing my own oil that there's
some pretty significant degradation in what comes out of the engine
after about 5K - I'd hate to have that stuff keeping my car ticking for
another 13K.

Just curious really - no offenses meant! Thanks for everyone's input in this.


--
-----------------------------
I only talk like that in the movies

 

yoda wrote:
> On 2009-05-12 01:42:45 -0500, Adrian <toomany2cvs@gmail.com> said:
>
>> yoda <yoda@Dagobah.net> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
>> saying:
>>
>>> On 2009-05-11 01:22:16 -0500, Adrian <toomany2cvs@gmail.com> said:
>>>
>>>> Hachiroku ハチ�ク <Trueno@e86.GTS> gurgled happily, sounding much like
>>>> they were saying:
>>>>
>>>>> You have to do SOME maintenance! Were these the people like the ones
>>>>> that came into the service department when I was there, NEVER changed
>>>>> their oil (one documented case of 15,000 miles without an oil change!)
>>>>> and then wonder why the car blew up?
>>>>
>>>> Gosh! FIFTEEN THOUSAND miles?
>>>>
>>>> FFS, that's less than the recommended service interval on most new cars
>>>> over here... You 'merkins and your outdated obsession with changing the
>>>> oil every ten minutes.
>>
>>> Where's "over here"? US miles are different than kilometers, ya know...
>>
>> Just as well I'm not in a KM country, then. I wonder... If I was, d'you
>> think I'd have mentioned that? Yes, I think I might have...
>
> Yes, sorry about that. Just making sure. Didn't mean what it sounded like.
>
>>
>>> I can't think of anyplace that lets cars go 15K miles between oil
>>> changes, unless it's one of those arab countries where cars are much
>>> more expendable than they are here.
>>
>> <shrug> Your lack of imagination is not my problem.
>>
>> Here in the UQ, 18k miles/two years is not unusual as a service interval
>> for recent cars, including for both current Saabs. Very few cars here
>> "die" because of worn out engines.
>
> Oh no - no lack of imagination here - I can apparently imagine all kinds
> of things. What I DO lack is specific knowledge, but I'm starting to
> piece some of it together. I still don't know what the UQ is? Sorry,
> dumbass american here.
>
> So, is this 18K/2 years thing really working out as well as a more
> frequent service interval, statistically speaking? I see that this
> thread is crossposted all over the place - lets say if we took otherwise
> identical cars, and used the euro 18k/2 year thing on one, and did the
> murican 5k thing on the other, would both cars drive as well after 250K
> miles? I'm posting this from the acura group, and getting hondas and
> acuras to go 250k is not unusual here in the southern usa, where instant
> oil change places are everywhere, and it's not considered a big deal to
> change the oil regularly (I.E. 5k or so). And I know from my own
> experience of changing my own oil that there's some pretty significant
> degradation in what comes out of the engine after about 5K - I'd hate to
> have that stuff keeping my car ticking for another 13K.
>
> Just curious really - no offenses meant! Thanks for everyone's input in
> this.
>

I dunno about oil changes, but I'm a big believer in transmission oil
changes. GM may say that I do not need to do it but I will probably pay
myself to have the trans fluid in my company car changed at 50K. I
didn't do the last one and the trans definitely felt more harsh and took
longer to drop into gear by the time I turned it in (80+K) also I
noticed a big difference in shift quality in my F*rd pickup when I had
the trans flushed at about 130K (was crossing my fingers with that one;
did not know if that would save it or kill it. No, I'm not the one that
let it go that long.) Also I had the oil changed every 7K with dino
squeezins and the lifters were still noisy on the company car... this
one is going to get Mobil 1 if I can convince the garage to let me pay
the upcharge myself. (with this economy, who knows when I'm going to
get another... and the hassle of downtime is not worth it. Also will
probably need a new personal vehicle by that point.)

In fact, with my own cars, if there is a "severe service" schedule in
the manual, that's what I follow. Most people's driving habits qualify
them as "severe service" which means the regular service intervals are
simply so mfgrs. can get lower maintenance costs on magazine comparison
tests. weasels.

If I have a car with 100K and there's any original fluids left in it, I
change 'em, no matter what the manual says. Lifetime my ***. (which
reminds me, I still haven't flushed the P/S fluid in the pickemup truck.)

nate

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

 

On Tue, 12 May 2009 21:09:49 -0400, Nate Nagel <njnagel@roosters.net> wrote:

>flushed

My impression: Can cause lots of damage .... no
matter what fluid they want to "flush" for $$$$.

Ford warning: they sort of like to use Aluminum AND Copper
in cooling & heating system lines ... causes severe electrolytic corrosion,
blocks heater cores, etc.
There is a semi-secret service bulletin IIRC.
Visual inspection might spot it on some models, if present.

--
Cliff

 

On Tue, 12 May 2009 19:44:46 +0000, Adrian wrote:

>
>> Saabs in the UK are supposed to use fully synthetic oil - much more
>> expensive, but longer between services (and few sludge problems).
>
> Does _anybody_ but the pikiest cheapskates use anything less than semi-
> synth these days?

Yup. I have two 1989 cars, a Subaru and a Mazda that get Dino oil,
specifically Quaker State high-mileage with Slick 50 additive. I was
having a hell of a time with the Mazda, the Hydraulic Lash Adjusters (a
couple of them) were clacking like hell with Castrol (BP) high-mileage
oil. The Quaker State allowed me to bring the 4 HLAs I bought for $52 back
to the parts store, since they weren't needed any more.

The Subaru gets the same oil. This car really has one wheel in the
junkyard, Dino is good enough.

Ditto for the '88 Supra, but not because the car is in bad shape. Once I
track down the oil leak (the oil pressure sender is the suspect) I'll
change oil...if I can *FIND* the damn thing!!

 

Cliff <Clhuprich@aol.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

> They took the Lead out of gasoline. It was never in diesel IIRC. The
> Lead deposits were a problem that caused a need for
> oil changes.

Just remind me when you guys went fully undeaded? Mid-70s?

Leaded was available here until the late '90s. Cats weren't a requirement
here until the early '90s.

If either side of the pond had a bee in their bonnet about anything
because of lead, I'm not sure it'd be your side.

 

yoda <yoda@Dagobah.net> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

>> Here in the UQ, 18k miles/two years is not unusual as a service
>> interval for recent cars, including for both current Saabs. Very few
>> cars here "die" because of worn out engines.

> Oh no - no lack of imagination here - I can apparently imagine all kinds
> of things. What I DO lack is specific knowledge, but I'm starting to
> piece some of it together. I still don't know what the UQ is? Sorry,
> dumbass american here.

The United Queendom.

> So, is this 18K/2 years thing really working out as well as a more
> frequent service interval, statistically speaking? I see that this
> thread is crossposted all over the place - lets say if we took otherwise
> identical cars, and used the euro 18k/2 year thing on one, and did the
> murican 5k thing on the other, would both cars drive as well after 250K
> miles?

How much of what makes a car feel "old" after 250k miles and a decade and
a bit is due to mechanical wear attributable to lubrication (or lack
thereof)? An incredibly small amount, if any. Changing the oil doesn't
have the slightest effect on suspension wear, electrical problems,
corrosion, interior wear, collision damage etc etc etc.

 

On 13 May 2009 06:25:48 GMT, Adrian <toomany2cvs@gmail.com> wrote:

>Just remind me when you guys went fully undeaded? Mid-70s?

US cars went unleaded in 1973 (Federally mandated cats), I believe.
Unleaded was sold until different times in different states, probably
the early 90s on average.

 

Adrian wrote:
>
> yoda <yoda@Dagobah.net> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
> saying:
>
> >> Here in the UQ, 18k miles/two years is not unusual as a service
> >> interval for recent cars, including for both current Saabs. Very few
> >> cars here "die" because of worn out engines.
>
> > Oh no - no lack of imagination here - I can apparently imagine all kinds
> > of things. What I DO lack is specific knowledge, but I'm starting to
> > piece some of it together. I still don't know what the UQ is? Sorry,
> > dumbass american here.
>
> The United Queendom.
>
> > So, is this 18K/2 years thing really working out as well as a more
> > frequent service interval, statistically speaking? I see that this
> > thread is crossposted all over the place - lets say if we took otherwise
> > identical cars, and used the euro 18k/2 year thing on one, and did the
> > murican 5k thing on the other, would both cars drive as well after 250K
> > miles?
>
> How much of what makes a car feel "old" after 250k miles and a decade and
> a bit is due to mechanical wear attributable to lubrication (or lack
> thereof)? An incredibly small amount, if any. Changing the oil doesn't
> have the slightest effect on suspension wear, electrical problems,
> corrosion, interior wear, collision damage etc etc etc.

The older the car, the better it gets...
An older car has less electronics that can go wrong. Parts are easily obtainable
e.g. ebay or exchange & mart. Build quality is usually better. As an example, let
me quote Car Mechanics May 2009: "Even though these post 98 cars [Saab 9-5] offer
superb bargain and look fresh, they still fall way behind the trusty 9000 as far
as reliability and proven mechanicals are taken into account."

It is common in less developed countries to see 50 year old cars. The low wages,
coupled with skills and flair keep these old machines running. Unlike the modern
'disposable' cars.

 

Dean Dark wrote:

> US cars went unleaded in 1973 (Federally mandated cats), I believe.
> Unleaded was sold until different times in different states, probably
> the early 90s on average.

No, the catalytic converters were not mandated, but it was the only way
many vehicles could meet the emissions standards. I had a U.S. built 49
state 1979 VW Rabbit (Westmoreland, PA factory) and it used leaded and
was able to meet the applicable emissions standard. The California model
used unleaded, and in 1980 even the 49 state model went to unleaded.
Since VW neglected to make the necessary material changes the valve
seals, the Rabbits that used unleaded ended up with horrible oil burning
problems, and the feds forced a recall onto VW. I sold my Rabbit with
about 169K miles on it (the odometer showed 69K) and the engine was
still in very good condition.

When I moved to California with my 49 state Rabbit, occasionally a gas
station employee would tell me that my vehicle required unleaded and I
had to explain the difference between 49 state vehicles, and California
vehicles.

 

me wrote:

> Keep in mind that in the USA these intervals came up when oil was dirt
> cheap and it was inexpensive for the owner and cheap insurance for the
> manufacturer to change the oil frequently.

It's more than that, the 3000 mile oil change custom started before the
days of multi-weight detergent motor oil.

 

yoda wrote:

> So, is this 18K/2 years thing really working out as well as a more
> frequent service interval, statistically speaking? I see that this
> thread is crossposted all over the place - lets say if we took otherwise
> identical cars, and used the euro 18k/2 year thing on one, and did the
> murican 5k thing on the other, would both cars drive as well after 250K
> miles? I'm posting this from the acura group, and getting hondas and
> acuras to go 250k is not unusual here in the southern usa, where instant
> oil change places are everywhere, and it's not considered a big deal to
> change the oil regularly (I.E. 5k or so). And I know from my own
> experience of changing my own oil that there's some pretty significant
> degradation in what comes out of the engine after about 5K - I'd hate to
> have that stuff keeping my car ticking for another 13K.

There's a lot of focus on the oil change interval, but there are other
things that kill vehicles as well. For example, many of the big 3 (can
we still say big 3?) engines do just great with the manufacturer's
recommended oil changes, but heaven help you if you ever let the engine
overheat, even briefly. A leaky water pump, a faulty thermostat, or even
a thermal switch that doesn't turn on the electric cooling fan, and
you're looking at a cracked block. They should have a warning light with
"$5000" on it instead of "TEMP" on these cars. A Honda or Toyota engine
is much more able to tolerate occasional abuse. Of course no engine will
last very long without coolant, but at least you won't crack the block
if it overheats for a short time.

A lot of the reliability stories for Japanese cars are not because
they're more reliable under normal operating conditions with all
scheduled service performed promptly, it's because they're able to
better withstand owners that abuse them.

 

SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

> A lot of the reliability stories for Japanese cars are not because
> they're more reliable under normal operating conditions with all
> scheduled service performed promptly, it's because they're able to
> better withstand owners that abuse them.

All cars are user-proof. Few are idiot-proof. If you really think you
need an idiot-proof one, fair play. Few people are that realistic about
themselves.