Plan on driving a new car on a 3000mile highway trip. Bad idea?

Page 1 of 2  
I was planning on taking my soon to take possession Pilot on a trip which will consist mostly of highway driving of about 3000mile drive and been told that that's not such a good idea because you don't want
to drive a brand new car on the highway for any extended amount if you can help before the car's properly broken in.
The seals, rings and the machine just needs to set in properly, which happens during the break in period and before that, I was told you should avoid any long highway trip.
What do you guys think? If this was your car, would you do it or put off the trip until after the car's broken in properly? Thanks.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 5/10/2008 1:16 AM Bow Wow spake these words of knowledge:

The break-in period admonitions still apply; you were told correctly. You can make the trip, but you'll want to vary the RPMs of your engine, which can be annoying and even dangerous to others - because of the unpredictability.
If this was my car, I would in fact avoid a long trip until after I had *at least* 1000 miles of variated driving.
RFT!!! Dave Kelsen
--
"Experience teaches us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when
the government's purpose is beneficent." -- Supreme Court Justice Louis
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
If you have not yet gotten the car, go by the dealer and look at one of the owner"s manuals for that model. There is no problem on taking a long trip that I know of. Of course you vary the speed, which means you may run at 65 for a while then ease off to 55 for another 10 minutes and back up to 65. That doesn't create a danger to other cars. Don't forget, pulling in for gas or food also varies the speed. I don't think you will have any problem with the trip. The last two Hondas I've owned were on long trips immediately after purchase and I never saw any degradation of the cars performance because of that. Enjoy

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Bow Wow wrote:

A brand new 1975 Ford Pinto, perhaps, but today's cars are machined to higher standards. Taking the truck (the Pilot is a truck, not a car) on a 3000-mile trip is just fine. The only problem you will have is paying for the fuel.

By whom?

Yes. But, in this case, that's when the truck comes off the dealer lot.
Jeff
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

It's a car.
It's intended to be a car, he drives it like a car, he calls it a car, it's a car.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:

You can drive a 18-wheeler like a car if you want. But, it's still a truck. A Pilot meets the safety requirements of a truck, not a car. It is licensed like a truck. It gets gasoline mileage like a truck.
It's a truck.
Jeff
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

That doesn't make any sense.
However, these things that you call "trucks" are used as cars, not as trucks.
End of story.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:

They are classified by the government as trucks, have safety requirements that are different from cars and handle differently than cars.
End of story.
Jeff
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload


there's a guy who built a semi's tractor into a pickup truck;I bet he calls it a truck even though he uses it as a "car".and US Fedgov considers("classifies") it a "truck",just like the original PT Cruiser.
"End of story".
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
The US Government classifies a PT Cruiser a "Truck," so using them as a reference is questionable.
--
Nick


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I mentioned that in my original post. It's a "light truck",BTW.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

They do not.
--
Joe - Linux User #449481/Ubuntu User #19733
joe at hits - buffalo dot com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

When Chrysler brought out the PT Cruiser,they designed it as a "light truck" so it would not have to meet stricter passenger car standards for fuel economy.(CAFE)
see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysler_PT_Cruiser ;
It is a front-wheel drive 5-passenger vehicle, classified as a truck by the NHTSA for CAFE fuel economy calculations but as a car by most other metrics. Indeed, Chrysler specifically designed the PT Cruiser to fit the NHTSA criteria for a light truck in order to bring the average fuel efficiency of the company's light truck fleet into compliance with CAFE standards.[2]
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Right. It was a conscious decision by Chrysler, not something done by an idiotic government panel.
Chrysler used the rules to their advantage.
--
Joe - Linux User #449481/Ubuntu User #19733
joe at hits - buffalo dot com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

yes,they designed the PT to -fit into- the *GOV'T* classification of "light truck";the criteria is the government's.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jim Yanik wrote:

Do you work for Detroit? They gamed the system to save some money. They did the sme thing with safety features like steel beams in doors - left them out of their "light trucks" like at least one minivan that was being marketed as a family car.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Which means that the US Government classifies a PT Cruiser as a "Truck." But the convertible, which has a "trunk" rather than a "load bed" is a "Car."
--
Nick


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

I guess the PT ragtop doesn't count towards Chrysler's truck CAFE.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I suspect it's classified as a "light truck". Just like the PT Cruiser used to be classified,before they made a ragtop version.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Classified by whom?
The only classification that matters is the guy who bought it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.