Switching to synthetic oil

I take it you are Unix/Linux fan, huh?

Dave Kelsen wrote in news:4d6f03bf$0$16540$ snipped-for-privacy@unlimited.newshosting.com:

He's mixing up JD Power surveys with CR's surveys. JD Power is the one that rates cars based on the first few months of ownership. CR surveys owners on their cars going back eight model-years.

What CR never did seem to account for was the /type/ of ownership the car experienced, and the expectations of the owner.

I always found it interesting that basically identical cars tended to have better or worse ratings than others for the same rated items. The same basic car sold as a low-end model might have worse reliability ratings than the same car sold as a higher-end model. This is a bit misleading, of course.

I'm interested to see as well. The new 35mpg law, combined with all the safety and emissions legislation, is--and will be--hugely exepensive. They can't pass on all of that new cost to buyers. That's one reason interiors have been getting cheaper and cheaper, and why Civic-based vehicles went to Macpherson-strut front suspensions.

Are you sure?

From

: "Engine oils are subjected to a series of industry standard engine dynamometer tests to measure their wear protection capability, sludge and varnish formation tendencies, and fuel efficiency among several other performance attributes before they are approved for use in customer engines. However, these performance attributes are measured at the end of tests and therefore, do not provide any information on how the properties have changed during the tests. In one of our previous studies it was observed that engine oil samples collected from fleet vehicles after 12,000 mile drain interval showed 10-15 % lower friction and more importantly, an order of magnitude lower wear rate than those of fresh oils."

Also see:

Ed White

"C. E. White" wrote in news:iko29o$lqe$ snipped-for-privacy@news.eternal-september.org:

A while ago, I actually phoned ExxonMobil and ended up speaking to a technical rep about all of this. The upshot is that there's quite a lot more to the story than what you dug up, and the stuff posted in that BITOG link is full of errors.

In a nutshell: change your oil as per the manual, or more often than that as desired. Your car will benefit from it. Period.

You didn't really expect that a technical rep for Exxon-Mobil would tell you to chenge your oil less often did you? If the "technical rep" you spoke to at Exxon-Mobil is like most of the technical reps I end up speaking to, he/she was some person in India reading from a script.

I am sure there are a lot of errors in the BITOG stuff. Can you referene a recent (from say the last ten years) study that supports the idea that 3000 mile oil changes provide a significant benefit. I can find plenty that support the idea that extended drain intervals (7500+) don't harm engines.

There are many SAE papers that support the idea that 3000 mile oil change interval provide no significant benefit. Changing more oftent than recommended by the vehicle manufacturer is only wasting your money.

I agree with the idea that you should follow your vehicle manufacturers recommended oil change intervals. But I get upset when people are misled into following the severe service schedule becasue of some Jiffy-Lube commercials. Engine are better than even 10 years ago, oil is better than 10 years ago - there is no reason to think that 3000 mile oil changes mandated fifty years ago are still necessary.

Ed

"C. E. White" wrote in news:ikofhg$ivb$ snipped-for-privacy@news.eternal-september.org:

This guy had a slight southern accent, and was definitely American. I can tell you with a high degree of certainty that he was NOT reading from a script.

Under the right circumstances. And with the right sort of engine.

Maybe. But it does no harm to the car, and may do some good, which is all I said.

I never said they were.

Maybe not explicitly, but you defeintely said "In a nutshell: change your oil as per the manual, or more often than that as desired. Your car will benefit from it. Period." and "When it comes to oil changes, the more the better for the engine. You can /never/ change your oil too often for the good of the engine."

Both of these statements are right in step with the Jiffy-Lube advertising campaign. I think there is tons of evidence to suggest that your car will not benefit from overly frequent oil changes (overly frequent being more often than the normal manitenance schedule) and almost nothing to support the idea than 3000 mile oil changes provide any benefit for typical motorist with modern (newer than 15 years) cars. More frequent oil changes might have been of benefit in the 50's, 60's and espesically in the 70's (when early emmision controlsuppeed engine temperatures and old tech carburetors conspired to destroy eninges) but not not now.

I think Toyota took the right approach for America - deep six the dual schedules (normal/severe) and just tell everyone to change oil every 5000 miles. That is likely very conservative, and eliminates any excuse for going shorter or longer.

Ed

Ed

A friend of mine is a chemist for Proctor & Gamble. She has no connection with the marketing side of the house; her job involves factual information, and she'll be the first one to tell you the facts about laundry detergent. Not just Tide, but all kinds. As much information as you can digest before crying "Uncle!". And in the end, you'll probably end up *not* buying Tide. But your decision will be

*completely* informed.

Scientists don't live in the marketing world. They live inside the world of cold, hard fact.

"C. E. White" wrote in news:ikohic$c0b$ snipped-for-privacy@news.eternal-september.org:

----------------

Y'know, this oil change thing is like the Mac vs Windows, liberal vs conservative, x vs y thing. It's all emotional and few ever change their minds about it one way or another.

I'm going to stick with what I know works. How do I know it works? 'Cause it FEELS good.

You keep repeating the 3000 mile when 3750 is a lot closer to 4000. The original suggestion for that interval came from the Honda service shop, not from some Jiffy lube ad.

You are right. Based on your owners guide and your stated driving conditions, you are doing the right thing. I'm not arguing against following the owners guide. I beleive in your case I suspect the service schedule you are following is very conservative, espeically with modern oils.

I was arguing against the general idea that short oil change intervals is a cost effective strategy. Americans are disposing of millions of gallons of good quality motor oil becasue of the mistaken notion that "the most important thing you can do to extend the life of your car is to change the oil frequently." This is largely a myth. Other bad habits include too frequent air filter changes, over inflating tires, etc. The car care industry is promoting a lot of overly frequent service in order to increase their profits. I particularly get upset with the Jiffy Lube claims that for most drivers, normal driving habits are actually severe. This is pure hogwash. Even Honda tries to combat this in their maintenance schedules.

I am a recovering oil change addict. In my life I have wasted thousands of dollars becasue I used to believe in the 3000 mile oil change. It took a couple of years of sending off oil sample for analysis to convincve me I was foolishly changing my oil too often. These days I change oil no more often than 5000 miles.

Ed White

You keep repeating the 3000 mile when 3750 is a lot closer to 4000. The original suggestion for that interval came from the Honda service shop, not from some Jiffy lube ad.

I live in a severe weather zone. I don't put many miles on my CRV. I got my oil changed last fall. I only have 400 miles on it now. It is quite inconvenient for me to get an oil change during the winter.

So, come Spring I will get another change even though the mileage will only be around 5 or 6 hundred. I hope waiting 5 or 6 months between changes is not damaging my engine.

In the winter I have to walk 2 miles in the snow, often in below zero weather to get an oil change, so I just don't do it.

I have to leave my care all day for my mechanic to fit it into his repair schedule.

Michael

On 3/2/2011 10:32 PM Cameo spake these words of knowledge:

I've been a programmer/analyst/software engineer/whatever since 1978.

Not a fan per se, but I have been familiar with Unix (and Linux) through the years.

Dave Kelsen

Same here. That's how I knew.

Give me a break. I wish I had a dime for every person who told me they had inside information on the net. Further, one is supposed to believe one anonymous person citing one anonymous source vs. many URLs, magazines, etc... .

I purchased a 2010 Honda Fit last year and I still have my

1996 Honda Civic. Thus far, I've gotten tremendous service out of both of them. They are my second and third Honda. My first honda got traded early only because crazy driver's in the Washington, DC area liked to ram the rear end of it while I was legally stopped for several minutes (at traffic lights, on ramps, etc.). After the fourth rear end collision, I decided it was time to trade it. But had it not been for all of the reckless driving from behind me, I would have kept it much longer. It was a 1988 Honda Civic. I only got rear ended in the second one once in three hundred thousand miles. I'm up to ten thousand miles on my latest one and no one has hit me so far.

I've had so much pain with American cars that whatever few problems I've had with my Hondas were easy to contend with. I could write a story about both of my Chevy's and both of my Ford's that I should tell the story with violin music in the background. The Chevy's were cheap junk. The Ford's were designed with quality in mind but their quality assurance programs should have been flushed down the toilet. And I generally found the service managers for both makes to be complete and total airheads. Why has this never been the case with Honda? Rarely do I need assistance from a service manager and when I do, it is handling quickly, promptly, and professionally.

If he was talking about Toyota, I might be more inclined to believe this guy. But I only say that on the basis of their recent publicity. I've never owned a Toyota.

Was he talking to some junior, entry-level engineer who was a very disgruntled Honda employee?

Regards,

Fred

I have had several Hondas including a 2003 Accord which gave me good service so I followed it up without hesitation and bought a CR-V. Haven't used the CR-V enough to comment on it. I will say the accords are more comfortable to my butt tho , but I wanted a small SUV now but will follow it up with another sedan later.

That's fine.

You might want to read this, especially the part starting with 102: