2003 Accord Oil Change, once a year?

good point

 

Thank you. I make a point of changing every fluid in my vehicles, fluids
breakdown and lose their usefulness. Changing them can only lengthen the
vehicles life. And, the cost of these changes are certainly small in
comparison to the possible consequences of ignoring them.

 

You are right. I don't have any data from some magazine or owner's manual.
I just know some basic facts about fluids used in vehicles. I once changed
my oil and transmission fluid on a regular basis. I admit that I have
never changed brake fluid and have hired mechanics to do that chore. I
closely examined the fluids and found metal fragments and other stuff that
I could not identify in those fluids. I recall reading (I don't remember
the source) that those metal fragments can cause damage to various engine
parts. That's why I follow the conservative mait. schedule mentioned
above. You can do what you like. If you only plan to keep a new vehicle
three years or less--it's okay to follow the maint. schedule in the
owner's manual. I plan to keep my Honda Accord 5 or more years.

 

You are right. I don't have any data from some magazine or owner's manual.
I just know some basic facts about fluids used in vehicles. I once changed
my oil and transmission fluid on a regular basis. I admit that I have
never changed brake fluid and have hired mechanics to do that chore. I
closely examined the fluids and found metal fragments and other stuff that
I could not identify in those fluids. I recall reading (I don't remember
the source) that those metal fragments can cause damage to various engine
parts. That's why I follow the conservative mait. schedule mentioned
above. You can do what you like. If you only plan to keep a new vehicle
three years or less--it's okay to follow the maint. schedule in the
owner's manual. I plan to keep my Honda Accord 5 or more years.

 

Consumer Reports did a scientific study on changing oil a few years ago.
They studied taxi cabs in NYC. They even took the engines apart to check
for wear and tear, and they compared name brand oils to no-name brands.
Their results were surprising. Frequent oil changes, or synthetic oils made
little difference to performance or engine wear! Also, there were no
significant differences between no-name brand oils and heavily advertised
name brands. Finally, the only time frequent oil changes are really
necessary--more than once a year-- is if you live in places with extreme
climate changes such as Alaska, etc. It seems to me that the oil &
automobile industry drives this panacea for frequent oil changes. Save your
money and the environment and change your oil once a year!

 

Consumer Reports did a scientific study on changing oil a few years ago.
They studied taxi cabs in NYC. They even took the engines apart to check
for wear and tear, and they compared name brand oils to no-name brands.
Their results were surprising. Frequent oil changes, or synthetic oils made
little difference to performance or engine wear! Also, there were no
significant differences between no-name brand oils and heavily advertised
name brands. Finally, the only time frequent oil changes are really
necessary--more than once a year-- is if you live in places with extreme
climate changes such as Alaska, etc. It seems to me that the oil &
automobile industry drives this panacea for frequent oil changes. Save your
money and the environment and change your oil once a year!

 

What they found was that there were not significant differences in the
wear of the engines when the oil was changed at 3000 mile intervals vs.
6000 mile intervals.

For some small percentage of people, this may translate into a year's
driving, but damn few.

Also, the Consumer Reports study didn't test and didn't show the
condition of the oil as a result of natural exposure to oxidation and
chemical reaction over the course of a year; NYC cabs do 6000 miles in a
matter of weeks.

Your conclusion is unwarranted, and gives fuel to others in this forum
who don't wish to understand the format and composure of Consumer
Reports testing processes.


RFT!!!
Dave Kelsen

 

What they found was that there were not significant differences in the
wear of the engines when the oil was changed at 3000 mile intervals vs.
6000 mile intervals.

For some small percentage of people, this may translate into a year's
driving, but damn few.

Also, the Consumer Reports study didn't test and didn't show the
condition of the oil as a result of natural exposure to oxidation and
chemical reaction over the course of a year; NYC cabs do 6000 miles in a
matter of weeks.

Your conclusion is unwarranted, and gives fuel to others in this forum
who don't wish to understand the format and composure of Consumer
Reports testing processes.


RFT!!!
Dave Kelsen

 

And they sure as hell don't do *that* kind of mileage with a lot of cold
starts!

 

And they sure as hell don't do *that* kind of mileage with a lot of cold
starts!

 

This test by Consumers Reports is inherently flawed.

The taxi cabs are never shut down except for maintenance,and run 24/7 ,there
by maintaining constant engine temperature so that no acids and h2o can
develop in the engine oil.

A more comprehensive and true test would have been to use commuter cars that
are started up twice a day in all kinds of weather , winter and summer and
then come back with a report.

We all know that 95% of engine wear occurs on COLD start-up. and by cold I
mean as cold as -30*F here in sourthern Ontario, in the winter.

This would have been a much more honest test of everyday driving conditions.

I consider the Consumers Report Test on taxi cabs to be nothing more than
smoke and mirrors, for whatever reason.
ed/ontario

 

This test by Consumers Reports is inherently flawed.

The taxi cabs are never shut down except for maintenance,and run 24/7 ,there
by maintaining constant engine temperature so that no acids and h2o can
develop in the engine oil.

A more comprehensive and true test would have been to use commuter cars that
are started up twice a day in all kinds of weather , winter and summer and
then come back with a report.

We all know that 95% of engine wear occurs on COLD start-up. and by cold I
mean as cold as -30*F here in sourthern Ontario, in the winter.

This would have been a much more honest test of everyday driving conditions.

I consider the Consumers Report Test on taxi cabs to be nothing more than
smoke and mirrors, for whatever reason.
ed/ontario

 

Nonsense. Although many cabs run 14-16 hours per day, virtually no one
drives 24/7, even cabbies in NYC. Use a bit of common sense. Nor were
they doing so for the Consumer Reports testing.

This test was not flawed, by the way. It didn't test or address every
aspect of lubrication and maintenance, but it wasn't intended to.

And people would have pointed out that stop-and-go traffic is very hard
on engines and would make a better test. Not necessarily so, of course.
The cars were not run 24/7, but were used by actually cabbies in the
execution of their normal duties. I do not recall the time frame of the
test, but it seems to me that it covered at least 50,000 miles. This
would quite possibly have included a fair variety of weather patterns.

Actually, we don't all know that. This is probably true for those
drivers who take mostly short trips, like going to work from homes not
too far away - and this may be a majority of drivers.

Not for cabbies. For me, for example, a different test would have been
more applicable, as I drive 80 miles each way to work, each day. Not
the stress and strain of starting and stopping, sudden acceleration and
braking of the cabs, but also not the 5 mile trip to the office.

Again, the test was not comprehensive. Neither was it dishonest.

Like Nino, you have chosen to draw conclusions not based on the facts -
"for whatever reason". Your choice, of course.

RFT!!!
Dave Kelsen

 

Nonsense. Although many cabs run 14-16 hours per day, virtually no one
drives 24/7, even cabbies in NYC. Use a bit of common sense. Nor were
they doing so for the Consumer Reports testing.

This test was not flawed, by the way. It didn't test or address every
aspect of lubrication and maintenance, but it wasn't intended to.

And people would have pointed out that stop-and-go traffic is very hard
on engines and would make a better test. Not necessarily so, of course.
The cars were not run 24/7, but were used by actually cabbies in the
execution of their normal duties. I do not recall the time frame of the
test, but it seems to me that it covered at least 50,000 miles. This
would quite possibly have included a fair variety of weather patterns.

Actually, we don't all know that. This is probably true for those
drivers who take mostly short trips, like going to work from homes not
too far away - and this may be a majority of drivers.

Not for cabbies. For me, for example, a different test would have been
more applicable, as I drive 80 miles each way to work, each day. Not
the stress and strain of starting and stopping, sudden acceleration and
braking of the cabs, but also not the 5 mile trip to the office.

Again, the test was not comprehensive. Neither was it dishonest.

Like Nino, you have chosen to draw conclusions not based on the facts -
"for whatever reason". Your choice, of course.

RFT!!!
Dave Kelsen

 

Let's set the record straight! I will quote extensively from Consumer
Reports of July 1996, "The surprising Truth about motor oils": "Modern
motor oils needn't be changed as often as oils did years ago. . .

Even in the severe driving conditions that a NYC taxi endures, we noted no
benefit from changing the oil

Every 3000 miles rather than every 6000 miles. . . we don't recommend
leaving any oil, synthetic or regular, in an engine for 12,000 miles,
because an accumulation contaminants-solids, acids, fuels, and water-could
eventually harm the engine." I think the study is scientifically accurate,
and Consumer Reports went to great lengths to do the tests-after all, their
credibility is at stake! This is what they did:

". . .For consistency, we used only 1992-93 Chevrolet Caprice Cabs. Each
received a precisely rebuilt 4.3 liter V6 at the beginning of its 60000 mile
test. . .a local shop completely machined each engine block and crankshaft,
rebuilt the cylinder heads, and installed new bearings, pistons, rings
seals, gaskets and oil pump. . .Over the next 22 months, our engineers paid
more than 100 calls. . .they dropped off test oils and picked up used-oil
samples for ongoing analysis. They also made sure the oil was being added
to the engines when necessary and changed as scheduled. After the
60,000-mile test, we remeasured the key engine parts. We also examined
combustion-chamber deposits, the color of valves, scoring cylinder walls,
and valve deck deposits for any sign of engine problems." Wake up
consumers, no one else has done an extensive study like this! Oil companies
, garages and auto manufacturers couldn't care less! I know many mechanics
that didn't even know of the study or even cared to read it. They're still
caught up in oldwives tales. It's time to rethink this! As a consumer you
have a right to protect your pocketbook against unscrupulous oil
manufactures, oil retailers, garages, etc. The truth is out there! Go seek
it!

 

Let's set the record straight! I will quote extensively from Consumer
Reports of July 1996, "The surprising Truth about motor oils": "Modern
motor oils needn't be changed as often as oils did years ago. . .

Even in the severe driving conditions that a NYC taxi endures, we noted no
benefit from changing the oil

Every 3000 miles rather than every 6000 miles. . . we don't recommend
leaving any oil, synthetic or regular, in an engine for 12,000 miles,
because an accumulation contaminants-solids, acids, fuels, and water-could
eventually harm the engine." I think the study is scientifically accurate,
and Consumer Reports went to great lengths to do the tests-after all, their
credibility is at stake! This is what they did:

". . .For consistency, we used only 1992-93 Chevrolet Caprice Cabs. Each
received a precisely rebuilt 4.3 liter V6 at the beginning of its 60000 mile
test. . .a local shop completely machined each engine block and crankshaft,
rebuilt the cylinder heads, and installed new bearings, pistons, rings
seals, gaskets and oil pump. . .Over the next 22 months, our engineers paid
more than 100 calls. . .they dropped off test oils and picked up used-oil
samples for ongoing analysis. They also made sure the oil was being added
to the engines when necessary and changed as scheduled. After the
60,000-mile test, we remeasured the key engine parts. We also examined
combustion-chamber deposits, the color of valves, scoring cylinder walls,
and valve deck deposits for any sign of engine problems." Wake up
consumers, no one else has done an extensive study like this! Oil companies
, garages and auto manufacturers couldn't care less! I know many mechanics
that didn't even know of the study or even cared to read it. They're still
caught up in oldwives tales. It's time to rethink this! As a consumer you
have a right to protect your pocketbook against unscrupulous oil
manufactures, oil retailers, garages, etc. The truth is out there! Go seek
it!

 

Valid only for taxicabs operating in New York City under the
specified conditions with the specified engines. Boston, Chicago,
Milwaukee, St. Paul and Toronto exhibit more extremes in climate (e.g. cold
starts) than New York City. How about taxi cabs in Houston, TX? I would
tend to agree with Consumer Report's conclusions but even synthetic oils
have improved a lot since that report was done seven years ago. Follow
manufacturer's warranty advice and A.P.I./MilSpec standards. Your
manufacturer validates your warranty, not C.U. Out-of-warranty .. . its
your gambit. I have a '90 Acura and an '85 Buick LeSabre that go 6,000
miles between changes regardless of time .. . on synthetic oil only.

 

I can't resist anecdotal input. I understand that one case doesn't
prove anything, but here goes. My father gave me his old 1962
Studebaker Lark V6 Wagon in 1969. It had perhaps 80,000 miles and was
literally falling apart from rusting. (Remember the days when after
about 5 years there wasn't much left of cars?) Anyway, after the
installation of a new floor, I drove the car for another several
years, at which point it had about 140,000. Still ran great. I was in
my college years, broke, and never did any maintenance. I just put in
gas and oil and hoped for the best.

Finally, one day I decided to change the oil. I took it to a local
shop and they reported fairly startling news. There was no oil filter.
Their book suggested that sometime in 1962 Studebaker switched from a
canister type filter on the top of the engine to the now familiar
spin-on filter on the side. There were screw plugs in the channels
from the engine on top, but there wasn't any filter on the side. There
just wasn't a filter. So we changed the oil and the last I saw of the
car was when a friend bought from me and moved out of state when the
car had about 160,000. It was still running great.

go figure.

 

Pay me now or pay me later that's the bottom line. Is it worth saving a few
bucks to gamble on extended oil changes? As a mechanic I think more in terms
of mileage not time. Six months or 7500 miles is as far as I would push any
automobile. Synthetic Oil is superior by not a necessity, but in your case I
would advise you to use only synthetic oil.

My two cents

 

Pay me now or pay me later that's the bottom line. Is it worth saving a few
bucks to gamble on extended oil changes? As a mechanic I think more in terms
of mileage not time. Six months or 7500 miles is as far as I would push any
automobile. Synthetic Oil is superior by not a necessity, but in your case I
would advise you to use only synthetic oil.

My two cents