Switching to synthetic oil

Elmo's retarded.

CR surveys owners for as long as they own their cars. I subscribed for
over 20 years.

That said, CR doesn't tell you much about current level of quality;
almost every car is going to run pretty well, and be pretty satisfactory
for a while. Honda may indeed have dropped in quality, and if so, it
will show up in a few years.


RFT!!!
Dave Kelsen

 

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

 

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 http://papers.sae.org/2007-01-4133 :

"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:

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2117648

Ed White

 

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

 

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.

 

<snip>

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


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

 

"Cameo" wrote in message

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

 

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 <grin>, but I wanted a small SUV
now but will follow it up with another sedan later.

 

Give me a break. I wish I had a dime for every person who told me
they had inside information on the net.[/QUOTE]

That's fine.