Fordman is correct…
A 4 cylinder is MUCH harder on oil then a 8-cylinder.
My cousin drives his company truck between 210,000 and 225,000 before replacement. He changes his oil every 10,000 miles with dino oil and his trucks never use oil or has any problem when he gets rid of them.
Also, see http://millionmilevan.com/ to see how long a vehicle will last with long oil changes.
ONE vehicle PROVES nothing…
Show me a few thousand vehicles like this and it’s a start.
“ONE vehicle PROVES nothing…”
Actually, it is essentially a life test which is a frequently used to find out if a product or process is acceptable or not. I’ve seen just one system elements tested to evaluate its acceptability for use for many items. And show me any manufacturer that runs life tests on a few thousand items. It seems to me that would be far too expensive to be practical.
And show me any manufacturer that runs life tests on a few thousand items.
We’re not talking about ONE manufacturer…This 10k oil change interval was never said to only apply to just one manufacturer…but ALL vehicles…With that varying of vehicles and engines…it’s ludicrous to think that you can look at ONE vehicle and make an analysis to apply to ALL vehicles. That’s why I said I’d need THOUSANDS of vehicles to start believing it. Too much at risk. Manufacturers do these long term tests to many of their vehicles each year…Not thousands…but usually several per engine group. That starts to add up.
I would pose the following question to Jotmo.
To what do you attribute the huge number of trashed engines, prematurely worn out engines, oil sludged and/or coked engines?
I may be going out on a limb, but let’s see if we can capture what we agree on. I assume there’s agreement on the following:
(1) Manufacturers do occasionally produce engines with poor designs that are prone to cause engine sludge.
(2) “Severe service” driving needs oil changed more frequently.
(3) There is disagreement on what constitutes “severe service”.
(4) The majority of people do not keep their cars for 200-300k miles, and would not want to pay extra for maintenance that would only serve to keep an engine running that long.
(5) Millions of cars elsewhere in the world have followed the 10k OCI for years, and the results they are getting are not causing their owners to change their OCI habits.
Did I take too many liberties with the above bullets?
What else do we agree on?
I have run engines for hundreds of thousands of miles with no failures with oil change intervals of 8,000+ miles. From the mid 80s until just recently we serviced fleets and the vehicles that were operated 300+ miles per day were serviced monthly and those that exceeded 400 miles per day were serviced every other week. Standard 10W-40 oil was used in most cases. I recall replacing a Ford V-6 that developed an oil consumption problem prior to 300,000 miles but it was the only engine failure. Vehicles were sold when mileage approached 400,000 miles.
Some points of relevance missing from this thread:
- “Severe service” essentially, is frequent STOP & GO driving where the engine never gets thoroughly warmed up. Someone who lives in a cooler climate and only drives very limited mileage under those conditions would really be pushing their luck with a 10K mile change.
- Too frequent changes CAN cause increased wear, especially in an older pushrod/mechanical lifter type motor needing higher viscosity/high zinc oil. The zinc lays down a protective layer that needs time to build up. The higher detergent oils of today can strip the previous layer away before a new one gets deposited if changed too quickly.
- Re: the “engineers are experts” theory: The owners manual that came with my new '78 Pinto recommended a 10,000 mile oil change interval. Unleaded fuel was recently mandated, and the people who wrote the manual wrongly assumed that cleaner fuel would make longer oil change intervals possible. Being young and stupid, I read no farther, and after 30,000 miles of city driving, the camshaft was so worn down it would no longer open the valves. Also, I could have rented the car out for mosquito abatement duty, as it was burning so much oil my rearview mirror was useless.
In the late 1970s, among other duties, I was the statistician at Exxon’s Product Research Division when they were running the fuel economy tests on Uniflow Engine Oil. The test ran for 15,000 miles. Rule - never replace only add. The essential ingredients that protected the engine from wear either were more robust or equally resistant to break down than the petroleum based carrier so their concentration was always effective. Furthermore, there were taxi fleet cab tests in New York, Minneapolis-St Paul and Phoenix (rugged, cold and hot) where they never changed the oil for 50,000 miles. Finally, they ran taxis with radio active piston rings and were never able to find any activity in the oil filter or the engine oil. Is the oil black? Yup, but the essential ingredients are still there and working.
So replace the oil once a year to keep your mechanic happy.
For decades manufacturers recommended 7500 mi changes, but we were fished in by oil companies issuing skuttlebut to change every 3,000. Now, with synthetic oil, running to 10,000 or 15,000 is entirely reasonable. My own, and my brother’s Mercedes, both running synthetic, had calculators which indicated changes at about 14,000 miles. I think that with synthetic 10,000 is a conservative, ecologically responsible benchmark for most cars being driven under normal conditions. I know nothing about cars so please take this with a grain of salt.
RB, I seem to recall other tests many years ago using NYC cabs over a total of millions of miles that demonstrated that there was no significant difference in either the used oil analysis, repairs, or final wear (via engine teardown) between oil changed at 12,000 miles and oil changed at 6,000 miles (the common belief at the time).
But me, I’m insecure. The engine may not notice a difference, but my friends will. I won’t sleep as well. I’ll get grouchy. My hair will gray. Bags will develop under my eyes.
I also change my tires when the wear bars become obvious instead of wating until the tread fully gets to them. I wax my car before the beads stop. Whenever I’m under the car I look all around and address anything that even LOOKs suspicious. And whenever I’m under the hood, I check everything I can see or touch. All the fluids. The filters. The elastomers. I even recently noticed a missing plastic hood liner retaining button and replaced that.
I just realized, perhaps I need to get out more…
ok4450,
Well the first I’d have to say define “huge number”.
How many of those types of failures are there compared to the hundreds of million of cars just in the US?
The only engine I’ve had fail on me was from a bolt that backed out of a connecting rod. What caused that after 160,000 miles? I can’t say, but it wasn’t lubrication.
In industry in general most lubrication related failures are the result of improper lubrication for the application, usually due to an accidental mixture (Someone “topping off” a reservoir with the wrong oil.), moisture/contaminants in the oil, and low oil levels. I would assume that this would be the case with auto engines as well.
It’s also possible that the oil is not being changed when it should be in many cases. As I said, everything is relative, and some people just ignore their engines. We all know we can’t do that. Oil begins to degrade from the moment it leaves the refinery even just sitting in a barrel. It’s the rate of degradation we’re discussing, not whether it does of not.
I’d really have to see some stats on those types of failures and the maintenance practices of the owners, type of oil, driving conditions, etc. There are simply to many variables to make even an educated guess without some data.
I would encourage anyone who really wants an answer to this question to try for your self. Save about four ounces of oil when you next change your oil. Send it to a lab and see what they have to say regarding it’s condition and remaining useful life. One sample will cost you less than an oil change, and will likely save you much more as you discover that you don’t need to change oil nearly as often as you think.
I have done so and have found the number that I’m comfortable with. Its still much sooner than I need to, but I like to err on the cautious side.
As many have said, oil is cheaper than a new engine. 
The engine oil looks almost clear on the dipstick, but when I drain it, it is BLACK.
"I would pose the following question to Jotmo.
To what do you attribute the huge number of trashed engines, prematurely worn out engines, oil sludged and/or coked engines?"
I would tend to think that it is more a matter of many owners not coming close to the recommended oil change interval and other maintenance requirements.
I can remember back in the 60’s when most car owners did their own oil changes and checked their oil every time they bought fuel. Let’s face it, they don’t do that any more. I would tend to believe that of those trashed engines were the result of lack of maintenance when the owner failed to provide the recommended maintenance.
I know too many people who even when told how bad it is, never check or change the oil and other maintenance items. They keep the car until they get tired of it or until it starts showing drivability problems due to lack of maintenance.
It would be interesting if we could get reliable data on that, but I suspect those who have trashed their engines, are not going to admit it. They just blame the manufacturer.
“I suspect those who have trashed their engines, are not going to admit it. They just blame the manufacturer.”
Yup!
Personal responsibility seems to be virtually nonexistent in our society today.
In almost every case that I have seen, even when someone was clearly responsible for a particular problem, they denied culpability, and blamed it on someone else.
In the case of cars with trashed engines and transmissions, it ALWAYS seems to be the fault of the manufacturer or the mechanic, despite the car owner’s failure to maintain the vehicle properly.
It appears to me that half the drivers are trashing their vehicles with hard acceleration and rushing red lights and jamming the brakes. They don’t get where they are going any faster, but apparently they don’t realize that.
Phillip, driving faster can usually get you where you are going faster, but the question is whether or not the few minutes you gain is worth it.
This morning, I was running late, so I was accelerating hard and “rushing” red lights. I passed a car between lights, and when we got to the next light, the other driver was behind me. However, at the next light, I made it through the intersection before the light changed, and the other driver didn’t.
I arrived at work four minutes late. Fortunately, everyone else in the office was running late too, so they showed up after I did, but making that light was the difference between me being the first one to get there and not being the first one to get there.
I admit that going easy on my car (a 1998 Civic with 210,000 miles), will make it last longer, and I make a concerted effort to leave myself time so I don’t have to drive that way, but I am afraid your position that “they don’t get where they are going any faster” just ain’t true. Most days, I arrive five minutes early, so there is nothing to be gained by driving fast, but when I run late, I can make up time by driving faster. It’s an inescapable truth.
OK, Whitey, we have effectively hijacked the subject of this thread, but I suspect that it had pretty
much run it’s course, anyway. Anyone wanted to resume it is welcome, of course.
If you race for the next light, you may occasionally get through one, but most of the time that only
means that you are likely to meet the next light when it is red. The guy who you left at that
light will be gliding up behind you as you wait for it. That guy is usually me, or someone who drives
like I do. I glide through the light as it turns green, going past you. You then jam on the gas and
pass me. This sequence repeats.
Who do you suppose uses less gas, arrives at work relaxed? Whose car will need less repair?
Yeah, you may sometimes get to work a minute or two sooner in a 30 minute commute, but driving is a way to get where you are going - not a competition.
What did getting to work first on that day get you?
You’re preaching to the choir. As a motorcycle rider and a professional driver (presently working in another field), I see your point that driving fast isn’t preferable. However, the idea that driving faster doesn’t get me where it am going sooner is boooooooogus, and the bogosity of that argument could hurt our cause.
By getting to work first, nobody knows I was late, and people will continue to regard me as punctual and reliable.
You had me at “trashing their vehicles,” but you lost me at “They don’t get where they are going any faster…”
Most of the time, I am the guy behind the guy in a rush, but nobody is perfect, and we’re all human.