|
This may get me banned ... but a lot of the legal and insurance answers are so poor they are mocked on a different forum I'm a member of.
|
|
There's also a suggestion that an owner of an Audi A4 2.0 TFSi (petrol) should run the vehicle on super diesel! Could be an expensive mistake if that's followed to the letter.
|
|
On HJ's FAQs (no 14) he still bangs on about oil change every 365days no matter what mileage. Also, change coolant every 3yrs if MEG, 4yrs if MPG - whatever they are. Also brake fluid change every 2yrs!!!! Also timing belts every 4yrs/40,000 unless no history of failures e.g.Ford Zetec, then 6yrs/80,000m will do. Ho hum.
Is HJ still in the 1970s?
photos.google.com/photo/AF1QipMTSbO_wE9LtAWO69Ma8T...d
i've never tried to upload a photo, so apologies if this doesn't work. It's a pic of my 17yr old 130,000 Focus Zetec 1.6 cambelt which I inspected the other day. (if you undo four 8mm cam cover bolts you can pull it back to see the condition of the teeth.) If you can see it I think you will agree it still looks as good as new - even the white part number hasn't worn off.
As I often infer, clearly this website has a vested interest in drumming up as much unnecessary work for the 'service' industry as it can. (they still haven't banned me!). I wonder how many have suffered huge expense after unnecessary cambelt changes went wrong - I've seen many such stories over the years.
Edited by John F on 26/05/2018 at 12:43
|
|
Another error this week as regards the Range Rover question www.honestjohn.co.uk/news/honest-johns-motoring-ag.../ (Homing on the Range)
where it is stated that the 3.0 diesel used in the L322 Range Rover was a Ford unit with belt cam. It wasn't, it was the chain cam 3.0 BMW unit - which is then mentioned later in the answer !
The 3.0 TDV6 Ford unit was used in the Range Rover Sport. Never used in the Range Rover
The Range Rover 'proper' used the 3.0 BMW straight 6 unit, and then went onto a 3.6 TDV8, followed by a 4.4 TDV8.
Come on guys. It's a motoring website. You've got all this data here in your 'reviews' section. A little bit of research would go a long way.
|
|
|
i've never tried to upload a photo, so apologies if this doesn't work. It's a pic of my 17yr old 130,000 Focus Zetec 1.6 cambelt which I inspected the other day. (if you undo four 8mm cam cover bolts you can pull it back to see the condition of the teeth.) If you can see it I think you will agree it still looks as good as new - even the white part number hasn't worn off.
When the cambelt on my Ford broke it looked perfectly serviceable, apart from the two ends not meeting. I think it's nearly impossible to 'inspect' a cambelt for condition.
And no the picture isn't visible: 404. That’s an error.The requested URL was not found on this server. That’s all we know.
|
|
|
On HJ's FAQs (no 14) he still bangs on about oil change every 365days no matter what mileage. Also, change coolant every 3yrs if MEG, 4yrs if MPG - whatever they are.
I would guess MEG and MPG will be monoethylene and monopropylene glycol, but I may be wrong. May not help you to choose unless the bottle tells you what is inside.
|
|
|
On HJ's FAQs (no 14) he still bangs on about oil change every 365days no matter what mileage. Also, change coolant every 3yrs if MEG, 4yrs if MPG - whatever they are. Also brake fluid change every 2yrs!!!! Also timing belts every 4yrs/40,000 unless no history of failures e.g.Ford Zetec, then 6yrs/80,000m will do. Ho hum.
Is HJ still in the 1970s?
photos.google.com/photo/AF1QipMTSbO_wE9LtAWO69Ma8T...d
i've never tried to upload a photo, so apologies if this doesn't work. It's a pic of my 17yr old 130,000 Focus Zetec 1.6 cambelt which I inspected the other day. (if you undo four 8mm cam cover bolts you can pull it back to see the condition of the teeth.) If you can see it I think you will agree it still looks as good as new - even the white part number hasn't worn off.
As I often infer, clearly this website has a vested interest in drumming up as much unnecessary work for the 'service' industry as it can. (they still haven't banned me!). I wonder how many have suffered huge expense after unnecessary cambelt changes went wrong - I've seen many such stories over the years.
To be fair John, you 'bang on' about exactly the opposite and how great since the advent of sliced bread you TR7 is. Many, though by not all by any means, modern cars need decent quality oil to keep their engines in good nick, especially as so many are now used for short trips to the shops and to take the kids to school because so many of us are lazy and don't want to walk as we/our parents used to do (even if they owned a car) a generation ago.
In addition, anyone NOT adhering to the service itinery or better (even if they are doing mostly longer trips on fast-flowing roads) will void their warranty or negate any goodwill from the manufacturer should anything go wrong afterwards. Your car isn't complex, so there's less to go wrong, but if you compared its driving experience to a modern equivalent, it would be absolutely trashed.
Yes, HJ gets it wrong sometimes - the occasional typo is something we all so, and yes even the best experts can get it wrong, or we may disagree with them on a point of view - they can't be experts in everything - someone may have more info than they do. Constructive critcism is one thing (I've done that on his Agony collumn before), but personalised rants is another. You disagree with his opinion - fine, but to me, many of us on this forum very much disagree with yours to a far greater degree.
|
|
|
|
<< .... As I often infer, clearly this website has a vested interest ... >>
John, are you inferring or implying? It makes a difference - albeit perhaps irrelevant in this context :-)
|
|
|
As I often infer, clearly this website has a vested interest in drumming up as much unnecessary work for the 'service' industry as it can. (they still haven't banned me!). I wonder how many have suffered huge expense after unnecessary cambelt changes went wrong - I've seen many such stories over the years.
I like the reviews on this web site as they are more ‘real world’ than many others. Oddly enough Clarkson is also more ‘real world’. By this I mean that they recognise that we don’t all want cars with the best handling, that corner well at 70 mph and so on. Many if not most of us look at mundane issues such as comfort and mpg, and price is an issue. I’m not sure why Peter et al would need to drum up work for the ‘service’ industry. He presumably makes money from his columns, and the copious advertising on this site, none of which relates to servicing. In fact there’s lots of new car ads, so helping old cars last would be a no no following your argument.
|
|
|
|
|
This may get me banned ...
No, but do ten press ups.
|
On HJ's FAQs (no 14) he still bangs on about oil change every 365days no matter what mileage. Also, change coolant every 3yrs if MEG, 4yrs if MPG - whatever they are. Also brake fluid change every 2yrs!!!! Also timing belts every 4yrs/40,000 unless no history of failures e.g.Ford Zetec, then 6yrs/80,000m will do. Ho hum.
Is HJ still in the 1970s?
In the past I have raised some concerns about the accuracy of HJ's answers but I have no real objection to most of the above.
An oil change costs about £30 DIY using the correct oil and an OEM filter, obviously more at a garage. Use a Pela and you dont even have to loose your knuckles loosening the sump plug. When I had the BMW I used the Pela every year and left the filter alone, with clean oil in the engine it was never going to be an issue. For what its costs its absolute madness to skimp.
Coolant I always change/have changed at the vehicles manufacturers intervals or the coolant manufacturers intervals. Like an oil change it only costs peanuts in the big picture and if the engine froze up its possibly the end of an otherwise decent car.
Only a total idiot skimps on brake fluid. It absorbs moisture and as it does it looses efficiency and will cause corrosion within the braking system. This is safety critical and I want my car to be safe. It worries me when its clear that some on here do not take safety seriously.
I change cam belts at the manufacturers intervals. The TSI's are 6 years/120,000 miles and the Zetec 10 years/100,000 miles. Won't be keeping a TSi long enough to do one but when I changed the Zetec 4 years ago the belt and pulleys cost me about £100 for genuine Ford. Failure is probable death of the engine.
So taking the Caterham as an example in 10 years I have done 10 oil/filter changes @ £30, 3 coolant changes at £15, 5 brake fluids @ £15 and a cam belt @ £100, total cost £520. In the same period I have spent about £1200 on VED (6 months a year), £1200 on insurance, £500 on MOT's, £200 on a set of tyres and about £3000 on fuel,total cost £6100. I have obviously had other other unavoidable costs such as brake pads, a radiator, diff oil seals and a fuel pump (to name 4) total cost of those, about £500 bringing the grand total to £6600
Thus its added about 8% to my unavoidable bills to carry out what I see as important maintenance needed to keep the car healthy and safe. If I did more miles the percentage would be much smaller.
Perhaps some posters should consider the above before advising other down a dangerous path.
|
|
<< Perhaps some posters should consider the above before advising others down a dangerous path. >>
Skidpan, you are relapsing into your old habits: 'absolute madness', 'total idiot', etc. Expressing your point of view does not need such exaggerations. You go on to illustrate what you pay to maintain your car(s) - quite a tidy sum. Many people might prefer to pay less, and no doubt some could not afford that much anyhow.
I don't think John is 'advising' anyone to take a 'dangerous path', merely explaining how he treats his cars, apparently without harming them. It's possible that those cars might be in better condition today if he had followed your methods, but he seems satisfied. So are you - except that you can't convince John F.
|
<< Perhaps some posters should consider the above before advising others down a dangerous path. >>
Skidpan, you are relapsing into your old habits: 'absolute madness', 'total idiot', etc. Expressing your point of view does not need such exaggerations. You go on to illustrate what you pay to maintain your car(s) - quite a tidy sum. Many people might prefer to pay less, and no doubt some could not afford that much anyhow.
I don't think John is 'advising' anyone to take a 'dangerous path', merely explaining how he treats his cars, apparently without harming them. It's possible that those cars might be in better condition today if he had followed your methods, but he seems satisfied. So are you - except that you can't convince John F.
The problem is that a) we only have John F's word that all his cars are fine and dandy using the 'rarely serviced' method, and b) he wasn't 'just' stating his opinion, but laying in to HJ with more (in my opinion) than just constructive criticism.
Please bear in mind that most UK cars last about 150k miles before they go pop, yet in the US, where car owners change their oil more often because car maintenance is far cheaper, I hear of cars, even rubbish US ones, lasting several hundreds of thousands of miles, mainly because they had the oil/filters/other fluids changed more often or at least on schedule.
As I said, yes, HJ made a mistake or two in his responses this week, but that doesn't justify people saying he is completely wrong about most issues as some seem to be inferring. Nor does it make John F's method of car ownership right - I mean - how many of us here subscribe to that opinion or believe it has any merit, including yourself?
Personally, I take what John F says with a healthy pinch of salt, as I've seen first hand what happens to cars, older ones included, when you don't service them often/keep them oiled at least once a year, especially if they aren't used sympathetically.
|
|
<< Personally, I take what John F says with a healthy pinch of salt, as I've seen first hand what happens to cars, older ones included, when you don't service them often/keep them oiled at least once a year, especially if they aren't used sympathetically. >>
Andy, therein may lie the rub. I have no reason to doubt the veracity of John F's words any more than other posters'. I suspect that the cars you mention which 'go pop' after 150K miles may have had less sympathy, or (more likely) have just been dumped, not because they have gone pop, but have just lost all market value due to fashion - or scrappage schemes. Many more cars now exist than are required as transport, as can be easily seen by the number of old ones on SORN.
As has been said repeatedly in this cyclic discussion, it cannot harm a car's engine to have frequent oil and filter changes, but equally - depending a great deal on the kind of use it gets - it may not be essential to stick to the recommended schedule, at least for petrol engines. Diesels - I prefer generous servicing myself.
|
|
|
<< Perhaps some posters should consider the above before advising others down a dangerous path. >>
Skidpan, you are relapsing into your old habits: 'absolute madness', 'total idiot', etc. Expressing your point of view does not need such exaggerations. You go on to illustrate what you pay to maintain your car(s) - quite a tidy sum. Many people might prefer to pay less, and no doubt some could not afford that much anyhow.
I don't think John is 'advising' anyone to take a 'dangerous path', merely explaining how he treats his cars, apparently without harming them. It's possible that those cars might be in better condition today if he had followed your methods, but he seems satisfied. So are you - except that you can't convince John F.
The problem is that a) we only have John F's word that all his cars are fine and dandy using the 'rarely serviced' method, and b) he wasn't 'just' stating his opinion, but laying in to HJ with more (in my opinion) than just constructive criticism.
Please bear in mind that most UK cars last about 150k miles before they go pop, yet in the US, where car owners change their oil more often because car maintenance is far cheaper, I hear of cars, even rubbish US ones, lasting several hundreds of thousands of miles, mainly because they had the oil/filters/other fluids changed more often or at least on schedule.
As I said, yes, HJ made a mistake or two in his responses this week, but that doesn't justify people saying he is completely wrong about most issues as some seem to be inferring. Nor does it make John F's method of car ownership right - I mean - how many of us here subscribe to that opinion or believe it has any merit, including yourself?
Personally, I take what John F says with a healthy pinch of salt, as I've seen first hand what happens to cars, older ones included, when you don't service them often/keep them oiled at least once a year, especially if they aren't used sympathetically.
I wonder how many of those US cars that last yonks are in the warmer states? Many U.K. cars die due to rust, no doubt in part if not entirely due to humidity, wet winters and salted roads. I had a car die at 10 years and 160,000 miles due to unrepairable rust.
|
|
CarsCars in the states getting higher mileage...
1 it's a bigger place so things are generally further apart.
2 people don't tend to walk or even use much public transport so cars will reach up now mikes than in the UK.
|
|
To compare car usage and mileage with the USA is risible. UK MOT tests mean rusty cars eventually get scrapped. Some old US cars are an obvious danger to predestrians due to rusty bits.. let alone the driver. And US emissions testing of old cars as the UK MOT ----does the US test old cars?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I thought the same when reading the ask HJ section. I think also with a lot of the other Q&A it seems that the Honda Jaz is the default answer to alot of the questions. I've nothing against the Jaz it's a perfectly good car but it's not the perfect car for everyone except in HJ's eyes.
Just imagine how much worse that would become if the older Jazz ranges had featured an engine with real power.
For me, it would mean "no more being burned off at traffic lights by delivery boys on butcher's bikes."
Edited by argybargy on 26/05/2018 at 20:20
|
Skidpan, you are relapsing into your old habits: 'absolute madness', 'total idiot', etc. Expressing your point of view does not need such exaggerations. You go on to illustrate what you pay to maintain your car(s) - quite a tidy sum. Many people might prefer to pay less, and no doubt some could not afford that much anyhow.
£6600 is indeed a large sum of money but that is spread over 10 years. The costs that JohnF claims are unnessary i.e. oil, antifreeze, brake fluid, cambelt and tyres total only £720 which is £72 a year (by my maths). The remaining £5900 is either a legal requirement (without which you should not be on the road) or petrol (without which you would not get very far). Thus to say "Many people might prefer to pay less, and no doubt some could not afford that much anyhow" is meaningless unless you are suggesting that they should avoid VED, insurance and petrol. In truth the insurance I pay is much less than you would pay on a regular car since its limited to 2000 miles a year as is my fuel costs. Include the VED, insurance and fuel for a more regular car and it would be much more. As an example I would estimate that doing 6,000 miles a year in my Superb costs in the region of £1500 a year plus depreciation. Following JohnF's method would save me probably £300 year but I would loose the warranty, risk component failure and have a much reduced PX value due to its lacks of history. If I did that it would be ABSOLUTE MADNESS and I would be an IDIOT.
I don't think John is 'advising' anyone to take a 'dangerous path', merely explaining how he treats his cars, apparently without harming them. It's possible that those cars might be in better condition today if he had followed your methods, but he seems satisfied. So are you - except that you can't convince John F.
It seems that the majority support the sensible path of regular maintenance and that JohnF is in a club of one. When it does all go worng (and it will) I doubt if he will be on here admitting that his lack of maintenance has finally come to bite him in the back side.
|
|
Skidpan, I agree with you that for those owners who may be unaware of their car's needs, or have little mechanical sympathy, or need their vehicle every day of the working week and therefore delay servicing, advising regular scheduled treatment is sensible. However I believe John F has plenty of awareness and 'sympathy' and is able to monitor the state of his car appropriately. Therefore it is crass to call him (and others like him) idiots for scheduling his own maintenance rather than following maker's instructions. He may be taking risks of failure (as you see it) but they have been calculated. Unless you disbelieve what he tells us, he has got away with it, saving himself time and money in the process.
We could all change our light bulbs every summer Bank Holiday, just to be sure they would not fail in the winter, as some large offices used to do with fluorescent tubes. I don't do that, and I doubt you do either.
Edited by Andrew-T on 27/05/2018 at 15:06
|
We could all change our light bulbs every summer Bank Holiday, just to be sure they would not fail in the winter, as some large offices used to do with fluorescent tubes. I don't do that, and I doubt you do either.
Certainly don't but its a pretty irrelevant comparison.
If a light bulb fails in my house during the winter there are plenty more still working and within minutes I would have fitted a replacement with no damage to the remaining electrical system the replacement costing no more than periodical replacement.
Fail to maintain your car and, for example, a cambelt failure would almost certainly lead to extensive internal engine damage stranding you at the side of the road with a large bill on the horizon.
|
We could all change our light bulbs every summer Bank Holiday, just to be sure they would not fail in the winter, as some large offices used to do with fluorescent tubes. I don't do that, and I doubt you do either.
Certainly don't but its a pretty irrelevant comparison.
If a light bulb fails in my house during the winter there are plenty more still working and within minutes I would have fitted a replacement with no damage to the remaining electrical system the replacement costing no more than periodical replacement.
Fail to maintain your car and, for example, a cambelt failure would almost certainly lead to extensive internal engine damage stranding you at the side of the road with a large bill on the horizon.
Whilst many on this forum are retired, many if not most people who drive do so in order to get to and from work, and if the car breaks down mid journey, the consequences can be costly, in terms of impact on work as well as the repair costs. That’s why I follow the servicing schedule. It’s a fairly small overhead in the larger picture.
|
|
|
|
<< Fail to maintain your car and, for example, a cambelt failure would almost certainly lead to extensive internal engine damage stranding you at the side of the road with a large bill on the horizon. >>
Yes it would. But even the most religious servicing does not eliminate that risk, it just reduces it. How the car is driven week to week makes much more difference to the chance of nasty things happening than whether you decide to change your oil every June 27th or whatever.
|
<< Fail to maintain your car and, for example, a cambelt failure would almost certainly lead to extensive internal engine damage stranding you at the side of the road with a large bill on the horizon. >>
Yes it would. But even the most religious servicing does not eliminate that risk, it just reduces it.
Servicing has no effect whatsoever on preventing cambelt failure. It is a non-service item
Changing the cam belt at the correct interval should eliminate the risk but as in all aspects of life 5H1T happens.
Edited by skidpan on 27/05/2018 at 18:37
|
|
Majority of the cars ive owned have been chain driven cam shafts. Never had a chain go. Ownd a few cars with belts never had one go either but had them changed shortly after buying. My father had a belt go woth over 10k miles befor it was due and this has always put me off of belts over chains but it's never been a real breaker.
|
Majority of the cars ive owned have been chain driven cam shafts. Never had a chain go. Ownd a few cars with belts never had one go either but had them changed shortly after buying. My father had a belt go woth over 10k miles befor it was due and this has always put me off of belts over chains but it's never been a real breaker.
Chain cam engines can break, as some VAG car owners know very well. What REALLY helps keep them from doing so, against John F's method, is to keep them WELL OILED. Doing so in the States is dirt cheap at garages compared to the UK, which is why so many get fresh oil at 'lube shops' every 6 months even if they don't do the mileage to technically require it by the manufacturer.
In the same vein, people who don't at least follow manufacturers' recommendations as regards oil dn cam belt changes are asking for trouble, BIG (£££) trouble.
|
|
They can break and like you say VAG had problems with them but majority of my cars have been Japanese and I've never had a problem with a chain. If they are going to break they don't usuely just break they normally give some warning by becoming very noisy.
|
I’ve seen a Range Rover L322 with the BMW v8 snap a cambelt. The owner was advised it was time to change just based on mileage, but opted to do it after his holiday to the south of France. It duly went bang over there with family on board and had to be recovered back to the UK on a flatbed. Insurance write off, Land Rover said new engine needed, he opted for a complete engine rebuild by a local specialist. I’m not sure who has done your cambelt changes in the past John F, but if they get it
wrong they shouldn’t be working on other people’s cars in the first place.
|
I’ve seen a Range Rover L322 with the BMW v8 snap a cambelt. The owner was advised it was time to change just based on mileage, but opted to do it after his holiday to the south of France. It duly went bang over there with family on board and had to be recovered back to the UK on a flatbed. Insurance write off, Land Rover said new engine needed, he opted for a complete engine rebuild by a local specialist. I’m not sure who has done your cambelt changes in the past John F, but if they get it wrong they shouldn’t be working on other people’s cars in the first place.
If it was the BMW V8 then it was the 4.4 petrol engine, and that was a chain cam, not a belt cam.
When they changed to the TDV8 (3.6, then later on 4.4) and the Jaguar 4.2 supercharged petrol engine, and the Jaguar 4.0 petrol engine, or even the very late 5.0 supercharged petrol, all those had cam belts.
|
|
Just back from Sussex and such a lot to respond to!
1. I'm sorry bathtub tom can't see the photo. Is it just him? Here's another (just to tease skidpan) of my nice pink 17yr old coolant. And as for veracity, if anyone cares to check our well cared for Focus' MoT history (you will not see many 17yr olds with so few red FAILs), the reg is X 84 NJB
photos.google.com/album/AF1QipNnGuwK78QI3kFcEzgOhS...f
2. Infer/imply - I admit imply would be better, although as the OED states, my erroneous 'common usage' is widespread and probably acceptable.
3. Persistent disagreement is not a 'rant'. In stark contrast to some on here, I try to keep my posts succint. This one is exceptionally long.
4.I do not presume to 'advise', let alone 'down a dangerous path'. This is a discussion forum where, like everyone else, I air views and opinions which have been arrived at over many years of study and practice, and which have served me well. By all means take with a pinch of salt, as long as a cupful is taken with those which encourage unnecessary expenditure.
5. As for 'laying into' HJ, it's his advice I sometimes find fault with, not his person. I am sure I cause him no distress at all.
6.'chain cam...what REALLY helps....against JohnF's method....is to keep them well oiled'. Far from 'against my method', I have said exactly that elsewhere! My W12 chains are bathed in some of the most expensive oil money can buy!
7. The Rover cambelt scare story. More info, please. There is apparently a known problem with these engines - duff oil pump casing and tensioner detachment - which will wreck a belt even if just changed. Sadly, I would never ever consider owning one of these boxvan moneypits.
|
|
I appriecate word count is limited, but in the latest Mini review HJ states:
"....little things worked astonishingly well, such as the single button cruise control. Just press one button and it locks you into the speed you’re doing with no fiddling around like you still get in a new Toyota."
It needs stating that not all Toyotas are the same.
We have a new Yaris - to set cruise you press one button. Nice and simple!
|
|
For John F - Your photo link still doesn't work for me, even though I have a Google account. If it works for you, when you click on it here, I suspect it's because it's your account. I don't recall seeing a link to a photo library on here. It's probably not allowed by the forum software. It certainly didn't work for me recently when I tried to post a link to a photo in my Flickr account. Perhaps Avant could clarify?
|
|
|
|
|
