Perusal of this site over the past few weeks has revealed a healthy interest in prolonging engine life by use of a particular brand of oil, careful running in, additives, changing oil more frequently than the manufacturers recommendations etc.
I have run 3 cars over 100,000 miles with just standard servicing, and a good friend of mine runs a taxi business where his self employed drivers run their standard family saloons with astronomical mileages on the clock.
Over the last 20 years, in our joint experience, virtually all expense on repairs has been for items not affected by how well the engine was lubricated. Suspension, brake systems, steering and so on.
I am from a generation that remembers grinding in valves, re-bores, decokes and when 20K from an engine without attention was a subject of interest in the pub. I wonder if our experience in our early motoring years has given some of us a fixation about engines wearing out and our concern is misplaced.
Alfred
|
You have a point there, Alfred. Myself and my better half have run cars on a driving school that reach high milages in short periods of less than perfect operating conditions, and thinking back most of our heavy repair bills have involved non-engine componants. I think the reason most of us are obsessed with engine care, however, is that failure of a relatively minor and cheap componant such as a timing belt or a valve can have an instant knock on effect that results in a destroyed engine.
Wear on suspension, braking and steering systems etc generally give early warning of their demise and the faulty part can be repaired or replaced before it causes further damage.
|
|
|
It comes from the same stable as the army practice of telling shell manufacturers that their product won't go through the standard armour.
And, when the shell people have come up with the goods, telling the armour people that they need to come up with something better because their current stuff is not keeping out the standard shells.
It's called progress.
However, I must agree that, on the whole, engines seem to be the most reliable part of the vehicle.
Most 50s and 60s cars used to end up with clapped out engines.
Many 70s and 80s cars used to die because of foundry moth.
Nowdays death is often due to the fact that replacing something like an electric window winder or a heater matrix costs more than the car is worth.
Judging from recent posts, the next thing is going to be catalytic converters or air bags.
|
|
|
Alfred wrote:
I wonder if
> our experience in our early motoring years has given some of
> us a fixation about engines wearing out and our concern is
> misplaced.
Alfred,
It seems we have progressed from one extreme to another.
These days, it seems the average car user is a get-in-and-go merchant, who thrashes the living daylights out of a car, and were it not for the little lights on the dash, wouldn't bother with silly things like oil changes, brake pad renewals, coolant levels etc.
Some of my work colleagues approach me - "The car won't start/makes a funny noise/is stalling" etc. I don't profess to be an expert, but when you open the bonnet, check the dipstick and find no oil, you know there's something wrong...
My favourite so far:
"How long you had the car?"
"about 2 years"
"when did it last get serviced?"
"Oh, I get them to check the oil and water whenever I fill up with petrol..."
|
|
|
Alfred,
This is something I've been thinking about over the couple of months I've been following this board, reading all the advice and thinking "I don't do that, and I don't know anyone who does, and I don't know anyone who's had a car whose engine has died".
Thinking back over the years my dad has had four Maestros (someone has to like them), one of them got to 140k, and he got rid of them all due to something else going pop, expensive suspension or electrics work needing doing, that sort of thing. He buys for less than a grand, gets a couple of years out of them, then ditches them when they fail an M.O.T. with something expensive. Never had a problem with an engine (and he does high mileage in them), all he does is change the oil every 10k or so.
Personally I've had a 1987 Cavalier at 95k that I mercilessly thrashed, yet the thing just kept on going, it was only the advanced rust that led me to get rid of it. I've had a 1988 MK2 Golf GTi with 140k on it, again, got leathered non stop, it was everything *but* the engine going wrong that led me to get rid of that. Then I got a 1989 Honda Prelude, again, engine totally solid (and it got worked some), it was only expensive work on the brakes and a prang that led me to get rid of that. All I've ever done to any is change the oil every so often.
I've now just bought a 2001 Honda Accord (one extreme of the quality scale to the other) and it's just going to get standard dealer servicing. Looking at the plethora of gadgets and gizmos on it (and Honda's record on the VTECs) I refuse to believe that 10 years down the line it's going to be the engine that fails on some poor sod, it's going to be 2 grand to fix some electrical gremlin that will be uneconomical to perform and the car will go to its grave, engine working 100%.
I work in IT, so it's predominantly young men who like their cars working here, and I pick up a lot of the office talk, sure someone's usually got something going wrong with their car, but I can't remember the last time someone had a problem with the engine, or indeed if anyone has....
I'm not saying the advice on here isn't valid, and it certainly won't do any harm to follow it - but I agree with Alfred's original point, modern engines are tough beasts, and the nature of cars these days means that the overwhelming probability is that when they get to 10 years old or 150k or whatever it might be, it's going to be something other than the engine going wrong that'll cost more than the car's worth to fix that'll see it off to the scrap yard......
Alex.
|
|
|
|
I beg to differ. A pals 1989 Sunny 1.4 just needed a new cylinder head at 260,000 miles. Outrageous. We will be sueing (sp?) Nissan.........
|
|
|
I agree with you on every point, we overservice to ease our mechanical fears. Todays engineering with most manufacturers delivers reliable cars that require a minimum of servicing, stick to the manufacturers advice and enjoy the car. I ran a Cavalier Turbo diesel to 220,000 in 3 years with very little servicing and it never let me down.
Eleanor
|
Eleanor,
Totally off topic, but:
70,000 a year!
How do you find time to do any work between the driving?
Regards
john
|
The Cavalier was my office, I was the sales manager for the family owned company. We had customers the length and breath of Britain + Europe.
Eleanor
|
|
|
|
|
Not sure about this. One sees a lot of cars about with blue smoke from the exhaust, and not just on the over run. These are cars which have not had oil changes.
|
Do you have the research to prove that point? I think not
Eleanor
|
|
|
|
Alfred,
A thought provoking question!
My views re a preoccupation with serviceing follow:
1
Whilst todays power units can achieve high milage, failure of a single component can potentially represent a huge cost to rectify. Serviceing provides an insurance of sorts.
2
Owners are likely to be nailed by UK emissions standards, come MOT time, as a result of engine component wear resulting from fuel quality or constant short journeys - owner serviceing in the broadest sense.
3
HJ's books, column, and the evidence within them, do not give any encouragement towards this argument, but in fact, a view to the contrary.
Would be excellent if the inputs were less though!
Regards'
Julian L
|
|
|
Alfred, I think you have raised a very valid point. You have certainly made me think afresh on the self-imposed 3/5000 mile or 6 monthly oil change schedule that I have followed for decades.
I am sure that the frequent oil changes that I have carried out on my cars have increased their engine life whilst still in my ownership. The reason for this is that some of the cars in question have been of dated design and I have tended to hang onto them for a good number of years (I bought my present 'second car' in 1975 and the engine design goes back way beyond that!).
I would not want to service any car at 20,000 mile intervals as some fleet-orientated car makers recommend but I can now see that servicing every 5000 miles or 6 months is not necessarily cost effective. I think a sensible compromise would be to follow makers' recommendations where these advise servicing at 10,000 miles or 12 months on a modern car but not to go beyond this.
|
|
|
Some interesting posts here. Julian wrote the following-
I agree with that statement except for one word "evidence". Without indulging in semantics I am not sure he produces "evidence" on the lubrication argument.
Alfred
|
Alfred,
No as individuals we can't produce evidence, but we can draw likely conclusions and decide on that basis.
I do know for a fact that.........
The Fiesta 1.1 engine will die at 70K with infrequent oil changes or go well over 100K with 6monthly changes.
Infrequent oil changes on the VW engines of the 80/90s can lead to the head oilways gumming up and blocking, ie no lubrication to cam and the lobes wear off.
Citroen 1.9 petrol engines can wear their cam lobes down in similar circumstances.
Citroen 1.9 diesel engines can suffer cam bearing failure due to poor lubrication, this may cause the cam to seize then strip the timing belt and trash the engine.
Many modern 16V engines will gum up if the oil is left in ages giving rise to driving/starting problems and often an expensive head-off job.
Very high yearly mileage vehicles are often exempt from normal rules because they are running under ideal conditions, this isn't true of most family/commuter cars.
David
|
David W,
Your comments always seem to be well-founded so I am going to follow your advice on oil-change intervals with my old Triumph, i.e. carry on as before with 6-monthly oil changes, despite my posting of last night which suggested I might now do otherwise.
I use Millers fully synthetic oil in the (dare I mention it?) BMW and I change the oil when the on-board service indicator tells me to, which is at about 7500 mile intervals (almost 12 months). The car has now covered 110,000 miles and there is no evidence of any engine wear whatsoever so I think BMW have got it right. If I was using mineral oil I would probably change it every six months whatever the mileage, as per your advice.
Just thought of another engine to support your views. The Ford OHC engine of the 70s/80s suffered blockage of the tubes feeding oil to the camshaft if the oil was not changed very frequently and this caused break-up of the camshaft lobes. This happened even in low mileage engines that had been serviced at the Ford recommended intervals.
Regards,
The other David W.
|
|
|
|
Alfred,
Hi again!
The issue of evidence you raise.
I can only say that statistically, there are a number of key engine failures or critical engine component failures that regularly occur as a result of:
1
A casual approach, influenced perhaps by, misunderstanding or ignorance, regarding regular oil changes and "targeted maintenance" on the part of the owner.
2
The exaggerated service intervals created by manufacturers to support and encourage company buyers in the fleet marketplace.
Taking HJ's books for the period '97-2000 a few examples are:
Oil galleries partially blocking as a result of oil sludge, causing timing chain failure on some Mercedes models.
Cam lobe failure
Cam bearing failure
Driving ultra short distances regularly = Engine wear = emissions failure etc. This of course will also be influenced by the oil change interval
Turbocharger bearings failing as a result of carborised oil in the turbo's bearings. Failure will be sooner with long oil change intervals.
I guess the oil change interval at the end of the day has to represent your style of driving. The quality of oil used will also influence events.
What do you think?
Regards,
Julian L
|
|
|
Julian/David W
Firstly let me repeat what I originally mused; which in effect was to query if we worry too much about engine lubrication when modern engines are inherently reliable. From my experience it appeared that servicing in accordance with the manufacturer?s schedule was sufficient for high mileages to be achieved. Apparently several other contributors agreed.
Subtly however the emphasis has been moved away from my original post and is now spelling out the problems that can occur if the oil is left for too long before changing it. The sort of damage illustrated by David and Julian is not in dispute. Much as I respect the contributions they make to this forum I hope they won?t mind if I say that they have misread(or forgotten) the exam question on this occasion. They have set up scenarios where ? the oil is left in ages? and there is ?misunderstanding or ignorance, regarding regular oil changes ? and spelt out the consequences. Great answers! But not to the point I raised.
Alfred
|
|
|
Alfred,
Most of your post was a statement. The exam question was "I wonder if our experience in our early motoring years has given some of us a fixation about engines wearing out and our concern is misplaced".
OK so the simple answer is I don't have my judgement clouded by experience of those motoring years you refer to and no my concern is not misplaced.
B+ ??
David
|
|
|
David,
I accept most of the post was a statement which led to the the question --- is our concern misplaced?
I wasn't advocating not changing oil regularly as that causes the problems you so rightly point out.
If you are allowing me to award marks, on your past performance over many posts you get an 'A'. For straying off subject a little on this one you are down to 'A-'
Alfred
|
OK "Alfred", you've taken my reply in good spirit. I think we both know what the other means and accept you can stand just off the fence on either side with this one.
David
|
|
|
|
Hi Alfred,
I guess from my perspective , the modern power unit in todays cost engineered sector of the car market is not inherently reliable. It should and could be, But executives continue to demand growth of margins in an already saturated market. Very appealing on the outside, less so mechanically within.
Peripheral engine component failure, rather than the main reciprocating gear, is commonplace, and this coupled with manufacturers injudicious service intervals and poor design detail, encourages early failures.
Sure, the last Cavalier for example, will eventually achieve stupendous milage figures, but not the manufacturers service intervals are followed and short runs undertaken, as the cam bearings and lobes will be knackered before 100 K. Perhaps thats OK for a lot of folk.
Regards,
Julian L
|
|
|
Alfred,
Give up and join us in the monastry, you wont convince those who know better than them whot makes the cars.
The earth is flat!
Heavier than air machines cant fly!
Sir Alex Ferguson is ready to retire
Tell them they are spot on and buy shares in oil companies.
|
|
|
