Its good to see somebody else actively involved inside the trade (screwloose) who is aware of running in problems rather than the theorists telling everybody its ok to just drive the car and ignore it.
But mechanics (as always) are just trying to make more money for themselves by saying this and not actually helping the motorist!
Cheddar is right when he says a car can be run in sensibly whilst still being driven at sensible speeds and avoid becoming a mobile chicane as they used to!
The idea of removing the 1st oil change at low mileage by most new car assemblers has been a backward step imo.
It has to be remembered that the vehicle is designed to last perfectly for the life of the warranty (I know it doesnt always) and to run well for a time after. But long term life is NOT in the interest of the average vehicle assembler. Its only those with a longer term attitude (those that will prosper imo) that attend to details of life after the main dealer circuit! So running in is not really a problem the majority of va's worry about.
|
So, would there be a benefit in dropping the oil on a brand new car, filling the sump with mineral oil, driving carefully for 1000 miles, dropping the oil again and refilling with the correct synthetic stuff? Has anyone done this on a recent car?
|
|
imo, in a lot of cases, yes! Subject to how you want to drive it and possibly how long you personally want to keep
|
|
|
So would there be a benefit in dropping the oil on a brand new car filling the sump with mineral oil driving carefully for 1000 miles dropping the oil again and refilling with the correct synthetic stuff? Has anyone done this on a recent car?
Depends on the car, a turbocharger will need semi-synth and some engines have specific requirements i.e. PD pumps.
I like the idea of the 1000 mile oil chaange though the fact is that you can still have a long first change interval, long engine life and low oil consumption if all is engineered well and oil spec is chosen carefully.
|
My 10-year-old car has quite specific instructions for its first few thousand miles.
I guess the now common deletion of an early service and frequent oil changes in the early life of a vehicle is just another example of how the penny-pinching demands of the fleet car and lease company influenced market makes life difficult eventually for the rest of us.
|
Don't get me started on service intervals.
I just had the Scenic serviced (54k service - on 18k intervals). Prior to that, I'd had it serviced at the Renault dealer at 36k, and then did a DIY oil and filter change at 46k - roughly half way between. I used a good quality ACEA B3 compliant fully synthetic 5W/40 oil when I did so, and an OEM filter. So, the oil that had been in the engine was exactly to manufacturers spec, but had done half its recommended duty cycle.
I'm not imagining this because SWMBO said the same, and she didn't even know it had been serviced - the engine is noticeably quieter, smoother and more responsive than it was before the oil was changed. The surge on part "throttle" is stronger, and the few little buzzes and vibes that had started to work in from the engine when worked hard have completely disappeared.
In other words, the oil was more than ready for a change. Yet, Renault say it is safe for twice that distance. No wonder these things had a reputation popping their turbos.
Cheers
DP
|
Despite all the hot air from particular members of the trade, it's perfectly clear that vehicle engines routinely outlast the rest of the vehicle, and even with the deletion of the 1000 mile service, and the extension of service intervals, engines are tremendously reliable, and long-lived.
Of the aspects of vehicle maintenance to worry about, engine oil is not something to lose sleep over. If it were, the technical section of this, and other motoring sites would be over-run with people asking about reputable reconditioners, the number of times it's OK to grind a crank, fitting tips for shell bearings, etc, etc.
|
Screwloose - good point and I agree in most cases, but in the case of the Renault dCi engines, there are forums all over the place full of stories of turbo failures which seem to be largely confined to cars built during the 18k service interval period. Since withdrawn by the way, and now back to a more sensible 12k, which I believe says it all.
Do you think that part of the reason people don't ask about crank regrinds and bearings is that engines tend to get replaced rather than rebuilt these days? The people I know who've suffered engine failures have simply gone down the breakers and bought a complete replacement unit. I don't have the space, tools, time or patience to rebuild an engine. I'd be looking to replace it and get mobile again ASAP.
I also find it interesting that the makers with the best reputation for unfailing reliability (and the biggest pride in it) - Honda, Toyota and Subaru - have never gone down the extended service interval route.
Cheers
DP
|
Sorry, mean Number_Cruncher. I'm having ' a moment'
|
Yes, OK, I am being a little disengenuous talking about crank regrinds, but, by the same argument, we aren't swamped with questions about where's best to obtain a reconditioned or second hand engine, what should I check before I take the engine out of this scrapper, is it worth buying this shed off Ebay for the engine.
Renaults failing....quelle surprise!
There must be hundreds of thousands, if not millions of cars running around in the UK on extended service. If it were as bad a regime as some say, there would be outcry. It isn't happening.
|
"I also find it interesting that the makers with the best reputation for unfailing reliability (and the biggest pride in it) - Honda, Toyota and Subaru - have never gone down the extended service interval route.
"
I think the above answers your comment quite well nc!
With your contacts at vauxhall nc ( who suffer from a lot of excessive oil consumption and engine swaps because of it) I am surprised that you havent heard the outcrying !
Its because inside the warranty period of the engine its acceptable/controllable .
The engines are not living as long as they could/should in a lot of cases.
I agree there are thousands of cars on the road doing mega miles. But those engines are often not in as good health as you are claiming!
There is still no substitute for an early oil change and sensible running in, imo.
|
There must be hundreds of thousands, if not millions of cars running around in the UK on extended service. If it were as bad a regime as some say, there would be outcry. It isn't happening.
Agree with NC all the way through this thread.
Unfortunately, you will never convince some people, even if you train them in how to interpret statistics or take them to a manufacturers testing laboratory and show them the real hard evidence gathered by leading Scientists and Engineers in the field concerned.
|
By defintion, a car is run-in when it is time to sell it.
It is time to sell it when the owner gets bored/has more money than sense/wants more bling/wants to impress the opposite sex/ etc.
All other definitions are worthless.
|
>>The engines are not living as long as they could/should in a lot of cases.
Ah, here's another part of the jigsaw.
Yes, you could make an engine last longer if you changed the oil and filter every weekend, and plugged the car in at night to keep the block and coolant warm, but whether this would be a wise course of action is debateable.
But, what is needed is adequacy, or reasonable engine life, not the ultimate in engine life. In by far the majority of cases, we have such a level of adequacy. You are extremely unlucky today to suffer lubrication based engine failure.
|
NC
Yes; engines last a lot longer nowadays - purely down to better oil from SG onwards. However; oil drinkers are indeed back. It's now an all-or-nothing effect; in ten identical cars, one or two will guzzle oil, while the rest use little or none between services. Vauxhall, VAG and Ford are the worst - and only the models that run-in on synth. The clincher was the 2000 Zetec S; Focus engine - but run-in on 0W-30. The Focii were generally fine, the Zetec S units, err... weren't.
The effect is there from new, so it's not the gradual wear of ageing and I've seen enough to be firmly of the opinion that it's running-in on too good an oil that's to blame. Ford and Vauxhall will, reluctantly, change engines - but VAG insist on pointless re-ringing. [Many dealers don't have anyone who's ever seen a crank; let alone who can grind one...]
Yes; the factory synth should be drained and a good conventional oil installed for the first 1000 miles and then the synth can be put back in for the rest of the service interval, if sensible: the filter can stay there throughout.
During the running-in period; the car should be used normally, but not overly stressed. Crawling along at 30, or at any other constant load, is to be avoided.
|
SL,
Yes, SG oil, and new expensive cylinder honing methods.
Could it possibly be the case that there was an inherent problem with Zetec S units?, and it wasn't the oil?
Has there been a rigorous trial conducted where a significant number of modern engines are run in on mineral oil? Have the results been compared with the statistics of engines which were not so treated?
|
NC
The short-lived Fiesta Zetec S was pretty much a standard Focus unit - the 3 hp difference was possibly gained in a sportier exhaust.
A large proportion of them suffered from excess [200m/ltr] oil consumption - a lot of engines were changed under warranty - the near-identical Focus unit didn't.
As any controlled test-cell trial would doubtless use an effective, computerized, running-in programme; maybe no difference would emerge. In real-life conditions though....
|
SL,
One of things I've found via working on a number of projects which have been following up on engineering failures is that it can be very difficult to get to the root cause, and hence very difficult to prescribe a solution with any confidence.
Even in a controlled and regulated environment like the railway - where no work should be done on rolling stock other than in accordance with controlled and documented procedures, using prescribed materials, where every movement of every piece of rolling stock is controlled, if not timetabled, it's difficult to get to the truth. In one case, it was only by turning up at a repair depot unannounced that I finally found out how the parts I was conerned about were really being handled! Badly!
I think it's probably true that there is something in the running in of engines, but, the fact that it doesn't affect all engines or even all engines of a given type, all filled with the same oil suggests that there's something else going on too.
What's different for the 2 in 10 engines which "develop a habit"?
|
NC
Yes; it's only anecdotal evidence. The intricacies of the oil-ring/bore interface are still not fully understood - despite Nicro's excellent publications on plateaued finishes.
It is, however, a new phenomenon. Up until the late nineties, once an engine began to develop high oil consumption, the deterioration continued. The modern type maintain a very constant thirst from new - they could easily last 200,000m or more - if you keep feeding them oil and cats. [That's another significant difference - no visible smoke.]
|
The short-lived Fiesta Zetec S was pretty much a standard Focus unit - the 3 hp difference was possibly gained in a sportier exhaust. A large proportion of them suffered from excess [200m/ltr] oil consumption - a lot of engines were changed under warranty - the near-identical Focus unit didn't.
Large proportion?
Any differences could be due to different oil used in the assembly plants.
Though all should be filled with 5W-30 (not 0W-30) sem synth to Ford spec MCCwhatever.
|
Though all should be filled with 5W-30 (not 0W-30) semi synth to Ford spec MCC whatever.
Yes; the Ford 0W-30 spec was as short-lived as the Zetec-S. It came in with VAG's and MB's similar - but incompatible - 0W-30 oils. Then Ford changed back to 913A? [it was a while back] and now don't seem to have anywhere near the same level of this problem as VAG and Vauxhall.
|
"and now don't seem to have anywhere near the same level of this problem as VAG and Vauxhall."
Its fairly obvious the two sides of the discussion here will ever agree. No problem, it helps keep everyone on their toes.
However, the bit that confuses me is that nc has some regular content with vauxhall in particular, but seems to know nothing of their oil useage problems?
Maybe a direct comment would be an interesting read nc ?
|
|
Using Renault's lack of engineering expertise to argue any case.. is just wrong.
When I see Citroen Xantia HDIs for sale with 250,000 miles and then read people going on about common rail diesels/ extended servcie intervals/ complexity of cars, I just laugh.
|
Think about any car that has a history of consuming oil.
They all seem to be the ones with extended service intervals.
I can't remember the last time I heard about a far-Eastern car with this problem (unless it was a 15-year-old nail, in which case there is some excuse). Any of them.
When you go out looking at potential used buys, the ones with no oil left in them are invariably the "mainstream" stuff with the long service intervals.
I think there is something to this.
|
I like practical solutions to problems. No matter how much you try to educate people regarding oil levels, some are not going to bother
Manufacturers should have built in a `toilet cistern` type device, holding a couple of gallons to keep the oil level topped up on extended service cars. ;)
( I really mean an electrically administered top up device, no owner input needed)
It could be set to electrically administer the oil when its on the flat and been stood for 30 minutes or so.
Must surely be some engine application outside of cars that does this?
|
It should be more punitive. When the level gets below minimum, the engine should refuse to start, and a bright orange flashing light, complete with siren and an illiminated 'IDIOT' sign should emerge from the roof, at the same time as the engine management software invokes a routine which writes the phrase 'WARRANTY VOID' into the output to any fault code reader or dealer diagnostic rig.
|
Some people can abuse anything. It's a sort of selective stupidity or bolshiness.
A friend, a farmer, fine fellow and no one's fool, had a Mercedes 500C that he paid £10K for. It was a very nice motor, silent went like a rocket and drank like a fish but he didn't mind that. Later though it started to give trouble, ate its wiring loom and became a money pit. At one point he accidentally blasted the n/s door mirror point-blank while shooting rabbits from the driver's seat with a 12 bore, without rendering it totally unusable. Daimler Benz, ja?
I asked him once if he had ever changed the oil and he looked at me as if I was mad. I asked how often he checked the level. He said he waited for the low oil level light to come on and then topped it up. With tractor oil.
I mean.
Edited by Lud on 19/08/2008 at 17:07
|
"It should be more punitive"
Perhaps a tape tipped cane (as at school) should emerge from the dash while a pyrotechnic device whips the pants down. Followed by the seat belt system inverting the driver and a recording of our Headmaster shouting "YOU DONKEYS".
Spittle could spray out of the centre vents for authenticity, followed by the sound of the cane splintering, despite the tape.
Edited by oilrag on 19/08/2008 at 20:45
|
Perhaps a tape tipped cane (as at school) should emerge from the dash...
LMFAO!
|
Very interesting that the chaps at the front line of keeping vehicles going seem convinced of good maintenance likely to prolong a trouble free vehicle life, good enough for me.
Good idea about on board chastisement, cost a fortune to get those services these days..;)
Edited by gordonbennet on 19/08/2008 at 21:10
|
>>good enough for me.
You've put your finger on it there GB.
Of course, changing the oil more frequently is better for engine, but, where does that stop, and why? Where do you draw the line? When is the oil changing regime "good enough"?
Despite their undoubted experience, no-one contributing to this thread has actually done any controlled testing of this subject. The only people with any authority are the manufacturers - but, everyone seems to think that they know better.
|
In the case of the dCi, Renault themselves revised the interval downwards when they were confronted by a number of blown engines (put down by many knowledgeable people to a combination of an EGR design fault (fixed), and the particular demands placed by the unusually hot running (for emissions) dCi engine on its oil). OK, the reason for doing this was never officially admitted, but it makes no sense in the current market to do this for anything other than technical reasons.
If the engines had had 12k intervals from the beginning, would this reputation for blowing up have even existed at all? Of course we won't know, but it seems quite a coincidence that the older engines given more frequent changes by owners seem largely troublefree, and the newer ones with the revised intervals from scratch are no more prone to turbo trouble than any other modern diesel. I know of dozens of dCi Renaults that have done 150,000 troublefree miles given 10-12k oil changes whether by revised service intervals or the initiative of caring owners.
I agree and accept that there isn't much evidence to support extended intervals being bad news on most other makes, but manufacturers don't always get it right. Renault screwed up royally with these engines in the early days.
Cheers
DP
|
>>but manufacturers don't always get it right
Yes, this is definitely true, but, it doesn't mean they always get it wrong.
The advantage the manufaturers do have is that they have access to all the relevant failure/reliability data obtained both during warranty and recall campaigns, and via their development and testing prior to vehicle release. No mechanic, however skilled and perceptive can make a pronouncement with anything like their authority.
|
The only people with any authority are the manufacturers - but everyone seems to think that they know better.
I don't for a minute think that i know better than anyone NC, that couldn't be further from the truth, but possibly like our trusted technical gurus i have a healthy cynicism that tells me as hinted above that its not in the makers interests to have vehicles lasting indefinately, i sometimes wonder if they want their vehicles to be progressively more expensive to keep running, but to have been reliable to that point, (being a year or two after the warranty expires) therefore hopefully encouraging the customer to repeat buy.
Subaru seem to be one of a few notable exceptions to any of that sort of deterioration, their vehicles do have a long and reliable life. ( i hope toyo have had the same philosophy with their pick ups..;)
You only have to look at modern trucks to see it, most of them are fine for about 5 years use, keep them for another 2 or more years and pay very dearly for that (gearbox, that'll be 5 to 10K sir, not including fitting or the 3 ecu's that control it)
You only have to go into Tilbury or Sheerness docks to see the hundreds of 5 or so year old tractor units lined up waiting to be exported to thirld world countries, that wasn't the case even 15 years ago (i wonder if those complex fuelling systems get ripped out, and replaced by mechanically simple fuel etc systems before running for thousands of miles in tough conditions)
I think i can see where you are at though, as you say its usually one or several complex electrical/fuelling/suspension or such like system failure that ends the life of many vehicles, and not the demise of the engine through wear.
Or of course the many CHG/cooling sytem and turbo associated problems that very often make even a 7 year old vehicle uneconomic to repair, how much to repair that automated manual?
I wonder if you and i will be keeping the present day replacements for our fine old cars going when they are 12 to 14 years old and just nicely bedded in, somehow i doubt it.
|
This year we have bought a new Ford Transit based motorcaravan with the 2.4 litre turbo diesel engine. This vehicle is known by Ford as the: 140- 350. The 140 refers to the nominal power in "PS" (German for horsepower) and the 350 is short for 3500Kg (the maximum mass of the vehicle + load).
The point of the above is that our engine carries a test label, quoting that its power output was measured as being 142 PS. Thus, the manufacturer was running a brand new engine to its maximum output, before it was even fitted to the vehicle.
My conclusion to the above is that running in (for an engine) as a means of ensuring a long trouble-free life is something that we can safely consign to the days of yore.
|
Lots of food for thought there GB!
>>i have a healthy cynicism
Yes, but as you know, I think it's odd that the focus of forums such as this remains firmly fixed on the non-subject, the almost trivial subject of engine oil.
How many owners of petrol engined MB 124s and 190s have been stung by the eye-watering price of a new ignition amplifier (EZL), which might have been avoided had they renewed the drying heat sink paste?
How many owners of newer MBs have taken the precaution of fitting the modified gearbox connector to prevent oil wicking up the cables and ruining the ECU?
>>look at modern trucks
Surely, for a long time it has only been the oddball or maverick operator that has kept trucks on contract critical or distance work for longer than 5 years? The only trucks kept beyond 5 or 6 years by my father were the tippers and brick wagons which never strayed far from base.
I don't think it's sensible to run commercial vehicles on critical tasks for longer. The failures begin to change in character, with safety critical fatigue failures beginning to become more prevalent. Unlike most car components, I don't think it's feasible to make commercial vehicles parts with long fatigue lifes.
>>I wonder if you and i will be keeping the present day replacements for our fine old cars going when they are 12 to 14 years old and just nicely bedded in, somehow i doubt it.
Yes, I doubt it too. I don't think what is effectively the first generation of common rail diesels will have such a long life. However, I suspect the first generations of inline jerk pump diesels didn't last long either - in fact, I can well remember sending in-line (and beastly DPA) pumps to be reconditioned quite frequently, as recently as the late 1970s. I think that common rail will, eventually, mature.
|
I was interested to read HJ's comments on VW's heavy caveatting of their longlife servicing recommendations in his review of the new Scirocco.
"Yet VW is now careful to state that its LongLife service regime is recommended only ?for vehicles with a daily mileage of more than 25 miles, where the vehicle is driven regularly and on mainly longer distance journeys. The vehicle should be mainly driven at constant speed with minimum vehicle and engine loading, minimal towing and driven in an economical manner.? Otherwise it?s change the oil and filter every year or 10k miles"
I wonder what prompted this?
|
|
|
|
|
|
