|
An oil change at twice the manufacturers recommended interval for 150K miles is (say £750). A recon engine is (say £600). Are frequent oil changes worth it, assuming you are keeping the car?
|
Missed the edit,
Should read half the interval.
|
>> An oil change at twice the manufacturers recommended interval for 150K miles is (say £750).
I'm confused. Did you mean to say that the cummulative cost of all the oil changes by the time your car reaches 150,000 miles is £750?
|
|
Yes 25 x 6000miles @ £30 a time. Conservative oil cost. :-)
Last edited by: Old Navy on Sun 7 Jun 15 at 17:53
|
Yes, but shouldn't you be counting only half of those - i.e. the excess changes over the manufacturer's recommendation - against the notional cost of replacing the engine?
It's still a shockingly neglectful regime, though. There'll be whole weeks that go by without an oil change.
Last edited by: WillDeBeest on Sun 7 Jun 15 at 18:02
|
|
I think we cans assume that the manufacturer who designed and made the engine knows more than anyone else about its lubrication requirements so I would follow their recommendations. I doubt you will get anywhere near requiring a replacement engine before you get rid of the car so it's unlikely to be an issue.
|
>> I think we cans assume that the manufacturer who designed and made the engine knows
>> more than anyone else about its lubrication requirements so I would follow their recommendations. I
>> doubt you will get anywhere near requiring a replacement engine before you get rid of
>> the car so it's unlikely to be an issue.
That's one possibility.
There's another that says manufacturer will extend the service intervals to push down apparent running costs The knowledge that a few cars pushed beyond 100k miles might suffer problems isn't likely to cost them anything.
|
The knowledge that a few cars pushed beyond 100k miles might suffer problems isn't likely to cost them anything.
Really? When the likes of Audi and BMW depend on the lease market, in which their success depends on strong residuals that keep lease costs low, so a reputation for a long, trouble-free life is a big asset to a manufacturer, not something to risk by cutting corners? An extra £200 service once a year would be a piddling amount next to £100 a month on the lease, but they judge it's not necessary. With that much at stake, they wouldn't do it if they felt it was a serious risk.
|
>>the likes of Audi and BMW depend on the lease market, in which their success depends on
>>strong residuals that keep lease costs low, so a reputation for a long, trouble-free life is a
>>big asset to a manufacturer, not something to risk by cutting corners?
You need to be more precise;
It is possible that a manufacturer depends on two things;
1) 3 year running costs
2) Residual value
Perhaps that residual value depends on a buyer who would like to buy a car, run it for 2 years and then see it gone.
In which case the engine quality beyond 6 years might be of little value to the manufacturer.
Whatever the exact figures are, I am sure you see the point.
|
snip quote!
>> Whatever the exact figures are, I am sure you see the point.
The UK is an exception though most markets people buy cars and run them into the ground. The UK has a high turn over of metal.
Last edited by: VxFan on Sun 7 Jun 15 at 19:29
|
You'll get into trouble with Dave for quoting the whole post!!
In actual fact the UK is not an exception as such, it is another factor in the equation. You would be surprised (or maybe not) about how precise a manufacturer is prepared to be about the standard of product he supplies to different markets.
|
>> You'll get into trouble with Dave for quoting the whole post!!
Test cycles...
>>
>> In actual fact the UK is not an exception as such, it is another factor
>> in the equation. You would be surprised (or maybe not) about how precise a manufacturer
>> is prepared to be about the standard of product he supplies to different markets.
>>
BMW seriously need to take a look in Scotland then. The rust on their 11 and 12 year old cars in and around Edinburgh is at FIAT 1970's and 80's levels. 53 and 54 plate BMWs with rusted through front wings and door bottoms rotten is really bad. I was amazed and shocked at how bad those cars were holding up when I walked through a Sainsbury's car park. Barge pole came to mind.
Last edited by: gmac on Sun 7 Jun 15 at 18:44
|
>>Test cycles...
Made me smile.
>>BMW seriously need to take a look in Scotland then....
Each manufacturer will consider its market. So I have no idea what %age of BMW's market lies in Scotland. Nor do I have any idea of the impact of Scotland's opinion on residual values.
But that will represent the level of attention that BMW pay.
And amongst the things that they will factor in will be;
1) The actual reality of a BMW's longevity in Scotland
2) The perception of a BMW's longevity in Scotland
3) The impact of either/both on BMW's ongoing strategy and sales plan.
Bearing in mind that 1) is much cheaper to fix than 2).
|
>> Each manufacturer will consider its market. So I have no idea what %age of BMW's
>> market lies in Scotland.
>>
Could explain why there are more four ring cars than propellers in company car parks north of the border.
You don't see many rusty Audi cars in Scotland but BMW's look like Lancia and FIAT after 7 years.
Last edited by: gmac on Sun 7 Jun 15 at 18:56
|
>>Could explain why ...............
Not easily, no. And not for free.
But what ever the reason it will be based upon the decisions I aluded to.
That doesn't mean that they made the correct decision, just that there was a logic to the decision that they made.
|
>>Barge pole came to mind.
>>
I am surprised at the old cars in the south that are in good nick, I put the newer cars up here down to the Barnett formula. :-)
|
>> You'll get into trouble with Dave for quoting the whole post!!
Quite.
Now snipped for the lazy person who couldn't be bothered themselves!!
|
Funny, I'm sure that there was a reply here which disappeared.
W.
|
>> Funny, I'm sure that there was a reply here which disappeared.
>>
>> W.
>>
Yeah, I said Whatever, because I thought the whole post relevant.
Expect this to disappear soon !!!!
|
>> Funny, I'm sure that there was a reply here which disappeared.
Are you talking about the reply with a single letter W?
I took it to being some form of abuse (i.e. an abbreviation for something that rhymes with tanker) so I removed it.
>> Yeah, I said Whatever
Er, no you didn't. Like I said, it was a single letter W.
And if you're wondering where your other post has gone then try emailing us if you're not happy about how this site is moderated. And as for not getting a reply within 2 hours of that posting, some of us do have lives outside of this forum.
Last edited by: VxFan on Mon 8 Jun 15 at 01:15
|
Perhaps that residual value depends on a buyer who would like to buy a car, run it for 2 years and then see it gone.
In which case the engine quality beyond 6 years might be of little value to the manufacturer.
But it's that quality - or the expectation of it - that persuades a buyer to pay a premium price for that 2- or 3-year-old car. Without it the value falls and the lease rate goes up. Then an A4 is no longer cheaper to keep for three years than an Insignia and Audi has a problem.
|
I repeat...
"Whatever the exact figures are, I am sure you see the point"
|
I'm not sure I do because it's not exact figures I'm taking issue with. A new car buyer or user may not care directly whether the engine will last megamiles because he's not planning to keep it past 40,000, but without that longevity the second-user market won't be there, at least not at a price that makes the cost attractive to the first user. So my point is that advising first users to skimp on maintenance would be a false economy if the downside was reputational damage.
Given that the manufacturers must know this, it seems reasonable to infer that they're confident they can recommend long service intervals without jeopardizing the reputation that supports their second-user market. And, given that, it seems foolish and unnecessary to change oil prematurely.
|
There are not just two markets; new & used.
The markets are numerous, but to over simplify they might be;
1) New
2) Used 1- 3yrs
3) Used 4 - 7yrs
4) Used 8+yrs
Quite clearly 2) represents the residuals present for 1). And someone in 1) considers that residuals are important. Perhaps a buying y/n.
However, someone buying in 3) is likely to care much less about the residuals into 4). Perhaps he cares more that it has leather seats, a service history, mirror windows, space for his fluffy dice.
Consequently one can easily understand why the value of a car in 2) will impact the value of a car in 1) and thus should be attributed significant importance.
Equally clearly it may be that the value of a car in 4) is of much less importance to a manufacturer primarily selling into 1).
Thus, I woudl expect such a manufacturer to develop a service strategy which would fully support his 1) and 2) markets, but perhaps pay much less attention, and therefore investment, into market 4).
If you cannot get my point from there, then either I cannot write or you cannot read. And I am paid to write.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Sun 7 Jun 15 at 19:06
|
>> There are not just two markets; new & used.
>>
Don't forget VED. That has a big impact in the UK used market.
You can have a <5 year old that you cannot shift for love nor money due to the CO2 emissions.
If it were at the end of its life when new for example and the tax bracket is over the £300 price then you can forget it on the used car market...It's a scrapper.
Last edited by: gmac on Sun 7 Jun 15 at 19:09
|
>>Don't forget VED. That has a big impact in the UK used market.
Fair point. It doesn't seem logical to me, but it is certainly true.
|
Absolutely, VED for a top band car is the equivalent of three pints, in a local normal pub, per week. Hardly a bank buster in overall ownership terms but everyone seems absolutely focused on how much VED they pay per year as though paying nothing for using the infrastructure is a good thing !!!
Entitlement, init ! It's me roights init !!!
|
Perhaps that residual value depends on a buyer who would like to buy a car, run it for 2 years and then see it gone.
Re-reading this I now understand it refers to the second user. Even so, the effect feeds on down the chain. I'm now that second user twice over, and part of my rationale has been that the car will still be worth a good chunk at six years of what I paid at three. I'm still nowhere near 150,000 miles, of course - about half that with the LEC - but my confidence made me willing to pay a five-digit price for a three-year-old car, and MB, BMW and Audi rely on that to support their new sales.
Tried to edit that into my previous entry but took too long over it.
|
1) New
2) Used 1- 3yrs
3) Used 4 - 7yrs
4) Used 8+yrs
Perhaps a more useful scale would have names instead of numbers, something like
1) New
2) Almost as good as new (the one I've just bought even smells new.)
3) Solid used
4) Dodgy used
5) Scrap
What holds up values (and holds down lease rates) at the top is the time it takes a model to slip from each category to the one below. So a five-year-old Peugeot or Fiat is already into category 4, whereas an Audi or Mercedes of the same age has a year or two left in 3. That time has a cash value, which in turn governs what buyers at each stage are prepared to pay.
This is at least part of the reason for the prominence the 'premium' makers give to their approved used schemes: not only does it give people like me, who really aren't equipped for the used car marketplace, a safe way to shop for something that isn't brand new, but it shows potential new purchasers, "Look, what you buy now can come back to us as one of these and it'll still be something special."
All this would fall apart if the cars developed a reputation for failing out of warranty, and that's why I can't see the makers recommending long intervals if they weren't confident it was sound practice.
|
If the concept is too difficult or mysterious, don't worry. In the market that you are currently buying it doesn't matter much.
|
That'll be a W from me too, then. Not sure why you felt the need to sneer at what I thought was a valid and useful discussion. There's a tendency in this forum - and car forums in general - to see every problem from the point of view of the Haynes manual and the hammer. I've been trying - and you've generally been helping - to consider what factors other than the purely technical might be at work.
Incidentally, I get paid - indirectly at least - for my writing too. And much more directly for my profit and loss calculations, so I'm interested in how the money flows through this system. Motors and manufacturing aren't my industries, though, so there's plenty I don't know. Happy to be corrected, but I'd rather not be talked down to.
|
I wasn't sneering. Its normally clear if I am. If it came across that way then I apologise.
But neither do I have another way of explaining that the factors diminish and change, whether you classify that by age, mileage, condition or the phase of the moon - they all entail distance, and therefore impact, on the original purchaser.
And industry is not that important. Any industry with material resale markets will be the same.
|
|
ps. my comment about being paid to write was supposed to cast nasturtiums at your listening.
|
Then that's fine, and I think we're saying much the same thing. My point is there is a cash value to the time it takes to reach each stage of diminution, even if that stage is remote from the original sale. So saying, as some here do, that the manufacturer has no interest in a product lasting beyond its warranty period is simplistic and wrong.
Virtual pisco sour? Or a drop of 2011 Carménère? Been buying that wherever we can find it.
|
Oh, I think a little Sauvignon Blanc with some ceviche.
Oh goodness, look what I have right in front of me... Now there's a coincidence.
I basically agree, with two clarifications;
There is a time/value limit, although its not the end of the warranty. But it is until about the level where 3rd or 4th owners kick in.
Until that point it is a diminishing impact, rather than constant.
|
|
Exactly, CG. Having just offloaded a 140,000-miler that had had Mobil 1 at the recommended intervals (in time or miles at different phases of its life) I can't think of anything that happened to it that would have been avoided by giving it more oil. It never consumed any, and the bits it had (DMF, two injectors, intercooler, suspension bushes and drop links) aren't what you'd call lubricant-hungry. The sticky turbo vanes? Who knows, but I suspect that problem was due more to lack of exercise than lack of lubrication.
|
|
I agree, up to 20odd years ago I was in the frequent oil change camp. Engines and oils have improved and I now stick to recommended intervals. I have also moved on from running older cars.
|
>> I think we cans assume that the manufacturer who designed and made the engine knows
>> more than anyone else about its lubrication requirements so I would follow their recommendations. I
>> doubt you will get anywhere near requiring a replacement engine before you get rid of
>> the car so it's unlikely to be an issue.
>>
Who designed your engine ?
Marketing gets in the way with car companies.
Volvo has a Yamaha V8, would you trust Yamaha's 3,500 mile service intervals for THEIR motorbike engines or Volvo's 18,000 mile company car friendly service intervals ?
As a customer you are always told tolerances may vary when you specify something.
Why would an outsourced engine be any different ? The 1.6TDi in a Ford, Citroën, Peugeot, Volvo or any other car manufacturer. They have different intervals but the same hardware.
The assumption the badge on the grill is the engine, wheel, gearbox or any other major component manufacturer is extremely naïve.
Last edited by: gmac on Sun 7 Jun 15 at 18:26
|
|
Yes, they all come from a few parts bins these days, just different body shells.
|
>they all come from a few parts bins these days, just different body shells.
Obviously not an industry you have worked in or know much about.
The price a manufacturer pays for the parts he will be supplied with depends on the failure rate that he will accept.
So he will pay more for a part that fails 1/1,000,000 then he will for a part that fails 1/100,000 - so whilst the part may seem to be the same, the quality standards applied are quite different.
A premium manufacturer may feel that the investment in a 1/1m part is worthwhile, perhaps another manufacturer might feel that 1/100k is sufficient.
|
|
I am sure that the cars that this impoverished pensioner will own will be of average quality. I am not expecting any 1 x M failure cars in my garage. Warranty length reliability is good enough for me.
|
>>Warranty length reliability is good enough for me.
There is no "good" or "bad", there is only what we each require. Your requirement is as good as any, perhaps better, just understand that you pay for your choices.
|
>> Warranty length reliability is good enough for me.
>>
Nail meet head. That's all the manufacturer wants.
Why build something that will last a thousand years if three, five or seven will do ?
|
>> The price a manufacturer pays for the parts he will be supplied with depends on
>> the failure rate that he will accept.
Just to clarify, does that extend to say engines? Would say one provided to several manufacturers, be build to different standards across the same product line? Diesel engines are a good example, the same (nominally) 1.6 TD is put in several cars, could they be built to different specs?
|
>>Would say one provided to several manufacturers, be build to different standards across the same product line?
Yes.
I haven't worked in an automotive manufacturer for more than 10 years, so perhaps its changed, although I doubt it.
What do you think is the difference between two badges seemingly selling the same vehicle at different prices?
When I contract to buy a part, I will include in my quality standards failure standards - be that time/units between failure, level of failure, or threshold. I will expect to pay more for engines where one has a guaranteed lower statistical failure rather than higher.
In some areas, companies make money by separating the "high quality" articles from the run of the mill and selling them at a premium.
Its easier to check on computer bits - look at component supplies & prices from China and MTBF rates.
|
snipquote for another lazy person!
>> What do you think is the difference between two badges seemingly selling the same vehicle
>> at different prices?
>>
Interesting I honestly thought (apart from dressing items) that they would be the same. Economies of scale and all that sort of thing, obviously it doesn't pay to do that. Interesting thanks.
I'm afraid I don't know what MTBF rates are.
Last edited by: VxFan on Mon 8 Jun 15 at 01:14
|
MTBF = Mean time between failure.
i.e. how long does it take to go wrong? An engine that on average goes wrong after 10,000 miles is worth less than an engine that goes wrong after 100,000 miles.
Bearing in mind that both figures are estimates given the parameters of its manufacture.
Economies of scale most certainly apply.
But let us assume that a particular component had to be built within a tolerance. Let us say that tolerance was 6" (obviously ridiculous).
Well a component that was 5" from ideal is going to be less reliable than a competent which is 1" from ideal. However, to reliably achieve 1" deviation is going to be more expensive than 5".
So if i was building millions of engines for a variety of manufacturers, then I might check them after they've been built and route all the +/- 1" to one buyer and all the +/-5" to another, cheaper payer.
This is horribly simplified, but the principle is there.
|
>> So if i was building millions of engines for a variety of manufacturers, then I
>> might check them after they've been built and route all the +/- 1" to one
>> buyer and all the +/-5" to another, cheaper payer.
>>
>> This is horribly simplified, but the principle is there.
>>
Thanks simplified is good for me when comes to businessy stuff. Nice to learn something new.
|
>>The assumption the badge on the grill is the engine, wheel, gearbox or any other major
>>component manufacturer is extremely naïve.
True. However, the badge on the grill will give you some idea as to the likely quality and behaviour of those parts.
|
>> True. However, the badge on the grill will give you some idea as to the
>> likely quality and behaviour of those parts.
>>
That's always in flux though isn't it? They trim the cost down, quality goes down, either quality goes up or company goes under.
|
|
It is in flux, but not on a short timescale.
|
Define short timescale.
Manufacturers make changes between MY
|
>>Define short timescale.
3m to make a decision, 6m to understand it, 3m to reverse it. And that is aggressive. Usually worse, I should think.
|
I can give you an example of Borbet wheels which are being replaced at every service. Why do you suppose that is ? Borbet thinking they can cut costs and risk their reputation or a manufacturer squeezing them so hard they have to cut the finish to meet the cost ?
The answer probably lies somewhere inbetween but the (badge on the car) manufacturer will never admit to it outside warranty.
Last edited by: gmac on Sun 7 Jun 15 at 19:29
|
Ah, they can certainly "tune" between decisions quite quickly.
e.g.
1) We always replace part x
2) We only replace part x for good customers
3) We never replace part x
But they can't make NEW decisions quickly.
|
|
My view is that engines have to be using very little oil not to require topping up between long interval services, and how many people who don't do their own oil changes check the level? I have long held that frequent oil changes are a cheap prophylactic against a variety of engine ills, not just wear.
|
>> An oil change at twice the manufacturers recommended interval for 150K miles is (say £750).
>> A recon engine is (say £600). Are frequent oil changes worth it, assuming you are
>> keeping the car?
>>
I seen this, Ted Connelly's wise words. Reminds me very much of "our" Ted.
|
|
Um, that would be Ted Connolly then :)
|
>> Um, that would be Ted Connolly then :)
>>
Yes, or even him perro!
|
"A recon engine (say £600).."
Where do you get yours from, ON? That sounds spectacularly cheap!
|
Maybe, but that's treating the replacement engine as a cost, when in fact it's a contingency. By sticking to the manufacturer's regime, you may be incurring, say, a 10% risk of engine failure before 150,000 miles, so your contingency cost is 10% x £n where n is the cost of replacing the engine.
The cost of the extra oil changes, of course, is very real and immediate.
|
"One for my Golf is £1,535"
Plus the cost of fitting it! Extra oil changes seem a lot cheaper to me.
BTW, most light aircraft have an oil change every 50 hours of running time...
Last edited by: J Bonington Jagworth on Mon 8 Jun 15 at 17:05
|
>> BTW, most light aircraft have an oil change every 50 hours of running time...
Many light aircraft are much older than the average car. A quick look at G INFO (the open version of the civil register) shows that most of the planes used by the flying club at Leeds Bradford when I was a spotter there 40yrs ago are still extant.
Has (light plane) aero engine technology advanced in step with motor cars since the seventies. My gut instinct says not.....
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Mon 8 Jun 15 at 17:40
|
>>Has (light plane) aero engine technology advanced in step with motor cars since the seventies. My gut instinct says not.....
Interestingly, they have two fuels available for piston engines:
91 octane unleaded.
100 octane low lead (which has about five times as much lead as road petrol ever contained).
Both contain no ethyl alcohol.
|
>> Where do you get yours from, ON? That sounds spectacularly cheap!
Those were sort of prices I was being quoted for a Citroen DW8B unit for my Berlingo. Not sure to what extent it was truly reconditioned though - it wasn't an option I was keen to follow.
|
>>Where do you get yours from, ON? That sounds spectacularly cheap!
I was a'thinking that too. Where could I buy a Subaru 2.0 engine for 600 quid please?
Which is why I change my injun oil every six months, or biannually.
I remember two customers who never changed their engine oil, they just used to top it up.
One was a V6 Tranny, and the other one woz a Volvo 240 - both these customers covered higher than average miles pa.
|
|
Fully synthetic 5W 30, oil and filter change at the recommended intervals but no need to panic over a couple of thousand miles. Seems to work well.
|
|
Having experienced recon engines in the past I think I'd rather spend the money on oil and filters.
|
>> Having experienced recon engines in the past I think I'd rather spend the money on
>> oil and filters.
Remember the ads in Exchange and Mart for engine reconditioers?
The link above to a current firm produced one 'candidate' for my Berlingo at around £300. Warranted for 28 days....
Enough I suppose to prove it worked and had no obvious leaks but no comeback if it 'put a leg out of bed' after twice that period.
|
I remember those cheapo West London 'reconditioned' engines. By the time you'd put them together with gaskets and fluids they'd cost twice as much and were still pretty crap.
A friend got a 5-cylinder Mercedes reconditioned engine for his car, ignoring my earnest advice not to. Cost plenty, far too much. He then hammered it - and I mean hammered - around London, again against my earnest advice, until it broke again. Lasted all of six weeks if that. The guy's a friend and good, successful hack, but he's lousy with cars.
'New engine in there mate.' Pull the other one mo'fo!
|
>> >>
>> Remember the ads in Exchange and Mart for engine reconditioers?
>>
>>>>
Remember them?
I got one for a Capri from some place in Clapton, NE London following an E&M ad. They offered a free service after 500 miles - and when I picked the car up they told me it was 500 plus or minus three miles or the warranty was void. They were not the type of people one debated the Sale of Goods Act with.
|
>>Having experienced recon engines in the past I think I'd rather spend the money on oil and filters.
Too right guvnor. Can you imagine the amount re-cons I saw in 14 years / 10.000 cars.
The worst of the lot were, well, you've guessed it ... BL Gold Seal :(
|
Talking of recon engine bodgers reminds me of my fledging motoring days back in the seventies. Every bombsite or under the arches used car dealer in London used to give their stock a "Blow over" before putting them on display on the lot. The cars looked like new - and continued to do so for about a month after you owned it when the rust would start bubbling through on the sills, wings, doors and just about every where else.
The next MoT revealed the full horrors...
|
Oil change, or not? - Old Navy
