First oil change for new car

I also change oil twice as frequently as the Service Indicator "indicates". The cost of the oil and filter is trivial (disposing of the old oil is a problem though).

Dear Doc,

Let a garage drop it out. It takes only a few minutes on the ramp. No need to worry about what to do with the old oil...

Not a main dealer, I mean a proper independant garage.

ATB from Fredrik

There's a difference between a company / lease car and a personally owned car - if I owned the car myself I'd be paying for oil change twice as often as claimed to be needed by the service indicators.

My old BMW 525D needed a new turbo at 74k miles (just over 3 years old) which my employer had to mostly fund (£1,400 with BMW paying £800) - I've heard of lots of BMWs that have needed the same thing

My new Audi A6 (now done 2k miles) claims that its first service is not due for 19k miles yet

I understand that on many mass market cars there is actually a choice of service regimes - lease companies make sure that it's the high mileage regime that is picked which means lower servicing costs. Private customers can pick lower mileage fixed intervals I think. Then at the end of three years the car gets sold with a full service history so the very long term isn't important to them

quote:

Originally posted by Haim Ronen:
nap-ster,

A lot of new Japanese cars come stocked with engine oil supplemented with special additives to help engine break-in.

It is important that you run this oil a full cycle and not change it too early (at least 5000 miles) to give those additives a chance to work.

Regards,

Haim

This is absolutely true of all major European and Jap cars ATM.
My (going on 6yr) Seat Toledo has covered a bit over 340K Km @ service book intervals of 15000km (and it's been remapped since 60K), so I really don't see many problems with going by the handbook (unless your always trashing it).

Living in lancs ......
The BMW story is a bit true of all diesels. Most of the newer hi-spec/output diesel engines run VNT turbos with very high boost.

Paulo

quote:

Dear Doc,

Let a garage drop it out. It takes only a few minutes on the ramp. No need to worry about what to do with the old oil...

Not a main dealer, I mean a proper independant garage.

ATB from Fredrik

Moreover, the garage will buy the oil far more cheaply than you can.

quote:

Moreover, the garage will buy the oil far more cheaply than you can.

and of course, they will sell it to you more dearly that you can buy from halfords. Never mind, that's what business is all about, eh!

I used to dispose of my used oil in the UK at the waste oil recycling station - I think it was in the carpark of my local B&Q. Easy. Over here, there's a waste oil collection point at my local tip. just as easy.

A top quality filter is as important as changing the oil. I have never understood the idea of changing the oil and not changing the filter - leave half a litre of dirty oil and sludge in there? I think not.

Large diesel fleets are often managed with oil analysis, to lower costs. (lab testing to determine oil condition, rather than just replacing 18 litres, soon pays for itself). In some instances, a filter change without changing the oil provides excellent protection, providing the oil is still in good condition.

I've seen on some forums in the US, folk with performance-tuned engines rely on oil analysis to determine the health and tune of the engine, as well as the state of the oil.

oil. very controversial subject, that.

Dear Rico,

I am not sure you absolutely right. For a trouble free ten minutes at the garage when the car goes on the ramp they charge me £25 plus VAT. They fit the genuine Volvo oil filter, which crucially contains a non-return system to prevent syphoning of the oil out of the filter and oil galeries, and which last cost me £9 from a Volvo main dealer, while Magnatec [garage uses this] costs about £17 at Halfords, so I would say that means the garage is making nothing more than the difference between trade cost and retail! No apparent charge for labour or disposal at all. They have a quick look round for anything else, and all told it keeps the relationship sweet ready for any significant repair. Not so different to using a good gramophone dealer really.

ATB from Fredrik

well that is indeed fab - it parallels using a dealer for hifi. So they make some margin on resale of oil, and reduce the plastics load on the planet - surely a good thing.

I should make myself clear - I have no issue with those who prefer to use a dealer or independant to do their basic or (even) complex maintenance themselves, regardless of motivation.

I too use genuine Volvo (Mann) or Nissan filters, respectively. On the topic of volvo filts, I think it's pretty cool that one filter is provided for (IIRC) all volvo engine models.

cheers

I am reasonably high up in a very large tier 1 supplier to the car industry (which I've been in for over 10 years now), and I have one piece of advice for you all. DO NOT, for one minute, think that car companies know exactly what they are doing - they do not.

The type of oil and the replacement schedule is largely dependant on the type of engine and driving style. If it were my car, and had a turbo, I would use fully synthetic oil and change every 5k miles. Cars are built to a price, and once launched, the manufacturer will spend the next n years removing cost from it until it's replacement is launched. Invariably, the people charged with removing cost are not those that originally engineered the vehicle, and so the problems perpetuate.

An example if you will - the manufacturer I am stationed with currently (and responsible for all engineering on the products that we manufacturer for them) recently had a warranty issue with turbo failures on their performance variant. This was caused by the oil (the same as used in the base non-turbo model) overheating and leaving carbon deposits on the bearing journal surfaces.

The engine had been in production for 4 years before they decided to call in the oil company, who at once suggested that they switch to a fully synthetic blend. During this time, they had not once thought to seek advice from their EU arm who of course have a raft of turbo Diesel applications. Apparently, someone had suggested previously that fully synthetic oil be the way to go, but it was rejected...due to cost. Needless to say, the cost of turbo warranty far outweighed the increase in the cost of the oil to the engine plant.

If it were my car and I wasn't able or were unwilling to do the work myself, I'd buy the oil and THEN take the car to the garage to get it changed. Dealerships are, at best, only staffed by humans afterall...

On the subject of early oil chages per se, they are generally not required these days due to the tolerances achieved in engine manufacturer, in the same manner that valve lapping is a thing of the past on mass produced engines.

The exception to the rule is normally reserved for more specialist applications such as Bruce's Caterham, where an element of work/fettling is done post-mass production. Unless this is done by a VERY good machine shop (and I'm talking F1 standards) an early oil and filter change to remove swarf is advisable.

I'll shut-up now.

regards Jon

So... Did you change it early or not?
Just do it if it makes you feel better.
What can it hurt?
David

It is certainly true that new engines nowadays are far better tolleranced than even new engines were twenty years ago. But they are still assembled and presumably there are things in there which would be better flushed away with the first oil change.

In 1961 my father had the crank shells replaced without a regrind on a [P4] Rover 75 [2.1 litres six cylinder "F" head engine], and the idiots put the shells in the wrong way round so that there was no lubication at all beyond the special grease used in assembly! The car survived, completely unscathed, the 14 mile drive home, apparently. The Hereford based Rover garage collected the car and rebuilt the engine again, simply changing the shells. I cannot imagine any modern engine surviving this treatment!

A P4 Rover Seventy five:



ATB from Fredrik

PS Another old engine factoid: When I was rebuilding my old 1941 Model CO Royal Enfield, I read in the workshop manual, that the way to test the "big end" was to remove the "iron" cylinder barrel from the "aluminium" sump housing, and pull on the piston at TDC, then push, and if a definate movement could be felt it was time to fit a new big end shell! On that old 350 cc single cylinder engine, the shell and bearing journal cam as a matched pair, matched for clearance! It all bolted together. The oil was force-fed by a pair of tiny cylinder pumps at the glorious oil pressure of 10 psi! Up to 30 psi might be measured when the engine is cold, but equally no pressure at all might be measured with a hot engine on tick-over. Hard to imagine such precision nowadays! The engines in careful hands could do up to 90,000 miles between rebuilds, but did not like to run at the top speed of 70 miles an hour for more than a few minutes before melt down occured! The oil was forced into the drilling in the crank end via a small alloy tube running in a cork seal! The actual seals on the crank case were made of that felt not seen within a mile of a modern engine. The oil change was recomended at 500 to 1000 miles! But you certainly had topped up most of the sump contents in the meantime. Filter changes [another felt device!] were recomended every 10,000 miles. I imagine all it did was stop any swarf finding its way into the big end, and main bearings which were roller ball bearings. The enginbe did not burn much oil. Most of it leaked out!

On my Enfield CO:

Hi munch!

Not in the Rover though! It was fantastically slow, but virtually silent except in first gear which was noisy like reverse!

A car from another age, and bit like my old bike them! Actially modern engine oils have such strong detergents in them that they would ruin the bearings in the old Enfield! Castrol still make suitable oil...

ATB from Fredrik

Jon

I can figure out the car you describe above; won't mention any badges, of course! Thanks for the insight into manufacturing. The 'remove cost' is a consistent theme in talking to motor industry manufacturing insiders. Funny how so many think the last model is always the best.

cheers

quote:

Originally posted by Rico:
Funny how so many think the last model is always the best.

In theory it should be as car design and manufacture is more often than not an evolutionary process whereby the previous is iterated to the current. Successful cars that stand out from this are the original Ford Focus, the first Subaru Impreza and the Lotus Elise (and many more). Cars that fall foul that spring to mind are the Mk3 Golf and the second Range Rover...

It's a difficult balance for the manufacturers because we, as customers, demand more for our money. Cars grow to provide more space, become heavier to achieve more stringent crash protection, and change form (both aesthetically and mechanically) to meet the latest legislations.

I think removing costs traverses other industries, but is most evident in automobiles. If you index link the price of a car from 20 years ago, and compare it to the price of the current variant, you'll see that cars are cheaper now than they ever have been. Factor in the increase in "stuff" a car can do, and it's amazing that car companies still make money.

Oh, hold on a minute, they don't...*

* - sweeping generalisation for the benefit of poetic licence.