15,000 mile oil change

[Skinny Shooter]

My chevy has been purring along on special WD-40 for many years now...
Its got the special applicator straw too. No funnel needed.

[fabsroman]

Skinny,

Are you serious about the WD-40? I have a couple gallons of it and it would probably clean out the motor pretty well, but I want to make sure that you aren't joking about it before I try to put 5 quarts of WD-40 in my motor.

On another note, my brother didn't change the oil in his F-150 for about 20,000 miles and the oil came out like sludge. In fact, it didn't even start to drain until a screwdriver was poked up into the drain hole.

[BILLY D.]

Skinny and Fabs

You guys are starting to scare me.

Bill

[Skinny Shooter]

Fabs, just kidding.

[popplecop]

For more years than I care to remember, change every 3,000 miles and rotate tires every other oil change. Has worked well for me.

[skeeter@ccia.com]

Good post here. Important one too. With the oil situation in the world and all.....Maybe we could save enough by cutting down on the 2 or 3,000 mile changes and extending them to say 5,000 to make a difference. Point being with the new tec of today's world I don't see that an extra g or so would make that much difference. I don't think saving oil by getting 2 times the miles between changes would bring oil prices down any but it is still food for thought..
OK with that said and quite a few years under the belt messing with cars and trucks I will say the most important thing here is the FILTER change. That IS the most important thing to get done. Now you can get 5 or 6 or maybe even more out of your oil between changes. Fabs, I know where you are going with the 'if you want it done right, do it yourself' thing. I know too many 'kids' that get jobs in the local 10 min oil change stations to feel good about going there. Even those stories of them forgetting to put any oil back in the car. Besides that you get a chance to look around while under there at everything else. Maybe find a bolt out somewhere...that you don't get at a lube shop. Some here know that in the past I have said some harsh things about Fords and that is because I have been a dedicated ford product owner most of my life...lets see..Ford truck, thunderbird, 3 Lincolns, 2 full size broncos, and I changed oil in each and every one I owned by at least 3,000 miles and still each of these had at least one motor change and some had 3 motor changes in them before the body fell off them....I don't think we need to change oil in our cars as often as they want us to now days....they just want you in the garage....Oh and the best add I put in the paper was ' Lincoln for sale...buy one get one free..' I cleaned my garage of all the old ford parts laying around and now own a Dodge....my second one at that....and I didn't even NEED to get rid of the first one.
I have to say this too....While on a bear hunt this June in Canada (yes got one) there were 6 dodge trucks parked in a row in front of the cabin one day...3 belonged to the guide and his wife....we had to leave one day to rescue the only ford being driven by the other guide with his hunters back in the woods..hum..anyone learning anything here?....anyhow...back to the original post item...oil changes are good but I think we can get more miles between them than the old days...just use a good filter and keep the it changed....and don't buy a Fix Or Repair Daily.....or you will be Found On Road Dead.

[TreeDoc]

Amsoil is the bomb. I've been running it for years. If I run out, I'll substitute with Mobil 1. I spin on a new filter every 3000 miles and only use a high quality filter like Wix, Purolater, or Amsoil. Stay away from the Fram crap. Just cause every store in the world sell the orange filter doesn't mean it's good.

The synthetic stuff is for real. I have a friend who runs a Courier business. If you have a corporate office in San Francisco and have Payroll or that special document or package that needs to be in Los Angeles that afternoon, you call this guy's company. They run a fleet of small pickups and they pay their drivers 7.50 an hour to do it. You can't expect many employees to take care of your stuff for that kind of coin. In their new trucks, he runs a non-detergent oil (against factory recommendation) right up till the point the truck stops burning oil and the rings are well seated. They then go to Amsoil purchased in 55 gallon drums along with Amsoil filters. Most of his rigs are a couple years old right now. He does not have one with less than 300,000 miles on it. Not one has had an engine opened up. This has been going on for years. Even with rigs at 500k, they've never had a motor failure.

The aircraft analogy works to an extent but remember, they're doing oil analysis on those powerplants and there's always TBO (Time Between Overhaul) which you don't see on a car! Your also dealing with air cooled engines.

[gumpokc]

Hey guys, dont know how i missed this thread.

As some of you remember i work for a Exxon/Mobil distributor.

Alot of good points in here, but the thing you have to remember is this:

Almost every manufacturer has to produce their product with a certain amount of "numbnuts" factor built in.

Because some "numbnuts" is going to completely disreguard what the instructions are, then gripe and moan and sue because they are too stupid to follow instructions.

So 6-10k miles oil changes become 3-6k miles. That way, even "numbnuts" is covered.

another thing is that alot of the newer, higher milage engines are going to much tighter tolerances, high rpm's, and higher operating temps. This does increase the stress the oils are subjected too.

Sure some people take advantage of this stuff, manufacturers/dealers/mechanics etc etc but that happens in every business there is, and you just have to learnt ot watch for those people.

MOst conventional oils are good for 10k miles with no problem, _if_ you keep the filter clean.

Most synthetics are good for anywhere from 10-=50k miles, again if you keep them clean.

Just use common sense, Mr. numbnuts doesn't, and he's the reason so much looks weird, we know the oil is good for longer, but to protect themselves, the producers have to figure in all the "Mr. numbnuts" to protect themselves.

Ok now your going to say, but thats common sense, numbnuts would lose if he sued...think again....remember mcdonalds coffee?
remember the numbnuts who laid down in front of the train protesting , got his legs cutoff, then sued and won because the train had no right to move while he was on the tracks. (even though the train was already moving when he laid down ahead of it)

common sense isn't very common anymore, and pure stupidity is running rampant, as well as greed and apathy.

That's what is causing so many things to become the way they are.

[fabsroman]

Okay, I know nothing about the train accident, but I am so tired of hearing about the McDonald's lawsuit being a crock. An 81 year old lady suffered third degree burns to her legs and her groin, and McDonalds didn't want to settle her claim, even though they had settled 700+ claims for coffee burns in previous years, some of which had resulted in third degree burns. McDonalds serves their coffee at 180 degrees. Somehow, I don't think any of us can drink coffee that is 180 degrees, but I could be wrong.

Here is a link to some info on that case, and the jury's feelings once they saw photos of the lady's burns.

http://www.vanfirm.com/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit.htm

We pass judgment without knowing much about things. We do it with politics, because we don't have the time to do the research. I am guilty of that myself. Without knowing everything or close to everything about the McDonalds coffee case, we shouldn't be expressing opinions on it. Yes, some verdicts look insane on their face, but sometimes there are reasons for them. Keep in mind that most of these high dollar verdicts are the result of jury decisions. These are decisions made by the general public, people like ourselves.

[TreeDoc]

Still seems outlandish, afterall, what's an 81 year old lady gonna need her groin for?







Brought to you by another TreeDoc Tangent

[skeet]

But she was saving herself for you TD!!! Good grief..I just hadda say it. Da devil made me say it!! Who dat??!!

[gumpokc]

Fabs, we're going to disagree here.

Yes that verdict was complete and utter BS.

Yes i am framilier with the case and the information.

Go back to the court transcripts that were all over the internet immediately afterwards.

She liked McDonalds coffee, why? because it had better flavor and smell, her words not mine.

It had that because of the brewing process, which was 195-205 degrees, and had been for decades.

So now we have lil ole granma, getting coffee in her car at the drivethrough, she pulled off, opened the cup with it sittign in her lap, spilled it and burned herself.

Hello? coffee is hot, if you spill it you'll burn yourself.
Common sense says, you dont open a hot container in your lap.

checkout this chart too.

Table 2. Scald Time (Hot Water)

Temperature Max duration until injury
155F (68.3C) 1 second
145F (62.9C) 3 seconds
135F (57.2C) 10 seconds
130F (54.4C) 30 seconds
125F (51.6C) 2 minutes
120F (48.8C) 5 minutes


People who said it was "too hot" are simply stupid.
reread your own posted article Fabs, look for the spot at the top were it talked about testing other resturants coffee temps.

Now notice it said none came closer than 20 degrees of MickieD's pouring temp of 180 degrees.

Now look at that chart, 180-20=160.....hmmm she still would have been scalded before she could have done anything.

Even if we dropped the temp 50 degrees (at which point most everyone would throw it out for being too cold), she still would have been scalded before she could have removed her clothing.

So, no matter where she went for coffee, if she had done exactly the same thing, she would have been scalded.

"but she had third degree burns" complete and utter BS.
If she had them, she got them from somewhere else.

I have had boiling grease (making frybread) poured into my lap on accident, and i was not burned as badly as she was.

This next may sound callous, but it's true.
The severity of the injury has nothing at all to do with whomever was at fault, only in determineation of damages.

Lack of common sense and simply being stupid are major determining factors in fault though, and were not followed in this case.

The prosecution played the jury like a fiddle, using poor lil ole granny to arouse their sympathy.

and Fabs, you dont drink 180 degree coffee, thats the holding temp. Once it is poured it begins to cool, just like your steak, you dont eat it at it's cooking temp either.

[fabsroman]

Gumpokc,

There is a difference between scalding and third degree burns. Find me a chart that will show at what temp water causes third degree burns and then we can compare apples to apples.

While it wasn't hot grease, I did spill a pot of boiling water down my groin and legs once while making pasta. I never got out of my clothes so fast in my life, and both of my sisters were in the room and I didn't even bat an eye about them seeing me naked. It was hot!!!!!! I jumped in the shower immediately and let cold water run over it. Then, I spent the rest of the night with ice packs all around my legs and groin. Last but not least, I was 18 and not 81. Something tells me that as you get older, you get frailer, but I could be completely wrong about that since I haven't hit 81 yet. Then again, this issue is also discussed in the article, wherein it is stated that a doctor testified that as you get older, your skin gets thinner and you are much more susceptable to being burned. Maybe McDonalds shouldn't serve 180 degree coffee to people over 50.

What I also find hilarious is that you say she couldn't have gotten third degree burns from coffee because coffee isn't that hot. Me, I ask how hot was the coffee that it caused third degree burns? Maybe this coffee was hotter than 180, but nobody really knows how hot it was because a temp wasn't taken just before it was spilled in her lap. So, maybe it was hotter than 180, which wouldn't surprise me. According to the article, coffee at 190+ degrees can cause 3rd degree burns in 1 second, whereas coffee at 160 degrees would be around 10+ seconds, giving the person enough time to take their clothes off.

I am assuming that you are using this quote from that article:

"When a law firm here found itself defending McDonald's Corp. in a suit last year that claimed the company served dangerously hot coffee, it hired a law student to take temperatures at other local restaurants for comparison.

After dutifully slipping a thermometer into steaming cups and mugs all over the city, Danny Jarrett found that none came closer than about 20 degrees to the temperature at which McDonald's coffee is poured, about 180 degrees."

Notice that none were higher than 160 degrees, but that doesn't mean that they weren't less than 160. It just means that McDonalds had everybody beat by at least 20 degrees, and possibly more for others.

I also like this quote from the article:

"Some observers wonder why McDonald's, after years of settling coffee-burn cases, chose to take this one to trial. After all, the plaintiff was a sympathetic figure - an articulate, 81-year-old former department store clerk who said under oath that she had never filed suit before. In fact, she said, she never would have filed this one if McDonald's hadn't dismissed her requests for compensation for pain and medical bills with an offer of $800."

"As the trial date approached, McDonald's declined to settle. At one point, Mr. Morgan says he offered to drop the case for $300,000, and was willing to accept half that amount."

"Only days before the trial, Judge Scott ordered both sides to attend a mediation session. The mediator, a retired judge, recommended that McDonald's settle for $225,000, saying a jury would be likely to award that amount. The company didn't follow his recommendation."

McDonalds rolled the dice and lost. The plaintiff wasn't looking to win the lottery, just something for her physical damages and medical bills.

If I were in her shoes and McDonalds offered me $800 to settle that claim, I would have been pissed.

What I really like about the article, and what most people don't understand, is the way the damages were determined. Here it is:

"Then the six men and six women decided on compensatory damages of $200,000, which they reduced to $160,000 after determining that 20% of the fault belonged with Mrs. Liebeck for spilling the coffee.

The jury then found that McDonald's had engaged in willful, reckless, malicious or wanton conduct, the basis for punitive damages. Mr. Morgan had suggested penalizing McDonald's the equivalent of one to two days of companywide coffee sales, which he estimated at $1.35 million a day. During the four-hour deliberation, a few jurors unsuccessfully argued for as much as $9.6 million in punitive damages. But in the end, the jury settled on $2.7 million."

The jury initially awarded her $200,000 for compensatory damages (e.g., pain and suffering, medical costs, and lost time from work if she were working), which it reduced to $160,000 for the plaintiff's contributory negligence (i.e., her being clumsy and spillig it in her lap). Then, the jury awarded the plaintiff $2.7 million for punitive damages. Punitive damages are awarded to punish a company, and not to make a plaintiff whole. For instance, when a company does a actuary analysis of how much money they will save by not using fire retardant material in kids pajamas and the actuary comes back with it being more profitable to use the non-fire retardant fabric becuase only W number of kids will catch fire, only X number will sue, damages will only be Y and the cost of the fire retardant fabric is Z which is a number that is larger than Y. The problem is that the punitive damages have to go to somebody, and it just happens to be the plaintiff.

To put it in a perspective that this board might understand a little better, how would you feel if a gun manufacturer knew that some of its guns had a defect in them, and that some people would be hurt by the defects, but it decided not to recall the defective guns because it would cost more to fix all those guns than it would cost to defend and settle lawsuits for those that got hurt? Now, if you are one of the people hurt by this defective gun, I am sure you would have rather it never happen than have to go through the headache of trying to receive some money from the manufacturer in an attempt to make you whole again.

We will have to agree to disagree on the McDonalds coffee lawsuit. As far as I am concerned, it is completely forseeable that in serving billions of cups of coffee, some of them might get spilled on people, and if you make the coffee too hot, then people might get burned and burned pretty badly.

[TreeDoc]

...and this bullchit has what to do with a 15,000 mile oil change?

[fabsroman]

Absolutely nothing. Just one of my famous tangents that I have gone off on. We went from 15,000 mile oil change, to numnuts and the McDonalds lawsuite, and eventually we will get back to the McDonalds lawsuit is the entire reason why the dealer and manufacturer has to recommend 3,000 mile oil changes because numnuts that would normally spill coffee in their lap will not get there oil changed regularly enough if the dealer/manufacturer recommended 5,000 or 10,000 mile oil changes.

I have 2,500 miles on my current oil in a car with 167,000 miles on it, and the oil is still gold. I am seriously thinking about going to 10,000 mile oil changes with filter changes at 5,000 miles. I also have a magnet that I attach to the filter so that it catches even the smallest pieces of metal that the filter might miss. That magnet wasn't cheap either.

What do you guys think about magnets on the side of the oil filter?