 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Maintenance and Repair / April 2007Engine failure caused by lack of oil changes?
Yes, this is effectively the same thread about oil change intervals, but different... I'd like to hear from people who have a car with less than 100,000 miles and have had internal engine problems that would have been possibly traceable back to lack of oil changes. I'm a 3mo/3,000mile guy, but am starting to wonder if I'm wasting my time, because I've owned a lot of cars, most of them beaters, and had a lot of stuff break, but the only street car I've had with internal engine damage was my Fiero where the timing gear went - and that was probably more due to sustained high speed running than oil changes. Stuff that's not "eligible" would be any external engine components such as water pumps and alternators. Also not eligible would be broken exhaust manifolds, oil contamination due to intake or head gasket leaks. I had one friend who blew the engine in a Sunfire (97ish) at about 20,000 miles. Was knocking pretty good... Apparently he'd never quite gotten around to changing the oil. Not sure if he'd ever checked it either. Needless to say GM didn't warranty it. I guess I'm curious as to how much of an issue it is - I'm starting to think that it's a whole lot less of an issue than it used to be - my buddy's Nova is running a 350 from a 76 Chevelle that's still on it's original rings... Ray Hey, Bad news for your buddy, but he should have checked the oil, especially in a new car. You need to take care of your car's oil, especially when its new. During the break in period (0 - 30,000miles) you need to baby your car. If he drove it like a race car without ever checking oil, I'd never let him near mine. You should check oil at least once every week, if not more if you have a leak. changing oil actually depends on how and where you drive. If you drive at highway speeds for most of your miles, you can probably go more than 3,000 miles, more like 5,000 to 6,000 miles, but if your mostly cities driving, like stop and go all the time, 3,000 miles is about right. Not checking and changing your oil is a very bad idea. oil gets contaminated, dirt and grime and stuff like that can easily clog an old filter. ALL of your oil goes through the filter and if it gets clogged, you dont have any oil goin to vital parts. your motors toast then. check it at least once a week and watch for the chance of a puddle under the car. make sure to change filter along with the oil. Air filter is also a good idea to change with the oil.  Signaturej bondo > Hey, Bad news for your buddy, but he should have checked the oil, especially > in a new car. You need to take care of your car's oil, especially when its [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > filter along with the oil. Air filter is also a good idea to change with the > oil. <sigh> Yes, that's nice... I wasn't looking for WHEN to change the oil in my cars, I have that all in a spreadsheet thanks. I'm looking for people who've actually suffered engine damage (or just plain wore out in less than 100,000 miles) that could have been prevented by changing the oil more often. It was a thought brought on by the "automakers lengthen oil change intervals" thread - everyone has an opinion on WHEN to change, but it's all "best guess" or what the mfr says. I don't know about the old days, but when was the last time anyone actually had to re-ring an engine before the rest of the car was totally worn out? Ray ><sigh> >Yes, that's nice... I wasn't looking for WHEN to change the oil in my >cars, I have that all in a spreadsheet thanks. I'm looking for people >who've actually suffered engine damage (or just plain wore out in less >than 100,000 miles) that could have been prevented by changing the oil >more often. Every time you get behind a car that is burning as much oil as gas, you're seeing a cat that has suffered engine damage. news <rollingviolation@domain.invalid.com> wrote in news:TLYQh.29653 $aG1.14921@pd7urf3no: > Yes, this is effectively the same thread about oil change intervals, but > different... > > I'd like to hear from people who have a car with less than 100,000 miles > and have had internal engine problems that would have been possibly > traceable back to lack of oil changes. Two incidents personally known to me: 1) Toyota Previa minivan: Purchased new by a salesman for a customer of mine. Engine locked up at about 25-40K miles (I forget exactly now). Ran dry of oil. Oil never changed. Factory oil filter still attached. Remainder of oil in pan was like butter; pickup screen completely blocked. Toyota paid for labor, he paid for new engine. 2) Dodge Durango: Purchased new by doctor at my brother-in-law's dealership. Same as Toyota incident above. Chrysler cut same deal for owner as Toyota did. Doctor swore he had changed the oil, but factory filter was still attached to engine & engine was badly sludged up. Oil pickup screen plugged solid. SignatureTegger > news <rollingviolation@domain.invalid.com> wrote in news:TLYQh.29653 > $aG1.14921@pd7urf3no: [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > still attached to engine & engine was badly sludged up. Oil pickup screen > plugged solid. ok, so so far we've concluded 25,000 miles is too long to go without an oil and filter change. Also, driving 3 quarts low all the time seems to be a bad thing. ;) Yikes. > ok, so so far we've concluded 25,000 miles is too long to go without an > oil and filter change. > Also, driving 3 quarts low all the time seems to be a bad thing. ;) > > Yikes. Who knew? I'm aghast. Sheesh, the dumb things people do. And I include getting in a royal panic if they miss a 3000 mile change interval as being just as stoopid (well, ALMOST) as leaving the factory oil in for 50k miles. There used to be a poster here that had an old Ford Escort with over 300,000 miles and never changed the oil. He'd change the filter once a year and made sure the oil level was full. I never knew anyone to destroy an engine from lack of oil changes. harryface 05 Park Avenue 54,709 91 Bonneville 309, 180 >There used to be a poster here that had an old Ford Escort with over >300,000 miles and never changed the oil. He'd change the filter once a >year and made sure the oil level was full. >I never knew anyone to destroy an engine from lack of oil changes. you must live in a cave. >> There used to be a poster here that had an old Ford Escort with over >> 300,000 miles and never changed the oil. He'd change the filter once a >> year and made sure the oil level was full. > >> I never knew anyone to destroy an engine from lack of oil changes. > you must live in a cave. well, I don't, but the only people I know who've had engine problems that can be traced back to lack of changes are those who've gone 20-25,000 miles between changes and seem to be always 2 quarts low. But... I'm not a mechanic, just a diy-er and car guy who's gone with the 3mo/3000 mile changes because it's cheap insurance, but now I'm starting to wonder if I'm wasting my time and money because it seems like even if I changed the oil every 7500 miles the engine would probably still outlast the rest of the car. (and that is why I started this thread, not to beat a dead horse over change intervals, but to see who's actually had major engine problems that could have been prevented with more frequent oil changes.) It also seems that automatic transmission failure is a lot more common than engine failure. Ray > But... I'm not a mechanic, just a diy-er and car guy who's gone with the > 3mo/3000 mile changes because it's cheap insurance, but now I'm starting [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > actually had major engine problems that could have been prevented with > more frequent oil changes.) ********As several of us have said before, it is your car - do whatever makes you happy. From my perspective, oil changes have two main detractors...expense and time/inconvenience. I see the expense as being minimal, and I can change the oil in 15-20 minutes. If either of those detractors should become a major item, I can always revise my oil change schedule. > It also seems that automatic transmission failure is a lot more common > than engine failure. *********That has been my experience as well, Ray. I feel that if I change fluids and filter, and perform any other required service as specified by the manufacturer, then I have a fair chance of a reasonable life from the tranny. I have only had two tranny failures so far, one on an old 57 Thunderbird (a consequence of its age and technology), and a 440T4 in an 89 Buick Regal. I serviced the Buick religiously, and it failed at 100,000 miles. Tranny shop told me that was pretty good.....most of them didnt make it that far. If it were my choice alone, I would go with a 4, 5, or 6 speed manual. A clutch change is often a lot easier and cheaper than being stranded on the road awaiting an automatic tranny rebuild or replacement. My wife, however, does not feel the same...and I have learned to pick my battles (so has she). We never argue...we communicate, plan, and cooperate. >> But... I'm not a mechanic, just a diy-er and car guy who's gone with the >> 3mo/3000 mile changes because it's cheap insurance, but now I'm starting [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > makes you > happy. I don't want to be happy, I want to stop wasting my time and money if doubling my oil change interval means the car will still last 20 years and 200,000 miles before dying. And I'll still keep changing the oil after every race in my race car and every three months in my Trans Am. Everyone has an opinion, I'm trying to confuse them with facts. :) >> It also seems that automatic transmission failure is a lot more common >> than engine failure. > > *********That has been my experience as well, Ray. I feel that if I change > fluids and Yeah, I've owned a lot of old beaters, and have had my share of auto tranny failures in them. 82 Caravelle, bought in 94 for $400 - 727 Torqueflite (or 904 I can't remember...) bought the car in the winter, didn't notice it slipping. Real embarrassing when you can't make it up a parking garage ramp... fixed for $100 (used trans.) 70 Buick, bought in 96 for $125... trans had a cracked case or something, would leak when hot, went through 9L of fluid to get home when it finally puked, swapped for $200 - ever try finding a BOP bolt patter TH350 with a 12" tail? And, the wife's Beretta lunched the TH125 in 99 shortly after the TCC system failed. > If it were my choice alone, I would go with a 4, 5, or 6 speed manual. A > clutch change is often > a lot easier and cheaper than being stranded on the road awaiting an > automatic tranny rebuild I'm a stick guy as well. The truck is a stick, the Trans Am is a stick, even the family Subaru wagon is a stick. My dirt track Camaro was a factory 4 speed, but it's an auto because of the rules. I have to replace the clutch in my TA this year - that's gonna be fun... how much does a T56 weigh? (The T5 + transfer case from my old Jimmy musta weighed more than the TH350 from my race car.) Ray > Yes, this is effectively the same thread about oil change intervals, but > different... > > I'd like to hear from people who have a car with less than 100,000 miles > and have had internal engine problems that would have been possibly > traceable back to lack of oil changes. I had an 88 ford festiva that belonged to my wife before we were married. I changed the oil at 75k as routine maintenance, and then not again untill 100k. i sold it with 120k on it to a friend (who knew its history). That was 7 years ago and it is still being driven. An oil analysis will tell you if your interval is too long or short. > An oil analysis will tell you if your interval is too long or short. For the price of an oil analysis, you can change the oil... I see no economy in that. The only thing that will ever offer direct proof in this argument is long term data with lots of "population" to the experiment, statistical analysis...anything else is trivial. It's your car...Do what you want with it. > I guess I'm curious as to how much of an issue it is - I'm starting to > think that it's a whole lot less of an issue than it used to be - my > buddy's Nova is running a 350 from a 76 Chevelle that's still on it's > original rings... I don't think it's as much as an issue as it used to be either...but... I can tell you that in my experience as a mechanic for the last 25 or so years....almost every engine I've seen that has had a massive failure did not appear to be well maintained as far as oil change intervals. On the other hand, I make a habit of driving 100 dollar beater cars (K-cars) until they die. I change the oil whenever I feel like it, which isn't that often. I have yet to have any of the motors "blow up" on me. Any new vehicles that I've owned (I usually always have one good one for the wife), I'm very particular about changing the oil very regularly. I've never had one instance of engine failure, small or large. Another observation I have made.........either engines are better made these days, or the oil is better....because when I take engines apart these days.....items like cylinder wall wear is almost non-existant. That wasn't the case in the 80's. So that would be a point for longer oil change intervals. It's your vehicle, your investment...it's up to you how you protect it! Ian >Yes, this is effectively the same thread about oil change intervals, but >different... [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > >Ray Aside from the odd cases like the Toyota's that were poorly designed and sludged up in just a few thousand miles I don't think you'll find much support for oil related issues causing engine problems. Aside from you perhaps, no one is going to change their mind in spite of years of evidence that you don't need to change the oil anywhere near as often as the 3000 mile nonsense. We have hundreds and hundreds of vehicles in our fleet and they get changed at 6000 mile intervals. We just don't see engine failures from oil problems. Sure, occasionally something BREAKS in an engine, but wear out, doesn't happen till you are past at least 150K and more likely 250K for the majority. Changing the oil at 3000 miles is not going to stop a defective rod from breaking. > Yes, this is effectively the same thread about oil change intervals, but > different... > > I'd like to hear from people who have a car with less than 100,000 miles > and have had internal engine problems that would have been possibly > traceable back to lack of oil changes. Three stories, not exactly fitting the criteria. In the late 70s, a guy I worked with bought a new Honda Civic with all sorts of dress-up options on it, then proceeded to drive the *%#$ out of the car. A year later, he had 25,000 miles on it, had never changed the oil, and was happy because he was getting a company car the next day. Then the engine blew! A couple who should have known better had owned a Jimmy for a few years. Never changed the oil, just topped it up when the oil got low. A friend told them that was bad, and they should get the oil changed. They did. A few days later, the engine died. No oil pressure. Seems the new oil cleaned out those sludge-laden oil passages. My own car. A 1980 Toyota Corolla. Serviced by the book when new (oil changes every 10,000 kms; 6,000 miles) and less so when old. It was 11 years old, and had 292,000 kms on it (~175,000 miles). Lots of hard driving. It had been using oil for some time, and my ex (then wife) was driving it all the time. Every so often she would tell me 'oh, by the way, the oil light has been on the last few days'. This meant the oil was down two litres or more. A few days after it was serviced, it was running beautifully, then - arghhh - it turned a bearing. Dan (This account is not used for email.) |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.