Originally Posted by Shannow
Originally Posted by Patman
I don't believe "planned obsolescence" is something that automakers do, for the reasons I've already explained.
Design life IS a consideration in anything...in Eng design we were taught that you need to consider carfully the end use.
* selling to industrial customers - they don't want unplanned shutdowns
* selling to retail customers...they have to like it, and breakdown has to be beyond the point that they remember how much they paid for it and when they bought it, such that they almost look forward to the refresh and update.
Now to cars
In the '60s, Ford worked with Castrol to design a "fill for life" on a 25,000 mile life "disposable" low end vehicle. Castrol looked at it and told them that leaving the oil in for the 25,000 miles virtually fulfilled that need, both from getting to 25,000 miles, and not greatly exceeding that in a throwaway vehicle. Note to OP before he takes my comments and twists them...this is regular off the shelf oil in a purposely designed low end vehicle...not a comment on Amsoil, mobil and marketing claims.
Honda, in their papers refer to lower viscosities with "improved" efficiency/CO2 while "still providing acceptable" longevity.
GM tried to argue that 180,000km was the design life of a Commodore, and as such, regulations to limit operation of them beyond that point should be implemented (similar to Japan), and that life extension should be frowned on - that was purely to sell more cars, so bunk argument.
Design life IS an issue...but not many of us BITOGers have ever driven a car to the junkyard, so it's a factor that few of US ever worry about.
Interesting. For the sake of argument, did they do studies to see what impact changing the oil at 12,500 miles would have in those applications, and/or 6,250 miles would have? I'd be interested in the results, they could really open up a can of worms......
