How may people keep a car for a long time...

[ls1mike]

Originally Posted By: oliveoil
Picky, picky pick. [censored] OEJ (OP) has been changing a few parts and keeping the little car running as a DD! Good for him. I bet he has saved thousands. Really we all change parts, internal or external, who really cares. Good maintenance and careful operation is the key to a long life, beit an automobile or human being.


Yes picky picky. We have said that is not the sticking point.
Changing internal parts because your cars burn enough oil to not pass emissions is not maintenance it is a repair.

No one is saying it is not an accomplishment or he should get a new car. I think people are arguing over the difference between proper maintenance and a repair.

Maintenance: Tune up, fluid changes, filter changer, valve adjustment, timing belt replacement.

Repair: Replacing rings, replacing bearings, replacing tie rod ends etc...

Get it?

If we are going to say replacing bearings in a Transmission and replacing worn rings in an engine is maintenance than so are lot of things. Replacing intake gaskets, replacing whiney rear ends, pulleys because they squeak.

So I guess the question needs to be asked. What is maintenance and what is a repair?

 

[oliveoil]

Well parts are parts. Maintenance or repair.

 

[ls1mike]

So a filter and oil change is the same as bearings in a part or rings in a motor?

Have you ever pulled a motor to do rings vs doing an oil change?
This site gets goofier everyday.

 

[CKN]

Originally Posted By: ls1mike
So a filter and oil change is the same as bearings in a part or rings in a motor?

Have you ever pulled a motor to do rings vs doing an oil change?
This site gets goofier everyday.


Agree!

 

[HTSS_TR]

Originally Posted By: ls1mike
Maintenance: Tune up, fluid changes, filter changer, valve adjustment, timing belt replacement.

Repair: Replacing rings, replacing bearings, replacing tie rod ends etc...
...

So I guess the question needs to be asked. What is maintenance and what is a repair?

I agree that fluids (oil, ATF, PSF, brake fluid, antifreeze ...), filter(s), spark plugs ... are maintenance items that are needed to do regularly to keep the car running in proper state.

But other items such as starter motor, radiator, water pump, muffler, O2 sensors ... are they maintenance items or repair items ? Those items may not needed to be replaced until it broke, so that they are not really maintenance items, but nothing lasted forever so can we say that those are wear and tear items along with windshield wiper blades, brake rotors and pads, light bulbs ...

 

[SteveSRT8]

Originally Posted By: oliveoil
Well parts are parts. Maintenance or repair.


Mike, you nailed it!

The above quote is a bizarre statement IMO. In maintaining both a fleet of commercial trucks and a personal stable I do a ton of maintenance and repairs. In my world they are completely different.

Routinely running a lot of vehicles to insane high mileages will do that to ya. Maintenance is outlined in an owners manual. It specifies what should be serviced or changed in an interval.

Repair is almost always unscheduled, whereas maintenance is scheduled. That's my definition...

 

[SteveSRT8]

Originally Posted By: Mykl
In an antique collector car that has the "numbers matching" title, do the owners care if sub components like bearings, rings, etc have been replaced or is that a sin? If they do care, I see your point, if they don't care then why should we?


I dabble in collectibles, most folks are EXTREMELY fussy about whatever has been done to a valuable car. This is proven by the ridiculous prices paid for barn finds that are still rusty!

Also proven by NOS parts prices. Absolutely we DO care about anything that has been changed out.

I think anyone would agree a rebuilt engine is not always a good thing. Has a LOT to do with who did the work!

 

[exranger06]

If a part broke, failed, malfunctioned, or just plain wore out (leaking seals, worn piston rings, loose ball joints, etc) and you need to replace that part, it's a repair. Consumable items like brake pads, tires, batteries, etc are an exception.

Maintenance is something you do to a vehicle when it's still running/functioning perfectly fine, in order to PREVENT a part from failing and needing a repair. e.g. performing an oil change will prevent sludge formation and engine damage, thus preventing engine REPAIRS, thus an oil change is considered MAINTENANCE.

Replacing non-consumable items before they fail as a preventative measure could be considered "maintenance," although I prefer the term "waste of time and money."

 

[Olas]

Originally Posted By: exranger06


Replacing non-consumable items before they fail as a preventative measure could be considered "maintenance," although I prefer the term "waste of time and money."


Waiting for non-consumable items to fail before you replace them is an option, but I don't like the idea of being stranded at the roadside with a broken down vehicle, having to wait (and maybe pay) for recovery, and then replacing the failed components. I consider that a waste of time and money.

 

[Mykl]

Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
I dabble in collectibles, most folks are EXTREMELY fussy about whatever has been done to a valuable car. This is proven by the ridiculous prices paid for barn finds that are still rusty!

Also proven by NOS parts prices. Absolutely we DO care about anything that has been changed out.

I think anyone would agree a rebuilt engine is not always a good thing. Has a LOT to do with who did the work!


Certainly, when it comes to high dollar antique collectible vehicles the owner/purchaser should be extremely picky concerning the details.

But if you came across a 1967 GT500 that had bearings, rings, and other internal seals replaced and that work was performed by a reputable shop, would the classic car industry still consider that car to be original?

 

[supton]

Originally Posted By: Olas
Originally Posted By: exranger06


Replacing non-consumable items before they fail as a preventative measure could be considered "maintenance," although I prefer the term "waste of time and money."


Waiting for non-consumable items to fail before you replace them is an option, but I don't like the idea of being stranded at the roadside with a broken down vehicle, having to wait (and maybe pay) for recovery, and then replacing the failed components. I consider that a waste of time and money.


Which is why many chose to replace the vehicle "while it's still running" rather than hitting a wall suddenly when it stops moving or is barely moving. Especially if they a) don't have a backup vehicle and/or plan, and b) they have to pay for labor.

I think most(?) of us would agree that replacing after 50k to avoid repairs is foolish (unless if one has money to burn); where it gets dicey is just when it's ok to do so to avoid the threat of downtime. 150k, 200k, 250k, 300k?

 

[supton]

Originally Posted By: Mykl
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
I dabble in collectibles, most folks are EXTREMELY fussy about whatever has been done to a valuable car. This is proven by the ridiculous prices paid for barn finds that are still rusty!

Also proven by NOS parts prices. Absolutely we DO care about anything that has been changed out.

I think anyone would agree a rebuilt engine is not always a good thing. Has a LOT to do with who did the work!


Certainly, when it comes to high dollar antique collectible vehicles the owner/purchaser should be extremely picky concerning the details.

But if you came across a 1967 GT500 that had bearings, rings, and other internal seals replaced and that work was performed by a reputable shop, would the classic car industry still consider that car to be original?


It'd be considered original, but you'd notice very quickly that they would state "rebuilt" or "reconditioned" somehow. It would not make the vehicle less desirable. But the completely unrebuilt version would get more attention. Probably driven less for fear of something springing a leak, and perhaps as result the two would have no difference in dollar value.

I don't think a rebuilt engine (numbers matching) would impact value on a desirable car like this. You or I shopping the used market, for an appliance, if we come across something with a rebuilt motor are apt to turn our noses up. How good was the rebuild? Why is that? Because it wouldn't be worth rebuilding if the rebuild was bad. We would view it as risk. Meanwhile, a Shelby etc would be worth rebuilding even with a shoddy rebuilt engine--the value is not necessarily in dollars, because some want to own that car because of a dream. Few dream of owning a Camry!

 

[Mykl]

Originally Posted By: supton
It'd be considered original, but you'd notice very quickly that they would state "rebuilt" or "reconditioned" somehow. It would not make the vehicle less desirable. But the completely unrebuilt version would get more attention. Probably driven less for fear of something springing a leak, and perhaps as result the two would have no difference in dollar value.

I don't think a rebuilt engine (numbers matching) would impact value on a desirable car like this. You or I shopping the used market, for an appliance, if we come across something with a rebuilt motor are apt to turn our noses up. How good was the rebuild? Why is that? Because it wouldn't be worth rebuilding if the rebuild was bad. We would view it as risk. Meanwhile, a Shelby etc would be worth rebuilding even with a shoddy rebuilt engine--the value is not necessarily in dollars, because some want to own that car because of a dream. Few dream of owning a Camry!


I only really hit that point because of the initial sticking point: someone said that OneEyedJack's Civic was not the same car because it had a rebuilt engine.

I get that his Civic is less desirable because it has a rebuilt engine when compared to a GT500 with a rebuilt engine (for the exact reasons you mentioned), but if we're being honest it isn't the rebuilt engine that would make the Civic less desirable overall... it's the fact that it's a 30 year old economy car with nearly a half a million miles on it that would reduce the demand for it.

A GT500 with a half a million miles on it still might command a hefty sum because it was a rare car to begin with, but my guess is that it wouldn't be worth half of what a "time capsule" GT500 with almost no miles would pull.

 

[supton]

Originally Posted By: Mykl
I only really hit that point because of the initial sticking point: someone said that OneEyedJack's Civic was not the same car because it had a rebuilt engine.

I get that his Civic is less desirable because it has a rebuilt engine when compared to a GT500 with a rebuilt engine (for the exact reasons you mentioned), but if we're being honest it isn't the rebuilt engine that would make the Civic less desirable overall... it's the fact that it's a 30 year old economy car with nearly a half a million miles on it that would reduce the demand for it.

A GT500 with a half a million miles on it still might command a hefty sum because it was a rare car to begin with, but my guess is that it wouldn't be worth half of what a "time capsule" GT500 with almost no miles would pull.


I think we're in full agreement here.

 

[HangFire]

Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Repair is almost always unscheduled, whereas maintenance is scheduled. That's my definition...


That's my definition as well.

Many people have a monetary definition, where work that surpasses a certain dollar threshold suddenly becomes a repair. Those are the types that vehemently oppose timing belt motors. Sorry but if it's a factory scheduled maintenance it's still maintenance. If you don't like it, research your purchase and buy something else.

Others use uncertainty to muddy the definition. For example, let's say disc brake pads should last 60K miles or "as needed". If it lasts 40K suddenly it's a repair. Sorry, no, it's still maintenance "as needed". In this case the schedule is "inspect and replace as needed every XK miles" (usually the OCI).

My Toyota has "lifetime fill" ATF but the maintenance schedule still says inspect every 5K miles and address any issues. Well I inspected it and I didn't like the color so now I do regular drain and fills. Regular ATF DnF may not be explicit on the factory maintenance schedule but it's still maintenance, only now it's on MY maintenance schedule.

I will admit there are some grey areas. U-Joints and CV Joints require regular inspection, most U-Joints are easy to replace but most would consider a CV joint replacement to be a repair. Service vehicles are in a category all their own. Maybe I'm dating myself, but some fleets scheduled an upper end rebuild every quarter million miles and a lower end rebuild every half million miles. One could argue it's maintenance because it's scheduled and it is done whether or not it's actually broken. I would call that a repair.

 

[Olas]

Originally Posted By: supton
Originally Posted By: Olas
Originally Posted By: exranger06


Replacing non-consumable items before they fail as a preventative measure could be considered "maintenance," although I prefer the term "waste of time and money."


Waiting for non-consumable items to fail before you replace them is an option, but I don't like the idea of being stranded at the roadside with a broken down vehicle, having to wait (and maybe pay) for recovery, and then replacing the failed components. I consider that a waste of time and money.


Which is why many chose to replace the vehicle "while it's still running" rather than hitting a wall suddenly when it stops moving or is barely moving. Especially if they a) don't have a backup vehicle and/or plan, and b) they have to pay for labor.

I think most(?) of us would agree that replacing after 50k to avoid repairs is foolish (unless if one has money to burn); where it gets dicey is just when it's ok to do so to avoid the threat of downtime. 150k, 200k, 250k, 300k?


You're right, lots do replace the vehicle while it's still running, and if that works for them it fine by me, I just can't help but think how much cheaper it is to replace a part than to replace the whole vehicle - not to mention the sense of satisfaction I get from maintaining my old car would be completely absent if I regularly traded for something newer/lower miles..

Also, IMHO every bit of maintenance we do is to avoid the threat of downtime, even the free oil changes with a brand new vehicle.