Is oil a major contributor to long engine life?

[JohnBrowning]

Crypto I have no idea exactly how long it was with out oil but I imagine it drained fast. The hole was the larger then a 50 cent piece but smaller then a 12 oz pop bottle. Yes I made it all the way home. Had I known it was dry I would have shut it off and hitch hiked but with a date that was not an option. Just so you know briggs and straton has done tests were the engines were run 20 hours with out any oil! Prolong was not out yet. I am baseing the time frame on when it first started to run hot and make alot of noise. Seeing how I had 5W50 syntec I am guessing it drained out fast. Some times things can not always be explained they just are!!! I have heard others have similar trhings happen to rule this out as a fluke. It seems that some bearing designs can last a while with out spining even in the abscence of oil. I did use what I now belive to have been a chlorinated additive wich at the time I thought saved me. It was sold in the south and was called Petron or Petron Plus. Even if it was 45 minutes instead of an hour it amazed me at the time.

At any rate I was there and that is exactly how it happened. What truly amazes me is that I was able to put another 30,000 miles on it. After that the lifter clattered real bad and it did not have as much power as before.

[ June 30, 2003, 08:50 PM: Message edited by: JohnBrowning ]

 

[TheTanSedan]

I thoroughly disagree with the statement that cars of the 60's and 70's were worn out by 70-80k miles. There were some motors that wore more quickly (Pontiacs & Oldsmobiles; small-block Chevys not far behind; BB Chevys were oil burners from day one [500-miles/qt]), but none of them were hard to keep going in close to like-new condition for over 100k with a maintenance plan. There were plenty of cars in my family, and of others of whom I can think, who regularly kept cars for 10-12 years or 120k+ miles that still burned little if any oil.

An old rule from then was oil/filter changes every 2-mos or 2000.

There is a larger perspective. Folks DID NOT maintain their cars worth a hill of beans, and the components such as Kettering ignition, bias-ply tires, drum brakes, etc, led to a dimunition of performance if not serviced promptly (6-mos and 6000 on tune-ups; and fluid changes once or twice annually. Fluids/oils have improved dramatically since that time.

Plus, cars were a good deal cheaper in constant dollars. The average car loan was 36-mos, not 60 mos as it is today. For most, it was simply easier to get another.

The biggest changes -- adding to prolonged life -- were radial tires, electronic ignition, gas shock absorbers and unleaded gasoline.

The number of cars on the road circa 1970 was less than one-half of what it is today, and the average mileage was 12k annually. Lots of sitting and short trips. Today the average is above 15k annually, and for many in my area, 30k is not uncommon.

Now, add in electronic fuel injection to the average car and it does -- for most people -- tend to show the same wear at 120-150k as cars of the 1960's showed at 80k. The average owner (despite putting crummy replacement tires/shocks/etc on his car; of lesser value than the oem parts; rebuilt versus new) may spend more money proportionally than he did in 1970 on keeping his car but he drives it farther in a shorter time and is still making payments. The elimination of a number of tuning/perfomance maintenance steps is of tremendous benefit to engine life.

The US light-duty fleet is older today than at any time since cars were out of production in WWII. The median is seven years.

I am not sure that it is proper to compare foreign and domestic unless one has very tight parameters to judge with. The cars must be practically identical in price and overall performance capabilities first.

 

[robbobster]

"Is oil a major contributor to long engine life?"

Once can rephrase this to read:
"Is lack of oil a major conributor to engine destruction"

To this, we can all agree.

 

[3 Mad Ponchos]

Cangreylegend, I think you're listening to the wrong people. Any late-model engine, regardless of origin, should be good for 200k with proper maintenance. There are always exceptions (one guy on this board has bad experiences with a Mopar 318, probably one of the most indestructible engines ever built) but overall today's engines are shockingly durable.

Cheers, 3MP

 

[Bror Jace]

Wow, I guess I could go on and on about this. My quick answer is “it depends.” Some motors seem to put up with abuse and soldier on, others can be nurtured and pampered but still die a premature death.

Given the low cost of preventative maintenance, I think it better safe than sorry. I like to run my vehicles hard (at least use the full rev range) and figure using better oil will keep the internals fresh for as long as I own it … several years … and then it’s still a good used car for a friend or family member. If they are a couple seconds off the pace at Limerock, that’s their problem.

+

Coolant? In the '80s, I knew a guy who had a '60s Chevy Impala with a stock 283cid V-8. The radiator leaked and he ended up running this motor with no coolant at times. He finally retired the clunker and a year or two later entered it into a demolition derby … with no coolant in the radiator. He did pretty well until the motor overheated and stalled. An hour after it was over, he went to the mass of wrecked cars, hopped into it and fired it up. Purred like a kitten.

I had also heard about that “limp-home” feature on the Northstar. I think one magazine test drove the car in Death Valley when it was a brand new model.

As for foreign & domestics, I agree with labman for the most part. Mix in the fact that throughout the '60s, '70s and perhaps even the beginning of the '80s, the “big three” really looked down on small cars … and the people who drive them. Small cars weren’t an end in and of themselves, they were merely a stepping stone to get into a larger (read: V8, RWD) car. After al, that’s what everyone wants to drive, right? The bigger, longer and heavier the better, right?

Well, some people (myself included) actually like small cars. Call me an irresponsible kook but my ideal commuter car would be something like a Formula One racer with license plates. Well, maybe a Group C/Sports Prototype car (these have roofs) in case it rains? Cramped cabin? I think that’s cozy. Rough ride? I like to know what my tires are doing and don’t mind the sensations keeping me awake.

Anyway, the big three have only started to make cars which appeal to people like me (Neon, Focus, etc …). Most of their small car offerings were merely scaled-down full-size or mid-size cars … or complete abominations. And even now they are not as reliable as their Japanese counterparts. After watching Colin McRae for the past couple years, I was tempted to buy a Ford Focus SVT … but then I came to my senses.

--- Bror Jace

 

[MikeW]

Let me refine the question a bit, and make it a bit more specific.

For a 'normal' passenger car engine, under 'normal' service loads (however you want to define normal in either usage), using good quality dead dino oil, would changing it every 3K mi / 3 months make the engine last markedly longer than changing it 6K mi / 6 months? **** , since this is a hypothetical, lets get really lazy and say 9K mi/ 9 months?

My take: in the first scenario, no. In the second scenario, yes. But assuming I'd be starting with a new car, that other issues would cause be to dump the car before any damage for bad oil maintenance became a factor.

 

[Oldswagon]

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheTanSedan:
I thoroughly disagree with the statement that cars of the 60's and 70's were worn out by 70-80k miles. There were some motors that wore more quickly (Pontiacs & Oldsmobiles; small-block Chevys not far behind; BB Chevys were oil burners from day one [500-miles/qt]),

---

I disagree with the above statement. Olds V8s are excellent engines that can show virtually zero bore wear after 100K. I know guys who have torn into 70's Olds engines with near 200K that didn't even need an overbore because bore wear was so low. These engines had some of the highest nickel content in there blocks.

Small block Chevys aren't that bad either. They have lower nickel content in their blocks, but I know many people who are still original running small block Chevies from the 70's with high miles (like a friend with a 70's GMC 350 truck 300K on the clock). I personally have a 77 350 Chevy in my shed with 100K that shows almost no bore wear (from a 3/4 ton pickup). And as for Big Block Chevies I know guys who are running old 366's in medium duty trucks with more than 100k of HARD (short trips, heavy loads) miles and they don't burn oil.

As for the reliability of mid 70's American engines, my father still drives his mid seventies cars today. He has a '76 Chevelle 350 and a '72 Torino 400. Both use no oil, both are very reliable and both are high miles. All of the long lasting 70's engines that I know of, had owners who followed good maintenance practices, including religious oil changes with quality oil and filters.