Is that what we're attempting to do here? I'd wager that a comparison to a 85 year-old aircraft engine isn't much help either.
6,000km is a pretty short interval. I've routinely done double that with a quality synthetic and had spotless engines. My old 5.0L pics are on here somewhere. OLM OCI for our RAM and Jeep hover right around that mileage as well. Most recent in the Jeep was ~11,500.
It depends on the design, materials, desired power outputs, etc. Engine designs are being pushed harder than ever to reach several goals at once for things like for better mpg, more power, longevity, etc.
Yes I here you, with synthetic oils you get better protection and longer intervals,but be careful,there are alot of engines burning oil because of a design flaw.The Hondas in 2008 to 2012 the 2.4 could not get 6000 to 8000km and the oil light would come on,once your down that low damage is occurring.Thats why I tell people use a good quality oil and change it out around 6000km.The long intervals on some of these poor engine designed flaws runs the engine to low on oil and damage occurs.With the price of synthetic today,I don't believe it out ways conventional quality oil if changed on shorter intervals..Simply the average xars should not burn oil.Thise Hondas were burning oil around 40 to 50000km,it was horrible.shame on Honda.
Of course the onus is on the owner to check the oil, but you are quite right in that they won't, and then won't take responsibility when something happens.
Unless you have a GM Ecotec 2.4, which is known to make oil disappear rapidly despite regular oil changes and checking it often. Could be why we got the letter from GM admitting that the piston rings are faulty.
No disrespect for a woman,but they dont check oil,and if you check it every fill up,you dont have much faith in your product,for the most part cars should not consume oil just gas.
if the engine didn't burn oil, why would you need to keep an eye on the oil level?
I here you,but the engines in my opinion are not all getting better,some of the older generations civics got better fuel mileages out there ,back around 1996 -2000.I also had a 1991 Chev Surburban 5.7 350 tbi injection (two injectors)that got 19 miles to a gallon fully loaded on a 700km trip,Today 30 yrs latter our big v8s are not very much better. 17-24 mpg Believe it or not manufactures play with engine oil weights to help with gas mileage less friction and so on.,nuts.Now producing worthless turbo engines on everyday consumer cars that all usually typically fail,its all crazy.I visit garages here in Eastern Canada every year with my Job and the techs will tell you or show you wants failing.People have to do there home work on purchasing vehicles today,still alot of bad designs and issues out there.It depends on the design, materials, desired power outputs, etc. Engine designs are being pushed harder than ever to reach several goals at once for things like for better mpg, more power, longevity, etc.
Usually one will out balance the other. Otherwise everyone would just run old Toyota 22re engines with a power output of 110hp
You would really want all cars running around with the same generic engines putting out the same ratings? Boringgggg
Yup for sure ,u just go back to late 90s and check it out,some of the eco boost fords are doing maybe 3 mpg better,but all in all,no big changes.Honda just in the last 5yrs or so are producing turbos in some of there models,at idle customers are complaining of no heat,not enough friction with the low weight oil.The Service Manger that I no well show me 12 volt heaters that came from honda for customers to plug in when there cars are warming up with remote start here in Eastern Canada ain't that just crazyYeah when you compare mpg in 1995 and see what goes for 'normal' today something is up... or down.
That's 5% (1 part in 20) per 1000 miles, isn't it?
This is why I check my oil only once a month.if the engine didn't burn oil, why would you need to keep an eye on the oil level?
