Prestone All Makes

[1sttruck]

With no other info it's safer to rely upon maker's requirements. See the matrix below. Note that mixing types drops the 5yr/150km ile to a 2yr change interval.

http://www.eetcorp.com/antifreeze/Coolants_matrix.pdf

 

[toocrazy2yoo]

Well, the "average" owner that refuses to raise the hood and see if the puke tank is low, check the oil, the fluids or belts if going to suffer a breakdown from one or several of his/her systems, from time-to-time, that's all. Even the service and owner's manuals tell you to periodically look at things check under the hood. So to cover the lazy and mechanically indigent, by all means, the coolant manufacturers, auto manufacturers and all the others that support the automotive industry are at fault because the "average" nitwit refuses to have their car looked at once in awhile, absent doing it themselves.

Oh, and let's blame the tire manufacturers when the tires get hot and fail because the pressures drop to 10 psi, too. And the bank when the car is repossessed for not making the payments, and let's see, who ELSE can we behave for an individual's sloppy behaviors? Sound ridiculous? Not really, these are just extensions of the same incompetency that keeps the "average" owner from checking his oil and fluids once a month.

It's recent culture to protect these folks, I guess..

 

[The Critic]

Well, look at it this way. If you or a loved one got killed as a result of one of these idiots driving on low tire pressure, would you feel the same way? It's really in everyone's interest to protect stupid people from themselves because someone else may also have to suffer the consequences of their stupidity.

 

[toocrazy2yoo]

Yeah, Crit, but to install coolant in the radiator for FIVE years or 150K, never look at the puke tank, a hose, or a radiator cap for, again, FIVE years, and blame the coolant when the inevitable happens?. The notion is idiotic, TimH. knows it, and is covering for himself. The self-interested bias is dripping off his every nonsensical post on the subject.

I bet he leaves his spark plugs in the engine for the "recommended" 100,000 miles, too, and complains when helicoils are needed to re-seat the new plugs.

 

[Propflux01]

Covering? Covering what? Just using your tire example, I would bet that if you advertised a tire that would hold air for 5 years, people would actually not check them. why? Because people are led to believe what they are told. to prove my point, go in your kitchen cabinet and look at the date code on your can of green beans. I bet you never throw it out early, or in your case, you probably never even check the date, but you eat that can without a thought, not knowing if maybe the advertised date is too far off, or that thier date is too long.
Now for your personal attack, there is no self-interested bias. truth is, if something is advertised to last a certain time, it should perform it. I work in aviation where dates and change times are a daily fact of parts life. If I install a part, and the manufacturer says if goes for 1 year or 5000 hrs, it doesn't get changed earlier than that, unless there is an obvious failure, Why? because the MFG says so, parts are $$, and downtime does not pay. Remember that when your flying high on your way to your vacation destination. I will guarantee that the airliner carrying you is not getting shut down earlier to change its oil, hoses, or other fluids "because XX amount of hours usage recommended by the MFG of the fluid" seems too long. And that goes without saying that lives are at stake as well.

AS for your spark plug attack, yes, I left them in for the recommended K interval on my Santa Fe, and had absolutely no issues removing or installing them, nor where the plugs in bad shape, either. Maybe you just need to look at things in a different light rather than attack someone because they follow a different maintenance routine, or expect a product advertised to last a certain time, to actually last.