The "anything-but-OEM" syndrome

[d00df00d]

When it comes to maintenance recommendations, many people treat the manufacturer's recommendations with skepticism. I'm sure we all agree that that is a good thing -- at a bare minimum, it keeps them honest. But every once in a while, you get someone who does nothing more than CLAIM in a superficially convincing way to know better, and he is instantly heralded as an expert and thanked for his advice. All they have to do is rely on arguments from authority ("I'm a mechanic with 384 years of experience") and say something that goes against the manufacturer's recommendations, and people believe them without a second thought.

I have been talking with my friends about this for some time and I am still mystified as to why this happens. Why won't we apply the same skepticism to the "expert" as to the manufacturer? And, more importantly, if some random mechanic is THAT much more trustworthy than an auto manufacturer, why buy a car from that manufacturer in the first place?

I've wanted to ask BITOG about this, but I never had such a perfect example until now. Here it is. This is a STICKY on an automotive forum:

http://www.m3forum.net/m3forum/showthread.php?t=120736

Notice how the OP's article is believed and praised as a "great resource" without a second thought, and anyone who expresses skepticism or points out the flaws in the article is either ignored or accused of siding with the manufacturer.

What the heck is with this?

 

[SecondMonkey]

Whenever somebody says "I'm this or that" on the internet, I just insert "clown" in place of their claimed profession. By far, the worst advice I've seen on the internet, in various different types of forums, come from the "experts" with all kinds of experience.

That doesn't mean I don't believe them when they say they've been a mechanic for 50 years, but rather, I think they've been a bad mechanic for 50 years.

Same goes with OEM advice for me, I know they have other motives besides keeping my vehicle on the road as long as possible. Mostly all they care about today is making the EPA happy.

I would be more inclined to believe an independant poster, especially if they seem inteligent and other people agree, before I would believe somebody who works at a dealership.

 

[d00df00d]

I think you might be getting at something critical: most people's experiences with the manufacturer is through shop techs and service personnel. Dealer advice gets lumped in with the manufacturer's advice. If that's true, which seems reasonable, then when people weigh up a manufacturer's recommendation vs. an independent mechanic's recommendation, they think they're just comparing the opinions of two mechanics.

That would make a little more sense.

 

[Chris Meutsch]

"Dealer advice gets lumped in with the manufacturer's advice."

Of course, these are two different things and we all know it.

 

[John_K]

It's like I've noticed the same people who call Fram junk will say, in response to a criticism of a particular motor oil, "well, the engineers wouldn't do anything to harm your car." Why not? Apparently the Fram engineers will do something to harm your car. The inconsistency makes no sense.

John

 

[labman]

I think a lot of it is too many agendas other than that of the one seeking advice. I mean, we all want our car to last forever without spending excessive money on it. The manufacturers want to sell cars while keeping the government and other trouble makers off their back. Everybody is quick to see the public danger to anything that threatens their rice bowl. I thought the guy made a good point about how much less maintenance BMW's seemed to need once it was no longer at the owners' expense. Notice how it was a mechanic that realized it and called our attention to it.

At least the guy is a mechanic. I see too many people with no real claim to any special knowledge of the subject giving passionate opinions about everything.

 

[BigCahuna]

Mfg advice sure looks fishy sometimes. Like years ago Harley Davidson said not to use synthetic oil in their bikes. But once Harley started selling synthetic oil with their name on it, they couldn't recommend it enough. You can't make this stuff up.,,

 

[Vilan]

Confirmation bias. If I really want to believe that 10W40 will grenade my engine, and start a thread on it, and 9 people say "no it won't" and 2 people say "of course it will", I'll probably think the 2 people are smart cookies and the rest are... well, not.

I agree it seems fishy that BMW would suddenly extend maintenance intervals once it's on their dime. But without data that both sides of the argument can look it, we're just guessing.

 

[XCELERATIONRULES]

I've worked on vehicles all my life.
I don't need to pay a kid $100 an hour to pay for the sprinklers running late night in a storm,or to pay to light the dealership all night long.
The dealership looks like a golf course,full of over priced,vehicles and service advisors,ready to take you for every penny you have.
My vehicle will never see a dealership after the sale.

 

[eljefino]

I kind of agree with that guy. He makes a point over how the factory hose clamps are better than anything else. Having suffered cheap clamps, I agree with him.

If he has an agenda it's subtle, he recommends several brands of syn oil as well as dino.

If he is a dealer tech like he's acting I bet he sees all manner of neglected cars, from the show-not-go crowd that gravitates to this marque.

 

[JHZR2]

I dont know, Im reading on page 4 hoffmeister's and greymatter's posts, and they add good balance. Perhaps were some more harsh words deleted before now?

BMW has one service interval. One poster mentioned the metrics for defining it. The OP is a copy of something from a BMW magazine, which is an "alternative" schedule - which others on there posted the downsides to various recommendations.

All of it is opinion. I didnt see that much strong negativity. It is a good resource, as it shares ideas and concepts in a (to me) non-offensive way.

If I had bought my 135i vert, I would NOT have abided purely by BMW's service schedule. That said, I would not have made my own willy-nilly service schedule either. Some of what has been given in the "alternative" setup is sound... has brake fluid changed that greatly over the last 10 years that we no longer need to change it regularly? Coolant maybe, heck, maybe even ATF. But brake fluid? MT fluid? BMW may well have gone away from a break-in oil, or have gone to something else that demands a longer initial OCI... or perhaps they drain break-in fluids at the factory, I don't know.

My point is, this seems to me to be balanced. Anyone that blindly accepts anything is generally doing themselves a disservice. When a maintenance system goes from being detailed to just blindly watching a computer, Id say that is a good opportunity to question it.

 

[CivicFan]

Originally Posted By: Vilan
I agree it seems fishy that BMW would suddenly extend maintenance intervals once it's on their dime. But without data that both sides of the argument can look it, we're just guessing.


It is possible that they realized that when the dealers were gauging the owners with frequent and unnecessary maintenance items, their reputation was suffering and their cars were being deemed as troublesome to maintain and unreliable. So they shifted they designed a maintenance schedule and shifted the responsibility to the dealers.

Now the dealers sing a different tune and to make up for the lost revenues, they concentrate more on selling new cars.

It's probably a win-win situation for all involved as long as you don't see issues related to "lack of maintenance". So far, there are none.

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: labman
I thought the guy made a good point about how much less maintenance BMW's seemed to need once it was no longer at the owners' expense.

That does seem like a fair comment on the face of it, but it doesn't even address the possibility that the new models really don't require as much maintenance, or that BMW's old service recommendations were too conservative for most people. It just assumes that BMW dialed things back to save money and didn't really care about their customers.

It's like when people cling to the old 3,000 mile OCI because they just can't wrap their heads around a car running longer OCIs than that.

The logic just seems to evaporate if you give it a moment's thought. It's almost at the level of a conspiracy theory...

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: Vilan
Confirmation bias. If I really want to believe that 10W40 will grenade my engine, and start a thread on it, and 9 people say "no it won't" and 2 people say "of course it will", I'll probably think the 2 people are smart cookies and the rest are... well, not.

Indeed. My question is, why do so many people come to the table under the assumption that the manufacturer, whose car they just paid lots of money for, is FOS? Or are those people really fewer and farther between than I realize?


Originally Posted By: Vilan
I agree it seems fishy that BMW would suddenly extend maintenance intervals once it's on their dime. But without data that both sides of the argument can look it, we're just guessing.

I agree 100%.

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: eljefino
I kind of agree with that guy. He makes a point over how the factory hose clamps are better than anything else. Having suffered cheap clamps, I agree with him.

Agreed. But there doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason to when he agrees with OEM and when he doesn't.


Originally Posted By: eljefino
If he has an agenda it's subtle, he recommends several brands of syn oil as well as dino.

He mentions others, but the only brand he recommends is Red Line. He also has links to their website and refers people to Dave. Doesn't seem subtle to me...

 

[OilNerd]

Originally Posted By: d00df00d
When it comes to maintenance recommendations, many people treat the manufacturer's recommendations with skepticism. I'm sure we all agree that that is a good thing -- at a bare minimum, it keeps them honest.


That part's easy to explain: competing self-interests. Auto makers will do practically anything to meet CAFE. I, on the other hand, could care less about a 0.6 MPG improvement -- I care about how long my car will last.

The auto makers want to keep selling me new cars. I would rather keep the ones I have running well.

The auto makers like to keep their dealers' service bays filled, even if that means excessive maintenance, which may not be required. I prefer to get my money's worth on the required maintenance I that I can do myself.

 

[d00df00d]

Longevity and reliability are critical to a brand's image and competitiveness. That fact alone throws quite a wrench in those arguments.

 

[OilNerd]

Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Longevity and reliability are critical to a brand's image and competitiveness. That fact alone throws quite a wrench in those arguments.


Long-term, yes. For next quarter's earnings, no.

 

[Captain_Klink]

I never go to the dealership, and the maintenance items are treated with grain of salt. I buy the vehicle, for as cheap as possible, either from the dealer, or from a used dealer, and never go there again. Oil and filter are changed religiously myself, air filter is changed regularly, fluids are either done by myself or my mechanic, and that's it. My own mechanic lets me buy my parts online and bring them in, which the stealership would never allow.

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: OilNerd
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Longevity and reliability are critical to a brand's image and competitiveness. That fact alone throws quite a wrench in those arguments.


Long-term, yes. For next quarter's earnings, no.

...which means by definition that if they want to survive past next quarter, it behooves them to make reliable cars and good maintenance schedules.