Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Right To Repair - A Hot Issue or Big Problem?

1101113151620

Comments

  • steverstever Viva Las CrucesPosts: 41,902
    Seems like a pretty good assumption.

    "Jim Vitak, Manager, Public Relations, Ashland Inc., told OEM/Lube News "Valvoline does not plan to license dexos™ for these products in order to minimize the cost impact to customers who would be replacing GF-4 motor oils with dexos™ motor oils. This will apply to our full motor oil line." imakenews.com

    "We strive to efficiently manage cost and complexity to keep our customers as competitive as possible in the marketplace,” Chevron said in a statement to Lube Report. “The additional costs of the Dexos 1 licensing and the added potential complexity of carmakers making separate decisions on product formulations were key decision factors for Chevron.” imakenews.com

    I should be following something other than the money? (Gotta run to the super; haven't found a BP/Castro link yet).

    Moderator
    Minivan fan. Feel free to message or email me - stever@edmunds.com.

  • thecardoc3thecardoc3 Posts: 1,632
    Thank-you for making this easier that it might have been. There are two possiblities here.

    1. You don't actually know beyond what you have heard and are trying to link here. We can call that ignorance of how the technology has changed.
    2. You DO KNOW and therefore are intentionally trying to be deceptive to the average consumer. We will call that dishonest.

    Feel free to pick one now, or you can wait as I prove that what I am saying is accurate.

    It cannot be a pricing issue, there are companies that have a dexos licensed product priced significantly less than Valvoline Syntec.

    You can research that yourself starting with this link.

    http://www.gmdexos.com/licensedbrands.html

    In the second link I had earlier from Lubes N Greases magazine, page 24.
    Thom Smith of Valvoline is quoted as expressing concern that Dexos spells the end of the concensus method for developing North American engine oils and foreshadows the loss of a strong industry wide spec.

    snip...

    Beacuse this system has worked so well Smith said he can't help but see Dexos as a threat. Dexos oils will require full synthetic base stocks, expected to be mostly group III he said. The chemistry level for dexos even with synthetics is going to be higher than GF5 and the testing regime will cost 2.6 times as much.

    There is more, lots more but here is a Valvoline exec admitting that meeting dexos licensing requirements is a threat and exceeds that needed for API and ILSAC. Now the trick here is everyone who has gotten formal training on this topic already knows this and knows that the Valvoline products do NOT meet all of the requirements of dexos and there is much more to it than just engine warranty limitations.
  • steverstever Viva Las CrucesPosts: 41,902
    edited January 2012
    And some say the API is just a lobby group to keep the feds out of the oil companies business, and their specs are just the lowest common denominator.

    Others says Dexos backers (and others) are trying to adopt the European oil standards (some people claim they are a decade or more ahead of the US standards).

    Others say it's a conspiracy and that there's been bad will between Castrol and the API over other proposed standards and the car manufacturers are stepping in to try to fracture the group.

    The number I recall seeing was that Dexos was going to add .36 cents to a gallon of bulk oil. GM will mark that up a buck or two a quart. :P

    Moderator
    Minivan fan. Feel free to message or email me - stever@edmunds.com.

  • 0patience0patience Posts: 1,542
    They can prove it. The important facet here is all of the other manufacturers who have stepped up to the plate and have licensed their products correctly. Why does Ashland (Valvoline) state here that they meet the specs, and in the other article that I linked clearly admit that the dexos requirements are a significant change from the API and ILSAC ratings?

    It's still in litigation, so to say that they can prove it is not entirely proven yet.
    Once it is finalized, only then will anyone be able to say for sure. Proving it and satisfying the FTC is also 2 different things. As in any court case, proving and winning doesn't always go hand in hand.

    I'm also curious to know. Who refines the manufacturer's oil for them? And it's back to that case for the aftermarket being allowed to get the specs to be able to make the product.

    On the flip side of that, let's assume that an oil does meet the specs of a certain product. That may not always be the correct product. Just meeting the specs is not always correct. Extra additives can also create problems. And before you argue that fact, an example is Gunite/Haldex specifies specific rated grease in their brake parts for heavy trucks and while most greases meet those specs, there are those with moly additives in them, that will destroy some of those brake parts.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright CaliforniaPosts: 45,945
    I would never tell anyone not to use the manufacturer's spec, and if they can't get it, I'd tell them where they could get it.

    MODERATOR --Need help with anything? Click on my name!

  • thecardoc3thecardoc3 Posts: 1,632
    Dexos is a very different standard than what you find in the European specifications. A BMW 5W30 is thicker than a 5W30 that meets API and ILSAC meanwhile a 5W30 that meets GM specifications is thinner than the API/ILSAC.

    Castrol makes some products that meet specific O.E specs, and right beside that you can find a Castrol product, same viscosity that isn't close to a given O.E. spec.

    As far as who says what, who has sat in a class and studied "engine oil specs" in the last two years? I have and I teach a cutting edge class for professional technicians designed to bring them up to date with the facts. As the writer of the class warns, we have to expect to face denial, (That can't be true etc.) Anger (Why didn't the SOB's tell us?) Bargaining (Can't we just get a list of what oil goes into what car?) and finally resignation to the facts that we have to do our jobs differently than in the past and that puts technicians at odds with the information that you can find on this subject on this site.

    I used those two phrases,"Dishonest and Ignorant" in the earlier post because that is exactly how we are treated. Uncomfortable isn't it? I said I would prove my assertions. That was not intended to be aimed at any one person as much as it was to make the reader stop and think that they were having someone else classify them with being fair not part of the equation.

    The number I recall seeing was that Dexos was going to add .36 cents to a gallon of bulk oil. GM will mark that up a buck or two a quart.

    And Your point is? They charge for the licensing of the specification and dozens of companies have stepped up and met that requirement because it was the right thing to do for the consumers. A number of those products cost less than a lot of products that don't meet the requirements of dexos do. So the price angle is mute. Exacty how is the consumer served by such comments?

    And some say the API is just a lobby group to keep the feds out of the oil companies business, and their specs are just the lowest common denominator

    Now why have we not seen the API challenged like this in the articles? Isn't this an important topic for the consumers? Instead we see the comments of "Use the manufactures specification or equivalent" but where does anyone explain exactly what an equivalent is? Where does the Edmunds article alert the readers to the fact that there is no API equivalent for dexos?

    Dexos is a Long Life oil and you will find ACEA A1/B1 A5/B5 on the products that meet it's specs. A5/B5 designation certifies that an oil is a long life product, the API and ILSAC have no designation for long life.
  • thecardoc3thecardoc3 Posts: 1,632
    It's still in litigation, so to say that they can prove it is not entirely proven yet.
    Once it is finalized, only then will anyone be able to say for sure. Proving it and satisfying the FTC is also 2 different things. As in any court case, proving and winning doesn't always go hand in hand.


    What's still in litigation? That GM requires an oil that produces lower ash deposits? That GM requires the oil to be much thinner at -40f than the API does? That Dexos addresses the timing chain stretch problems GM was experiencing even with oils that met it's 4718M spec (Which also greatly exceeded API and ILSAC)

    Who ever an O.E contracts to to make their oil you can be assured finds enough of a reason to make an oil that meets that O.E's specs.

    On the flip side of that, let's assume that an oil does meet the specs of a certain product. That may not always be the correct product.

    While that may look like doubletalk, an oil that meets GM's dexos 1 specs cannot meet BMW's specs even though they could both be SAE 5W30. An oil that is licensed as dexos can only be if it meets dexos specs and that's why this has all come about. But it's not new. Ford's proprietary specs started in 2004. For some five years almost no-one knew that Fords specs exceeded that of everything on the market in the 5W20 range, except for Motorcraft that had the spec on the bottle. Even Mobil 1 only said "suitable for", fully admitting close to, but not. actually meeting the specs completely.
  • steverstever Viva Las CrucesPosts: 41,902
    edited January 2012
    Got any links, like one that says use only BMW oil in your Bimmer? Like the GM one re Dexos? Or do they say "recommended"? Or maybe they keep a list of BMW approved oil? And do they say your warranty will be void if you don't use BMW oil?

    Not sure what litigation 0patience is referring to; the FTC action is the one that I"m aware of that is still awaiting a decision on whether GM is improperly tying Dexos to the warranty.

    Like access to information (back to the topic a bit), having choices for oil in theory helps keep expenses down for the consumer.

    Moderator
    Minivan fan. Feel free to message or email me - stever@edmunds.com.

  • 0patience0patience Posts: 1,542
    edited January 2012
    As far as who says what, who has sat in a class and studied "engine oil specs" in the last two years?
    There we go puffing up our chests again.
    And yes. I have. I am required to. Caterpillar is one of the leading companies in oil analysis and specifications. So, I get to go do the dance with them.

    Not trying to be mean, but I've often found that the person who needs to boast the most about their credentials is often the person with the least amount of self confidence. I have a complete wall of credentials, but when it comes to doing the job, not any of them mean squat. I know a ton of useless mechanics who have the certifications, credentials and all.
    It means pretty much nothing. They are still pretty much useless.
    Certifications mean you can pass a test. Licenses mean you passed the test AND paid the state. I train, I work and I consult.
    Does it make me better than anyone else? Nope. :shades:
  • 0patience0patience Posts: 1,542
    edited January 2012
    Not sure what litigation 0patience is referring to; the FTC action is the one that I"m aware of that is still awaiting a decision on whether GM is improperly tying Dexos to the warranty.
    That would be it. I used the term too loosely.
    The FTC hasn't made any decision. So until they do, it is all up in the air.
    I suspect that they may go with GM on it, but there are lobbyists that are pushing for it to go the other way. So we will have to wait and see.
  • thecardoc3thecardoc3 Posts: 1,632
    There we go puffing up our chests again.
    And yes. I have. I am required to. Caterpillar is one of the leading companies in oil analysis and specifications. So, I get to go do the dance with them


    Well now who is puffing up?

    The question stands as written because that particular class can be difficult to sell. "Engine oil, who needs a class on that?" The class I'm referring to is being presented to alert technicians about this situation where the changes are occurring in the requirements by the manufacturers. This is all changing so fast that unless someone has sat in a class recently they are unlikely to be aware of the new requirements. Some as you just did try and shoot the messenger and try to hide the fact that they were caught unaware of all of this. You have writers here on this site who have gotten the information wrong as they presented it to the readers.

    Not trying to be mean, but I've often found that the person who needs to boast the most about their credentials is often the person with the least amount of self confidence.

    You know you shouldn't even be going there.

    I have a complete wall of credentials, but when it comes to doing the job, not any of them mean squat. I know a ton of useless mechanics who have the certifications, credentials and all.

    I have no wall of credentials, I don't need that to try and impress anyone. The customers know everything they need to know about me from the referrals from other shops and reccomendations from other people that keep my shop busy.

    GM has dexos 2 for the diesels, but I wouldn't know what anyone is doing when it comes to the heavy duty equipment, nor would I really care because I have no intention of servicing any of them. However because of what I do know I would be spending more time making choices today than I might have five years ago. Similarly if your concentration is there, then what has been going on in the automotive side would be news to you. Get used to it, the job is that complicated today.
  • thecardoc3thecardoc3 Posts: 1,632
    Got any links, like one that says use only BMW oil in your Bimmer? Like the GM one re Dexos? Or do they say "recommended"? Or maybe they keep a list of BMW approved oil? And do they say your warranty will be void if you don't use BMW oil?

    I have plenty of links to incorrect information just like the ones you have been dragging out. BMW, they are a story all their own when it comes to proprietary oil which started back in 98. What everyone has to understand is the bottle doesn't have to say BMW on the front, but on the back it MUST SAY MEETS BMW SPECIFICATION LL-98 or LL-01 or LL-04

    The disinformation crowd tries to consfuse the public about what the specified oil really is. Mobil 1 European Formula, 5W30, 0W30 and 0W40 will have the appropriate BMW specification on the back of the bottle, as would Castrol, and Penzoil and just about everyone else. If that spec is not on the back of the bottle, then the oil you have in your hand does not meet the spec.

    Valvoline makes an oil that meets the BMW specification, they just don't sell it here in North America. So you can find literature that shows Syntec meets the BMW spec and in Europe it does, but not here.

    Keeping expenses down for the consumer means protecting the machine that they own correctly. I'll be glad to lay waste to the 3000 mile oil change articles in due time. BTW where is Mr. Reed, he should be part of this.
  • steverstever Viva Las CrucesPosts: 41,902
    And does the consumer pay more for the oil that says it meets BMW's specs?

    I don't think so. Sounds like Dexos won't be available by "just about everyone else" with a resulting additional cost.

    And is the spec for engine protection or it is intended to help the manufacturer meet fleet mpg requirements?

    (The editors don't venture over to the Forums very often. You can comment at the bottom of most articles though and they'll likely see it there).

    Moderator
    Minivan fan. Feel free to message or email me - stever@edmunds.com.

  • thecardoc3thecardoc3 Posts: 1,632
    And does the consumer pay more for the oil that says it meets BMW's specs?

    Did the consumer pay more for the BMW in the first place, than say maybe what they could have spent for transportation? How many Hyundai's cost as much as a BMW? If cost is truly such an issue then they have to be adult enough to buy a vehicle they can afford. BTW for the moment Hyundia does accept API SN and GF5 as the correct oil for their vehicles.

    Sounds like Dexos won't be available by "just about everyone else" with a resulting additional cost.

    Your habit of dragging price and cost into the equation distorts your comprehension of the topic and it is one of the factors that have the writers and editors blowing it at the consumers expense. That is part of the reason that a shop/technician who does understand this issue, because of proper training is at odds with the reccomendations you can find on this site.

    Your not going to get past the facts that the manufacturers are requiring specified oil specs no matter how hard you keep trying to negotiate. You ARE doing the consumer a dis-service with this train of thought and argument. Earlier you objected to my use of the two words, ignorant or dis-honest. This is exactly how technicians have been treated and still are in many ways.

    You likely don't even realize how complicated the BMW specs are. LL-01 superceeds LL-98. LL-04 is a completely different oil and isn't reccomended for the applications that require LL-01. Yet they can both be 0W30!

    And is the spec for engine protection or it is intended to help the manufacturer meet fleet mpg requirements?

    Yes to all, and more including protection of the emissions control devices such as air/fuel sensors and catalytic convertors. If the articles were written correctly they would have spelled that out. Failing to discuss all of those requirements causes confusion for the consumer and even for technicians who have not yet attended training on this subject. In fact I'll go all the way to say arguing against what I am explaining would serve to lead a customer to have the wrong oil put into their car and suffer a failure because of that. (It has happened and is the reason Mercerdes was sued, successfully).

    When I take this to the oil change maintenance systems this will really get to be fun. They do work and people can go a lot further between oil changes, IF AND ONLY IF, the correct O.E. specified oil is used.
  • steverstever Viva Las CrucesPosts: 41,902
    I don't understand what difference it makes if it's a BMW or Hyundai. I used to buy expensive laser printers back in the day to save on consumables. Running costs factor into my purchase decisions and I often pay more upfront on the capital cost to save money down the road.

    If I have to pay more for a simple oil change, then maybe I won't buy a GM car. I never bought an ink jet printer and I would have tried to refill the proprietary cartridge with bulk ink myself. HP and other printer makers got hammered with anti-trust suits for making use of aftermarket cartridges (or refilling "disposable OEM ones) difficult.

    Right to Repair has an economic element to it, and from my consumer point of view, disclosing more maintenance information could save me money. And making "required" oil easily available, by not requiring licensing fees, could also save me money.

    Moderator
    Minivan fan. Feel free to message or email me - stever@edmunds.com.

  • thecardoc3thecardoc3 Posts: 1,632
    edited January 2012
    I don't understand what difference it makes if it's a BMW or Hyundai

    Then get yourself into a class and find out.

    Running costs factor into my purchase decisions and I often pay more upfront on the capital cost to save money down the road.

    So then it's safe to say you don't own a BMW. Or else you shouldn't own one because it would fail that measurement.

    If I have to pay more for a simple oil change, then maybe I won't buy a GM car

    Well if that isn't the crux of the matter. Keep telling the consumer that a cheap price is the only thing that matters until something goes wrong, then it's cry wolf and see if we can get someone else to foot the bill for the "negligence". A BMW oil change costs more than a GM, and a Mercedes one costs more than the BMW. But hey, Hyundai's are still pretty cheap.

    Right to Repair is alleged to have an economic element to it,

    and from my consumer point of view, disclosing more maintenance information could save me money.

    Now that's funny, when someone actually does disclose the correct information, you argue with them about it and then write this.

    And making "required" oil easily available, by not requiring licensing fees, could also save me money.

    The licensing aspect of dexos is smart by GM and it will work to save the consumer money. In the past you really didn't know what oil any given car was supposed to take. Prior to this exchange, you didn't know just how complicated the issue really is today and that's a fact based simply on your attempts to prove otherwise. GM's requirement puts the O.E. specific information on the front of the bottle taking all of the guess work out of the decision. GM's move means the quick lubes either have to service the cars using quarts of oil marked with the dexos lable, have a specific system to dispense dexos, or else leave servicing them to someone "Who knows what they are doing".

    You have to get with it and recognize that failing to use the correct oil will cause problems for a consumer that could cost them a lot more money than what several dozen oil changes would cost them. From this exchange you should now understand that there is more to the equation than just engine protection when it comes to selecting the correct oil. Even more, this isn't a new topic, the writers are effectively fourteen years behind the technology with the advice they are still giving the consumers. GM is only the most agressive manufacturer at the moment with dexos.
  • steverstever Viva Las CrucesPosts: 41,902
    edited January 2012
    I don't understand what difference it makes if it's a BMW or Hyundai
    Then get yourself into a class and find out.


    I think you missed my point. All cars have running costs. The BMW may be cheaper to own and operate the first four years since BMW has "free" maintenance. And the capital cost could be cheaper than an Equus.

    It's not all about cheapness. It's about value.

    GM could give away the Dexos spec and any oil company could market compatible oil using the existing certification process. That's value - tying me into a GM branded or licensed oil isn't a good value. Right now I buy "correct" oil for my rigs - I don't buy stuff without the Starburst on it.

    Back to your profession if I may, how would passing Right to Repair laws cost you money or customers?

    Moderator
    Minivan fan. Feel free to message or email me - stever@edmunds.com.

  • thecardoc3thecardoc3 Posts: 1,632
    It's not all about cheapness. It's about value.

    Now your starting to see things the way I do. :D

    GM could give away the Dexos spec and any oil company could market compatible oil using the existing certification process.

    GM requirements exceed the present certification process requiring some testing used by API, and some used by ACEA, and a few used by GM all by themselves.

    That's value - tying me into a GM branded or licensed oil isn't a good value.

    But, GM isn't alone in that. Every European manufacturer has their own specific oil from BMW to Mercedes, Jaguar, Volvo and especially VW/Audi. Honda has one for certain vehicles, fortunately GM's 4718M matches it. Ford has their proprietary specs, Nissan has one vehicle where the ONLY place you can get the oil is Nissan. I could go on and on about this, singling out GM is actually unfair. GM is just forcing the spec to be on the front of the bottle. I can show you complaints here on this site that are aimed at GM but are in fact a direct result of the cars being seviced with the wrong oil.

    Chrysler and Toyota both have had to deal with serious engine sludge issues. That wasn't anything but again, the use of an oil that simply wasn't designed to live up to the engines requirements. The problem was that no-one knew that at the time so the usual suspects of too long of a service intervals, or the manufacturers got the blame.

    Back to your profession if I may, how would passing Right to Repair laws cost you money or customers?

    It won't cost me customers, nor reduce my CODB. It will end up a fight where the O.E's will pull back from making what we need availalble and last long enough to sink us. It will open the flood gates for more copycat parts, which will turn into dissapointed customers when replacement parts fail. (Here is that value thing cropping up) The warranty expense from that will be difficult to pass on to the other consumers and erode our ability to serve them even faster than the lack of support from the O.E's.

    People who think they are just going to roll over and accept this legislation are dreaming. They are going to fight. If they get fined (which is all the legislation can really try to do) they will turn around and pass that cost right back onto you the consumer. Nothing good will come from the law passing, and you will lose a significant portion of the professional shops who are the few that can compete with the dealerships for the robotics and telemetric repairs.

    I can do everything the dealerships can with the manufacturers that I choose to support. I will lose that ability when the O.E's dig their heels in and fight R2R.
  • thecardoc3thecardoc3 Posts: 1,632
    I think you missed my point. All cars have running costs. The BMW may be cheaper to own and operate the first four years since BMW has "free" maintenance

    Are you trying to tell me that BMW doesn't account for the cost of doing the maintenance in the price of the car? Besides that, it's the only way they could be sure that the car (hopefully) gets the right oil in it. Although some of the dealers actually fail to follow the guidelines and use the LL-98 when they should be using the LL-01. They get away with it for the most part, but some soccer mom type driving causes the cars to sludge up.
  • steverstever Viva Las CrucesPosts: 41,902
    edited January 2012
    Note the quotes around "free".

    But really, what is four years of maintenance? Four oil changes, an engine air filter every other Inspection II, some tire rotations and a bunch of system checks? An Inspection I and Inspection II should run less than $300.

    My fifth year of ownership would mean a diy oil change. Don't asked me how much; currently I can do one for about $15, but I'm not using "BMW" oil on my Nissan or Subaru.

    Word I heard was that Toyota enlarged some oil passages on the sludgy engine to lessen the risk of gel.

    I wonder how many shops still put 55 gallon barrels of oil in the garage ceiling to use in every rig that comes in the door?

    Moderator
    Minivan fan. Feel free to message or email me - stever@edmunds.com.

  • thecardoc3thecardoc3 Posts: 1,632
    I wonder how many shops still put 55 gallon barrels of oil in the garage ceiling to use in every rig that comes in the door?

    Excellent question, now realize that if a shop owner/technician rolled through this site and read any of the articles I am harping about, he/she would have no reason to question continuing to operate that way. Had the information been presented correctly, then both the shops as well as the consumers would get notice to examine the issue with greater care.

    Word I heard was that Toyota enlarged some oil passages on the sludgy engine to lessen the risk of gel.

    Five years removed and with the benefit of increase training we know that Toyota tried to reduce puddling of the oil. This allowed it to move away from the very hot cylinder head and controlled the oil temperature better. The primary cause was the oils inability to control crankcase acids. Even though the oil specified was API SL and GF3, it was actually insufficient for the type of use that the vehicles recieved. One of the clues was every engine didn't sludge up, only certain ones and it was caused by a predominace of short distance driving (under 7 miles). PCV gasses would condense and the liquids would get drawn into the cylinders where it stuck to the cylinder walls only to be scraped down into the oil and continue to collect. Once the oil lost the ability to control acid, it failed rapidly.

    This is just one more of the requirements that current O.E. specified oils need to meet in excess of what API SN and ILSAC GF5 require.

    But really, what is four years of maintenance? Four oil changes, an engine air filter every other Inspection II, some tire rotations and a bunch of system checks? An Inspection I and Inspection II should run less than $300

    So now this admitting that it really isn't a genuine factor in the decision.
    The sad part is his looks like you want to make the statement about a shop and a 55 gallon drum of oil condeming them for operating that way because you know that would be the wrong way to service someones car, and then you turn right around and attempt to defend your right to do it that way yourself.

    In your one note you commented on my taking and challenging those articles, if no one ever reads this, did I really?
  • thecardoc3thecardoc3 Posts: 1,632
    http://answers.edmunds.com/question-2006-Chevy-Colorado-The-engine-cuts-warning-- driving-won-start-Wait-10-minutes-start-143980.aspx?tc=0033060701201229093

    Shops who support R2R will typically find a vehicle with the type of problem disscussed in that thread as one they would think that GM has an answer to and is hiding from them like the posters suggest. They also think the information that they have to gain will get them back onto a level playing field with a shop/technician like myself who has the tools and training, and the self discipline to see a diagnostic routine at that level through. Guessing while it can come up with a solution usually fails and ends up being a rip-off in the consumers mind. Not guessing and taking a disciplined, patient approach fails to be presented with the kind of support and respect that it deserves and so it doesn't get recognized for it's true value. You can see that in the wallet comment from the last responder. If they refuse to see the value in having someone who can efficiently deal with those issues and support their business, then maybe they don't deserve to have anyone available to them in the first place.

    They should just open their wallets go buy new cars and crush the old ones, that will save them a lot of money now won't it. :sick:
  • 0patience0patience Posts: 1,542
    If they refuse to see the value in having someone who can efficiently deal with those issues and support their business, then maybe they don't deserve to have anyone available to them in the first place.

    A lot of them ARE willing to pay to have someone "qualified" who can efficiently deal with those issues. They just haven't found that place yet.
    You assume that they are out there everywhere. They aren't.
    In some areas, there may only be a half dozen shops for 100 miles around them. If those shops aren't up on everything, then the consumer is pretty much stuck.

    I'm not saying that all shops have this problem, but it is pretty prevalent.
  • steverstever Viva Las CrucesPosts: 41,902
    edited January 2012
    Here's another angle - the IKEA effect.

    The hard way: Our odd desire to do it ourselves. (New Scientist)

    I'm in day four of replacing a sink faucet and drain. :shades:

    Moderator
    Minivan fan. Feel free to message or email me - stever@edmunds.com.

  • imidazol97imidazol97 Crossroads of America: I70 & I75Posts: 18,525
    >day four of replacing a sink faucet and drain.

    Just think how many thousands of dollars of plumber's time at $100/hr that would have cost! :sick: ;)
    If you are working on older plumbing with galvanized pipes, etc., you have my admiration> I had only worked with plastics and copper pipes and then helped a friend with a couple of her plumbing replacement jobs in an older house. Never again.
  • imidazol97imidazol97 Crossroads of America: I70 & I75Posts: 18,525
    >Toyota tried to reduce puddling of the oil. This allowed it to move away from the very hot cylinder head and controlled the oil temperature better. The primary cause was the oils inability to control crankcase acids.

    Toyota kept denying the problem and blaming consumers for driving their cars and for following the recommended service intervals as such. Some of the vehicles were even serviced by toyota dealers--were they using those cheap oils in the drums feeding from the floor above giving the wrong oils?

    toyota made changes at the same time they tried to quelch discussion of the problem on the internet. The hot spots cooked the oil and the combustion blowby settled in the crankcase areas. Instead of trying to control PR on the internet, toyota should have been publicizing by mail and media that their engine needed frequent oil changes?

    Or we could just call it "gel" instead of sludge which was done. :P
  • steverstever Viva Las CrucesPosts: 41,902
    edited January 2012
    I could have had hot water in that sink months ago, and my plumber could have done it in an hour or maybe two. But what's the fun of that? :shades:

    I had heavy chrome plated brass going into galvy. Fun cutting off the nut underneath the sink flange. The new brass isn't quite as thick. The new supply lines are PEX but my plumber did all that work a while ago.

    The label on the pedestal sink has 6-8-18 penciled in; classic stuff. The porcelain part of the fixtures was re-enamaled in 1956 per a note on the back of one of the escutcheons.

    The local library had a couple of plumbing books but mostly I just hop on the net for ideas on how to tackle the project. Terry Love's plumbing forum is great.

    Kind of like getting car info; if it's out there, someone will put it to good use. It's practically a religous quest. (New Scientist).

    Moderator
    Minivan fan. Feel free to message or email me - stever@edmunds.com.

  • imidazol97imidazol97 Crossroads of America: I70 & I75Posts: 18,525
    > But what's the fun of that?

    Like doing your own car work. Sometimes it's hard to judge when it's cheaper to let the professional do the job at what seems like a high rate.

    It's great to look at the wheel hub/bearing after it's done and know I did it right and with the quality part brand.
  • thecardoc3thecardoc3 Posts: 1,632
    OK let's play "the chicken or the egg" Which came first?

    A lot of them ARE willing to pay to have someone "qualified" who can efficiently deal with those issues. They just haven't found that place yet.
    You assume that they are out there everywhere. They aren't.


    There are a LOT of great technicians and qualified shops. I have the pleasure of meeting hundreds of guys/gals each year that I wouldn't hesitate to send any of my regular customers/relatives/friends to. The problem is the public cannot find them, or doesn't realize when they have because of the decades worth of bashing and incorrect advice they have been getting.

    In the near future I'll be spending more and more time on the road, it's only a matter of time before I'll need someone to handle something for me. I don't want to have a problem finding that person and that essentially means they have to be successful today for them to be there for me tomorrow.

    In some areas, there may only be a half dozen shops for 100 miles around them. If those shops aren't up on everything, then the consumer is pretty much stuck.

    I'll agree to a point,however the bigger issue is "Who is trying to do something constructive to correct that?" BTW, R2R won't help this situation.
  • thecardoc3thecardoc3 Posts: 1,632
    This is where the up to date training and the correct information makes a difference for everyone.

    Toyota kept denying the problem and blaming consumers for driving their cars and for following the recommended service intervals as such. Some of the vehicles were even serviced by toyota dealers--were they using those cheap oils in the drums feeding from the floor above giving the wrong oils?

    A better choice in engine oil would have prevented the entire scenario no matter how the cars were driven. The dealers were using the API and ILSAC oils of the time (as was almost everyone else) and it turned out that oil fell short of the engines true requirements. Anyone who just happened to choose an oil that also carried an ACEA rating of A1/B1 didn't experience the "gelling". If they wanted even longer drain intervals, then they could have used an oil that carried the ACEA A5/B5. They also could have avoided the issue by using an oil that met GM's 4718M which is now superceeded by dexos.

    toyota made changes at the same time they tried to quelch discussion of the problem on the internet.

    In fact they were correct when they stated there was nothing actually wrong with their engines. Hindsight is always 20/20 right? It took a while to realize exactly how the low flow PCV systems allowed the oils weakness to be exposed. There were some manufacturers who added heated PCV valves at this time (Honda, Ford) who didn't experience the oil gelling issue. That was in part by them requiring a better oil to start with, and the fact that they actually lucked into a solution for the gelling in their engines because the heated PCV valves were added for a totally different reason.

    How many people realized that GM and Toyota shared a number of these alleged affected engines, but the percentage of failures was much lower with GM? That was in part the result of requiring and many of them actually getting a more specific oil. (GM 6048M)

    Instead of trying to control PR on the internet, toyota should have been publicizing by mail and media that their engine needed frequent oil changes?

    OMG!! You can't be serious. ;) Changing the oil more often is just a shop trying to make more money! Every oil change article on this site tells the consumer that! (sarc)

    I told them in due time I'd start ripping their oil change articles to shreds, and this is one of the facets of that. It wasn't the frequency of the oil changes that was the problem, and it wasn't the engine design, or PCV system changes alone that were to blame either. Nor was it totally the drivers fault, although that does indeed play a role as do the other suspects. Remember the fault to many people appeared to be random and it actually took a combination of the factors to make the gelling occur. It only took one change, an oil that actually met the demands that the engine was being placed under to prevent the issue from occurring. Toyota's mistake was in not demanding that proprietary specification because they feared the fight that GM has the nerve to take on right now with dexos.

    The reality of the "3000 mile oil change myth" is there are many owners who can go further while some cannot get anywhere near to the 3000 mile interval and need to service their cars well before that because of their driving habits. The articles all fail to explain this and why.
Sign In or Register to comment.