response 1 of 36:

Jan 12 00:38 UTC 1998

My neighbor, who just had her oil changed ('professionally') 8000 miles ago,
found her oil light blinking, and when she measured the level there was none
on the stick.  So she added a quart - still no reading.  There is no sign of
any leaking or burning of oil, the car is pretty new (a few years old) but
has 94,000 miles on it.  (Works in Dearborn).  Is it possible that the
'professional' only added one quart after draining the oil?  Or forgot to add
any oil at all?  Other ideas?
I doubt the website covers this one.  Help please!

response 3 of 36:

Jan 12 05:29 UTC 1998

On most cars, the oil is supposed to be changed every 3000 miles.  If she went
8000, I'm not surprised there was a problem.

response 5 of 36:

Jan 12 08:34 UTC 1998

   indeed. if the mechanic had added no oil, the oil light would have
come on immediately and the engine would have seized up within a block
or two of driving away from the oil-change place. with an aging car
that has that many miles on it, it's not at all surprising that a lot
of the oil had been used up/burned away. ideally, oil should be changed
every 3,000 miles and the dipstick checked at least once a month.

response 7 of 36:

Jan 13 12:03 UTC 1998

My Nova, with about 120K on it, uses about 1 quart every 2,000 miles.
I change the oil on it every 3 to 4 thousand miles.  Seems like pretty
normal consumption for a car with 94K on it.  When the oil light comes
on it means that the oil pressure is low or not.  No oil pressure means
that hot moving parts inside the engine are not being lubricated which
can seriously harm or totally destroy an engine in short order.

response 9 of 36:

Jan 15 06:34 UTC 1998

   most manufacturers recommend changing the filter every 6000 miles
(ideally, every other oil change). i don't know of any "better" oil
filter, but you might want to call a reputable parts store and ask.
using dirty oil, even in an old car, doesn't seem like a very good
idea. the dirty oil will do a far less efficient job of lubricating
the engine and cause the engine to wear out much more quickly.

response 11 of 36:

Jan 15 21:28 UTC 1998

To quote from the audience (who pours in used oil), '
Baloney.  There is no way the mileage could be reduced enough to measure it.
And we don't care about the engine wearing out because, if you drive a maximum
of 1000 miles/year, the body is sure to wear out first.
I the old days, you were supposed to change the filter twice as often a the
oil.  And yes, he has heard about the bypass, and says only a portion of the
oil goes through the filter anyway, and if the filter is getting clogged, even
less oil will go through it.  But the average car owner does not follow
recommendations.  (Same as with taking antibiotics, they never expect anyone
to follow the instructions, so they give them more than they need.)  So cars
have been designed to run with dirty filters, less efficiently.  Nobody ever
used to change their filter between oil changes, so they redesigned the
filters not to catch as much dirt, and therefore the oil gets dirty faster
so you have to change the oil more often instead of the filter.

response 13 of 36:

Jan 16 14:10 UTC 1998

The 3,000 mile rule is not what most owners manuals recommend.  Our Subaru
manual says every 7,500 miles and the dealer says changing it more often
is a waste of money and oil.  The general rule of thumb you see bantered
about is every 3,000 miles.  I suspect it has a lot to do with the size
of the engine in relation to the amount of oil in the sump.  I suspect that
and engine with a smaller oil sump would require more frequent changes,
all other things being equal.  A worn engine will have more blow-by and
gasoline / diesel getting into the oil will alter its characteristics.
An engine that is seldom allowed to run at operating temperature will
also build up more fuel residue and water in the oil since a lot of that
would be boiled off at operating temperature.  Operating conditions
(load, engine operating temp. etc.) also effect the oil.
 
I have whitnessed a ~10% drop in in mileage to, what I consider, old oil.
(Changed after 7,000+ miles in our Nova.)  A mechanic friend said he has
seen the same thing.

response 15 of 36:

Jan 17 08:28 UTC 1998

One more thing:
        I've got a 15 year old Nissan pick-up truck, which I've probably driven
about 100 miles since I bought the Saturn in April.  I had the oil changed
a couple weeks before I bought the Saturn, but since then I haven't been using
it enough to justify the time to get stuff done to it.  The oil still looks
pretty much like new oil does, and there is still enough of it.  How important
is the "every three months" part of the 3 months or 3,000 miles rule in
vehicles that are almost never driven?

The other fluids all look like they're at the right levels except for the
coolant, which is low.  I have a bottle of coolant, and will add some coolant
before the next time I drive it.

response 17 of 36:

Jan 17 18:57 UTC 1998

There used to be kits to test the oil to see if it needed changing.
It is the number of times you start the car that affects the oil.  The warmup
period, before the parts expand and fit as designed, is when there is the most
engine wear.  You can change your oil every week, but the engine will still
wear out if you start the car frequently.  (Please forgiven the typist if this
does not quite make sense.  The mechanic does not type.)

response 19 of 36:

Mar 8 16:39 UTC 1998

The manufacturers, for 1 or 2 years have put 7500 mi in their manuals.  Most
if not all have gone back to 5000.

response 21 of 36:

Mar 14 04:13 UTC 1998

Guys,can we talk about trains in this conference?I would like to know which
is the fastest train in the world?Which is the most luxurious rail service?And
I heard that in the US,we have a coast-to-coast rail service?How many days
does it take?Is there a US-Canada rail service?How would it be if the US and
Asia were connected by the Bering strait by a rail service?
I am really a rail entusiast.Pl

response 23 of 36:

Mar 14 05:57 UTC 1998

A train connecting the US and Siberia probably wouldn't make much economic
sense, considerign that there is pretty much nothing in Siberia.  If I
remember correctly, there aren't even roads in much of Siberia.  I suspect
that that's the sort of trip where airplanes make a lot more sense.