response 107 of 120:

Dec 1 16:31 UTC 2003

Subaru recommends service at 7,500 mile intervals (and also 6-month
intervals - which I ignore as 6-months always comes before 7,500
miles). My last Subaru went for 180,000 miles before rust made it
too dangerous to drive - and the engine was quite sound and used little
oil even at that mileage. I would say that if 7,500 miles is recommended
for your car, jep, that is what you should use. You are wasting money,
oil and your time to change oil more often (and it does "hurt" to create
more used oil needlessly). 

response 109 of 120:

Dec 1 17:56 UTC 2003

I would follow the manufacturer's instructions.  If you start driving on
dirt roads or on lots of short trips, switch to the "severe service"
recommendation, though.  Oil, oil filters, and engines have improved
since 3,000 miles was the universal rule -- back when that was being
recommended, some cars didn't even *have* an oil filter.  Some car
companies are recommending change intervals as long as 10,000 miles
these days.

If the manufacturer has special instructions for when the first oil
change is supposed to happen, be especially attentive to those.  The
first couple thousand miles are a "break-in" period for the engine, and
it's important to break it in properly to get the best life out of it. 
Sometimes the factory oil fill is a special break-in oil that's meant to
be left in for a specific number of miles.

(Incidentally, friction in the engine is higher during the break-in
period.  You'll probably find that your fuel economy gradually improves
over the next month or two.)

response 111 of 120:

Dec 1 21:05 UTC 2003

It'll probably get better as the car loosens up.  Also, I think the EPA
milage estimate is biased pretty heavily towards 55 mph driving, so you
may never quite reach their number if you're like me and spend a lot of
time up around 70 or 75.

response 113 of 120:

Dec 2 00:01 UTC 2003

I drive 30-35 miles to work, one way.  About 25 of it is in 55 mph 
speed zones.  Unfortunately it's not a straight shot; I have to stop or 
slow down greatly (90 degree turns) about a dozen times on my way.

response 115 of 120:

Dec 2 15:10 UTC 2003

Re #112: Yup.  The original justification for the double-nickel, energy
savings, was true.  My Civic gets 36-37 mpg at 70 mph.  On occasions
when I've taken long drives on two-lane highways with a 55 mph limit,
I've squeaked out 40 mpg.

response 117 of 120:

Dec 4 16:00 UTC 2003

It's about 10%.  If gas prices suddenly went up 10% I bet you'd complain
at least a little about it. ;>

Also, the Civic hatchback is a fairly low-drag car.  Cd is 0.36, which
is decent but not exceptional, but the frontal area is only 1.9 square
meters.  A less aerodynamic car might see a bigger difference.

response 119 of 120:

Dec 4 23:38 UTC 2003

That's pretty cool.  I doubt I'll ever buy another Honda, though.  The shape
of their seatbacks is incompatible with the shape of my back.