I was refused an oil change!
8/9/12, 11:09 AM
#101
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: April 27, 2004
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would also like to add that I worked for a "major" auto manufacture at their engine plant. The first thing you should do is change the oil. Also, you do realize that the engines are shipped with the bare minimum amount of oil in them to save a shipping cost(can be up to 2 quarts low). I have seen "what" is in new engines and the workers that assemble them. Change the oil on the way home or when you get home(but really, 100-300 miles at the most). I would recommend going with the motorcraft synblend(factory installed) up untill the 12,000 mile mark.
After the 12,000 mile mark, switch to a full synthetic. Then monitor your oil consumption and change any where from 5,000-6,000 mile intervals(all depends on driving habits and usage). Most people don't know or realize that the most of the interal wear on an engine happens within the first 800 miles of a fresh oil change. This is due to the additives in the oil.
After the 12,000 mile mark, switch to a full synthetic. Then monitor your oil consumption and change any where from 5,000-6,000 mile intervals(all depends on driving habits and usage). Most people don't know or realize that the most of the interal wear on an engine happens within the first 800 miles of a fresh oil change. This is due to the additives in the oil.
8/9/12, 12:45 PM
#102
GT Member
Join Date: May 8, 2010
Location: Marshall
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I just got my oil changed at 11k. It's the second one. Each time after the change there was a slight tick. It goes away after a few days and miles. The other problem I had was with the guy who changed my oil. He left hand prints on my front bumper, and left arm prints on both fenders. That tick me off. I just got the dealer email how everything went. What would you all write in the comments section? Ron
8/9/12, 01:16 PM
#103
Legacy TMS Member
I just got my oil changed at 11k. It's the second one. Each time after the change there was a slight tick. It goes away after a few days and miles. The other problem I had was with the guy who changed my oil. He left hand prints on my front bumper, and left arm prints on both fenders. That tick me off. I just got the dealer email how everything went. What would you all write in the comments section? Ron
As to the hand prints, I have no idea why you'd even touch the bumper/fenders when changing the oil, so that'd tick me off a little but it's not like you can't wash it, provided they weren't really grubby dirt + oil stains.
8/9/12, 01:28 PM
#104
Shelby GT500 Member
Regarding changing your oil early, I've been told by the guys at SVT that doing so is nonsense and is nothing but a waste of money. I'll take their opinion on the cars they designed and built over anyone else's. The idea that some guy who's been 'in the industry' for so many years is going to know the engines and flow dynamics as well as the engineers who designed the motors is the highest of arrogance and folly. But it's your money. Waste it if you want to.
8/9/12, 02:16 PM
#105
Different oils are not equal so its not wasting money if youre upgrading. I did the break-in per the manual and switched out to Amsoil full synthetic at 2k.
Anyone use that StaoBil Ethanol treatment? Trying to find an Ethanol-free station around here but was curious about this thing I keep hearing advertised until I do.
*Sta-Bil, thats a supposed to be a dot between Sta & Bil, lol
Anyone use that StaoBil Ethanol treatment? Trying to find an Ethanol-free station around here but was curious about this thing I keep hearing advertised until I do.
*Sta-Bil, thats a supposed to be a dot between Sta & Bil, lol
Last edited by wheelman; 8/9/12 at 02:19 PM.
8/9/12, 02:43 PM
#106
Couldn't stay out of this. There is a ton of bad information in theis threads. Please read:
[CENTER]---snip---
I would recommend changing it at the first 200 miles, then at 500 miles, and then every 1,000-1,500 miles until you have reached about 12K.
---snip---
[/SIZE][/FONT][/B]
[CENTER]---snip---
I would recommend changing it at the first 200 miles, then at 500 miles, and then every 1,000-1,500 miles until you have reached about 12K.
---snip---
[/SIZE][/FONT][/B]
8/10/12, 10:25 AM
#108
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: April 27, 2004
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regarding changing your oil early, I've been told by the guys at SVT that doing so is nonsense and is nothing but a waste of money. I'll take their opinion on the cars they designed and built over anyone else's. The idea that some guy who's been 'in the industry' for so many years is going to know the engines and flow dynamics as well as the engineers who designed the motors is the highest of arrogance and folly. But it's your money. Waste it if you want to.
Certified Fluid-Dynamics Tribologist. SRI (Society of Rheological Engineering) - Certified Rheologist
8/10/12, 10:31 AM
#109
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: April 27, 2004
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just like a certain automaker having engines(that's right, engines) explode in the dyno/test bench area because tolerences were too tight on all the bearings(not Ford). Also, these were not preprodcution engines on some crazy 24hr high/low rpm, cold/hot test. These came straight off the assembly line ready to be shipped out. Just because someone has engineer behind their name, doesn't mean they don't make mistakes.
8/10/12, 10:34 AM
#110
Shelby GT500 Member
When engineers make the kind of mistakes you're insinuating, those engineers cease to be engineers and become brick-layers.Anything produced in the numbers that engines are in the automakers' plants is going to have some bad eggs. That's just a fact of life. It's not an indication of a failure by the engineers. If it were, Ford would have gone out of business decades ago. Same with Daimler Chrysler, same with GM. Wake up.
You do realize how very out-of-touch the engineers would have to be on the entire process to be wrong about their recommendations on the usage of oil in the engines, right? We're talking so far out of touch as to have been on the moon while it was being designed. And by the way, you can throw all the professional titles and societies around all you want, it still doesn't make you or the guy who wrote that nonsensical piece of crap you quoted any more knowledgeable about the engines or the design process. Again, I'll take the word of the engineers at SVT over yours or anyone else's every single time.
Last edited by kcoTiger; 8/10/12 at 10:39 AM.
8/10/12, 10:49 AM
#111
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: April 27, 2004
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pretty sure Ford doesn't let their engineers make these kinds of mistakes.
Anything produced in the numbers that engines are in the automakers' plants is going to have some bad eggs. That's just a fact of life. It's not an indication of a failure by the engineers. If it were, Ford would have gone out of business decades ago. Same with Daimler Chrysler, same with GM. Wake up.
Anything produced in the numbers that engines are in the automakers' plants is going to have some bad eggs. That's just a fact of life. It's not an indication of a failure by the engineers. If it were, Ford would have gone out of business decades ago. Same with Daimler Chrysler, same with GM. Wake up.
Also, these are not bad "eggs". These were engines that had been through the entire design and test phase and failed. Not becasue of bad parts, but because of a bad design. This does indicate failure of the engineers.
Same as with the old chevy 305/350 as opposed to the original Ford 302. There is a reason the saying exist, "my chevy is cheaper to build than your Ford". Response, "true but you'll rebuild your chevy twice before I rebuild my Ford once". Reason being is the design angles of the lifters in relation to the camshaft on the 305/350. That alone will "wear" out faster than the Ford 302, just because an "engineer" designed it that way.
Last edited by sscobra; 8/10/12 at 10:55 AM.
8/10/12, 10:53 AM
#112
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: April 27, 2004
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pretty sure Ford doesn't let their engineers make these kinds of mistakes. When engineers make the kind of mistakes you're insinuating, those engineers cease to be engineers and become brick-layers.
Anything produced in the numbers that engines are in the automakers' plants is going to have some bad eggs. That's just a fact of life. It's not an indication of a failure by the engineers. If it were, Ford would have gone out of business decades ago. Same with Daimler Chrysler, same with GM. Wake up.
You do realize how very out-of-touch the engineers would have to be on the entire process to be wrong about their recommendations on the usage of oil in the engines, right? We're talking so far out of touch as to have been on the moon while it was being designed. And by the way, you can throw all the professional titles and societies around all you want, it still doesn't make you or the guy who wrote that nonsensical piece of crap you quoted any more knowledgeable about the engines or the design process. Again, I'll take the word of the engineers at SVT over yours or anyone else's every single time.
When engineers make the kind of mistakes you're insinuating, those engineers cease to be engineers and become brick-layers.Anything produced in the numbers that engines are in the automakers' plants is going to have some bad eggs. That's just a fact of life. It's not an indication of a failure by the engineers. If it were, Ford would have gone out of business decades ago. Same with Daimler Chrysler, same with GM. Wake up.
You do realize how very out-of-touch the engineers would have to be on the entire process to be wrong about their recommendations on the usage of oil in the engines, right? We're talking so far out of touch as to have been on the moon while it was being designed. And by the way, you can throw all the professional titles and societies around all you want, it still doesn't make you or the guy who wrote that nonsensical piece of crap you quoted any more knowledgeable about the engines or the design process. Again, I'll take the word of the engineers at SVT over yours or anyone else's every single time.
Last edited by sscobra; 8/10/12 at 12:55 PM.
8/10/12, 11:36 AM
#114
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: May 19, 2012
Location: Troy, MI
Posts: 886
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by kcoTiger
Pretty sure Ford doesn't let their engineers make these kinds of mistakes.
When engineers make the kind of mistakes you're insinuating, those engineers cease to be engineers and become brick-layers.Anything produced in the numbers that engines are in the automakers' plants is going to have some bad eggs. That's just a fact of life. It's not an indication of a failure by the engineers. If it were, Ford would have gone out of business decades ago. Same with Daimler Chrysler, same with GM. Wake up.
You do realize how very out-of-touch the engineers would have to be on the entire process to be wrong about their recommendations on the usage of oil in the engines, right? We're talking so far out of touch as to have been on the moon while it was being designed. And by the way, you can throw all the professional titles and societies around all you want, it still doesn't make you or the guy who wrote that nonsensical piece of crap you quoted any more knowledgeable about the engines or the design process. Again, I'll take the word of the engineers at SVT over yours or anyone else's every single time.
8/10/12, 12:57 PM
#115
Spam Connoisseur
I got هَبوبed
I got هَبوبed
Join Date: September 8, 2009
Location: Sun City AZ
Posts: 9,705
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes
on
5 Posts
Seems pretty antagonistic towards someone offering some sound information, even if you feel it isn't true, you could be more respectful. It seems to me there was some logical and scientific theory in there worth consideration. I feel like you must be an engineer, one who feels that your knowledge of the principles behind the construction means you know everything about the finished product. From blueprint to manufacturing, and actual field use, there are all kinds of factors where things go in a direction unintended by the engineers. Why not have another professional chime in, one who sees the final product, one who has a specialty outside the realm of design, or maybe just sees things from a bird's eye view, (so to speak). Look, I've got a lot of confidence in SVT engineers too, but even the Catholic Church had to admit they were wrong about a few things, or do you disagree with that as well?
8/10/12, 01:47 PM
#116
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: May 19, 2012
Location: Troy, MI
Posts: 886
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Flagstang
kid touchers and engineers? its apples and dongs.
8/10/12, 03:34 PM
#117
Member
Join Date: April 22, 2012
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Umm... Gm and Chrysler DID go out of business, largely because of poor engineering.
The faith some of you put in oem engineers is hilarious... and I'm speaking as one.
Just understand that every day something that has worked for 100+ years in the industry is being replaced by new materials and processes because of environmental and cost pressures. We do our best, but there are compromises that have to be made to sell vehicles with a viable cost structure and within regulatory compliance.
As the owner, you don't have many of these limitations.
Have some perspective.
The faith some of you put in oem engineers is hilarious... and I'm speaking as one.
Just understand that every day something that has worked for 100+ years in the industry is being replaced by new materials and processes because of environmental and cost pressures. We do our best, but there are compromises that have to be made to sell vehicles with a viable cost structure and within regulatory compliance.
As the owner, you don't have many of these limitations.
Have some perspective.
8/10/12, 04:37 PM
#118
GT Member
Join Date: June 7, 2012
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by u00mem9
Umm... Gm and Chrysler DID go out of business, largely because of poor engineering.
The faith some of you put in oem engineers is hilarious... and I'm speaking as one.
Just understand that every day something that has worked for 100+ years in the industry is being replaced by new materials and processes because of environmental and cost pressures. We do our best, but there are compromises that have to be made to sell vehicles with a viable cost structure and within regulatory compliance.
As the owner, you don't have many of these limitations.
Have some perspective.
The faith some of you put in oem engineers is hilarious... and I'm speaking as one.
Just understand that every day something that has worked for 100+ years in the industry is being replaced by new materials and processes because of environmental and cost pressures. We do our best, but there are compromises that have to be made to sell vehicles with a viable cost structure and within regulatory compliance.
As the owner, you don't have many of these limitations.
Have some perspective.
8/10/12, 05:18 PM
#119
GT Member
Join Date: May 21, 2012
Posts: 194
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I did not read thru the whole thread sorry but I guess I am missing the point. We all have a 5/60 power train warranty and most of us will sell our cars before that runs out. Why waste money changing the oil more often than recommended?
I always ran way late changing oil on a ram and sold it at 250k miles engine running great. Some of the responses here make it seem like the engine should of blown at 200 miles
I always ran way late changing oil on a ram and sold it at 250k miles engine running great. Some of the responses here make it seem like the engine should of blown at 200 miles
