How often do you change your oil?

[A Horse With No Name]

16 minutes ago, balthazar said:

It’s an ‘11 Liberty Sport. Has been very reliable, I think it has about 130K on it. Only thing it’s needed is about 3 yrs ago it had to limp to a nearby dealer; trans filter was supposedly clogged so it got a flush/filter there. 

Jersey has been using brine for a number of years, but we just don’t see snow much at all. I think we had light snow twice last year. No major snow on a number of years. It’s all in the paint prep I believe; my 2500HD’s pans are fine at 203K miles, and the rest of the Jeep’s underbelly is fine.

Liberty is a very capable Jeep, buddy had one. Did great in a few bad Ohio snow storms...

[balthazar]

It seems weird that certain components on certain vehicles don’t last rust-wise. You’d think a manufacturer would determine a long-lasting process and use it on everything underneath, for example. Shouldn’t the entire underside of a vehicle, with the possible exception of the exhaust, rust at the same rate?

[A Horse With No Name]

11 minutes ago, balthazar said:

It seems weird that certain components on certain vehicles don’t last rust-wise. You’d think a manufacturer would determine a long-lasting process and use it on everything underneath, for example. Shouldn’t the entire underside of a vehicle, with the possible exception of the exhaust, rust at the same rate?

I think that carmakers are more worried about cutting costs than developing things to that level of engeneering. 

[balthazar]

Ask toyoter how that worked out for them.

[A Horse With No Name]

4 minutes ago, balthazar said:

Ask toyoter how that worked out for them.

I drove the Tacoma and the Ranger....you know the rest of the story....Toyota has cut lots of developmental costs. Look at how advanced the Ram is and how backwards the Tundra is. 

[balthazar]

I was thinking specifically of the frame rot issue.

[A Horse With No Name]

On 11/27/2020 at 6:11 PM, balthazar said:

I was thinking specifically of the frame rot issue.

I know you were. I think Toyotas failure to update product is pretty relevant given how far behind teh curve the Tundra is as a full size truck. 

[Drew Dowdell]

I'll be coming up on the Avalanche's first oil change soon.  The Chrysler still has a while to go.  I drove it yesterday and Albert has hardly put any miles on it at all.

[ccap41]

On 11/26/2020 at 7:02 AM, A Horse With No Name said:

I always love oil changes, car seems to run a bit better afterwards, Looking forward to teh first oil change in the Ranger, which will happen at 5000 miles. abouit 3,250 now. Getting 25.4 lifetime MPG out of it. Not bad for a truck tht sees a lot of boost out of the Ecoboost. 

I can't understand why this is so much more fuel efficent than the multiple Escapes I have had as rentals, that struggle to get 23-24 on flat level highway trips. I hear the current gen Escape is much better from a fuel economy standpoint.

I've gotten pretty good mileage out of my two EcoBoosts. I have a pretty light foot though so I expect to do a little better than the ratings. I have also noticed with both of them that once you hit about 70mph, the fuel economy starts to drop quite significantly compared to n/a vehicles I've owned. 

My AWD 2.3T MKC is rated at 18/23 and my lifetime average over the 19,094 miles I've had it has been 23.2mpg.

My AWD 2.0T Escape was rated at 21/28 and I averaged 24.7mpg over 24,611 miles. 

[A Horse With No Name]

4 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

I've gotten pretty good mileage out of my two EcoBoosts. I have a pretty light foot though so I expect to do a little better than the ratings. I have also noticed with both of them that once you hit about 70mph, the fuel economy starts to drop quite significantly compared to n/a vehicles I've owned. 

My AWD 2.3T MKC is rated at 18/23 and my lifetime average over the 19,094 miles I've had it has been 23.2mpg.

My AWD 2.0T Escape was rated at 21/28 and I averaged 24.7mpg over 24,611 miles. 

I am at 25.4 lifetime on the Ranger. 

I have given up trying to figure out ecoboost fuel economy. Buddies dad...F150 3.5 Ecoboost crew cab 4WD, loaded, towing loaded trailer...running 75-80....all the way to Denver and back from Columbus...27.6 for the trip. He has reciepts. Trailer was fairly laoded down. Unreal fuel economy for a fullsize truck. 

Friends Tundra 2wd struggles to make 13 or 14 on flat level ground running 55. 

Edited November 30, 2020 by A Horse With No Name
Capitalization. Horse can't type. Needs new horse shoes on front hooves.

[Drew Dowdell]

4 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

I've gotten pretty good mileage out of my two EcoBoosts. I have a pretty light foot though so I expect to do a little better than the ratings. I have also noticed with both of them that once you hit about 70mph, the fuel economy starts to drop quite significantly compared to n/a vehicles I've owned. 

My AWD 2.3T MKC is rated at 18/23 and my lifetime average over the 19,094 miles I've had it has been 23.2mpg.

My AWD 2.0T Escape was rated at 21/28 and I averaged 24.7mpg over 24,611 miles. 

That was definitely the case with the Encore. 

[A Horse With No Name]

Just now, Drew Dowdell said:

That was definitely the case with the Encore. 

Yeah....with the ecoboost I frequently find myself driving at 80 in the Ranger and not even noticing it. 

[David]

WOW, Just realized that Since last year, November 2019 I just did my first oil change on the SS and Escalade for the winter season here. This pandemic has really reduced my driving and maintenance. No wonder the service departments are sending out digital coupons to remind people to get service done. This has greatly reduced the income of the service departments.

This is the longest time I have ever gone on an oil change. 1 year. 😮 

[balthazar]

'16 Malibu's 450-mile MPG window fluctuates between 30 & 33.
2500HD averages about 16.25. This is why the 3.0L TD is so appealing; combined is about 23.

[A Horse With No Name]

3 minutes ago, balthazar said:

'16 Malibu's 450-mile MPG window fluctuates between 30 & 33.
2500HD averages about 16.25. This is why the 3.0L TD is so appealing; combined is about 23.

That's really good for both vehicles, esp. with size. 

3.0 TD would be extremy appealing. 

[ccap41]

1 hour ago, A Horse With No Name said:

I am at 25.4 lifetime on the Ranger. 

I have given up trying to figure out ecoboost fuel economy. Buddies dad...F150 3.5 Ecoboost crew cab 4WD, loaded, towing loaded trailer...running 75-80....all the way to Denver and back from Columbus...27.6 for the trip. He has reciepts. Trailer was fairly laoded down. Unreal fuel economy for a fullsize truck. 

Friends Tundra 2wd struggles to make 13 or 14 on flat level ground running 55. 

Those numbers just don't add up.. 27.6mpg for all a 4WDm loaded and towing.. I mean I don't have any reason to believe he is lying but 27.6 seems out of reach for an unloaded 2WD 3.5EB going 75-80mph. 

Heck, I'm pretty sure when I'm running 75-80mph I'm only about 25mpg.

1 hour ago, Drew Dowdell said:

That was definitely the case with the Encore. 

It's gotta be the whole small displacement and turbo situation. When out of boost, there's just too much drag at those speeds for a small n/a engine OR you're dabbling in the boost also decreasing fuel economy. 

1 hour ago, balthazar said:

'16 Malibu's 450-mile MPG window fluctuates between 30 & 33.
2500HD averages about 16.25. This is why the 3.0L TD is so appealing; combined is about 23.

Overall cost saving would probably favor the 5.3 though. Unless you have a heavy foot(which it doesn't sound like it with 16.25 out of the 2500HD) I'd bet you could get right around 20mpg with the 5.3. 

[A Horse With No Name]

4 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

Those numbers just don't add up.. 27.6mpg for all a 4WDm loaded and towing.. I mean I don't have any reason to believe he is lying but 27.6 seems out of reach for an unloaded 2WD 3.5EB going 75-80mph. 

Heck, I'm pretty sure when I'm running 75-80mph I'm only about 25mpg.

It's gotta be the whole small displacement and turbo situation. When out of boost, there's just too much drag at those speeds for a small n/a engine OR you're dabbling in the boost also decreasing fuel economy. 

Overall cost saving would probably favor the 5.3 though. Unless you have a heavy foot(which it doesn't sound like it with 16.25 out of the 2500HD) I'd bet you could get right around 20mpg with the 5.3. 

Yeah, i thought it was odd, but those were his actual numbers. He frequently sees above 20 with that truck. 

[Drew Dowdell]

1 hour ago, ccap41 said:

Those numbers just don't add up.. 27.6mpg for all a 4WDm loaded and towing.. I mean I don't have any reason to believe he is lying but 27.6 seems out of reach for an unloaded 2WD 3.5EB going 75-80mph. 

Heck, I'm pretty sure when I'm running 75-80mph I'm only about 25mpg.

It's gotta be the whole small displacement and turbo situation. When out of boost, there's just too much drag at those speeds for a small n/a engine OR you're dabbling in the boost also decreasing fuel economy. 

Overall cost saving would probably favor the 5.3 though. Unless you have a heavy foot(which it doesn't sound like it with 16.25 out of the 2500HD) I'd bet you could get right around 20mpg with the 5.3. 

 

58 minutes ago, A Horse With No Name said:

Yeah, i thought it was odd, but those were his actual numbers. He frequently sees above 20 with that truck. 

Denver to Columbus is downhill. Lee Iacocca pulled the same trick in a Mustang 60ish years ago.  

[A Horse With No Name]

1 minute ago, Drew Dowdell said:

 

Denver to Columbus is downhill. Lee Iacocca pulled the same trick in a Mustang 60ish years ago.  

Interesting....

[Drew Dowdell]

1 hour ago, ccap41 said:

It's gotta be the whole small displacement and turbo situation. When out of boost, there's just too much drag at those speeds for a small n/a engine OR you're dabbling in the boost also decreasing fuel economy. 

I'm sure of it. 65 - 70 was the sweet spot for MPG for that car.... 32ish mpg highway was possible if it was just me.  Put some people in it and it would drop because of the mountains around here. I could see as much as a 5mpg drop by going 75 instead of 70. 

[A Horse With No Name]

15 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

I'm sure of it. 65 - 70 was the sweet spot for MPG for that car.... 32ish mpg highway was possible if it was just me.  Put some people in it and it would drop because of the mountains around here. I could see as much as a 5mpg drop by going 75 instead of 70. 

I could get low thirties out of the miata when I ahd it, top up and driven sane. It dropped to mid twenties or worse, driven ahrd with the top down....like it was meant to be. 

 

[balthazar]

8 hours ago, ccap41 said:

Overall cost saving would probably favor the 5.3 though. Unless you have a heavy foot(which it doesn't sound like it with 16.25 out of the 2500HD) I'd bet you could get right around 20mpg with the 5.3. 

In mid-level trims (Elevation & SLE), the price diff of the 3.0L TD is $1K over the 5.3, but the city MPG goes up by 5.

I have a relatively light foot only because the 2500HD is elderly & tired; I brake like a loaded semi and I don't hammer on it like I used to. But it's MPG has never differed regardless, I've logged every fuel fill since I got it.

[A Horse With No Name]

1 hour ago, balthazar said:

In mid-level trims (Elevation & SLE), the price diff of the 3.0L TD is $1K over the 5.3, but the city MPG goes up by 5.

I have a relatively light foot only because the 2500HD is elderly & tired; I brake like a loaded semi and I don't hammer on it like I used to. But it's MPG has never differed regardless, I've logged every fuel fill since I got it.

I just like the sound of a diesel. I miss my Diesel Jetta.

[Robert Hall]

10 hours ago, A Horse With No Name said:

I just like the sound of a diesel. I miss my Diesel Jetta.

I can still remember the sound of my diesel Escort...though it only had 52 hp, it had great steering feel for an '80s econobox.  

[A Horse With No Name]

1 hour ago, Robert Hall said:

I can still remember the sound of my diesel Escort...though it only had 52 hp, it had great steering feel for an '80s econobox.  

I still have a small nimble car fetish. Steering feel went away with Current Gen Miata with Electric Power steering. Sadly.