Redline oil change frequency

[wmherman]

"I have a Speed 3 Grand Touring, so, yes, it is the turbocharged engine. The website recommends changing oil every 5,000 miles if conditions are not "severe" and every 7,500 if conditions are severe"

Check that again. You have that backwards. "Severe" conditions require more frequent change intervals.

"My personal philosophy is to change oil every 3,000 and use "Dino" oil rather than synthetic. The primary benefit from synthetics, if I can believe the technical bulletins I've read, is superior performance under high temperature conditions. It has other benefits, but high temps would argue for exclusive use of synthetics"

Yes, high temps is a primary benefit but longer change intervals is another benefit. If you change every 3k then dino should be fine. Synthetic oil would be overkill in your case.

"Changing every 3,000 vs 5,000 means an extra 13 oil changes over 100,000 miles, of ~ $500. I consider that cheap insurance"

That may be cheap to you but don't confuse it with insurance. Insurance will pay you for loss. If your engine craps out when following a 3k change interval the oil companies won't pay you a thin dime unless their product is proven to have caused the engine failure as was the case with Quaker State oil back in the 60's.

"I have a friend who owns a Porsche and insisted on following Porsche's 12,000 - 15,000 mile oil change intervals"

I've never heard of factory recommended intervals that long & I'm not doubting it but people forget there's also a time element involved. It's possible he put very little mileage on the car & it took him several years to put 12k miles on the engine, resulting in violation of the time restriction.

"Don't need to hear many stories like this one and the BMW owner who responded to this thread showing pictures of his engine internals gunked up after 7,500 mile intervals"

Don't believe everything you see posted on the internet. The BMW owner you referred to may have an agenda...

 

[wmherman]

+1

This I agree with and since I don't race or track the car, I stick with dino at 3k intervals. A UOA cost a whopping $22. I've done 3 over the course of 31k miles
and even at that change interval, viscosity has been borderline. What that says is there's probably some fuel dilution. This is the same for many other MS3s, synth or not so it's not just me.

Interesting. How much viscosity breakdown did the UOA show at 3k miles? You state there was probably some fuel dilution. Wouldn't the UOA report have told you that or is the $22 UOA pretty much limited in scope?

Did you have a UOA done at the first oil/filter change? If so, did they find any metal particles?

Thanks for sharing.

 

[wmherman]

"Like I said, you need to go dyno your car at a fresh oil change and then later down the road at 3k and then at your 7500k or XYZ mile change and see the difference in power. Unless you drive like a grandma everywhere, your power output will be reduced with the older oil. I've already done it and already know the results"

That's interesting. What were your results and are your sure they weren't caused by other factors, such as temperature, air filter, different fuel, different oil, etc? In other words, I highly doubt there would be a measureable difference in power between a speed3 with a fresh oil/filter change and one with 7.5k miles on the oil/filter, using the same oil and other conditions being equal. If anything, I would expect the power to increase a tad due to slight viscosity breakdown on the 7.5k oil. I'm not doubting your sincerity but believe your results are misleading because there are other factors involved that you did not consider.

"Do you think Mazda and every other manufacturer wants their car to keep running forever and have no business sent towards their dealer service departments? You are the type who believes all the corporate bulls*** Mazda spews out in their literature"

Yep, I believe Mazda, Honda, Toyota, Ford, etc. all take great pride in their quality reputations. They are smart enough to know that customers who have a bad experience with their products will go to a different mfr should they be dissatisfied with their products. Besides, warranty repair work is expensive to a mfr, not only in lost auto sales but in money they have to pay the dealers for performing the repairs.

"Do you think Mazda intended people to buy the car to go racing, tracking, or even fun runs on the street above the posted speed limit?"

Yep, by building a car such as the speed3 they know exactly how most of us are going to drive the car on occasion.

"Get a clue. If this were the case there wouldn't be anyone having warranty problems due to abuse! When you drive harder than the car was designed for (COMMUTING ON STREETS) you need to change your maintenance schedule to something stricter than what the manufacturer recommends"

Some of us have been around a long time, owned many cars, have worked in the auto industry & have more "clue" than some of the kids/newbees who read a few things on the internet & deem themselves to suddenly be experts on auto maintenance, knowing more than the engineers who designed the cars and have analyzed millions of engine failures to see exactly what caused said failures in order to try to improve their product and determine valid maintenance schedules to prevent future failures. The speed3 was designed for a lot more than just commuting on streets my friend. I do agree with you that anyone whose use of the car is "extreme" should certainly modify their maintenance schedule. What constitutes "exteme" is debatable.

"The whole reason I'm even replying to your ignorant post is so people who actually care about performance for their car won't believe that crap written by some average Joe who thinks he knows it all from what he reads in some product brochure. For all the other people who don't care, stick to your recommended schedule"

Don't know who you were responding to but this may be a case of the pot calling the kettle black...

 

[FrequentFlyer]

Bottom line is you will probably never, during the ownership of this car, witness the results, reprecussions, whatever you want to call it, of changing your oil every 7,500 miles vs 5,000. How many people these days keep a car for that long? I just imazes me how much wasted brain power and bandwidth goes into this subject and how much of a big deal people make about this and then go ahead and sell the car at 100,000 miles, which is nothing for a Mazda. If you plan on keeping the car until the day it dies, which we Americans rarely ever do because we love being in debt,lol, it's not going to make much of a difference. Read what the manufacturer defines as "severe" and "normal". Follow the manual. You can't go wrong. If you venture past 7,500 miles here and there under normal driving conditions with a quality oil, I'm sure it won't kill the car either, but be aware of warranty issues. If you're really paranoid, instead of arbitrarily changing prematurely, spend the cash on oil analysis.

 

[Betelgeuse]

Interesting. How much viscosity breakdown did the UOA show at 3k miles? You state there was probably some fuel dilution. Wouldn't the UOA report have told you that or is the $22 UOA pretty much limited in scope?

Did you have a UOA done at the first oil/filter change? If so, did they find any metal particles?

Thanks for sharing.

Good question, the UOA I did was from Blackstone and from what I've read, they're not as thorough as the Dyson analysis when it comes to fuel dilution. According to them, my fuel dilution was normal but the Dyson showed some dilution on other cars so I'm banking on that being the issue. The underlying and important concern is the oil is a little thinner even at that early inverval.

No I did not do one after the first change.

 

[Betelgeuse]

Yep, I believe Mazda, Honda, Toyota, Ford, etc. all take great pride in their quality reputations. They are smart enough to know that customers who have a bad experience with their products will go to a different mfr should they be dissatisfied with their products. Besides, warranty repair work is expensive to a mfr, not only in lost auto sales but in money they have to pay the dealers for performing the repairs.

IMO, the auto manufacturers need only worry about their products until the warranty is up. After that, it's the customer's problem. If they really stood behind their cars that much, they'd be offering 100k - 150k bumper to bumper warranties on all their vehicles. IMO their warranty reflects (to some degree) their absolute faith in the engineering. The affordable cars made today aren't supposed to last more than a certain amount of time. If they did, the industry would die a slow death.