Long Service Intervals: Pros & Cons Service intervals are increasingly far apart. To most motorists, this appears to be a good thing. Fewer garage bills, less inconvenience. I have even read threads on here which offer a lot of sound advice, yet warn against taking your vehicle for a check or service more often than the official advice.
OK, you now assume I'm in charge of increasing garage profits?! I can understand why some may jump to this conclusion. But think again - I have little money to spare, have always done my own car maintenance and I can see the truth!
The further apart a car's service interval, the cheaper that car appears to be to run. More sophisticated, even. Motorists have a tendency to see the garage as the enemy - ready to take advantage wherever there is ignorance. So to start with, my advice is to lose as much ignorance as you can, car-wise. There is a lot of good information on this forum. Find a garage you can trust and stick with them. Let them know you enjoy your car and understand its workings on a fundamnetal level. Ask their advice, check to see it makes sense.
Service intervals are often stretched to 20,000km or more. Car companies are not stupid. They know that less servicing appeals to both private and corporate owners. They know that the obligatory semi-synthetic oil - their own branded oil - makes them more money than a good quality mineral oil, which needs to be changed at least every 10,000km. And so it starts to become even more clever. As well as selling more cars based on lower running costs, consider brake components. With a car seen every 10,000km, pads may be left in place when half worn, if it is known they will last another 10k with ease. Those half worn at 20k will be changed since they may/will not last another 20k. The same goes for other work too - the less frequently a garage sees a car, the more likely it is to replace parts which otherwise would not need replacing.
The makers also know that motorists often distrust garages, so that they sometimes ignore advice about replacement - in case of wear before the next (long-way-off) service. In general, if something wears out and causes a breakdown, there is more money to be made. More parts are required, damage may have been caused and there may even be a recovery fee.
This isn't to say that cars haven't changed, they certainly have. But the regular oil change and greasing has been replaced with the much more expensive cambelt change, boosted (from the garage's point of view) by more parts sales because of the infrequency with which they see a given vehicle. Manufacturers aren't daft - they work this out very carefully. Many 1980s VWs reputedly never broke their camblets, and many engines were non-interference (ie they wouldn't damage even if the belt broke). I changed the belts anyway, it cost less than £5/400rupees in the 1990s. Today, the equivalent VW needs a parts box which costs at least 25 times that. with other new associated parts, since they are made from plastic. Also a new waterpump, if you are to save a lot of money down the line. Not only that, but a job which took less than an hour may now take the best part of a day. Whether you are capable of doing the work yourself or not, this adds a lot of cost. Cambelts developed a bad reputation for breaking and wrecking engines, so many manufacturers have started using chains. The trouble is, these look more like something you may buy your girlfriend or wife than something mechanical. They often need replacement at 160,000km and wear faster the less often oil is changed.
Sensible people I know still have their oil changed every 10,000km minimum, at which point the brakes can be easily checked and the greatest life can be gained from them. Other potential problems can be nipped in the bud, before they cause damage or excess wear. Read the small print - it will probably say to reduce the interval if vehicle use is in a harsh environment. What is harsh? Hot, dusty, cold, short journeys, and so on. Few take heed. Long service intervals are a great selling point. |