Recommended and specified? what's the difference?
- Thread starter parshisa
- Start date
Originally Posted By: nap
page 11 “low fluid level or the use of a fluid other than specified by Honda”
If it’s not mentioned in the Owner Manual than it was NOT “specified by Honda”
That's pretty vague and jumping to conclusions, IMO.
Technically, the oil in the Owner Manual was not 'specified'. It was only 'recommended.'
page 11 “low fluid level or the use of a fluid other than specified by Honda”
If it’s not mentioned in the Owner Manual than it was NOT “specified by Honda”
That's pretty vague and jumping to conclusions, IMO.
Technically, the oil in the Owner Manual was not 'specified'. It was only 'recommended.'
Originally Posted By: nap
That is just my opinion and it’s not suggesting anything unsafe for you to do. As I mentioned from the beginning, best way to find out is asking Honda.
Originally Posted By: nap
You have to use “recommended” if you want to keep the warranty. The Warranty Information is pretty clear on that.
Maybe using the word "opinion" would have been helpful then.
From what I've seen the fear mongering on here about oil grade and warranty is completely overblown and unsupported by any evidence.
That is just my opinion and it’s not suggesting anything unsafe for you to do. As I mentioned from the beginning, best way to find out is asking Honda.
Originally Posted By: nap
You have to use “recommended” if you want to keep the warranty. The Warranty Information is pretty clear on that.
Maybe using the word "opinion" would have been helpful then.
From what I've seen the fear mongering on here about oil grade and warranty is completely overblown and unsupported by any evidence.
you guys are getting too tied up over warranty versus engineering and whats going to happen or has happened.
in my mind, recommended means a suggestion for optimal performance. where substitutes may still perform but suboptimally.
specified indicates to me that substitutes can result in a failure of performance, in other words potentially cause damage or unknown results
There is another aspect of tested vs untested which is a whole other can of worms.
In this perspective specified may indicate the manufacturer has tested the substitute resulting in failure.
While recommended means they may have tested some but not all, or not have tested and have no hard results on other substitutes (e.g. no comment its all up to you if you want to use something else)
in my mind, recommended means a suggestion for optimal performance. where substitutes may still perform but suboptimally.
specified indicates to me that substitutes can result in a failure of performance, in other words potentially cause damage or unknown results
There is another aspect of tested vs untested which is a whole other can of worms.
In this perspective specified may indicate the manufacturer has tested the substitute resulting in failure.
While recommended means they may have tested some but not all, or not have tested and have no hard results on other substitutes (e.g. no comment its all up to you if you want to use something else)
Last edited:
In my experience, recommended in a manual is usually pertaining to an exact product, ie, Honda Genuine yadada. Specified is usually pertianing to a performance level, ie. API SN 5W-30.
So particular products are "recommended" and types of products are "specified".
So particular products are "recommended" and types of products are "specified".
Originally Posted By: kschachn
...From what I've seen the fear mongering on here about oil grade and warranty is completely overblown and unsupported by any evidence.
KIA states that warranty coverage will be denied for "Improper maintenance or the use of other than the specified fuel, oil or lubricants recommended in your Owner’s Manual."
https://www.kia.com/us/k3/content/media/all/warranty/2014_warranty.pdf
...From what I've seen the fear mongering on here about oil grade and warranty is completely overblown and unsupported by any evidence.
KIA states that warranty coverage will be denied for "Improper maintenance or the use of other than the specified fuel, oil or lubricants recommended in your Owner’s Manual."
https://www.kia.com/us/k3/content/media/all/warranty/2014_warranty.pdf
Originally Posted By: hallstevenson
Hyundai / Kia just get "corrected" by the FTC for the wording they use in their owner documentation.
What specific wording/documentation are you talking about? A link would be helpful...
Hyundai / Kia just get "corrected" by the FTC for the wording they use in their owner documentation.
What specific wording/documentation are you talking about? A link would be helpful...
I’m not sure what kind of reasoning are you gents using here... If neither “20W50” nor “wood glue” are specified or recommended or required or in any other way mentioned anywhere in the manual, what makes you think that you could succesfully claim warranty after filling your crankcase with any of them?
according to LAW if said fluids are mandatory they MUST be supplied for FREE!!!! manufacturers TRY to bull poop you but you ONLY need meet the correct spec to maintain your warranty. PERIOD!!!!!! keep records + receipts of DIY fluid changes with the correct spec + you are good. its up to the manufacturer to prove any item you CAUSED a PROBLEM!!! it keeps getting worse as STEALERS are HUNGRY to charge you $100 plus or minus hourly for many services that get done by inexperienced ROOKIES!!!
Originally Posted By: turnbowm
KIA states that warranty coverage will be denied for "Improper maintenance or the use of other than the specified fuel, oil or lubricants recommended in your Owner’s Manual."
https://www.kia.com/us/k3/content/media/all/warranty/2014_warranty.pdf
That's a good example of a restriction in the manual, it did not come up in our earlier discussion. Thanks for the quote. I would suggest that if you are unlucky enough to own one of those cars then you should not deviate from the recommendations.
One really wonders what it means that warranty coverage will be denied due to use of lubricants other than what is recommended in the owner's manual though. For example, Toyota recommends I use their car care products in the owner's manual for the exterior of my cars. Would my rust-through warranty have been denied if I had not used their recommended detergent or wax? They also recommend I use only Toyota branded parts, will my warranty be denied if I use something else? Even the dealer doesn't use all Toyota branded parts.
KIA states that warranty coverage will be denied for "Improper maintenance or the use of other than the specified fuel, oil or lubricants recommended in your Owner’s Manual."
https://www.kia.com/us/k3/content/media/all/warranty/2014_warranty.pdf
That's a good example of a restriction in the manual, it did not come up in our earlier discussion. Thanks for the quote. I would suggest that if you are unlucky enough to own one of those cars then you should not deviate from the recommendations.
One really wonders what it means that warranty coverage will be denied due to use of lubricants other than what is recommended in the owner's manual though. For example, Toyota recommends I use their car care products in the owner's manual for the exterior of my cars. Would my rust-through warranty have been denied if I had not used their recommended detergent or wax? They also recommend I use only Toyota branded parts, will my warranty be denied if I use something else? Even the dealer doesn't use all Toyota branded parts.
Originally Posted By: nap
I’m not sure what kind of reasoning are you gents using here... If neither “20W50” nor “wood glue” are specified or recommended or required or in any other way mentioned anywhere in the manual, what makes you think that you could succesfully claim warranty after filling your crankcase with any of them?
I think one would have an easier time arguing that the use of wood glue rather than oil would indeed invalidate a warranty, considering the owner's manual does specify you use "oil" and not glue. Also I'd say that it would be a better argument that not using an oil with the required specification (SN for example, instead of SA) is easier to defend than using 5W-30 instead of 0W-20. The OP wasn't asking if he could substitute wood glue.
I understand what you are asking but I wouldn't get warranty coverage if I filled my gas tank with salt water rather than gasoline. But what if I used an octane rating other than what is recommended?
I’m not sure what kind of reasoning are you gents using here... If neither “20W50” nor “wood glue” are specified or recommended or required or in any other way mentioned anywhere in the manual, what makes you think that you could succesfully claim warranty after filling your crankcase with any of them?
I think one would have an easier time arguing that the use of wood glue rather than oil would indeed invalidate a warranty, considering the owner's manual does specify you use "oil" and not glue. Also I'd say that it would be a better argument that not using an oil with the required specification (SN for example, instead of SA) is easier to defend than using 5W-30 instead of 0W-20. The OP wasn't asking if he could substitute wood glue.
I understand what you are asking but I wouldn't get warranty coverage if I filled my gas tank with salt water rather than gasoline. But what if I used an octane rating other than what is recommended?
Similar threads
- Locked
