does it matter how you treat your car?

Status
Not open for further replies.
It absolutely makes a difference, but there is a huge "BUT".

You can drive a car hard, BUT, it has to be fully up to operating temp first. Driving a car hard without oil, trans fluid and brakes up to operating temp first, and you are going to damage things.

Note, driving a car hard does not mean abusing it. Launching a car hard, and power shifting are abuse IMHO. You are going to damage driveline components.
 
Last edited:
It matters to me how I treat my car. It also matters to me how I treat others' cars. This includes the occasional rental. I've been known to do an oil change or wash and wax a rental if I believed it to be necessary at the time.
 
Originally Posted by The_Nuke
It matters to me how I treat my car. It also matters to me how I treat others' cars. This includes the occasional rental. I've been known to do an oil change or wash and wax a rental if I believed it to be necessary at the time.


Have never gone that far, but I have replaced the wipers on a Ford rental with new OE wipers because the noise was driving me crazy.
 
I'll take the gently driven well maintained car please, oh, wait I already have one!

I'd rather have the car that was driven in the 1500/2000 rpm range than the car that's spent most of it's life in the 3/4/5k range, it only make sense the former will need parts replaced sooner, is that not twice the wear?
 
How well are car is treated goes beyond the engine and transmission. Lots of other things to break or wear out. Generally, a car treated poorly will look it as well. The interior will be beat up.

The attitude goes beyond cars. If one doesn't treat their car well then that attitude will apply to anything else that person owns.
 
A vehicle is not just an engine and transmission and although these are big ticket items, lots of other systems and components car break or wear out and make the vehicle not worth fixing. Add rust for regions where salt is used and it is clear that constantly worrying about engine and transmission is not worth stressing over.
 
Originally Posted by Nick1994
I'm not so sure.

People all the time say if you "maintain" your car that it'll last longer and have fewer problems. But there's so little to do on the maintenance schedule of modern cars. How is following the book on coolant changes every 100k miles, spark plugs every 60k, and air filters every 30k going to stop batteries from failing prematurely? A/C compressors from going out? Window motors from going bad?

I guess what I mean is say 2 people buy a 2009 VW Jetta new. Person A maintains the car to a 'T', and does all maintenance by the book. Person B does Jiffy Lube oil changes every 10k. Coolant changes? What are those? Takes the brakes down to metal on metal, original cabin air filter, etc.

Then when the car is 10 years old someone will say "buy the one that was maintained so well, it'll be a good reliable car". Yeah, but the electrical is still gonna go out with the same odds whether or not it was maintained by the book, same with the odds of the water pump going out, getting a bad alternator, the suspension being toast etc.



There's obviously a longevity difference between a car that someone drives in idle everywhere without touching the accelerator, a car driven normally, and a car where the person floors it at every green light, races up to and stops at every red light with full braking force. All of the moving, physical parts will wear slower in option 1, moderately in option 2, and quickly in option 3. I used to know a guy who raced cars for fun. Every few months he was replacing suspension components, brakes, tires, at 10k miles a transmission, etc.

In general, I feel like most people drive at a level where the difference won't be huge if they keep up on regular maintenance/mechanic visits/getting weird noises checked out.
 
Originally Posted by HowAboutThis
There's obviously a longevity difference between a car that someone drives in idle everywhere without touching the accelerator, a car driven normally, and a car where the person floors it at every green light, races up to and stops at every red light with full braking force. All of the moving, physical parts will wear slower in option 1, moderately in option 2, and quickly in option 3.


I get your point, but driving in idle will cause engine lugging and sludge to form. I think normal driving is best for longevity.
 
Originally Posted by gfh77665
Originally Posted by HowAboutThis
There's obviously a longevity difference between a car that someone drives in idle everywhere without touching the accelerator, a car driven normally, and a car where the person floors it at every green light, races up to and stops at every red light with full braking force. All of the moving, physical parts will wear slower in option 1, moderately in option 2, and quickly in option 3.


I get your point, but driving in idle will cause engine lugging and sludge to form. I think normal driving is best for longevity.


Or, if you want a car to last and you drive like a bat out of ****, you'll need to set aside more for maintenance. Also, assume just slightly above idle. Very light throttle inputs
eek.gif


My point being, I'd take a used car with maintenance records and regular mechanic visits any day over any other car. I'd even pay a bit more for it.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by Duffyjr
I'll take the gently driven well maintained car please, oh, wait I already have one!

I'd rather have the car that was driven in the 1500/2000 rpm range than the car that's spent most of it's life in the 3/4/5k range, it only make sense the former will need parts replaced sooner, is that not twice the wear?

Same here. I believe cars that are floored often forcing downshifts, and held at WOT often are going to be a little more prone to problems related to/and from the timing chain, than a car driven easier. Doing it before reaching operating temps makes it even worse. Especially in some of these engines with very long timing chains. With regard to rpms, getting the engine to speed in a sensible manor and cruising at 3,000 rpms doesn't always mean the engine is going wear out twice as fast as one run at 1,500 rpms. Just look at how long some of these high reeving 4 cylinder engines last. I think there's a little more to it than simple math.
 
Originally Posted by caprice_2nv
We're in the salt belt here. Lots of cars last longer than 20 years if they get undercoated every year.


How much does that yearly undercoating cost x20? More importantly how many people really want to own a car for 20 years?
 
No undercoating or rust here in California but the gas costs 2x as much so it's a trade-off.
 
I see evidence that harsh treatment can destroy an otherwise notoriously reliable vehicle in a relatively short amount of time at the auctions every week. I saw a 2013 Dodge Durango with 222,000 + miles at a recent auction and it ran fine, looked unmolested under the hood and was obviously taken care of. It had to be lots of highway miles, aka easy miles to reach that number in 6-7 years. I've also seen low mileage Toyota's that had obviously been abused with a plethora of issues as well.
I firmly believe that good maintenance practices, good detailing practices, and not redlining it everytime you take off does in fact make a difference in the longevity of any vehicle. Now with that said, the occasional Italian tune up won't hurt a thing.
 
I tend to agree with you.
Treating the machinery gently is simply easier on every rotating assembly.
A side benefit is improved fuel economy and tire and brake life.
OTOH, as a younger man driving mainly stick cars that weren't overly powerful, I'd redline them all the time and the engines seemed to hold up just fine.
I was always meticulous about maintenance including what I would now regard as ludicrously short runs of engine and gearbox oil.
 
My 1995 Club Sport was my HPDE instructor car for over 15 years. On top of that, the M42 doesn't make significant torque below 4,500 rpm- so you have to beat on it like a red-headed stepchild to move it along at a brisk pace. Then there's the relatively close-ratio five speed with a 1:1 fifth gear, which means an 80 mph cruise sees the motor spinning at 4,000 rpm. The car now has over 140k miles on it and aside from brakes, accessory belts and tires, I've only replaced the thermostat and the pinion seal. I'm going on 24 years of ownership and I expect to run it for a long time without any serious issues.
 
Driving a well engineered car hard but well on a track probably isn't the same as the OP "I beat on my Escape on a daily basis (I floor it frequently, and generally drive harshly) " on public roads.

Beyond that, would you rather buy an Escape with a known history of sensible driving and good maintenance or OP's beat on ,harshly driven Escape? Question answered.
 
Originally Posted by AZjeff
Originally Posted by caprice_2nv
We're in the salt belt here. Lots of cars last longer than 20 years if they get undercoated every year.


How much does that yearly undercoating cost x20? More importantly how many people really want to own a car for 20 years?


Around $2400 Canadian if you have someone else do it. I buy a barrel and do it myself. I probably spend $500 in 20 years on undercoating.

My parents just bought a new Ford Edge. They didn't originally want an ecooboost but they are retired now and better off financially than when I was young and they were just getting by. Now they decided they don't really want to keep the car 20 years. So if you don't want to keep it that long or sell it or give it to someone then don't worry about it.

For a lot of people my age (just turned 36 this morning) we can't afford to buy a new car and throw it away every 10-20 years. I bought a 20 year old car for $1800 15 years ago, fixed it up and have driven it for 12 years now (100k miles) storing it in the winter. My winter beater is 36 years old bought 10 years ago for 1500. Those are the 2 vehicles I've been driving the past 10 years and I plan for another 10 for the winter beater and 20+ for the summer car if possible without a complete restoration.

Rereading the op, I realize he didn't say anything about rust he was just asking does it matter how you treat your car. My summer car (84 Oldsmobile Cutlass) was driven very hard by me for the first 5-7 years before I slowly started to mature and worry more about mechanical failures. Did it ruin the car? No. But I did have to fix the rear differential because of it (upgraded to the heavier one for these cars which is much less likely to blow up).

So my answer is yes it does matter. It all depends how long you keep the vehicle whether you see the difference or not.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by AZjeff
Driving a well engineered car hard but well on a track probably isn't the same as the OP "I beat on my Escape on a daily basis (I floor it frequently, and generally drive harshly) " on public roads.

Beyond that, would you rather buy an Escape with a known history of sensible driving and good maintenance or OP's beat on ,harshly driven Escape? Question answered.


So my car, that many samples have reached high miles as taxis (well, mostly the hybrid, but still some regular gas ones) is now not well engineered??
 
Originally Posted by dogememe
So my car, that many samples have reached high miles as taxis (well, mostly the hybrid, but still some regular gas ones) is now not well engineered??


Do you think your Escape is engineered/designed and built to the same standard with the same quality level materials as a BMW? I don't. The BMW was built to be able to run the Autobahns at extreme speed, was the Escape? Referring to fleet vehicles generally doesn't mean much because while some of them make high miles without major failure how many don't? If you had data that a fleet of 100 Escapes had 96 make 300k miles with no engine or tranny failure then you'd have something to talk about.

You say you drive your car harshly, to me that means you know you're abusing it. Would you rather buy your car after you've owned it for 4 years or one driven conservatively for the same money?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top