There is often dicussion about how big engines last longer than smaller ones.
Anyone here ran a Yaris 1.3 to any great mileage?
My misses asked me the other day how long her engine can be expected to last and I couldnt say really as ive never owned a Toyota or Toyota engined car.
My parents owned a Yaris Verso but only did 40k in it before selling it on.
|
With clean oil and regular cambelt changes any engine should be capable of well over 100k miles with mixed driving. It may be starting to sound a little rattly at that age (especially if chain-cam) but shouldn't be blowing smoke or knocking.
Screwloose will be able to advise of any notable exceptions I am sure!
Lots of stop-start driving is the killer for an engine, and also how well it has been run-in will have some bearing, but there is such a range of factors, including good old-fashioned luck, that a precise longevity is impossible to determine.
I've had 12 or 13 cars in the past 20yrs, and none suffered engine death before 100k miles - some of the bangers were still running fine at 150k +.
|
Well in normal use, the car is doing four 10 mile journeys a day plus a monthly 250 round trip and the occasional jaunt of about 15 miles on Sundays.
She is trying to run it in proper and not exceed the stated rev limits for the first 100o miles as stated in handbook. It does say dont exceed 55 mph though in run-in period which will mean the 250 mile trip will be slow!
|
She is trying to run it in proper and not exceed the stated rev limits for the first 100o miles as stated in handbook. It does say dont exceed 55 mph though in run-in period which will mean the 250 mile trip will be slow!
Very tedious.
That's why I prefer buying a car where someone else has paid thousands for the privilege of running it in for me.
|
|
All very well NW, but how do you know they did it properly for you? Particularly "ex-demos" which may have been borrowed by all sorts of disinterested sales staff? New ones for me, please, when I can afford it. I can take the "tedium" of not accelerating like a 17 year old for a short while. :-)
|
All very well NW but how do you know they did it properly for you? Particularly "ex-demos" which may have been borrowed by all sorts of disinterested sales staff?
Mine was ex-motability, not ex-demo. You're right, I can't know if it was run in properly ... but at half price, I'm happy to take the chance that it may cause problems later if the car hasn't been sold or stolen or written off by a wayward truck or whatever.
Bad running in won't show up as major problems until the car is older. So I reckon that the worst case is that a car worth, by then, £2000 or £3000 will need some repairs and have to be sold at a partial loss. Even if that happens, I'd still be thousands of quid ahead of where I'd be if I had paid £5k-£7k extra for a new one and then spent months doing my mway journeys at 55mph with the trucks queuing up to overtake me.
New ones for me please when I can afford it. I can take the "tedium" of not accelerating like a 17 year old for a short while. :-)
I can live without the acceleration. It's the 55mph max on the mways that would annoy me, and annoy other drivers too.
|
I can live without the acceleration. It's the 55mph max on the mways that would annoy me and annoy other drivers too.
Well, someone's gots to do it, or there would be no second hand cars! My current car was bought as a three year old ex-motability car, at abpout a third of its new price, but we were harder up then than now and if I were to replace it, I'd probably look for a new car.
My wife is currently running in a brand new car, hasn't hit its first 1000 miles yet. Must say I am quite looking forward to giving it a proper work out soon, as it's easily the most powerful car we've ever had, and I'm quite enjoying the anticipation of the running in period! To travel is better than to arrive, I often find.
|
Well someone's gots to do it or there would be no second hand cars!
Very true. That's why I try to take care to thank backroomers who are selling youngish cars which they bought new. Might generous of them, so it is.
To travel is better than to arrive I often find.
In general, yes. But to my mind, an interesting journey doesn't involve driving a car, any more than an interesting time at home involves a washing machine (run in or not)
Edited by NowWheels on 11/12/2008 at 14:19
|
|
|
|
She is trying to run it in proper and not exceed the stated rev limits for the first 100o miles as stated in handbook. It does say dont exceed 55 mph though in run-in period which will mean the 250 mile trip will be slow!
There's more to running in than simply not exceeding the rev. limits.
|
There's more to running in than simply not exceeding the rev. limits.
I know, the book basically says go gentle and stay under 3500 revs i think it is.
Any more running in advice welcome though.
|
55mph? surely 3500 revs in top is higher than 55mph?
|
Yeah, I was having a dumb moment AE, wires in brain crossing with the revs in my car at 75 lol.
The manual says dont exceed 55 mph, dont drive at constant speed for long periods, avoid full throttle starts and avoid sudden stops in first 200 miles. thats copied from handbook.
The engine is reving around 2500 at 55 I think. Will have to look next time I drive it.
|
|
|
|
Vary the revs and don't let the engine labour.
There are schools of thought which recommend the odd squeeze of the throttle for short bursts of harder acceleration to help the rings bed in too.
I didn't realise manufacturers had running in rules any more.
Cheers
DP
Edited by DP on 11/12/2008 at 13:30
|
|
I thought we'd reached an agreement as a forum that the way to run in a modern car was to drive it as it would be driven for the rest of its life.
|
I didn't realise manufacturers had running in rules any more.
I thought we'd reached an agreement as a forum that the way to run in a modern car was to drive it as it would be driven for the rest of its life.
Ditto.
Toyota Yaris [or is it Hyundai Sirion? ] engines must be stuck in a time warp.
|
|
According to CBC the 1.3 Sirion engine is from the Yaris.
|
|
|
|
I thought we'd reached an agreement as a forum that the way to run in a modern car was to drive it as it would be driven for the rest of its life.
Yup when its warmed up thats the way I run them in - none of this namby pamby merde
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The rest of the car will fall apart before the engine gives out.
|
We are just selling SWMBO 1.3 SR X reg Yaris - it has 80k on clock - starts first time and goes well - being VVti it needs regular thrashing to keep them working - I have change oil and filters every 6k rather than 12k recommended -- that could be just me but I think it's helped - it's not a quiet engine- as said a bit cam chainy - I think clutch/gearbox will fail sooner from what I have read on Yaris Forums -- it sits on motorway at 80 plus all day if you can stand engine/road noise - been great reliable car that's only needing discs and pads.
Would I buy another - No just too noisy.
|
I may consider an interim oil change, good idea. My misses has the auto box so not sure if that suffers same as manuals.
We find it very quiet in the Sirion, but obviously its in a different body with different soundproofing than an X reg yaris. This morning my misses nearly tried to start the car again when running as she wasnt aware it was running. I told her to check rev counter!
|
|
|
Regarding small engines in general, we sold a 1.4 Fiesta mkIV Zetec with just under 100k on the clock. Original engine, gearbox and clutch, all of which seemed in fine fettle.
The engine would take about half a litre of oil every 3-4000 miles to top up the level, but other than that it showed no signs of age at all. Started on the key in all weathers, idled smoothly and sweetly, no tappet or bearing noises, and pulled well. Passed the MOT emissions check with a comfortable margin too.
The car had had oil and filter changes strictly at the intervals stipulated by the manufacturer, and using the recommended oil grade which I think is the secret of long engine life. It's also something not many older Fiestas are treated to.
Impossible to say how long it would have gone on for, and I never had compression and oil pressure tests done to make any judgment call, but I see no reason why 150k wouldn't have been on the cards.
Back in college days, a mate had a Vauxhall Belmont 1.3 which had done 160,000 miles and still ran well when the bodywork condemned it.
Cheers
DP
|
|
I know someone who took a Yaris from new to about 100k. I don't know which engine it was. I don't remember any problems being mentioned, but that is not to say that there weren't any.
|
|
|
|
|
|
My 2001 Yaris 1.3 is on 81k - no problems so far.
Given that my old Rover 213 (Honda 1.3 engine) went to 150k with no major issues (scrapped due to bodywork rust), I'd expect the Yaris to do the same.
However no doubt the failure of some ridiculously overpriced non-engine part will cause a write-off before that - catalytic converters are over a grand I hear.
|
"failure of some ridiculously overpriced non-engine part will cause a write-off before that - catalytic converters are over a grand "
That is the reason for car breakers to exist: to recycle usable parts.
If the Green lobby had any nous they would encourage ethical car breakers.
(But they have no sense.. so)
|
If the Green lobby had any nous they would encourage ethical car breakers. (But they have no sense.. so)
And they do encourage ethical breakers, so what's your point?
|
|
|
With the type of driving your missus is doing stu and with good maintenance the engine will do 200K easily and beyond.
I'm not sure why we in the UK always come up with 100K.
It is a chain cam engine as well so no broken belts to worry about.
The basic principles behind all of Toyota's products is reliability and durability. (I am not saying the others don't do it but I have seen evidence of Toyota design paperwork and their approach to durability is something I have not seen anywhere else)
I think she will get bored of the car first though.
Toyota products are generally very strong.
There are Toyota owners organisations in the US where you can't really join (if that is your thing) until you have done at least 250K and it is not all associated with big engines either.
If you do want to make it go and go then regular oil changes with good quality oil and I would use a good quality petrol as well. Even the consumers association who tested the different brands of petrol have stated that if you plan to keep a car along time then you will benefit from using something like Shell V power - although there will be a few people along in a while to tell you that petrol is petrol.
|
I wonder if it really is true that small cars with small engines are less capable of being run to high mileages ?
I am struggling to think why say, a Ka, would suffer any more from being asked to do 150k in five years than for example, a Mondeo of similar age.
I think it might be much more a function of how the various categories of car are typically used and by whom.
For example, while not a rule of course, the small basic car is much more likely to be used by someone who mainly needs it for short local runs and the larger might more often be chosen by someone who needs/prefers a more comfortable vehicle to travel regular long distances in.
As has already been mentioned, any car which is used primarily on short stop start runs tends not to wear the miles very well. Not convinced it's to do with engine or body size.
Edited by Humph Backbridge on 11/12/2008 at 19:06
|
|
|
Thanks Pendlebury for the conprehensive answer.
I was pleased to hear about the chaincam engine - dealer servicing never goes about £195 and on average, over 5 years, its only £155 a year at main dealer, so its madness not to get it done by the well respected local dealer we use - they have sold Daihatsu since they started out in the UK and their service is excellent - they have 6 mechanics so you can usually get your car booked in within a week with a free loan car ( insurance inc ).
Im not sure if she will get bored or not, she isnt really into cars like me and she likes things to stay the same. We shall see!
On the petrol front, is there a best of the standard ( 88-90ppl ) petrols? I usually fill up with either BP or Shell as here its only 1p a litre more expensive at the moment.
|
HJ has a good write up on fuels in the faq's.
Basically he is suggesting BP ultimate or Shell V power.
In my area the shell petrol station charges the same as the supermarkets and if you use a Shell Citi bank credit card you also get 3% cashback towards shell fuel.
|
>>Basically he is suggesting BP ultimate or Shell V power.
Based upon what data?
|
I told you there would be one along in a short while.
|
|
|
|
"As has already been mentioned, any car which is used primarily on short stop start runs tends not to wear the miles very well. "
In my experience of petrol engines: agreed.
In my experience of diesel engines: total fallacy.
Says he whose wife over 40 years has averaged 2500 miles pa.. and destroyed several petrol engines - and failed to destroy a 106 diesel over the past 15 years and 40k odd miles..
Anuual oil changes and long lasting antifreeze plus regular maintenance do make a difference to diesels:
Edited by madf on 11/12/2008 at 19:50
|
|
Can I assume from the FAQ that Shells standard petrol is the best of the rest?
|
In nearly 40 years of car owning I've never perceived any difference between brands of petrol of the same octane (or diesel). Indeed I'm sure I've heard that some swapping goes on between the companies and you could get, say, a Shell station being supplied with BP fuel.
Would someone like to confirm or deny?
|
My sister in law bought a new 1.3 Colour Collection in May 05. It has now done 85,000 miles and, until 2 weeks ago, was even on its original tyres. She does 100 miles a day round trip on mainly motorway (generally 65-70mph but no faster) and car has not missed a beat. Externally it is perfect and hardly a stone chip. Inside is like new with no wear, not even to the drivers seat.
She is not fussed about what petrol she puts in it either and generally it will be supermarket or wherever is cheapest. Gets serviced religiously around every 6 months at local indy (main dealer until warranty expired). She has no complaints at all and car is a good advert for Toyota when all is said and done.
|
|
|
In nearly 40 years of car owning I've never perceived any difference between brands of petrol of the same octane
You are right, as apparently there are no studies to show otherwise. The only test results I have seen, based on very very limited samples, apparently show that some higher octane fuels work better than others in some highly tuned engines.
Even the consumers association who tested the different brands of petrol have stated that if you plan to keep a car along time then you will benefit from using something like Shell V power
In reply to Pendlebury's claim above:
Oh really? That is the first time I have heard of any proof being offered. However apart from Pendlebury saying so, I have seen no proof anywhere. It would be useful if Pendlebury could back up his claim.
|
Read the consumers association's report then jbif.
If your not a member there is little else I can do to help you.
Alternatively you can just doubt what I say - it matters not to me my friend.
And if you read my post correctly it was over the long term ownership of a car where they said it would be beneficial and that is what the OP was about.
Also HJ is also saying they are the best fuels - not just me - although I am delighted you hold me in such high regard.
Edited by Pendlebury on 12/12/2008 at 16:54
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've had many cars and as yet only one had an engine falure (viva HB) but someone still runs it down in Dorset.
It is other things that make me change the car, a rush of blood when I just fancy something different , the tin worm or that repair bill that exceeds the cars value, engines if well maintained seem to go on for ever.
|
>Even the consumers association who tested the different brands of petrol have stated that >if you plan to keep a car along time then you will benefit from using something like Shell >V power
did they?
How very selective in your assertion to excldue the fact they said "super fuels are a waste of money" and the fact they said "there MAY be benefits"
Have you considered a career in politics Penders? I feel you may have the required "spin" mentality.
quote
Waste of money
Which? Car editor Richard Headland said: 'For many cars it?s a waste of money paying over the odds for so-called 'super fuels'.
'The standard fuels we tested were all up to the job, whether from a major fuel brand or a supermarket.
'There?s no conclusive evidence to show that super fuels are better for your car in the long run - so in a time of high oil prices, why would you choose to pay more?'
Which? Car said motorists would do better to drive less frequently and more economically if they want to protect the environment, as the super fuels tested only had a marginal effect on emissions and pollutants.
There may be benefits to using super fuels in the long term as they include detergents to improve engine longevity. But Which? Car said any break even point in terms of reduced repair bills could take many years to reach.
|
Aah Altea Ego - I'm afraid your ego is indeed getting the better of you here.
I was very clear to point out that it is over the LONG TERM ownership of the vehicle that they said there would be some benefit.
If the OP was about using "super" fuels to get any benefit in the short term then I would have not mentioned the long term view and suggested he did not bother what fuel he used as he would get no benefit in the short term.
If you read the OP it was about how long an engine would last.
I am though, pleased to see that you agree with me in your last paragraph above - and if I am correct your point about many years suggests the long term does it not ?
Clearly you have taken an independent report and decided to add the altea spin - I have taken it as it is written and in relation to the post. Nothing more.
|
Just to remove the spin from other posters I have copied the actual element of the report that applies to long term use of the car which the OP is looking to do.
Coupled with the fact the car is new and will not have any deposits built up and he has provided the driving style of the driver I think this demonstrates he will see some benefits.
I think this is conclusive - especially in the first line where it says the greatest benefit will be gained from long term use..
"It is likely that long-term usage of [super] fuels will deliver the greatest benefit. However, it?s very difficult to quantify, since benefits will vary with driving style, [engine type], vehicle age and condition.
If you have a car that you intend to keep for a long time, it could be worthwhile to always fill with a super fuel.
If you aren?t intending to keep a new car for its lifetime, it?s possible you might experience smoother running and additional power from occasional use. Older cars may also benefit from occasional use (improved power and feel). Try a few tankfuls of ?super? to check for any fuel economy benefit.
Older cars with poor service histories that have consistently used poor-quality fuels may have accumulated substantial deposits. The stronger detergents present in ?super? fuels could free these deposits, improving engine efficiency. But those freed deposits could end up causing unforeseen engine problems. However, fuel companies would test for this, so any problems are unlikely........
Good-quality fuels can keep engine components clean, enabling the engine to maximise power and minimise emissions. And the driver may notice reduced engine noise."
Edited by Pendlebury on 12/12/2008 at 17:20
|
Penders you are doing it again.
I will use all your words this time.
you state:
"Even the consumers association who tested the different brands of petrol have stated that if you plan to keep a car along time then you will benefit from using something like Shell V power.
"I think this is conclusive - especially in the first line where it says the greatest benefit will be gained from long term use.
Now your quoted evidence nowhere says "will" or "conculsive" its full of "maybes or could be's" In fact they are very carefull in not saying that there will be conclusive benefits.
Now about that job at No 10 for you.
|
Now about that job at No 10 for you.
He's not getting the job, because his spin didn't spin.
|
|
|
|
And if you read my post correctly it was over the long term ownership of a car where they said it would be beneficial .. I was very clear to point out that it is over the LONG TERM ownership of the vehicle that they said there would be some benefit. ..
In reply to Pendlebury's above statements;
I do not have access to the Which report, but Altea Ego quotes Which:
'There?s no conclusive evidence to show that super fuels are better for your car in the long run ... "
That seems to be at odds with your quotes.
As for HJ's views on superfuels, I have not seen any evidence that he has offered to back up his opinion.
Edited by jbif on 12/12/2008 at 17:29
|
As I say above jbif I have copied the extract in full above to remove any spin that altea is providing to this post.
I am not going to start pulling out some of the quotes as I will be as bad as altea and I just want give the message as reported.
I do not want to take his spin meister title thank you.
I have read that there is some benefit with long term usage.
Altea chooses to read it differently.
You make your own mind up - as I say it does not really matter to me - i was just trying to give some honest and sound advice.
PS I also think you can google it and get access to the full report without being a member so apologies if I mislead you.
Edited by Pendlebury on 12/12/2008 at 18:00
|
.. i was just trying to give some honest and sound advice.
I am sorry but all I see is your opinion, unsupported by any scientific evidence. I replied on the petrol quality issue only because you seemed to imply some special knowledge, when you said "there will be a few people along in a while to tell you that petrol is petrol" followed by "I told you there would be one along in a short while" when your claim was challenged by Number-Cruncher.
.. I also think you can google it and get access to the full report without being a member so apologies if I mislead[sic] you.
I tried Google but all I can find are reports about the Which report. It seems [as Nortones2 confirms] that the Which test was rather poorly conducted, and that they are in no position to make claims about long-term benefits.
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7635303.stm
where Which? spokesperson is quoted:
"There is no conclusive evidence to show that super fuels are better for your car in the long run. So in a time of high oil prices, why would you choose to pay more?"
and BP spokesperson is quoted:
"It is simply not possible to obtain a reliable comparison of the fuels based on short term tests with one or two vehicles as indicated by the Which? testing,"
I know you [Pendlebury] said it does not matter to you, but I think I will rely on published studies and the interpretation put on them by people such as Number-Cruncher and Nortones2.
|
Just to share my experience. Take from it what you will, or not.
I run a wee business. The nature of it is that I do + or - 40k a year. There are four filling stations I regularly use. Shell, Sainsburys, Morrisons and Esso. I monitor my fuel costs accurately as it is my single biggest variable cost. I have records going back for years which minutely detail fuel usage and other motoring expenditure.
I have a diesel car and a petrol car in regular use.
Without question the diesel car is fuel sensitive.
It gets significantly improved mpg on Sainsburys diesel and Shell diesel over the other two. Of the order of 10%. Using "super diesel" from any source however makes no difference other than to cost. As for the effects on engine wear, I can't say. My last three cars have never suffered any mechanical problems despite very high mileages.
The petrol car gets the same mpg no matter what brand or grade of petrol is used.
This of course is not a laboratory experiment but it is the result of an experience gained through vast mileage over many years.
I have not got the time or patience to try to favour one fuel over another either conciously or sub-conciously. I am too busy trying to get to where I need to be, make some money and get home again.
Edited by Humph Backbridge on 12/12/2008 at 20:46
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi (again) stunorthants26. Haven't commented so far as I don't know the answer to your original post (I've only had one small-engined car in my life, and only know that I laughed aloud when the dealer told me the warranty was for 3 years or 100,000 miles - not too many 100,000 mile Picantos trundling about, I think). But on the other points raised: I found the most difficult part of the running-in business, particularly perhaps with an automatic, was the business about not running for long periods at constant (engine, I think) speed. This is particularly tricky on a run like your 250-miler, and a definite plan of campaign is needed! Switching the overdrive in and out is OK as long as you're not going very fast, but I imagine that at 55mph you will be up against the recommended rev limit in 3rd?
As to fuels, I must say I thought the V-power issue had been thrashed to death by now. My own experience is that I tried it in deference to HJ's views; it made my fuel consumption quite noticeably worse and introduced starting and gearchange problems (as the manufacturers will point out if you look it up) which have never been there otherwise; it didn't sound right; and I have stopped using my Citicard on which I have 25 pounds credit, so there! I think the position is clearly that a car is optimised for a certain octane level (eg Porsche for 95 octane) and anything else is almost certain to make it worse, not better. And the octane level is surely a quite different thing from the presence or otherwise of cleaning additives.
I don't agree though that there is no difference between fuels of the same octane level. For instance, our Picanto runs dramatically better and more economically on BP than on Shell. So does my lawnmower! My advice is simply to find a fuel which makes the engine sound happiest and stick to it.
|
O C - I did correct myself on the rev limit thing, it was just a speed limit, the rev thing was me thinking of something else I read.
On the fuel thing, your right, trying different ones to see which suits it is a good idea.
Its first tank is Tesco 'value' 95, so I will stick BP juice in it next. Economy is yet to be proven - around town exclusively its coming in around 38 according to the computer, but I dont put much stock in that really. I will keep a record, see if a pattern emerges. Its likely that as the engine loosens up, the economy will improve anyways.
My Charade does seem to like the high octane Tesco stuff, it runs quieter, but it still returns high 50's on mixed driving so I dont bother spending the extra.
|
Putting aside the spin, is the presence of the detergent such a big deal. It's not as though decokes are needed anymore, so, I fail to see the possible long term advantage.
As ever, if someone can direct us towards real (i.e. not just anecdotal) evidence, then I'm happy to corrected.
My view is that if the fuel meets or exceeds the standard against which the vehicle was tested, and is stipulated in the owners manual, then that is that, and there's no need to pay more, and no advantage to be gained.
|
The October 2008 Which report was 1) over the short term, 2) did not internally examine the combustion chambers. So, they can't predict what the effects of deposit accumulation on the engine are going to be, because they didn't look. They also combined an examination of octane and cetane with other fuel aspects such as detergency. Didn't really cover any of these points thoroughly, in print at least. All told, a superficial "report". Evo and the like have done better! Evo 044, and 087. Key points: If the car has a knock sensor, it will adjust. Fuels vary car to car and station to station!
ASA examined the claims of Shell in 2004 re Optimax: Shell got clobbered on 4 out of 5 complaints, mainly because of exaggeration, but their claim re detergency was accepted in full. tinyurl.com/ywb5uw
SFAIK, the EN requirements for petrol and diesel do not currently include detergency. In the absence of detergents, internal examination by bore-scope found build up of carbon. Evo 044.
One unexpected point (to me) is that higher octane petrol gives better low and mid range performance, where there is a knock sensor (or similar) device. There is some evidence from Evo timed runs that this is so. Apparently higher octane reduces pinking/misfiring at heavy throttle and the ignition retarding that goes with it, more so than giving top end power. So the emphasis on maximum power is only part of the story.
|
>>but their claim re detergency was accepted in full. tinyurl.com/ywb5uw
It's difficult to get too excited about deposits on the inlet valve - there may be a drivability improvement caused by making sure the valve is clean, but nothing serious. If, on the other hand, the exhaus were being cleaned, that would be really something, because it is the hot deposits on the exhaust valve which can promote knock, and hence reduce the amount of advance which can be used.
>>higher octane petrol gives better low and mid range performance, where there is a knock sensor (or similar) device.
The old fashioned method of setting ignition timing by driving the car fairly slowly up a steep hill, and backing the distributor until audible knocking stopped was in its primitive way akin to this result.
|
|
The piston crown has to be put into the arena also: carbon isn't particular where it lands. Glow plug where not wanted:) Agree re inlet. May not be all that important for some engines, but minor changes in rugosity can mean important effects on gas flow, IIRC.
|
Mobil ran a BMW 325i for 1 million mile snon stop in the US using Mobil 1 in the late 1980s.
They then stripped it down. What I saw looked very clean.
I suspect a lot of issues relate to oil types and usage as much as to fuel types.
|
|
HJ - arent these engines used in the Sirion the same VVTi units that seem to use alotta oil in Toyota applications? Or is there something different about them.
|
|
Ok thanks saw it is the Yaris CBC and it didnt mention which engines.
|
|
