oil change info 5.0 in pics

[lobsenza]

You are correct, it says 5w-20. I called Mobil and verified that 0W-20 will work in any 5W-20 application. It will reduce cold startup wear.

The same is true for 0W-30 and 5W-30.

 

[jimb100]

When Hyundai instituted the 10 year / 100K mile drivetrain warranty, I can guarantee that it was not because they had the most reliable cars in the industry. In fact, Hyundai had the worst reliability in the industry at that time they started that (with possible exception of Yugo). It was a marketing decision made for USA market (Canada still does not have the extended drivetrain warranty).

It is not a coincidence that oil change intervals for completive cars (Toyota, Honda, Hyundai) are very similar or identical, even though they use different engines. Manufacturers have the same interval for different engines by the same manufacturer. The cost of maintenance (partly influenced by oil change interval) is an important selling point for many buyers at that price level. So even though engineers are consulted, the marketing people have the final say, because the marketing people pay the warranty expense for repairs.

Luxury or expensive sports cars like Corvette are completely different, since consumers are usually not price conscious about the cost of oil changes, and for sports cars there may be special requirements that must be accommodated regardless of cost.

OK, which is it:

Manufacturers only make the engines good enough to last through the warranty or the warranty doesn't matter, its all marketing?

 

[HyundaiTech]

The only caveat is that these decisions are not "completely" made by engineers, and the marketing people make the final call. That is because warranty expense is a marketing cost).

I don't know where you are getting your information from that is just not true.

On another note for those of you changing you oil at sooner intervals are you still using synthetic oil? And do you also replace the filter after 1,500 miles. Guys this seams like a big waste of energy and time, along with the small environmental factor

 

[Mark_888]

OK, which is it:

Manufacturers only make the engines good enough to last through the warranty or the warranty doesn't matter, its all marketing?

Neither of those is true.

In a competitive market:

• Engineers make cars as good as they can, given the amount of money and time they are given by management to do so.
• There is no direct relationship between quality and the length of the warranty. As I explained, when Hyundai introduced the 10 year extended drivetrain warranty, they had the worst reliability in the industry (some of you were in diapers and don't recall). There may be an indirect relationship, because in the long run a company can't offer a great warranty on a terrible vehicle and stay in business, but the Hyundai example cannot be denied. Another example was Curtis Mathis TV's, which about 40 years ago offered an unheard of 5-year warranty on tube TV's, even though Curtis Mathis was the most unreliable in the industry by large margin (they did eventually go out of business). But Hyundai tried the same strategy, betting that their reliability would improve in the future, and it did.
• Even for cars that are essentially the same mechanicals such as certain Honda/Acura and Toyota/Lexus models, the Acura and Lexus ones have a longer warranty. The cost of that is passed along to the consumer and is part of the luxury car marketing strategy. You simply cannot say that it is an engineering decision alone.

I know all of this is shocking, and pretty much like when you first found out that Santa Claus does not really exist, but sorry.

 

[Mark_888]

I don't know where you are getting your information from that is just not true.

Really? So the engineers come up with the same warranty terms and exact same oil change intervals for completely different engines by the same manufacturer, and between different manufacturers, and those are all 100% engineering decisions? I am not say that marketing people come up with the numbers by a mere whim, but they have to be competitive with other brands out there. If Honda and Toyota increased their oil change interval to 8000 miles, Hyundai would change theirs to 8000 miles also, and it would not be because of the engineers.

 

[HyundaiTech]

Really? So the engineers come up with the same warranty terms and exact same oil change intervals for completely different engines by the same manufacturer, and between different manufacturers, and those are all 100% engineering decisions?.

I have noticed in my short time on this site that when ever we call out a comment you have made as false, you change your argument to something else. Its just making you look less credible.

My point was warranty is not a marketing expense like you had stated earlier in this thread

 

[Mark_888]

I have noticed in my short time on this site that when ever we call out a comment you have made as false, you change your argument to something else. Its just making you look less credible.

My point was warranty is not a marketing expense like you had stated earlier in this thread

Sorry, but according to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), product warranty expense is most certainly a marketing expense. Each marketing entity has their own (and often different) warranties (partly because of local government regulations). For example, Hyundai Motor America (HMA) has a different warranty than Hyundai Canada (Hyundai Canada does not provide the extended 10 year drivetrain warranty to original owners). HMA buys the cars from Hyundai Korea, and HMA provides the warranty to the customer.

Here is a reference that shows Product Warranty Expense as part of Selling and Marketing Expense per GAAP rules:
http://www.readyratios.com/usgaap/StatementOfIncomeAlternative/1318.html

Lastly, I did not change the subject. I clearly stated that the either/or statement was false (neither statement was true).

 

[jimb100]

Sorry, but according to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), product warranty expense is most certainly a marketing expense. Each marketing entity has their own (and often different) warranties (partly because of local government regulations). For example, Hyundai Motor America (HMA) has a different warranty than Hyundai Canada (Hyundai Canada does not provide the extended 10 year drivetrain warranty to original owners). HMA buys the cars from Hyundai Korea, and HMA provides the warranty to the customer.

Here is a reference that shows Product Warranty Expense as part of Selling and Marketing Expense per GAAP rules:
http://www.readyratios.com/usgaap/StatementOfIncomeAlternative/1318.html

Lastly, I did not change the subject. I clearly stated that the either/or statement was false (neither statement was true).

Its a bit of a stretch to call warranties a "marketing" expense in the traditional sense of marketing expenses such as trade shows, advertising, promotions, etc.

Warranties in the automotive industry are a cost of doing business and clearly an "above the line" expense". Warranties are a flexible expense in that they must only be consistent with competitors warranties or used to gain a competitive advantage.

Auto warranties have been around for a long time and each manufacturer has experience in providing warranty and budgets for the expense as it would any other material or labor cost.

It is inaccurate to say that parts and subassemblies are manufactured to last only as long as a warranty. You may be thinking of "planned obsolescense" which is something different altogether.

Every manufactured part will have a failure rate attributable to tolerances in the manufacturing process, design flaws, assembly errors, etc. Warranties are designed to protect against these things and normal wear and tear may also be factored in. But, of course, I'm sure you know all this.

The point is that warranties have little to do with the original discussion concerning changing oil more frequently than the manufacturer recommends.

It is generally accepted in 2014 that exceeding the manufacturers recommended oil change interval does nothing to extend engine life.

 

[Gunkk]

Another way of looking at Marketing expense: A marketing expense is money one spends on changing the marketplace perception of a product, but doesn't actually go making the product. Warranty expenses clearly fall into this category. No different than a snake oil salesman claiming a money back guarantee. It's just another form of advertising: an effort by the seller to establish a point of difference in the marketplace and increase sales. Just because it's a "pay me later" type of expense doesn't mean it isn't having the same effect as a direct advertisement.

bla bla bla oil change bla bla bla

 

[Mac West]

lets take a break from oil and discuss tire pressure .Went out this first 50 degree day here in the Big Apple and had the tire pressure display light up, two rears 27 pounds looked at caps didnt see any nitrogen symbol, blew them up with good old air. ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

______________________________

Help support this site so it can continue supporting you!

 

[HyundaiTech]

Sorry, but according to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), product warranty expense is most certainly a marketing expense. Each marketing entity has their own (and often different) warranties (partly because of local government regulations). For example, Hyundai Motor America (HMA) has a different warranty than Hyundai Canada (Hyundai Canada does not provide the extended 10 year drivetrain warranty to original owners). HMA buys the cars from Hyundai Korea, and HMA provides the warranty to the customer.

Here is a reference that shows Product Warranty Expense as part of Selling and Marketing Expense per GAAP rules:
http://www.readyratios.com/usgaap/StatementOfIncomeAlternative/1318.html

Lastly, I did not change the subject. I clearly stated that the either/or statement was false (neither statement was true).

I think your mis interpreting the information in front of you. Let me say it like this what is the major expense of the warranty program.....That's right the claims and who pay the dealership when a claim is made. Its the Warranty claims administration not the marketing department.

 

[Mark_888]

I think your mis interpreting the information in front of you. Let me say it like this what is the major expense of the warranty program.....That's right the claims and who pay the dealership when a claim is made. Its the Warranty claims administration not the marketing department.

I can assure you that I am not misinterpreting the information I presented showing that, according to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAPP), warranty expense is classified as a selling and marketing expense.

You are looking at this from the viewpoint of the dealer. That is not what I am talking about since dealers don't offer the warranties we are talking about, they just administer the warranty on behalf of HMA, so it is just a pass-through expense for the dealer. I am talking about how Hyundai treats the warranty expense, not the dealer. HMA determines the maintenance schedule and the warranty. I am not saying that they don't get input from engineers, but they have to look a the competition also. They also have to look at local government regulations also in some cases.

 

[Mark_888]

Its a bit of a stretch to call warranties a "marketing" expense in the traditional sense of marketing expenses such as trade shows, advertising, promotions, etc.

I think the idea of "traditional marketing expense" is a limitation that you are putting on the term marketing. Marketing is a much more wider field that maybe you imagine and should not be confused with just "sales" activities.

Warranties in the automotive industry are a cost of doing business and clearly an "above the line" expense". Warranties are a flexible expense in that they must only be consistent with competitors warranties or used to gain a competitive advantage.

Auto warranties have been around for a long time and each manufacturer has experience in providing warranty and budgets for the expense as it would any other material or labor cost.

What is an "above the line expense"? It is not a manufacturing expense, and is not cost of goods sold (COGS), according to Generally Accepted Accounted Principles (GAAP).

It is inaccurate to say that parts and subassemblies are manufactured to last only as long as a warranty. You may be thinking of "planned obsolescense" which is something different altogether.

I never said that, and in fact I said the opposite. So we agree.

Every manufactured part will have a failure rate attributable to tolerances in the manufacturing process, design flaws, assembly errors, etc. Warranties are designed to protect against these things and normal wear and tear may also be factored in. But, of course, I'm sure you know all this.

The point is that warranties have little to do with the original discussion concerning changing oil more frequently than the manufacturer recommends.

It is generally accepted in 2014 that exceeding the manufacturers recommended oil change interval does nothing to extend engine life.

I think the point of the discussion was whether the oil change interval was 100% determined by engineers, or do marketing/warranty issues come into play. Since not all Hyundai's have the same warranty due to local marketing issues (in the USA a Hyundai has a 10-year extended drive train warranty), one can see that it is not solely an engineering issue.

 

[DFWGenny]

Warranties have evolved. Originally, they were put in place to contractually spell out the remedies to a consumer if the product was defective. It was not a definition of the life of the product. The warranty was just the period/use in which the manufacturer expected the majority of defects to be revealed. It was an engineering and accounting function.

THEN a company, I believe it was Chrysler, offered a power-train warranty that was far and above the competition. Now we have marketing enter the picture. I don't remember if this combated a perceived quality problem or if it was just pure marketing.

Hyundai also offered the expanded warranty after the quality issues with their debut in America. The 100,000/10 year power-train warranty was used as a marketing tool to combat the negative impression many people have with the brand. Now Hyundai has more quantitative measurements of the quality improvement, but they had to get the ball rolling. The warranty is still a big marketing selling point.

Back to oil:
My '95 Caddy had a computer that kept track of:

• Temperature
• Length of trip

And I assume other factors to determine oil life.

It worked very well. Other than grit, the engine can determine whether it is operating under severe conditions better than we can.

I am surprised that Hyundai did not offer that feature on its luxury car.

 

[Mark_888]

Back to oil: My '95 Caddy had a computer that kept track of:

• Temperature
• Length of trip

And I assume other factors to determine oil life. It worked very well. Other than grit, the engine can determine whether it is operating under severe conditions better than we can.

I am surprised that Hyundai did not offer that feature on its luxury car.

Many governmental agencies (especially in Europe) have requirements that vehicles have extended oil change intervals, so the on-board computers is one way of getting the most out of the oil before it is changed. I am not sure if this due to a concern about used oil disposal, or just energy conservation (since oil is made from hydrocarbons, which can also be used to make fuel), or maybe both.

Many European cars (especially German) require higher quality oil for the same reason, in order to extend the oil change interval. In most of Europe Group III synthetic stocks (hydrocracked mineral oil), which is the main ingredient these days in most synthetic oil sold in the US, cannot be used in motor oil labeled as synthetic in much of Europe (where synthetics can only be made from Group IV PAO or Group V Esters).

 

[jimb100]

I think the point of the discussion was whether the oil change interval was 100% determined by engineers, or do marketing/warranty issues come into play. Since not all Hyundai's have the same warranty due to local marketing issues (in the USA a Hyundai has a 10-year extended drive train warranty), one can see that it is not solely an engineering issue.

You have not demonstrated with any factual evidence that oil change intervals have been determined by "marketing/warranty issue."

While warranties may be different in different markets, I don't see that the oil change interval is any different, except where local environmental conditions are a variable.

Just because warranties can be impacted by local marketing requirements doesn't mean the cost of providing the warranty is a variable. The budgeted amount will be a projection and fixed as any other component cost until experience dictates a change.

You are confusing two things.

First, the oil change interval is not dependent on the warranty. It is dependent on the oils ability to lubricate and cool. You continue to try to make it sound like these are dependent on marketing goals, they are not.

Warranty costs are not dependent on marketing objectives. They are what they are projected to be and then upon what experience dictates. While marketing can use warranties to help sell product, the warranty cost is only controlled by marketing where marketing chooses to use failure rate data to subsidize consumer costs. In this case, it becomes a discount to the consumer on future possible expenses. Nevertheless, the failure rate in large populations is what it is.

Regardless, in neither case does changing the oil more frequently than recommended by the manufacturer result in a benefit to the consume, just an additional expense.

 

[Mark_888]

You have not demonstrated with any factual evidence that oil change intervals have been determined by "marketing/warranty issue."

That's not what I said. Warranties and oil change intervals are different. But they both have one thing in common in that marketing factors can and do influence both of them, and they are not 100% determined by engineers as some claim.

While warranties may be different in different markets, I don't see that the oil change interval is any different, except where local environmental conditions are a variable.

Taking into account "local environmental conditions" is part of marketing. I think your definition of marketing is too narrow. Marketing is not just sales.

Also, oil change intervals are often remarkably similar between two different brands of vehicles, which leads one to believe that "market forces" do affect the oil change interval to some degree since automakers do not want to be have it appear that their vehicles cost more to maintain than the competition. But obviously, there are engineering factors go into the equation also.

Just because warranties can be impacted by local marketing requirements doesn't mean the cost of providing the warranty is a variable. The budgeted amount will be a projection and fixed as any other component cost until experience dictates a change.

Warranty costs are estimated and accrued based on statistical/historical experience as soon as a car is sold by the distributor to the dealer (similar concept as allowance for bad debts). But they are expensed by HMA (the marketing arm) and not the manufacturing arm of the company. Of course, Hyundai Korea owns HMA, so in the final analysis it doesn't make much difference.

You are confusing two things.

First, the oil change interval is not dependent on the warranty. It is dependent on the oils ability to lubricate and cool. You continue to try to make it sound like these are dependent on marketing goals, they are not.

I did not say that oil change interval is dependent on the warranty. I said that both oil change interval and warranty are influenced by marketing issues to some degree.

Warranty costs are not dependent on marketing objectives. They are what they are projected to be and then upon what experience dictates. While marketing can use warranties to help sell product, the warranty cost is only controlled by marketing where marketing chooses to use failure rate data to subsidize consumer costs. In this case, it becomes a discount to the consumer on future possible expenses. Nevertheless, the failure rate in large populations is what it is.

First you say that "warranty costs are not dependent on marketing objectives" and then you say "marketing can use warranties to help sell product." I rest may case.

 

[italiabrain]

That's not what I said. Warranties and oil change intervals are different. But they both have one thing in common in that marketing factors can and do influence both of them, and they are not 100% determined by engineers as some claim.

Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see anyone claim that it was 100% determined by engineers. You have a real problem with your arguments "evolving" and setting up strawmen to knock down and then (sometimes literally) claiming victory. I would actually agree with you on the broad points if you were capable of wording your argument to coincide with your level of actual confidence and keep it consistent instead of playing "gotcha" and "told ya so" type games with semantics and things that weren't even actually stated.

Yes, I agree warranty coverage is a marketing expense. As such, warranty coverage is mostly a marketing decision. Even at this stage it would be silly to say that engineering departments weren't significantly involved in decision making.

Having an expense accounted to your department and your department being in charge of all decisions related to that expense are not the same thing.

Service intervals are influenced (not determined by) warranty provisions. All kinds of other things influence service intervals from advertising contracts with oil companies to dealers associations and individual dealers who want more frequent service work. The marketing group would certainly be involved for perceived and actual cost of ownership, but on service interval they're unlikely to get the same sway they do with actual warranty terms.

It's also important to remember that almost none of these technicalities matter because departments don't get to act unilaterally. If the engineering dept says "Oh we made Tau 2.0 and it's absolutely great in every way except that it really needs a 5k or less oil change interval because of the tolerances" and marketing says "But we have to be between 7500 and 10k for light duty to look competitive" You have to remember they're both pitching their case to executives. Neither department really gets to choose anything when it comes down to it. Executives talk to each other and weigh the relative merits, the whole discussion is purely academic.

More importantly, proving that it's not a 100% engineering decision is not proving that it's a marketing decision. I agree with you on most of the points, but you've not proved what you're acting like you have.

 

[Mark_888]

Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see anyone claim that it was 100% determined by engineers. You have a real problem with your arguments "evolving" and setting up strawmen to knock down and then (sometimes literally) claiming victory. I would actually agree with you on the broad points if you were capable of wording your argument to coincide with your level of actual confidence and keep it consistent instead of playing "gotcha" and "told ya so" type games with semantics and things that weren't even actually stated.

Yes, I agree warranty coverage is a marketing expense. As such, warranty coverage is mostly a marketing decision. Even at this stage it would be silly to say that engineering departments weren't significantly involved in decision making.

Having an expense accounted to your department and your department being in charge of all decisions related to that expense are not the same thing.

Service intervals are influenced (not determined by) warranty provisions. All kinds of other things influence service intervals from advertising contracts with oil companies to dealers associations and individual dealers who want more frequent service work. The marketing group would certainly be involved for perceived and actual cost of ownership, but on service interval they're unlikely to get the same sway they do with actual warranty terms.

It's also important to remember that almost none of these technicalities matter because departments don't get to act unilaterally. If the engineering dept says "Oh we made Tau 2.0 and it's absolutely great in every way except that it really needs a 5k or less oil change interval because of the tolerances" and marketing says "But we have to be between 7500 and 10k for light duty to look competitive" You have to remember they're both pitching their case to executives. Neither department really gets to choose anything when it comes down to it. Executives talk to each other and weigh the relative merits, the whole discussion is purely academic.

More importantly, proving that it's not a 100% engineering decision is not proving that it's a marketing decision. I agree with you on most of the points, but you've not proved what you're acting like you have.

Warranty decisions are pretty much 100% marketing decisions. They vary by local distributor (HMA, Hyundai Canada, etc) and are classified as a marketing expense according to GAAP.

The question of oil change intervals is a bit more complicated, since obviously engineering has some input into the decision. But it is not a 100% engineering decision since marketing has to be competitive with other brands in terms of cost of ownership and complying with local regulatory requirements.

As far as "proving something" I am not sure what you are talking about other than my assertion that warranty expense is a marketing expense (completely denied by some when I posted it) and that the warranty is determined by marketing department (HMA). I was asked to provide evidence for what I said, so I provided it. I don't claim to prove anything.

What does all this mean, and what does it have to do with this thread? Good question, but here a few ideas for consideration.

• Hyundai specifies a 7500 mile oil change interval for its cars (apparently all of them, regardless of engine). There is also a 3750 schedule for "severe" usage.
• Hyundai (at least for now) only requires conventional oil (does not require synthetic).
• I suspect that the engineering department would prefer synthetic or more frequent oil change intervals with conventional oil.
• I suspect that marketing (HMA) wants to keep the cost of owner competitive with other brands so is hesitant to recommend synthetic or more frequent oil changes. They do use that "severe" thing to maybe encourage more frequent oil changes.
• Some people in this thread think it is a waste of money to exceed the 7500 mile oil change interval with conventional oil. I personally think that synthetic oil is worth the extra cost, in terms of engine longevity. Of course, if one is not going to the keep the car past three years, then the issue of engine longevity not relevant to original owner, even if it will be relevant to a subsequent owner.
• Honda and Toyota now specify 0W-20 oil for most new engines, which is a viscosity that only comes in a synthetic oil right now (probably a conventional oil cannot achieve that viscosity range). Hyundai specifies 5W-20 for Tau V8, and 5W-30 for Lambda V6 on 2015 Genesis (per Owners Manual).
• From another thread, it appears that Hyundai "may" be using Shell Helix with PurePlus Technology (made from Natural Gas) as factory fill. This is a Group III Synthetic oil. I am not sure about this, but apparently there are stickers under the hood mentioning this oil on the 2015 Genesis?

 

[italiabrain]

Warranty decisions are pretty much 100% marketing decisions. They vary by local distributor (HMA, Hyundai Canada, etc) and are classified as a marketing expense according to GAAP.

The question of oil change intervals is a bit more complicated, since obviously engineering has some input into the decision. But it is not a 100% engineering decision since marketing has to be competitive with other brands in terms of cost of ownership and complying with local regulatory requirements.

As far as "proving something" I am not sure what you are talking about other than my assertion that warranty expense is a marketing expense (completely denied by some when I posted it) and that the warranty is determined by marketing department (HMA). I was asked to provide evidence for what I said, so I provided it. I don't claim to prove anything.

What does all this mean, and what does it have to do with this thread? Good question, but here a few ideas for consideration.

• Hyundai specifies a 7500 mile oil change interval for its cars (apparently all of them, regardless of engine). There is also a 3750 schedule for "severe" usage.
• Hyundai (at least for now) only requires conventional oil (does not require synthetic).
• I suspect that the engineering department would prefer synthetic or more frequent oil change intervals with conventional oil.
• I suspect that marketing (HMA) wants to keep the cost of owner competitive with other brands so is hesitant to recommend synthetic or more frequent oil changes. They do use that "severe" thing to maybe encourage more frequent oil changes.
• Some people in this thread think it is a waste of money to exceed the 7500 mile oil change interval with conventional oil. I personally think that synthetic oil is worth the extra cost, in terms of engine longevity. Of course, if one is not going to the keep the car past three years, then the issue of engine longevity not relevant to original owner, even if it will be relevant to a subsequent owner.
• Honda and Toyota now specify 0W-20 oil for most new engines, which is a viscosity that only comes in a synthetic oil right now (probably a conventional oil cannot achieve that viscosity range). Hyundai specifies 5W-20 for Tau V8, and 5W-30 for Lambda V6 on 2015 Genesis (per Owners Manual).
• From another thread, it appears that Hyundai "may" be using Shell Helix with PurePlus Technology (made from Natural Gas) as factory fill. This is a Group III Synthetic oil. I am not sure about this, but apparently there are stickers under the hood mentioning this oil on the 2015 Genesis?

Let me make this simpler for you: No one said what you're arguing with.

As far as proving something... I think "I rest my case" is pretty clear, not to mention the general tone of certainty you talk with even when you have no idea at all what you're talking about (not referring to this thread on that one).