I put synthetic oil in my 2006 Uplander, instead of the standard oil that is called for in my user manual. Until this year, I've always had the oil changed and the routine inspections, etc done when the "oil change" message went on, which is about once a year. (I only drive about 3,500 km/2,000 miles a year. This year, I'm having trouble finding an honest, competent mechanic. So I decided NOT to change the oil this year, since it looks only half-depleted. Is it important that this maintenance -- tire rotation; lubricating chassis components, and visually checking all systems -- is done on a yearly basis, or is this just a gimmick to keep GM dealers working? How often should these things be done, if the oil doesn't need replacing as often? (I've already checked all the fluids myself, and they all look fine.)

Thanks, Inari

 

I wouldn't push it past two years. If you are driving it enough to get good and hot, then you MIGHT push it out to three years. When you're driving it, make sure you turn the heater on to get the coolant out, so it doesn't corrode. Same with the A/C.system.

Also you want to flush your brake fluid out as well, no more than 5 years, as it's hydroscopic (absorbs water from the atmo.) Your Uplander will do fine on synthetic oil.

 

Hello, Oil Can Henry,

The beauty of car enthusiast's forums is that even though most of us aren't trained mechanics, together we all have the right information, even though not everyone has all of it.

The first two parts of your response are probably quite valid, but I have to disagree with you about replacing my brake fluid every 5 years. This seems to be an urban legend. There is nothing in my owner's manual about changing the brake fluid, or even flushing out the brake lines. It actually states "You should add or remove brake fluid, as necessary, only when work is done on the brake hydraulic system." No quick lube shops offer this service either. Despite all his faults, it turns out my ex was right.

When I have asked other mechanics about getting this done on my other vehicles, they have all told me the same thing. One of the earlier versions of the "hygroscopic" brake story, is that water getting into the brake fluid leads to rusty brake lines. As a matter of fact, in order for rust/corrosion to start, there needs to be oxygen as well as water. When brakes are properly fixed/installed there is no oxygen in the brake lines, so there is no way for rust to start. We are still being told, even by manufacturers of brake fluid, that brake fluid absorbs water from the air. However, they no longer tell us there is the danger of getting rusted brake lines. Now the story is that water supposedly getting into our brake lines lowers the boiling point of brake fluid, causing our brakes to fail. Supposing brake fluid is indeed hygroscopic, the airtight caps on the brake fluid bottle and brake reservoir prevent water and other contaminants from getting into our brake fluid.

I am not posting this to make you wrong and me right. I want others to save money and unnecessary stress. Also, to prevent them from damaging their brake lines doing this unnecessary "maintenance."

Inari

 

Well, we all have our own opinions. I know one guy that just sucks the brake fluid out of the master cylinder every year, as the brake fluid does circulate slowly. I take no offense at all Inari.