You are supposed to change it by 15% as per the manual.

 

Just looked back through this thread and have seen I never posted my first change. Was back in September [6months driving] @9K miles and was still showing 20%. Went in to the dealer and told the guy this was the first car I ever owned that I felt I should rotate the tires before the first oil change. He sort of looked at me funny and then checked the MM and said that they would rotate the tires and change the oil. We spoke a bit about the MM and 9K showing 20% and he said I must be driving my FIT the way it likes to be driven. They were seeing 7K miles as a more normal interval. My second change came at 19.6K miles [6months later] so the 9-10K number seems right for me.

I will point out that with every car I've driven there comes a time in the life of an oil change that the engine takes on a 'different' sound. Often it's subtle, with others it's distinct. In earlier years it was a sure sign an oil change was needed. With my FIT I'm not sure I ever noticed that change. It says a lot about the tolerances in the engine and the quality of today's oils.

This is the one single 'issue' I've had to come to grips with, the extended oil change interval of today's cars. The advice I see many have gotten from their dealers stands true to what I've come to learn from this forum and hear from my Honda service.

Keep the initial oil in the engine till the first change by the MM. Driving profile will determine the mileage - the quality of the oils and engine will take care of them selves.

I'll take your word for it_

Think of it, fitfreaks freaking out_no one I know, what

K_C_

 

I'm thinking the 15% is when they recommend scheduling the service, taking it to 0% is okay. What is still getting to me is the mileage interval Honda is comfortable with. But I trust their engineers.

 

I know that Honda uses a moly additive that forms a very strong coating on the steel parts. Thats why you have to wait until the MM. My problem is the different quality oils and Honda has not said what oil is for the MM. All they say is GF4 and now with GF5 and thinner oils what do we use. The other problem is Mobil, They make it sound that M1 exceeds GF5 but is GF4. So if M1 is better than the new GF5 oils then why not say just use M1. I am not confused it just sounds like they cheapen the oil with a better additive package.

 

Yes, this is what I remember reading in the manual.

 

The numbers after 0 aren't negative percentages, but miles driven after reaching 0.

 

My dealer service guy specifically said he wanted to see the car when it got to 0% for the first oil change (which the dealer included with purchase). The break in additives in the oil should stay in the full time is how he explained it to me. Had a similar experience with my Passat.

 

Sounds nice, but does anyone doubt this motor would last 300k miles with an early oil change, and a lifetime of early changes?

This whole break-in debate is overblown.

 

I don't think anyone would doubt that. I think the point is that it's a waste of time, money and resources to change the oil more frequently than the manufacturer calls for. But of course I already know what will follow after making such a controversial statement.

 

I don't do the bare minimum...that's just how I roll.

My Fit gets treated extra well, along with everything I touch.

 

I think saying it's the bare minimum is misleading at best. For the sake of argument let's say that the manufacturer recommendation for when to change the oil results in the best average longevity. If that's the case then changing the oil more frequently than the manufacturer suggests would most certainly not be the bare minimum.

I do realize that some would argue that more frequent oil changes will (on average) increase longevity. Of course if this is true then it either implies a motive for the manufacturer to suggest otherwise or it implies the manufacturer simply got it wrong.

Indeed this debate will never end. But for myself, I have no particular reason to doubt the manufacturer recommendation. I didn't doubt the quality of their product when I bought it. I won't doubt their service recommendations after the fact. So I don't see a reason to waste time, money and resources striving to achieve something I have no proof I will achieve.

But everyone is free to roll the way they like.

 

Sorry, but the minder serves the herd of sheeple best for the average or below average user who is not mechanically or scientifically inclined, such as old people (of course you know I jest, right???).

Exceptions cases will occur, naturally, and that's why you can change your oil and reset the minder whenever you feel like it. For me, I'm not cool with 2 year old oil, so I changed mine "early." I only have 6k miles on the car. You could have 10 year old oil in there and the maintenance minder wouldn't catch it.

 

One would need to be more mechanically or scientifically inclined for Honda to recommend changing the oil sooner? Not following the logic. It doesn't take being mechanically or scientifically inclined for one to decide that they think they should change the oil more frequently than the manufacturer recommends. Let's face it, the reason somebody chooses to do that is that it gives them peace of mind. Nothing scientific about it.

Anyway, I've replied more than I planned to for something that will never produce a consensus. So, I shall refrain from further replies.

 

pffft! I'm cool with 2 year old oil. And the minder changed from 20% to 15% on my way to have the oil changed. The topper: it was under 2000 mi. I'm metaphysically inclined.

 

If you read the owners manual carefully [which we all do of course] Honda explains the oil should be changed @ 15% or 12months, whichever comes first.

Following the MM is what the engineer's at Honda have determined to be the suggested maintenance schedule. You are free to second guess their engineers, however, it is the wave of the future - low maintenance, economical cars. I bought the FIT for it's practical economy and interior size - the 9K oil change is just another added bonus to me.

 

I was concerned about leaving the oil in more than a year. So I called up that outfit that tests oil and asked them about the oil getting old. They were of the opinion that modern oils do not oxidate like older oils do. They thought that leaving the factory fill until the minder went off was a good idea. After the first change the engine started quicker, warmed up quicker, and ran smoother. A week ago when I got the LMS fix, it ran smoother still. I also notice stronger, longer lasting erections, but that MIGHT be TMI. YM and erections MV.

 

I'm thinking you've got your pills mixed up...... a new bra is in order.

 

Mask, if you please. I ride with Zorro!

 

Here's one reason that isn't just for peace of mind. I posted something similar in a different thread.


There are 2 aspects of the first oil change that Honda has kludged together.
1) Break in
2) The lifespan of the oil.

The MM isn't designed to differentiate between these 2 aspects.
My feelings are that these are 2 distinct topics. After 6000miles, 50% MM, I feel the breakin has been fulfilled (aspect 1), even though the oil is still good (aspect 2).

I would agree that if the oil change is to the same or similar 5w-20 conv. oil, the only difference being that the oil is new, there is little benefit; since the oil is still good(aspect 2).

However if you want to change the oil spec, such as to 0w-20 synthetic, there is a difference there, even though it maybe slight ("up to" 2% according to mobil1 afe).

I changed at 6000miles to change from the 5w-20 factory fill to 0w-20 synthetic to get the fuel saving benefits of that oil sooner, even though I knew that the 5w-20 oil still had life in it.

 

Does anybody know if the MM can tell time?