Global shortage has led to motor oil rationing at Costco
guessingheadlights.com
guessingheadlights.com
> > > Just got word Mobil and Shell have informed Costco and Walmart they have no packaged product to send them and to expect bare shelves in the motor oil section in a few weeks
> > Lol as if youd be the first person anyone tells.
> I am Chevrons largest passenger vehicle lubricant purchaser lol
I go every week and saw shelves were full, but bought a years supply for our cars just in case...
With modern synthetics and my driving patterns, that is 1 jug for one of my cars, and 2 jugs for the other.
Maybe now wouldn’t be the worst time. It isn’t a lot of space wasted if I didn’t need it.
The Saudi pipeline that was attacked had a capacity of 7M barrels per day. Gone for who knows how long. That 7MBPD that needs to come from somewhere.
Edit: Should add - the big tankers require ~month to move oil to most consumers. So, there is one month of breathing room before the new pipeline loss materializes.
[0] https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=W...
There is no "government national defense floor". As far as I can tell, this originates from someone misreading the SPR drawdown laws and then a bunch of people parroting it. The ~250M "floor" (really 252.4M) only applies for SPR drawdowns that aren't required by a severe energy supply interruption or to meet US obligations under the international energy program. Deciding what qualifies as a "severe energy supply interruption" is left up to the president. Essentially there's nothing stopping the president from emptying the reserve entirely. See sections d and h here: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title%3A42+section%...
> Public analyses have said that the cavern integrity becomes threatened once levels fall below 300M.
This isn't how the SPR works. They withdraw oil from it by pumping in water (oil floats on water, so the oil goes to the top). This means that the caverns won't cave in or something if there's too little oil, since they'll have the same volume inside them. What does wear out the SPR is drawing down at all, since the water erodes the caverns. The problem is cumulative, not caused by levels going below a certain point. There's a good article that goes over how the SPR works and its current status here if you're interested: https://files.gao.gov/reports/GAO-26-106918/index.html
> The SPR caverns that were built by DOE were designed to be geomechanically stable for up to five full drawdowns. Repeated partial drawdowns followed by refill can leach a single part of a cavern repeatedly, leading to undesirable shapes. After Congress directed DOE to begin conducting regular non-emergency mandated sales from the SPR starting in 2017 to help manage the federal budget, DOE tasked Sandia to provide a yearly update on the number of drawdowns each cavern had remaining since the caverns were being used regularly to withdraw crude oil. In May 2025, Sandia reported that the majority of the SPR’s caverns (47 of 60—about 78 percent) had at least four remaining available drawdowns as of the end of calendar year 2024, and all but one cavern had at least one remaining available drawdown.
What's the outlook for the other major economies?
Like Britain's ageing gas mains this feels like a measure which should have become irrelevant just as it would otherwise need renewing, a huge saving - but of course we (as a species) will always procrastinate so that was never going to happen. For the next 5-10 years Britain will continue replacing pipelines to deliver a fossil fuel (natural gas, methane, for heating) we should have long since stopped using but didn't.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49368661
(oil futures market participant)
it probably depends on what exactly happened to the pipeline, but normally i'd expect this to be a short term disruption, as replacing a small segment isn't really that hard.
The real question is will it be struck over and over again.
This isn't a fault though, what the Houthis have done is turned the whole site into a blackened pile of twisted metal, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/sep/14/saudi-pipeline.... The remedy isn't to replace a part, it's to clear the entire site of debris and rebuild it from the ground up. And that's assuming the material to build a complete pumping station is just lying around in a yard somewhere and doesn't need to be manufactured on demand with an 18-month lead time - the story quotes 1 1/2 months to repair, but who knows what it'll actually be.
I'd love to see someone try to refute this as the obvious outcome given every decision Trump has made, especially in his second term where he has far less sane babysitters around him.
This is the "If we stop testing right now, we’d have very few cases, if any" guy.
This is the guy calling for steep rate cuts in the midst of a serious inflation problem.
This is the guy that sabotages solar and wind power, intent on keeping us on oil and "clean coal" (lmao).
He's 80 years old and a malignant narcissist, he doesn't give a single fuck what happens to anyone after he's dead (and he knows that'll be pretty soon) as long as he gets what he thinks he wants today.
> Congress won't stop him either.
Also something that proves out daily.
He will not be able to cope with the idea, or be able to rationally plan for it. Unlike other eighty year olds he is not thinking of a future without him in it; rather nobody else has any future without him.
So he is not acting nihilistically but desperately and grandiosely, as a way to deflect from the whole concept. I think there are many examples of this in recent months, but they are moderated by his inability to stay awake.
Even on an ICE vehicle, you have transmission oil and differential oil and lubricants in your air conditioning compressor and brake hydraulics and grease smeared on CV joints and door mechanisms and pretty much everything else that moves. But you still talk about "changing THE oil" and mean the oil-that-sees-combustion specifically (along with, typically, the filter that fights the constant battle of getting the worst combustion products out of it). I personally think that makes it fair to say "EVs don't require oil changes" because even though they don't magically eliminate the other lubrication systems or the need to maintain them, they do eliminate the one that is so much more obnoxious than the rest that we commonly called it "THE oil change" before this was ever a debate.
I got service centers trying to rotate my tires every 3k miles because "ev". The oil change as well, oh you need to change oil every 5k because... because why?
You got brake fluid, calipers, but it’s not even close to a regular car.
The dealerships and shops are doing every one a huge disservice by lying about how frequently engine oil needs to be changed. It’s in the manual but even that should be on page one. And then they set reminders on the car inside whatever last changed or when near, miles. So they’ll set it for 5k instead of 6-8k as the manual says and reminder at when you hit 3k. Like cmon.
Or tell me that I need a balance every 3k miles in a Tesla. Shameless.
The other components just aren't as sensitive or exposed to as much abuse. Often, really only needing replacement if they’ve leaked out.
I can come up with one. What's your list?
EDIT: nope, that is definitely an electric motor on the top of that 2011 Leaf steering rack:
Nope, glycol-based and synthetic. Not the best article, but best I could find at the moment:
Haven't had to change or refill oil once.
Ymmv
Don’t get me wrong, my “fun” car (an old, beat up Jeep) is going on 2 years with the same oil (I barely drive it), but I known I need to change it soon.
Oil degrade with oxygen. Every time you drive that car, the oil are being re-oxygenated and continuing to degrade (along with being exposed to combustion byproducts).
Also, the type of wear you get often isn’t noticeable until it becomes catastrophic. In my case, a 30 year old car that’s already on its last legs “catastrophic” is more like “time to finally drag it to the scrap yard”.
Like, the price differential is so high that the high end artisinal lubricant market is dominated by chemically synthesized products that aren't strictly petroleum at all (though many of the reagents used to manufacture them probably come out of the petrochemical world).
https://ev-lectron.com/blogs/blog/tesla-electric-vehicle-pow...
The only significant oil is for the reduction gearbox, but as it doesn't change gears the wear is very low. First change will pull out some metal I'd guess, quality of machining dependent. Every 60000km/2Y, 1-2 litres.
Batteries may be immersed in a high dielectric thermal fluid, which will experience some breakdown but over a long time period, more than 10Y.
Many EVs use hybrid water/oil cooling, typically water for the stator and oil mist/spray for the rotor and exposed parts of the windings.
Like yeah there's probably some box with gear oil might get a little nasty after 100-200k but gears are pretty hardy and don't demand all that much.
There was suggested battery fluid maintenance when I first got the car every 3 years or so, but they removed that recommendation.
It's one of the reasons I just can't go back to a regular gas car.
Body, wheels, and suspension components all require maintenance. Just because those components have a less predictable maintenance schedule doesn't mean they don't crap out if problems aren't identified and taken care of. And unless you are driving a short range smart car, EVs weight more than most ICEs, which accelerates the wear and shortens the lifespan of many components.
Don't get me wrong, EVs should be more reliable than ICE still, but in my experiences motor and engine problems are rarely the death knell of a vehicle, body damage and rust are. There are always enough people crashing or junking their cars so that even less reliable motors can be easily had on the used market for cheap, if you don't just swap to something better to start with, but once you get significant body rust 95% of mechanics won't/can't deal with it and repairing metal body shell is a level of skill and tooling that most DIYs aren't going to even attempt.
Due to how online the whole platform is, it’s so much better than my older ICE car that has a cryptic wrench light on the dash.
Did I mention that the intervals are also so much cheaper? Tires are the one standout but pretty much every thing else is a dream
Nothing special for being a car, but an ICE and transmission weren't the only things on cars that move and wear.
Brakes need to be inspected but my last ICE vehicle went about 90k miles between needing pads. My EV has sealed drums in back (a choice VW made to reduce friction when brakes aren't in use and I think trying to slow corrosion of the components) and conventional large discs in front. If we have issues with the front brakes it will be due to corrosion as I don't expect to put enough wear on them to ever wear through the pads. In normal driving the brakes are only applied at full stops.
I don't expect EVs to have motor mounts like an ICE vehicle, as the motor is a few orders of magnitude smoother (commutation ripple vs cylinder firings) and shouldn't need fluid-filled rubber isolation mounts.
If I think of what I've had to replace on my cars over the years, half-shafts and CV joints and wheel bearings might now be the least reliable mechanical things on the car, plus the oddball failures, like a clock spring in the steering wheel or a window motor.
So I still have to keep tires inflated, rotated and balanced, keep good wipers installed, change the cabin air filter occasionally, and listen to the rest.
My source for my opinion is having done the vast majority of the maintenance and repair of our cars over roughly 4 decades and more than a million miles.
What felt like a wall in our garage now feels like a security blanket.
I would not play around with it on anything with VVT, but it's a pretty common "hack" for pre-2010'ish motors and probably even a good idea.
Are we going to have shortage of everything now ......
It is not an "if". It is now inevitable.
He is very pro alternative sources of energy but he clearly explains nothing can replace petroleum right now. Petroleum is used to build everything. Gas for your car. Your clothes. Plastic bags. Our beloved computers. Everything uses petroleum one way or another.
We are doomed.
I’m just happy I’m too old to go through all the bad times that are coming.
Now we'll be forced to go through all the same, and much more, in just a few years. And I can't imagine that even 5% of those arguing the statements above will recognize their role in all this.
You don't need to be some kind of super genius to understand this, if you have not been sucked in to the populist left wing propaganda about petroleum. We can't even replace petroleum for energy right now, let alone all its other uses.
It's not just oil we'll have issues with either, lots of minerals could easily see shortages and rapidly increasing costs to extract over this century.
> We are doomed.
More propaganda. We don't need infinite economic growth, infinite population growth, or even continued quality of life growth. Nothing bad even happens when you have degrowth, all other life forms have periods of growth and degrowth. It's all crazy propaganda that people repeat we need to constantly keep boosting up population numbers.
A few generations ago nobody on earth ever saw a motor car for the entire history of humanity. Or electricity. Antibiotics. Synthetic fertilizers. Any kind of plastic.
Things will change, people will adapt, conflict and famine, etc. Much the same as the rest of human history. The people of the future might no lot be able to expect to be clothed, fed, housed, and entertained in exchange for sitting around an air-conditioned office eating a birthday cake before putting in their solid 2.5 hours of work for the day drawing up the next draft of policies around who can use which bathroom before scrolling tiktok for the rest of the work day. But I wouldn't call that "doomed".
In human history, when there has been a period of protracted degrowth something bad has very much happened - usually civilizational collapse or severe prolonged economic downturn.
> We don't need infinite economic growth, infinite population growth, or even continued quality of life growth
I agree on the first two, but I believe that an expectation of the third is foundational to the post-Enlightenment social order. It has waxed and waned, and there have obviously been incredibly dark periods, but we've usually returned to "things will be better in the future" as a setpoint.
I read "Degrowth" by Kohei Saito recently. I found it challenging (in that it challenged a lot of my preconceived notions), but also a fairly positive approach to implementing degrowth. Sadly, at least in the US, I think it is alien to the American mind and only has a hope of being implemented at the local level in sporadic places.
Bad things have caused degrowth, that doesn't refute what I said though. The Edo Period in Japan is said to be a canonical example of degrowth that was not catastrophic. Japan today has had GDP per capita pretty steady for the past 35 years and so far nothing horrific, just the hilarious wailing and gnashing of teeth from western "experts". So I think those are sufficient counter-examples.
> I agree on the first two, but I believe that an expectation of the third is foundational to the post-Enlightenment social order. It has waxed and waned, and there have obviously been incredibly dark periods, but we've usually returned to "things will be better in the future" as a setpoint.
1. Have we, really?
2. Various objective and subjective quality of life metrics have been going backwards in some western countries for a generation now.
3. What about it is it that you think is foundational to social order? What happens if we don't have it.?
In any case it's an unsustainable expectation that is going to have to change one way or another.
If we're going by feelings and anecdotes, my feeling is that people in general don't actually need that at all. They want some amount of fairness, freedom, self-determination, and the ability to personally get ahead. They don't need to be ahead of where their parents were at the same age, they want to be able to be ahead of where they were yesterday (at least in economic terms).
It’s just that a lot of companies (and people) get very rich from it and they invest A LOT into making sure that petroleum alternatives are not viable.
Of course there are some things were petroleum cant be easily substituted but I would argue the vast majority of use cases doesnt require it.
Energy is probably the most important and there it’s laughable easy to replace.
Not really, not at this scale, or this price and convenience.
Most things you enjoy today are affordable because we have fossil fuels. The entire supply chain of every single product you can imagine is very dependent on fossil fuels. We're not even capable of making proper roads or tires without petroleum derivates, without these two alone nothing gets to you. Investigate a bit, you'll find petroleum and petroleum derivates a prerequisite of virtually everything.
Renewable energies look like a solved problem today with wind and solar, but it seems like everybody forgets that the entire supply chain to make them is 100% petrol dependant from mining raw materials to the final delivery. In a world without petrol these would be orders of magnitude more expensive, if even possible at all.
Seeing that we use about 2/3 of the total for transportation fuel it’s not like we need most of it to build the renewable infrastructure - that’s more like a drop in the bucket.
Most petroleum gets used to propel vehicles, to heat buildings, and to produce electricity - and it’s definitely not without alternative there
regardless, i agree, we aren't totally killing fossil fuels anytime soon.
on the other hand, we don't need to. A reduction in demand by 75% would be world changing, and looks a lot more plausible than no fossil fuels ever.
Not at this scale and price and convenience.
We can absolutely do so for higher prices. And with solar panels becoming more efficient, cheaper, and more ubiquitous with each passing year, we may find that a lot of those "higher prices" were really just "higher energy input costs", and we will be able to come very close to what we have now. (I don't know for sure—this isn't an area I keep abreast of.)
If everything gets 10-100x harder and more expensive to make I can guarantee you the world will become a very different place.
We're about to realize what it means to have a globalized economy addicted to petrol
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2026/09/11/world/middlee...
Food production is also at risk
So now it's here. Or.. there? How's the situation in the EU?
... think I'll pick some up if they do indeed have it.
Our gasoline is well into the 2.20+ EUR/liter range, and diesel is even more.
For reference, my 3.6L 6-cyl boxer needs about 6.5L according to my service notes.
10 US Quarts (9.46L) are not the same as 10 Quarts (11.36L). Good job there!
For reference, did you mess this up yourself or did it require AI?
So, same as with pints, the British quarts are not the same as the American ones.
https://noai.duckduckgo.com/?q=10quarts+to+liters defaults to "Quart (Imperial)" to me.
Metric isn't magic.
It's not ergnomic nor designed around the human body or everyday experiences.
It started arbitrary. Then was defined as in terms of the wavelength of radiation from krypton-86. (the meter was 1,650,763.73 wavelengths of that particular transition to match the original arbitrary metal bar)
Then they based it on the distance light travels in an arbitrary amount of time (1/299,792,458 of a second).
These were all decidedly non-human scale measurements with no actual scientific basis. Yes they used scientific references, but theyre all arbitrary references.
Are you not pretending people use the modern, most-precise definitions in the day-to-day just to give yourself a stab at claiming that Metric is awful? Non-metric would face the same dilemma when trying to establish units in a way that can be scientifically replicated. The counter point is that non-metric is so bad that people don't even bother using it in this endeavor ;)
I guess it depends on how you define "problem". It took me years (probably a decade or so) to get good at estimating measurements. I would expect that to relearn how to estimate using metric units would take a decent portion of that (though probably not all). That is a very real cost to me if we were to adopt metric units. Meanwhile, metric also confers no benefit to me (ease of conversion math is irrelevant when I carry a calculator in my pocket, and I've learned the conversions I need in everyday life). So the cost-benefit analysis of switching to metric would be negative for my usage.
But more to the point, it's fucking rude to come in here as you did and call people "uncivilized" for something as petty and meaningless as which units of measurement they use.
I will agree that a temperature interface in °C should read in increments of 0.5 in order to have roughly the same resolution as when in °C (and many don't, but that's poor UX). I don't care about 0-100 being roughly aligned to human environments - 0-100 being aligned to freezing/boiling of water is just as good a reference.
[1] of the many things that Reagan should be despised for, cancelling metrication is probably not in the top 5, maybe not top 10. I still despise him for it.
Flexing useless crap as a status symbol is as old as time
In fact, as carmakers have started pivoting more towards selling them to affluent suburban households, the usable cargo volume has decreased over time despite increasing size.
Not with pick-up trucks they don't:
> Nearly 90 percent of truck buyers said they never use their truck for business towing, as a mobile office, or as a work site. Yet nearly 40 percent said they drive their truck strictly for pleasure at least once a week.
* https://www.carscoops.com/2025/11/capability-by-numbers-what...
* https://www.powernationtv.com/post/most-pickup-truck-owners-...
And these are self-reported numbers: what people say about their own behaviour(s).
> Big trucks can be a necessity depending on what you do for a living/your way of life.
For something like ~90% of pick-up owners that is grocery shopping and errands. As one headline put it, most folks don't need a pick-up truck but rather a cowboy costume:
> But, as it turns out, a significant portion of truck owners never use their trucks for these capabilities. According to Edwards’ data, 75 percent of truck owners use their truck for towing one time a year or less (meaning, never). Nearly 70 percent of truck owners go off-road one time a year or less. And a full 35 percent of truck owners use their truck for hauling—putting something in the bed, its ostensible raison d’être—once a year or less.
* https://www.thedrive.com/news/26907/you-dont-need-a-full-siz...
People would do better to buy a more fuel efficient vehicle, and use the money saved to rent a truck (or van) the few times a year they need those specific capabilities. They'd probably save money, and we'd probably have fewer dead people and children as well:
* https://carbuzz.com/news/the-abrams-m1-tank-has-better-visib...
Americans just buy much bigger vehicles than necessary.
You might have missed this part. My round bales are 1000kg, and the field gets wet. How do I move the goats? How do I pull someone out of that ditch where the sign says 15mph but every winter they slide through my fence?
Though yes obviously if you have an actual working farm, in any capacity, you need a truck that can tow trailers with decent weight on them.
I have noticed truck ownership patterns vary with region, which may be why some people bristle at the notion that vanity-driven truck ownership is common. It's extremely common in the Midwest, city suburbs are full of people who bought an expensive truck either because that's the purchase that'll get them positive attention from their peers at work or in their friend group (and because other options for show-off cars might get them ribbing instead of kudos) or for aspirations they'll never fulfill ("yeah, I'll totally tow a boat to the lake every weekend! Maybe I'll even buy a fifth-wheel camper!" then they end up doing it like twice a year and never buy the camper). It's less common in (at least large parts of) the Northeast. The "I have a nice car people may comment positively on or otherwise approve of" purchases here swing more Volvo and Audi and such, even out in what the locals consider the "country" (it's... not, LOL).
[1] Where are the goats being hauled? Just on your property, between fields? To somewhere farther away? On roads? How far on roads? Truck still might be the wrong tool, or at least not better.
Yes people on farms need big vehicles. We're not talking about them.
In almost no situation are pickup trucks, SUVs, or even a crossover the correct kinds of vehicle.
This is on top of trucks prioritizing 4 door models and taking bites out of the truck bed
And they're often driven by reckless road ragers, often modified with uncertified suspension, bush lights turned on at night blinding oncoming traffic, and wheels extending past the fender flares. These vehicles are often financed to the hilt, so spending money on certifying the modifications is out of the picture, so a lot of these are not legal to drive on the roads.
I am somewhat familiar with a Ute since I've seen Subaru Bajas before. Not old enough to see Subaru Brats around or El Caminos.
It does seem like those people are emulating Americans though a lot of those mods are passable without certification, and it's up to a cop to pull over people using bush lights (they probably won't).
> "a lot of those mods are passable without certification" Not true. Besides the bush lights, any changes in suspension and wheel size require a certification, with a LVVTA cert plate attached to the vehicle.
There is definitely a case of double standards with police enforcement. 'Boy racers' with modified coupes and sedans - typically lowered, with larger wheels - get way police scrutiny compared to utes with obviously illegal modifications like colored lights, and wheels jutting out past the fenders.
Isn't that just a Toyota Tacoma?
Sell sheet for the Tacoma vs the Hilux on Wikipedia states that there's an increased focus on ride quality over the Hilux, which was developed for the US market.
I have a small trailer, rent a bigger one or van when needed.
If we had a truck, what % of the time would we be using it for things that can only be done with a truck? Very little, since it would also be our daily driver, but even if just 1% of the time, it's 100% worth having a truck over some sedan (or a hatchback!)
The bed is only 5 feet long but I'm thinking of taking out part of the back seat for even more room .
I also used 4x4 in 4H mode more than I thought on bad roads even though I didn't go truly off-road that much so no need for 4L. I did take advantage of the higher wheel clearance and the more rugged suspension and the 8-speed manual shifting is useful going down mountain roads.
I was pointing out the logical destination of this.
At least 50% don’t need a truck. There is maybe a 30% that do use their trucks to actually tow and haul on a regular basis.
Imagine replacing 50% of pick up trucks with fuel efficient or EV vehicules.
People are welcome to do with there money things that simply make them happy. That is a good and proper use of money.
This would be a very boring life indeed if people were only allowed to own things that others decided they need.
It’s wild you don’t realize it.
Previous one one which had a B58 took 7 liters.
GM V8's take 8 quarts
I checked specs with different manufacturers and find that the V8 engines that need 10 qts of motor oil are the heavier duty trucks typically with a diesel engine. Checking specs shows that most gasoline V8s require 6 qts, some require 7-8 quarts, and the larger diesel trucks require 10 qts, sometimes up to 11 qts depending on the engine.
10 qts of motor oil takes up a lot of space and that is at a premium in most engine compartments. The oil pan would need to be deep and trucks are the only vehicles that have that much room between the engine block and the crossmembers/differentials.
Same for Mercedes V8 engines models M156..159 that require 9-10 quarts
I guess I should've qualified my comment with a note about those vehicles being American-made V8s. Diesel engines tend to have higher lubrication requirements thus they have larger oil pans. I see that those BMW engines you listed are gassers so I took a look at their specs to see why they would need such large oil reservoirs.
Twin turbos. Mounted in the engine valley. High heat in that configuration and high oil consumption as a result - up to 1 qt/1000 miles. [0]
That's crazy. I can drive my V8 powered, non-turbo engine Bronco 10000 miles between oil changes using full synthetic oil without needing to add a full quart of oil and it has more than 330k miles on the odometer.
I see now why those BMWs may need a huge oil pan. It is an attempt to compensate for the consequences of design decisions that they knew would create problems. Those engines only need a 10 qt reservoir because they would burn through a smaller volume so fast that no one would buy the vehicle because it required them to check the oil every day and to carry oil so that there was less chance of destroying the engine due to running it low.
I was not aware of BMW engines having such huge reservoirs and now that I am I can be glad that I have never considered owing one.
I didn't look at Toyota or other foreign manufacturers who also built V8 engines. Maybe I should educate myself.
This engine allows you to have a huge family hauler (BMW X7) and drive like a BMW M3 like you stole it. Imagine hauling 3 kids and ski gear for 5 people up the twisty mountain road in the Sierras.
and by the way on the highway, X7 M60i gets you 21 mpg on the road. Amazing feat by the German engineers.
and I never had do top off the oil, just change oil every 7500 miles. Zero oil leaks. All of the notorious BMW V8 twin turbo issues were related to the early design and were solved in N63TU in 2014. The engines are rock solid, but the car has other weak parts (transfer case and front diff)
That's great! It sounds like the early engine had lots of problems but BMW iterated until they solved them, and ended up having a high performance engine for those who stuck with the brand. I know that I have been burned buying the first year model of a vehicle and then having to absorb all the downtime for things that I felt they could've addressed before sending them out to dealerships. 21 mpg on the road from an engine like that is pretty impressive. Like I mentioned, I have never considered owning a BMW but it sounds like they are solid vehicles, after all the usual iterations, just like the other manufacturers. Enjoy the drives!
Comparing BMWs (which are worldwide cars), the oil change intervals in Europe are literally 2x what they are in the USA.
E.g. my previous 2019 M240i (B58 i6):
Europe: every 30,000km or 2 years, whatever comes first.
USA: every 15,000km (~9,000 miles) or 1 year, whatever comes first.
I get that fuel is dirtier in the USA. I get that engines work harder in the USA because of the heat, but a 2x reduction in lifetime?
And this is applicable to ALL the BMWs I've seen.
is this really the worse time that we can get fck in both ways from "new world" and "old world" ???????
Now I wait for the inevitable switch to EVs to create discounts on ICE vehicles as people finally get the message that EV is the future. I will buy the pickup I need at a discount to today's prices as that shift gets going.