Nissan Murano Forum banner
1 - 9 of 9 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,307 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)
Since I'm approaching the 40,000 mile mark in just a little over a year of ownership, I began thinking more about the parts and how some things might be more affected by age than mileage. For example, I would think a CV boot with 40,000 miles of use over 12 months (short-term mileage) would be in much better condition than that same boot with 40,000 miles of use over five years (longterm mileage). I presume some things would not degrade as much or be as negatively affected by quick mileage since although usage and heat are still alike regardless of time or mileage, there are fewer subjections to vibrations that might shake and weaken older apart, less impact by the outside environment (sand, sun, salt, rain) and fewer repair mishaps if things aren't constantly taken apart to repair/replace something. Rust over years has been known to eventually destroy various exposed parts, but I'd say that quickly accumulated high mileage should help to preserve the integrity of certain parts.

For the vibrations idea, I'm thinking specifically of having to start the engine and engage the drivetrain, and how those semi-violent acts essentially send shockwaves through the entire car and can affect (to some tiny degree) many components large and small. If parts degrade more over time, those shudderings might have a greater chance to shake something loose (internally and/or externally) and make it fail. Let's say I start the car once per day and drive 100 miles each trip compared to starting the car once per day and putting on 25 miles per trip. By the time I've reached 50,000 miles, the first scenario produced 500 starts while the latter produced 2000 starts. I would think a car with significantly fewer starts would be in better shape over all and have retained greater mechanical soundness. Even wiring/eletrical/relays, etc... If those things aren't being micro-vibrated as often, I'd say they stand less of a chance of being damaged and failing.

Any thoughts? Will certain parts likely fail at, say, 50,000/100,000 miles, irrespective of the method used to get to that point? With the exception of disposable parts, such as brake pads, air filters, tires, plugs, etc., anyone want to guess what handful of items on my car are likely to be the first to fail?

 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
9,578 Posts
There are many parts that will normally fail before others depending on variables like miles driven, terrain, traffic, elevation, fuel, lubricants used, and driver habits.

The 240Z engines ate spark plugs every 10K miles. And NGK plugs were the only ones to use in replacement. Now the recommendation to replace plugs at 100K is more preventive than mandatory.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
194 Posts
Time or mileage ? If you just bought it and it had 10 miles on it and parked it for 30 years, in an inert atmosphere, nothing would be worn out, and you could probably sell it for much more than you paid for it. So yes miles is the bad thing.
When a mechanical part is moving it will be wearing. Yes lubrication is supposed to limit that, but that lube will have to be super clean at all times to prevent wear. The only bad thing about just sitting is the oils will drain off the parts and possibly able to rust or corrode. There is a reason some parts fail at high miles.

Parts to fail guess's. Timing chains and guides, coolant pump, cvt transmission, anything in the valve train, suspension parts, electronics and sensors, driver input devices.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,307 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
I'm talking about same mileage over different periods of time. For example, 100,000 over ten years or 100,000 over one year. Which is better? Is there an advantage to putting on high mileage quickly where the car might actually benefit from it, since parts aren't sitting around for years drying out or rusting out or pitting due to general exposure to the elements? Granted, the first scenario provides longer use of the vehicle, so you get more return on your investment, but that's a different topic. But if certain parts can provide longer usage under quick high mileage, then just maybe I could get 500,000 miles out of this car in ten years with fewer repairs ad opposed to 300,000 miles of use over 15 years.

Even with the timing chain and guides using my prior starting examples... In my view, those parts would encounter less wear and stretching if they only saw 500 engine starts over 50,000 miles instead of 2000 starts over 50,000.

I was just trying to spark an exchange that I thought might be interesting. Perhaps there s not much that can be said...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,307 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
The 240Z engines ate spark plugs every 10K miles. And NGK plugs were the only ones to use in replacement. Now the recommendation to replace plugs at 100K is more preventive than mandatory.
My cooling system us filled with blue coolant that I think is good for 150,000 miles or something. So apparently doing "regular" coolant flushas are unnecessary.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,870 Posts
My cooling system us filled with blue coolant that I think is good for 150,000 miles or something. So apparently doing "regular" coolant flushas are unnecessary.
105,000 miles or 84 months (then every 75k miles or 60 months after first replacement) if I'm interpreting my '19 owner's manual correctly:
Rectangle Font Parallel Pattern Number
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
9,578 Posts
In 2019 we bought a 2016 Jeep Grand Cherokee with 88,000 miles on it. Carfax showed that it had been owned by a local business, and had only been on the road 36 months.

The obvious question was: why so many miles in 36 months?

Then I had an idea. We're 60 miles north of Denver, and many people commute up and down I-25 for work. I calculated the mileage if the vehicle had made a run to Denver and back every week day for the three years, and it was just about a match to the mileage. The tires and brakes were new, and the fluids had been checked and changed. (We later discovered a trip to Salt Lake City was still in the nav memory, which indicated that there were some Interstate trips, too, which are just as easy on a vehicle.)

We bought the Jeep, because I'm not a bit scared of a well cared for vehicle that has been driven primarily on the Interstate in 60-mile increments. There's no easier mileage on a vehicle than freeway cruising miles. And it has the 5.7 liter Hemi V8, which regularly does 23-24 MPG at highway speeds but has plenty of power in reserve.

Now it has around 113,000 miles on it and we have had zero problems, zero repairs. All we've done is change oil and filter. Great vehicle, still looks and acts brand new.

Sometimes the age is much more of a factor than the mileage. We love the equipment on this Jeep, and it's much better equipped than one two years older with fewer miles would have been.
 

·
Registered
2020 Murano "S" AWD
Joined
·
6 Posts
Since I'm approaching the 40,000 mile mark in just a little over a year of ownership, I began thinking more about the parts and how some things might be more affected by age than mileage. For example, I would think a CV boot with 40,000 miles of use over 12 months would be in much better condition than that same boot with 40,000 miles of use over five years. I presume some things would not degrade as much or be as negatively affected by quick mileage since although usage and heat are still alike regardless of time or mileage, there are fewer subjections to vibrations that might shake and weaken older apart, less impact by the outside environment (sand, sun, salt, rain) and fewer repair mishaps if things aren't constantly taken apart to repair/replace something. Rust over years has been known to eventually destroy various exposed parts, but I'd say that quickly accumulated high mileage should help to preserve the integrity of certain parts.

For the vibrations idea, I'm thinking specifically of having to start the engine and engage the drivetrain, and how those semi-violent acts essentially send shockwaves through the entire car and can affect (to some tiny degree) many components large and small. If parts degrade more over time, those shudderings might have a greater chance to shake something loose (internally and/or externally) and make it fail. Let's say I start the car once per day and drive 100 miles each trip compared to starting the car once per day and putting on 25 miles per trip. By the time I've reached 50,000 miles, the first scenario produced 500 starts while the latter produced 2000 starts. I would think a car with significantly fewer starts would be in better shape over all and have retained greater mechanical soundness. Even wiring/eletrical/relays, etc... If those things aren't being micro-vibrated as often, I'd say they stand less of a chance of being damaged and failing.

Any thoughts? Will certain parts likely fail at, say, 50,000/100,000 miles, irrespective of the method used to get to that point? With the exception of disposable parts, such as brake pads, air filters, tires, plugs, etc., anyone want to guess what handful of items on my car are likely to be the first to fail?

Mileage. Drive on salty roads in the Midwest? Have roads that are Chuckhole Alley? Lots of variables on HOW you drive.
 
1 - 9 of 9 Posts
Top