[Leafwash]

I’m hunting after my ‘03 Honda started gushing oil (235k) and I found a used 2014 Hyundai Accent GLS 6 Manual with 65K miles, clean Car Fax, one owner (traded in for a Veloster). I’ve no experience with Hyundai’s, only the Honda and a Toyota (‘98 Camry, about 280k).

I’m worried about getting it because of how much I drive. I travel, monthly, about 1,700 miles (travel between two/three states [600 round trip once per month, 160 round trip twice per month], commute to work, and part time job travel).

I want a car that’s going to last me, but I’m unable to determine if this model/year will last me 200k+ as the cars I’ve had before.

If anyone has advice or comments please let me know. I really enjoyed test driving the car, but the longevity and reliability is worrisome and my biggest concern.

 

[SS1992]

I got my car used at 70k miles. I drive 62 miles one day to work 5 days a week. So over 600 miles or 32,000 miles a year approx. My car is just now BARELY giving me trouble. No check engine light anymore. (sitting at 168k)

I'd say go for it if it was well maintained. Mine was a fleet vehicle once upon a time and had been maintained per hyundai recommended intervals since it was new.

Sent from my moto g(7) power using Tapatalk

 

[SS1992]

Also fwiw this car is pretty easy to maintain. They didn't make it so difficult that you can't fix it yourself. Really it's pretty much like Toyota or Honda. Good no nonsense transportation.

Sent from my moto g(7) power using Tapatalk

 

[RockerGuy]

There's a few high mileage accents on this forum. There's a thread somewhere.

 

[az2008]

I’m worried about getting it because of how much I drive. I travel, monthly, about 1,700 miles (travel between two/three states [600 round trip once per month, 160 round trip twice per month], commute to work, and part time job travel).

I want a car that’s going to last me, but I’m unable to determine if this model/year will last me 200k+ as the cars I’ve had before.

People seem to be having very mixed experiences with the RB. Some are experiencing significant oil consumption (others not). Some have pinging (others not). The direct injection engine is different than what everyone's used to. You're supposed to use "top-tier" gas, or a bottle of additive each fillup (per the owner manual). GDIs generally are known to have problems with fuel washing down the cylinder walls, diluting the oil. (Carbon buildup can be a problem, thus the reason for better fuel or frequent additives.). There is a 1-2 minute high-rev "cold-start" which has been speculated to serve a maintenance purpose. If someone's in the habit of throwing it in gear and driving, that could interfere with that process.

What would make me nervous about buying a used Accent: you don't know how it was driven & cared for. There must be some commonality between the different experiences. (Driving the car hard, with a lead foot. Not using additives as prescribed. Or, waiting too long between oil changes. GDIs would be more sensitive to that. Synthetic-oil use could add to that because people tend to go much longer between changes. I.e., that perceived benefit of synthetic could be harmful with a GDI where fuel's getting into the oil, the oil gets dirtier than a conventional engine, etc.). To me, it sounds like there is something that can make an Accent have "bad car" problems.

Buying a used one sounds like a gamble to me. Especially if it was traded in for a Veloster. That sounds like a "Burn Notice" (go-fast) driver. Also, if someone did baby their car (3k oil changes, top-tier gas and frequent additive use, etc), wouldn't they sell it themselves? Trading in is a notorious shake-down. It makes me think the previous owner didn't have that sort of estimation of their car; felt the trade-in deal was fair (when they're usually not, unless the car has a problem).

I think the RB is a nice looking car. It has a lot of pep (I punch it occasionally. Sometimes there will be a hoi polloi BMW or something following me onto the freeway onramp. I can tell they're eager to reach the onramp's 1/8th mile 2-lane area so they can get ahead of my slow Korean Yugo. I step on it and leave them behind. They didn't think it had that speed.).

But, there is something wrong with many of them. There must be something common between them. Maybe it's as simple as they were all made on Monday. But, the GDI engine is different. I think it's something about that, and the way it's driven/cared for.

Get the best used-car warranty you can.

 

[Leafwash]

People seem to be having very mixed experiences with the RB. Some are experiencing significant oil consumption (others not). Some have pinging (others not). The direct injection engine is different than what everyone's used to. You're supposed to use "top-tier" gas, or a bottle of additive each fillup (per the owner manual). GDIs generally are known to have problems with fuel washing down the cylinder walls, diluting the oil. (Carbon buildup can be a problem, thus the reason for better fuel or frequent additives.). There is a 1-2 minute high-rev "cold-start" which has been speculated to serve a maintenance purpose. If someone's in the habit of throwing it in gear and driving, that could interfere with that process.

What would make me nervous about buying a used Accent: you don't know how it was driven & cared for. There must be some commonality between the different experiences. (Driving the car hard, with a lead foot. Not using additives as prescribed. Or, waiting too long between oil changes. GDIs would be more sensitive to that. Synthetic-oil use could add to that because people tend to go much longer between changes. I.e., that perceived benefit of synthetic could be harmful with a GDI where fuel's getting into the oil, the oil gets dirtier than a conventional engine, etc.). To me, it sounds like there is something that can make an Accent have "bad car" problems.

Buying a used one sounds like a gamble to me. Especially if it was traded in for a Veloster. That sounds like a "Burn Notice" (go-fast) driver. Also, if someone did baby their car (3k oil changes, top-tier gas and frequent additive use, etc), wouldn't they sell it themselves? Trading in is a notorious shake-down. It makes me think the previous owner didn't have that sort of estimation of their car; felt the trade-in deal was fair (when they're usually not, unless the car has a problem).

I think the RB is a nice looking car. It has a lot of pep (I punch it occasionally. Sometimes there will be a hoi polloi BMW or something following me onto the freeway onramp. I can tell they're eager to reach the onramp's 1/8th mile 2-lane area so they can get ahead of my slow Korean Yugo. I step on it and leave them behind. They didn't think it had that speed.).

But, there is something wrong with many of them. There must be something common between them. Maybe it's as simple as they were all made on Monday. But, the GDI engine is different. I think it's something about that, and the way it's driven/cared for.

Get the best used-car warranty you can.

The previous owner was a law student and needed something economical at the time, he went to a (typically) commuter university (not to say he lived far away, but the school is meant to be commuter).

He bought it and sold it back to the original dealership, the CarFax shows that he either started changing oil/repairing himself or taking it somewhere that doesn't show up.

The two reports explicitly stating the oil change mileage said he changed it when it was around 3600 gained each time. And I agree, the Veloster as his next car is a bit concerning for me, considering it's a much sportier car.

 

[az2008]

I don't know if any used-car warranties are legit. Usually I decline these things as a matter of practice (when buying laptops, teevees, etc.). If you can find one that's for real, especially if the dealership will back it up, you'd probably be ok.

What are they asking for the car? I just feel that a car with a GDI engine would be the most risky to buy used. I think it's more susceptible to "mistakes" in care/driving. I've been very careful with mine, but haven't been using top-tier fuel (and not using additive as prescribed). I know I read that stuff at some point 4-5 years ago. But, it didn't stick in my mind as being significant. I don't know how significant it is. But.. there is something causing different outcomes for people. That topic recently caused me to think about how I could have been doing something wrong all this time.).

To me, that's the risk. People may be ignorant or downplay GDI engines being different, having special needs. It could make a bigger difference than with a traditional engine. You just don't know. If you were buying it from the owner you could assess something about their character, reactions to questions.

What's you '03 Honda like? If you had a brand new engine, would you drive it 230k more miles? Recently @SS1992 mentioned that a new RB engine is around $4500 USD (not installed). Given the peculiarities of GDI, I think I'd prefer a new engine than a used used GDI. If you could get a new engine for your Honda at a similar price, that might be the better value proposition (compared to the gamble of a used GDI, or the expense of a new car).

 

[Leafwash]

I don't know if any used-car warranties are legit. Usually I decline these things as a matter of practice (when buying laptops, teevees, etc.). If you can find one that's for real, especially if the dealership will back it up, you'd probably be ok.

What are they asking for the car? I just feel that a car with a GDI engine would be the most risky to buy used. I think it's more susceptible to "mistakes" in care/driving. I've been very careful with mine, but haven't been using top-tier fuel (and not using additive as prescribed). I know I read that stuff at some point 4-5 years ago. But, it didn't stick in my mind as being significant. I don't know how significant it is. But.. there is something causing different outcomes for people. That topic recently caused me to think about how I could have been doing something wrong all this time.).

To me, that's the risk. People may be ignorant or downplay GDI engines being different, having special needs. It could make a bigger difference than with a traditional engine. You just don't know. If you were buying it from the owner you could assess something about their character, reactions to questions.

What's you '03 Honda like? If you had a brand new engine, would you drive it 230k more miles? Recently @SS1992 mentioned that a new RB engine is around $4500 USD (not installed). Given the peculiarities of GDI, I think I'd prefer a new engine than a used used GDI. If you could get a new engine for your Honda at a similar price, that might be the better value proposition (compared to the gamble of a used GDI, or the expense of a new car).

They're asking $7653, processing fees and DMV included it's probably going to jump to $8200ish. I've not done a whole lot of research on the engine itself, so I'm gonna look into it more. My Honda is leaking obscene amounts of oil, it's heavily used, but probably could go another 100k, I'm just not able to afford the upkeep for it. It's also only worth $400 in its current state, so why blow air at the wind is how I'm thinking.

 

[az2008]

They're asking $7653, processing fees and DMV included it's probably going to jump to $8200ish. ... My Honda ... only worth $400 in its current state, so why blow air at the wind is how I'm thinking.

If the price of a new Hyundai engine is similar to a Honda, you might be able to put an entirely new engine in your Honda (for about the same price as the used Accent). If the rest of the car is in good condition (not rusted? recently replaced tires, brakes) it seems like that could be a good option. But I agree. Your wheel bearings, power steering, AC, transmission, catalytic converter (et al) would have 10 years and almost 150k miles on them that the Accent doesn't.

I don't envy your choice. I can see how repairing your Honda might still leave you with odd things breaking down, continued bills/unreliability. But, IMO a used GDI engine has more risk than a used traditional engine. I.e., even if all the other Accent components are new'ish, and should be more dependable than you Honda's components. The engine might be more like it has 150k on it (if it falls into the fairly common category of consuming oil, pinging, etc.).

To me, a used-car warranty would be essential (if there are any that aren't just predatory rip offs). At least a 30-day warranty from the dealership. At least them you could see if it consumes oil. If you drove it 1000 miles and didn't have to add a quart (which some people are having to do), that would protect you from a lot of my concerns. It would give you more time to sense the pinging problem (which might be worse in hot weather, not noticed as much in the winter).

 

[SS1992]

I don't know if any used-car warranties are legit. Usually I decline these things as a matter of practice (when buying laptops, teevees, etc.). If you can find one that's for real, especially if the dealership will back it up, you'd probably be ok.

What are they asking for the car? I just feel that a car with a GDI engine would be the most risky to buy used. I think it's more susceptible to "mistakes" in care/driving. I've been very careful with mine, but haven't been using top-tier fuel (and not using additive as prescribed). I know I read that stuff at some point 4-5 years ago. But, it didn't stick in my mind as being significant. I don't know how significant it is. But.. there is something causing different outcomes for people. That topic recently caused me to think about how I could have been doing something wrong all this time.).

To me, that's the risk. People may be ignorant or downplay GDI engines being different, having special needs. It could make a bigger difference than with a traditional engine. You just don't know. If you were buying it from the owner you could assess something about their character, reactions to questions.

What's you '03 Honda like? If you had a brand new engine, would you drive it 230k more miles? Recently @SS1992 mentioned that a new RB engine is around $4500 USD (not installed). Given the peculiarities of GDI, I think I'd prefer a new engine than a used used GDI. If you could get a new engine for your Honda at a similar price, that might be the better value proposition (compared to the gamble of a used GDI, or the expense of a new car).

Unfortunately most cars have GDI. We can thank the gov for that.

If I could get a car I'd get a Toyota that uses the D4-S engine, but a used hyundai at 65k wouldn't be too much of a gamble. Fortunately the RB accents were made better than most of the other engines.

Still GDI is a piece of crap. They didn't solve pollution, they just kept it in our cars for us to deal with later. If I could go back I'd go for multi point injection but I doubt regulations will make it easy like before.

Sent from my moto g(7) power using Tapatalk

 

[misnblu]

The gdi engine in the RB Accent is an excellent engine as long as you take care of it.
Most everything you hear of oil usage issues with the engine are from improper break in of the engine when new.
Most just limp it along never breaking in the rings to the block so they're sealing as they should be.
Synthetic oil is what I'd recommend for the car and with your driving habits you mentioned you should have no issues with fuel dilution of the oil.
I would highly recommend a catch can setup for the pcv side to keep the majority of the fuel/ oil vapors from your crankcase going into the intake manifold and causing carbon build up in the intake valves.
Also on initial start up the engine only revs high for about 30 seconds before it idles down. My 2015 GLS with stick does this and I'm ready to go after it idles down.

And to speak of the durability of this engine they're now producing 350-400 whp on this engine with stock block in turbo form and if it's sleeved 500 whp has been achieved and 700 whp potential.

I've owned Honda's , Porsche's, Toyota's, Fords, etc and every one of them have lasted me into the 250,000 mile range with most going higher.
It's all in how you maintain the complete car and never let things break first and then fix it.
Maintenance is crucial for any car, period.

As a hard driven RB Accent owner it is a truly wonderful car stock or heavily modified. I compare this car/ engine platform to anything from the 90's - 2000's era Honda's. Reliable and strong performance with other Hyundai swappabilty this engine (1.6 gdi) will be touted as an awesome platform to work with (as it is now).

So now that I've given my unbiased opinion on the RB Accent I would say do the research if you truly are interested in this car.
That's how I came to buy mine off the lot when searching for a new car. Took a month looking at everything in its price range and nothing compared.
I couldn't be happier with my purchase. ?

Good luck. ??

 

[dan new jersey]

Not to knock the Accent, I would first look into repairing the Honda. If there's a huge oil leak (versus oil being burned) there's a real chance it can be repaired at a nominal cost. Of course only you have a sense of what the overall condition of the car is and the likelihood it will need continuing repairs. I know several people who have Accords and Civics in that age range with more than 200k miles, and with proper maintenance they seem to just go forever.

 

[RB_Hatch]

I would say go for it. We have two accents, a 2016 SE with 23k miles, and a 2017 Sport with 7k miles. Granted they have quite a bit less miles but they’ve been great so far. I did lots of research myself. We previously had Toyota’s and Honda’s that all lasted well over 200k miles and I would expect the accent to last just as long. I was in a Lyft last week and the guy had a 2015 Accent manual with 110k miles, it was his second one cause he was so pleased with his first one which he put over 200k miles on and said he intends on getting a 3rd Accent when it’s time. If he is getting that type of mileage out of his accents driving 8-10hrs a day I’d say that’s a pretty good sign! Hyundai’s have been proving their reliability for years, just have to make sure you maintain your car well.

 

[az2008]

I would highly recommend a catch can setup for the pcv side to keep the majority of the fuel/ oil vapors from your crankcase going into the intake manifold and causing carbon build up in the intake valves.

I saw another thread where you and someone were talking about catch can. That reminded me of this post. I'm wondering: if a catch can is so beneficial to this (GDI) engine's longevity, why hasn't Hyundai (and other car makers?) added that to the design? It would cost them $10 more? But, less warranty claims, better reputation. Why?

And then the way Hyundai's under pressure to reduce emissions... why would they dump oil into the combustion chamber (like it has 100k miles on it already)? What incentive does Hyundai have to ignore that low-hanging fruit? The only downside I can think of (beyond the $10 cost) is the maintenance schedule saying oil changes include dumping the can too. (That's not bad when you consider how they tell us to use fuel additive every fillup, if not using "top-tier" gas.).

I was thinking I should add a catch can to mine. But, as I looked into it, something wasn't adding up that way. I'm not saying you're wrong. But, I don't understand Hyundai's lack of interest in it. Why is it such a great thing, but wasn't great enough to be part of the factory design?

 

[RB_Hatch]

I saw another thread where you and someone were talking about catch can. That reminded me of this post. I'm wondering: if a catch can is so beneficial to this (GDI) engine's longevity, why hasn't Hyundai (and other car makers?) added that to the design? It would cost them $10 more? But, less warranty claims, better reputation. Why?

And then the way Hyundai's under pressure to reduce emissions... why would they dump oil into the combustion chamber (like it has 100k miles on it already)? What incentive does Hyundai have to ignore that low-hanging fruit? The only downside I can think of (beyond the $10 cost) is the maintenance schedule saying oil changes include dumping the can too. (That's not bad when you consider how they tell us to use fuel additive every fillup, if not using "top-tier" gas.).

I was thinking I should add a catch can to mine. But, as I looked into it, something wasn't adding up that way. I'm not saying you're wrong. But, I don't understand Hyundai's lack of interest in it. Why is it such a great thing, but wasn't great enough to be part of the factory design?

Maintenance is the biggest factor. A large number of drivers know next to nothing about cars and don’t perform basic maintenance at the proper intervals. Failing to drain the catch can and allowing it to overflow can cause more damage then it is trying to prevent.

I see people driving around on bald tires all the time I can’t imagine what their oil looks like.

Also, think of how many more cars manufacturers sell because customers have engine related issues outside of the warranty period that end up costing so much to repair that they just buy another car.

It’s the same reason car manufacturers use so much aluminum nowadays and household appliances don’t last half as long. We have the technology but things are designed with cost efficiency and repetitive business in mind instead of longevity.

 

[az2008]

Also, think of how many more cars manufacturers sell because customers have engine related issues outside of the warranty period that end up costing so much to repair that they just buy another car.

First, let me say that I'm not trying to be argumentative/tedious. I'm just playing devil's advocate. I would really like if there were an easy, $50 add-on that could improve the engine's health/lifespan. It's not that I don't want this to be true, it's just that something doesn't add up to me.

I definitely agree that planned obsolescence is a thing. One of the most egregious examples I'm aware of is Singer sewing machines. Singer made bulletproof cast-iron sewing machines until the 1960s when they moved their design/production to Japan (at a time when Japanese manufacturing wasn't known for quality). Singer had an upgrade program where you could trade in your cast-iron machine (probably handed down to you from your grandmother -- and still had 200 years of useful life left on it) for the new, space-age plastic ones (that lasted 3-4 years). The interesting part: Singer dealers who participated in this upgrade program had to sign a contract agreeing to take the surrendered machines out back and bust them up with a sledgehammer, ensuring those machines would never compete with Singers's new disposable products again. (That's obscene to me.).

So, I wouldn't scoff at your pessimism/cynicism about Hyundai's possible motives.

But... if Hyundai omitted the catch-can in favor of more frequent sales, why does Hyundai make a big deal about "top-tier" fuel (or require a bottle of additive per fillup)? They could have been silent about that. Or, recommend less additive with the hopes of engines fouling sooner(?).

@msinblu's post which I replied to is part of what doesn't add up for me, and ties into the above point. If Hyundai designed a great, braggable motor (as he said), why would they skimp on something cheap that would be so beneficial? Conversely, if they would do that (for predatory reasons), why would they put so much effort into designing such a good engine?

You make a good point about how people might not service/empty the catch can.

But, why couldn't Hyundai add a drain tube back into the engine? (Use a check valve so it doesn't drain until the engine's off. I.e., as long as there's vacuum in the crankcase breather line from which oil is being trapped, the checkvalve would seal the drain. But, when the vacuum is gone, the contents could drain back into the engine? The worst that could happen then is the checkvalve gets gunked up and has to be replaced occasionally, like the PCV valve does? If it's not replaced, you'd start having vacuum issues, check engine lights, etc?).

On the one hand: if the catch-can really catches enough oil that you have to dump it each oil change... it's hard to argue that it's not beneficial. But, I still have trouble with why Hyundai would be ignorant of this improvement -- or, the significance of the improvement -- especially when they put so much effort into creating such a great engine (as msinblu posits). To me, something doesn't entirely add up about that. It makes me think that the catch can isn't that beneficial. Or, Hyundai's more predatory as you suggested (and, perhaps the engine isn't as superb as suggested.). It seems like a contradiction, that's all.

Sorry if I'm being nit-picky. I'm just thinking out loud. I'm not passionate on this topic. I may get a catch can. I'm not opposed to it. If it helps the engine's longevity, that would be great. Doesn't sound like it would hurt (unless I didn't dump it with each oil change.).

 

[RB_Hatch]

First, let me say that I'm not trying to be argumentative/tedious. I'm just playing devil's advocate. I would really like if there were an easy, $50 add-on that could improve the engine's health/lifespan. It's not that I don't want this to be true, it's just that something doesn't add up to me.

I definitely agree that planned obsolescence is a thing. One of the most egregious examples I'm aware of is Singer sewing machines. Singer made bulletproof cast-iron sewing machines until the 1960s when they moved their design/production to Japan (at a time when Japanese manufacturing wasn't known for quality). Singer had an upgrade program where you could trade in your cast-iron machine (probably handed down to you from your grandmother -- and still had 200 years of useful life left on it) for the new, space-age plastic ones (that lasted 3-4 years). The interesting part: Singer dealers who participated in this upgrade program had to sign a contract agreeing to take the surrendered machines out back and bust them up with a sledgehammer, ensuring those machines would never compete with Singers's new disposable products again. (That's obscene to me.).

So, I wouldn't scoff at your pessimism/cynicism about Hyundai's possible motives.

But... if Hyundai omitted the catch-can in favor of more frequent sales, why does Hyundai make a big deal about "top-tier" fuel (or require a bottle of additive per fillup)? They could have been silent about that. Or, recommend less additive with the hopes of engines fouling sooner(?).

@msinblu's post which I replied to is part of what doesn't add up for me, and ties into the above point. If Hyundai designed a great, braggable motor (as he said), why would they skimp on something cheap that would be so beneficial? Conversely, if they would do that (for predatory reasons), why would they put so much effort into designing such a good engine?

You make a good point about how people might not service/empty the catch can.

But, why couldn't Hyundai add a drain tube back into the engine? (Use a check valve so it doesn't drain until the engine's off. I.e., as long as there's vacuum in the crankcase breather line from which oil is being trapped, the checkvalve would seal the drain. But, when the vacuum is gone, the contents could drain back into the engine? The worst that could happen then is the checkvalve gets gunked up and has to be replaced occasionally, like the PCV valve does? If it's not replaced, you'd start having vacuum issues, check engine lights, etc?).

On the one hand: if the catch-can really catches enough oil that you have to dump it each oil change... it's hard to argue that it's not beneficial. But, I still have trouble with why Hyundai would be ignorant of this improvement -- or, the significance of the improvement -- especially when they put so much effort into creating such a great engine (as msinblu posits). To me, something doesn't entirely add up about that. It makes me think that the catch can isn't that beneficial. Or, Hyundai's more predatory as you suggested (and, perhaps the engine isn't as superb as suggested.). It seems like a contradiction, that's all.

Sorry if I'm being nit-picky. I'm just thinking out loud. I'm not passionate on this topic. I may get a catch can. I'm not opposed to it. If it helps the engine's longevity, that would be great. Doesn't sound like it would hurt (unless I didn't dump it with each oil change.).

Oh no worries I feel the same way about many of the things you mentioned Unfortunately car manufacturers do some questionable things quite often. Sometimes it’s about them hopping on the bandwagon or pushing new designs to stay current even though not enough testing hasn’t been done and it ends up backfiring.

For instance, most new cars are equipped with smaller displacements engines and turbos so they can make similar power, are more fuel efficient, produce less emissions, among other benefits. However, that puts a lot more stress on engine components and you definitely don’t see these new smaller turbo’d engines frequently achieving the same mileage and reliability as its naturally aspirated predecessors.

I know personally, I would sacrifice a few MPG for a car that can easily reach 200k miles such as NA Toyota’s and older Honda’s but unfortunately manufacturers would rather put 20+ lbs of boost on tiny displacements engines.

There’s a similar trend with the CVT transmissions, which have had a rocky reputation in terms of reliability. Yet they continue to use them more and more because of fuel economy.

I agree they should add catch cans from factory, some cars come with air/oil separators, and some even have a second set of injectors which clean the intake valves.

Then again, Volkswagen literally had the ECU’s detect when the vehicle was being smogged to go into a reduced emission mode because they normally polluted way beyond the limits which ended up costing them billions of dollars in vehicle recalls and fines ?‍♂

I don’t think oil catch cans solve 100% of the problem, but that combined with CRC intake valve cleaner or sea foam, premium fuel, additives and frequent oil changes can all aid to limit carbon deposits.

 

[SS1992]

First, let me say that I'm not trying to be argumentative/tedious. I'm just playing devil's advocate. I would really like if there were an easy, $50 add-on that could improve the engine's health/lifespan. It's not that I don't want this to be true, it's just that something doesn't add up to me.

I definitely agree that planned obsolescence is a thing. One of the most egregious examples I'm aware of is Singer sewing machines. Singer made bulletproof cast-iron sewing machines until the 1960s when they moved their design/production to Japan (at a time when Japanese manufacturing wasn't known for quality). Singer had an upgrade program where you could trade in your cast-iron machine (probably handed down to you from your grandmother -- and still had 200 years of useful life left on it) for the new, space-age plastic ones (that lasted 3-4 years). The interesting part: Singer dealers who participated in this upgrade program had to sign a contract agreeing to take the surrendered machines out back and bust them up with a sledgehammer, ensuring those machines would never compete with Singers's new disposable products again. (That's obscene to me.).

So, I wouldn't scoff at your pessimism/cynicism about Hyundai's possible motives.

But... if Hyundai omitted the catch-can in favor of more frequent sales, why does Hyundai make a big deal about "top-tier" fuel (or require a bottle of additive per fillup)? They could have been silent about that. Or, recommend less additive with the hopes of engines fouling sooner(?).

@msinblu's post which I replied to is part of what doesn't add up for me, and ties into the above point. If Hyundai designed a great, braggable motor (as he said), why would they skimp on something cheap that would be so beneficial? Conversely, if they would do that (for predatory reasons), why would they put so much effort into designing such a good engine?

You make a good point about how people might not service/empty the catch can.

But, why couldn't Hyundai add a drain tube back into the engine? (Use a check valve so it doesn't drain until the engine's off. I.e., as long as there's vacuum in the crankcase breather line from which oil is being trapped, the checkvalve would seal the drain. But, when the vacuum is gone, the contents could drain back into the engine? The worst that could happen then is the checkvalve gets gunked up and has to be replaced occasionally, like the PCV valve does? If it's not replaced, you'd start having vacuum issues, check engine lights, etc?).

On the one hand: if the catch-can really catches enough oil that you have to dump it each oil change... it's hard to argue that it's not beneficial. But, I still have trouble with why Hyundai would be ignorant of this improvement -- or, the significance of the improvement -- especially when they put so much effort into creating such a great engine (as msinblu posits). To me, something doesn't entirely add up about that. It makes me think that the catch can isn't that beneficial. Or, Hyundai's more predatory as you suggested (and, perhaps the engine isn't as superb as suggested.). It seems like a contradiction, that's all.

Sorry if I'm being nit-picky. I'm just thinking out loud. I'm not passionate on this topic. I may get a catch can. I'm not opposed to it. If it helps the engine's longevity, that would be great. Doesn't sound like it would hurt (unless I didn't dump it with each oil change.).

100% agree. I'd imagine Hyundai would totally jump on an extra filter if they could even just barely justify it. Why would they allow an aftermarket company to make that extra money?

It reminds of those old 'super carbs' that supposedly made cars have 60 mpg in the 60s-80s but the gas companies supposedly bought the parents then shelved it. I call BS completely.

You're also correct about engines improving. The earliest cars lasted AT MOST 100,000 miles. Most only got 45,000 iirc. Now they engineer them to last an average of 200,000 miles but many go over that by 50-100,000 miles. I doubt a $50 part is going to do much more than what Hyundai has already done (minus the valve issues discussed before)

Sent from my moto g(7) power using Tapatalk

 

[misnblu]

This is where we the people discussing this issue come in and go around the emissions agenda.
The pcv system is an emission system as is the egr system. They are only there to please the governments of the respective countries that mandate cleaner air and less pollution.
Ironically if you are as old as I am you see through all the rhetoric and propaganda marketing of these systems and understand why car companies have to comply with these standards.

In answer to some of the questions about car manufacturers 'getting it' about carbonized valves they are now implementing a secondary port injector to keep the valves clean on the gdi engines.
Gdi engines were used in Motorsports racing long before they became production items on cars but they also had a secondary fuel rail prior to the intake valve for a progressive addition of fuel for high hp engines so these race gdi engines never encountered the carbon on the valves.
When the gdi came to our cars the secondary fuel setup was gone for keeping expenses down and the cars affordable.

Now that I've spent countless days and weeks in forums and other technical websites on how the pcv functions, why it functions, and if it can be deleted I've come to the conclusion to delete the pcv setup and go vent to air in my current engine and once I do my turbo swap.
Ill still be using all 3 catch cans but only vent to air and to keep the fumes/ vapors from escaping to atmosphere.
So now I have zero vapors getting back into the engine and have enough ventilation to let the engine breath whether n/a or boosted.

If you do the research and spend the time reading all the arguments about our emission systems you come away knowing it's not there for any other factor but to keep the emission zealots happy and boo on you the car buyer.

Whew that was a lot to say. ??

 

[SS1992]

This is where we the people discussing this issue come in and go around the emissions agenda.
The pcv system is an emission system as is the egr system. They are only there to please the governments of the respective countries that mandate cleaner air and less pollution.
Ironically if you are as old as I am you see through all the rhetoric and propaganda marketing of these systems and understand why car companies have to comply with these standards.

In answer to some of the questions about car manufacturers 'getting it' about carbonized valves they are now implementing a secondary port injector to keep the valves clean on the gdi engines.
Gdi engines were used in Motorsports racing long before they became production items on cars but they also had a secondary fuel rail prior to the intake valve for a progressive addition of fuel for high hp engines so these race gdi engines never encountered the carbon on the valves.
When the gdi came to our cars the secondary fuel setup was gone for keeping expenses down and the cars affordable.

Now that I've spent countless days and weeks in forums and other technical websites on how the pcv functions, why it functions, and if it can be deleted I've come to the conclusion to delete the pcv setup and go vent to air in my current engine and once I do my turbo swap.
Ill still be using all 3 catch cans but only vent to air and to keep the fumes/ vapors from escaping to atmosphere.
So now I have zero vapors getting back into the engine and have enough ventilation to let the engine breath whether n/a or boosted.

If you do the research and spend the time reading all the arguments about our emission systems you come away knowing it's not there for any other factor but to keep the emission zealots happy and boo on you the car buyer.

Whew that was a lot to say.

That's basically exactly how I see it. Jerk politicians basically telling the citizenry to shove it so they can get their precious votes and show everyone "how great they're doing" all while making us suffer the consequences.

Sent from my moto g(7) power using Tapatalk