Oil Change - Flat Rate

Just a curious question. Although I have done well too many oil changes,

I was wondering if anyone has the specific flat rate time or dealer suggested time (published/official) for a Subaru mechanic to do an oil change on a 2.5 turbo vs a normally aspirated model, for year 2005.

 

If there are any mechanics or techs presently working at a Subaru dealer out there, retired can chime in too, I'd love to hear what the actual official published time from the Subaru factory is.

 

Thanks in advance

I get the impression many shops do oil changes on the cheap to lure new customers in so they can check for other chargeable work.

I think I found the answer. Its something like less than .5 hours.

 

The reason I asked is because the of the famous TSB stating the

turbo oil line's banjo filter "should" be checked. On another Subaru

forum I asked the same question about the smoking gun TSB and

the wording "should" was debated. Naturally, to me "should" means

"shall".

 

Hence, how could you expect a dealership to bill .5 hours for an oil change and inspection of the banjo screen.

 

So, in the nutshell, we buy a used 2.5 turbo model. It might have anywhere

from 30k to 100K+ miles on it. As a car owner the only oil change service

interval instructions, The Owners Manual, we have might say change oil every 7k miles. However there

is a TSB that reduces that interval to 3.5k miles, plus the "banjo screen should

be checked". As far as I know, Subaru never sent out a change notice to car owners,

never sent out an addendum to the maintenance schedule in the manual, and more importantly I sense

that when an owner of this model visits a dealership the dealership does not say "Hey Mr. Jones we should check your banjo screen".

 

Years ago, if you purchased a used vehicle you could ask a dealership if they could provide

you with all of the previous service records on a car; so you could see if the banjo screen was checked.

Today, apparently, there are privacy laws that prevent the dealerships from disclosing these records

because it might infringe upon the previous owner. Of course a dealership could block out the previous

owner's name and address but that is too logical.

 

I had a lengthy phone call with Subaru Customer Service about the 'banjo screen TSB'.

They kept reciting the banjo screen "should" be checked, but naturally would not state an

authorized dealership franchise "has to" check the screen.

And, speaking to a few dealership Service Advisers, they stated they "should" does not

mean "has to"; although legal ease of 'should' means 'shall'.

 

So, you have to wonder the position a Dealership takes when you visit them and they

know they 'should' but they do not. If they suggest to you that since they don't know

if the banjo screen was inspected and maybe you "should" pay to have them perform

the service, are they timid that the bill might shock you? Or, are Dealerships and Subaru Corporate

rolling the dice and playing the odds that hopefully your 2.5 turbo won't toss its cookies into the engine?

 

Maybe Subaru's position is ... they have already run all the numbers and feel that if a few hundred or thousand 2.5 turbo owners get wind that their engine died because of Subaru's design fault, or failure to due diligence in the preventive maintenance, losing a few hundred or thousand customers is cheaper than paying for the issue.

In either event Subaru covered their butt's with the wording "shall" upon the shoulders of anyone servicing the vehicle. Savvy move? Grammar wise, yes. Litigation wise, no.

 

And yes. Our toasted engine had a clogged banjo screen.

The vehicle was purchased with 40k miles and died in less than 9 months at 50k miles. We are having 'fun' swapping out the motor.

 

I've always, and still believe, that Sales sells the first car and Service sells the second. Here, they ain't getting my second!

So you lost the engine because of the famed banjo bolt filter taking out your turbo releasing shards of metal into your oil.

 

I don't think there's any win here for you, but you do bring up an interesting point. I am not a lawyer, nor do I profess to be one. It would seem you are trying to find if Subaru or a dealer is liable for damage caused by lack of following a documented maintenance procedure (and associated charge) that explicitly states they should check the banjo bolt filter, a known cause of turbo failure. This is a very interesting (and I assume valid) observation that would indicate they knew about the failure mode early on.

 

That being said, I replaced my banjo bolt filter at 100k and it did not show any sign of contamination. It did appear to be the original as well. I would venture to say the type of oil, the regularity of the oil change, and the driving cycle would have had a significant effect on the resulting contamination of the screen.

The questions become:

1) How is a car owner to know that the oil service schedule has changed?

2) Whom is responsible to insure the banjo filter is checked and when?

3) If Subaru and its Dealerships are aware of a potential problem, when and how do

they communicate this to the car owner, whether the vehicle is in or out of warranty?