Drove with low oil.. Need your advice

That is soooooo 20th Century.

 

I left the personal "Ethical" aspect of selling or trading it in out of my advice.

I however agree.
Every used car that had a problem that I have ever sold or traded in, I have applied a sometimes VERY costly full honest disclosure policy.
When I was younger, I would often fix problems, THEN sell the vehicle at a loss. I felt good about the deal, but my bank account suffered.

However, kind of a gray area here.
The OP is not sure any damage has been done. The vehicle for all purposes is running fine. The converse advice to keep the vehicle, was also based on the idea that there is a very, very good chance that no damage was done. I think if no signs manifest in a couple of months, you could probably conclude no significant damage occurred. If it starts burning oil, smoking and leaking at an alarming rate?

I think if I sold it Private Party, I'd tell the potential buyers. And they would immediately back out of the deal or ask for a huge discount.
I fear, that if you trade it in, at a lot of dealerships, you could tell them, they would be so anxious to get you into a new car, that they would listen to you, and then immediately "forget it".

If it's not billowing smoke, or showing any outward signs, even if you were honest with a dealership, I kind of doubt they would carry that information on, when they went to sell it. I mean, I've never walked onto a dealership lot, and looked at a used car and had the salesman tell me, " That Vehicle May Have Hidden Engine Damage". Oddly, every vehicle I have ever looked at on a dealership lot, was supposedly in pristine condition and had been maintained to impeccable standards. It's amazing how many little old ladies that only used the vehicle to drive to church exist. And/Or, how many vehicles rack up miles supposedly being towed behind motor homes.
You can stand in a field of lemon tree's and a used car salesman is going to say...look at all those peaches....

But yes, for ethical reasons, I have to back full disclosure.
Having been young, and bought my share of troubled used cars, I really couldn't do anything else.

 

Sammy Haggar couldn't do it so they changed the laws around...

 

In my survey of Russian Roulette players, 100% of respondents agreed!

-Chap

 

Not true according to the NHTSA tests in Montana years ago differences in speeds is what causes accidents not speed in and of itself.

 

Are you sure you're not maybe thinking of the National Motorists Association, which put out a conspiracy-toned press release in 2000? It didn't rely on the NHTSA (in fact, described NHTSA as a producer of propaganda and manufacturer of urban myths).

I wonder if there have been any studies done more recently than 2000?

-Chap

 

Yep, exactly true -- it's the differential in speed that kills. Just watch a NASCAR race. Two cars that are moving in the same direction that crash are usually not a problem. Even seemingly bad wrecks are often not because the energy (speed) is dissipated as the cars spin/tumble. The bad wrecks are when the speed differential is high -- like hitting the wall can't absorb the energy (which is why NASCAR started the Safer-Barrier program). Dale Earnhardt's fatal crash was not at all "spectacular" but the energy transfer was very high.

 

The NHTSA tests were done in Montana which at that time had no speed limits outside of cities/towns. Their results showed that drivers drove at a reasonable and prudent speed for the roads and weather whether or not there were posted speed limit signs. Drivers ignored posted limits. And accidents were caused by differences in speed not by speed alone. Think tests were in the 80s Those results did not make the NHTSA and the Insurance industry happy so they never publicly posted those results.

 

Are you at liberty to divulge how you happened to find out about them?

-Chap

 

I agree with this for the most part. But to be more precise, speed doesn't kill, collisions kill. A divided highway/expressway with a concrete barrier between the two directions is much safer than a similar undivided highway separated by just painted lines, even if the speed limit and actual speeds are much higher. Speed isn't bad. That's why we built highways in the first place, so we can drive faster safely due to limited entry points, dividers, etc. Imagine driving across the US on lower speed small roads only if there were no highways... it would be slower, but less safe.

Here is a study that I barely skimmed over the first several pages, but it shows only 4% of vehicle fatalities (in UK, I think) are on motorways, which are divided expressways/highways.

http://www.racfoundation.org/assets/rac_foundation/content/downloadables/roads%20and%20reality%20-%20bayliss%20-%20accident%20trends%20by%20road%20type%20-%20160309%20-%20background%20paper%209.pdf

A local, somewhat winding highway (Seward Highway, between Anchorage and Girdwood) is notorious for it's frequent, head-on, fatal accidents. The speed limit on it ranges from 55 mph to 65 mph. The fatal accidents there sometimes have speed as a minor factor, but primary reasons for the fatalities are crossing over to the opposing lane and colliding with another vehicle, or being struck by a vehicle that has crossed over. There have been plenty of deaths where someone fell asleep, or had a moment of inattention, and also lots of erratic drivers that are drunk/high/running from police, etc., or trying to pass on the opposite side of the road without sufficient time to get back into the right side of the road. It doesn't matter if the vehicles are only going 55 mph if there is a collision between a small car and a big truck. But everyone is fine if vehicles are in control and never collide, even if everyone is going over the speed limit by 10, even 20 mph.

If there is a collision and a fatality, even if there was high speed involved, I'd say it's not is correct to say speeding is the cause unless that speed actually caused the collision. For example, if the speed was so high going around a corner, that the car looses traction and slides into the opposing side of the road and collides with another vehicle, that is too much speed for the corner, and speed was the cause. Or not being able to brake fast enough, fishtailing, sliding, etc. in slippery winter conditions due to higher speed than the conditions and the tires can handle. But when we get these conditions, and get close to 100 vehicles in ditches in the area, anything beyond minor injuries is rare... showing that low speed is saving factor due to low energies involved, but that slow absolute speed isn't going to necessarily prevent collisions in bad conditions.

 

As a side note - Montana not too long ago finally changed their open container law. I still remember being able to pound a Miller lite in Kalispell, right next to a cop, waiting for the light to change, as late as the 1990's. Legal, but not the responsible thing to do. (30yr old youthfull indescretion). That said, & no small wonder, Montana had at the time the highest fatality per capita driving history. To this day, it's quite common to see tons of plastic flowers around many of the curvy roads, as you approach some of the one horse towns.

.

 

You are missing the point.
I didn't necessarily say that speed causes crashes.......but it DOES as you indicated above because speeding MEANS going faster than the prevailing traffic. AND the main point is: If you do crash, the faster you are going, the more likely you are to DIE as a result.

 

I have to agree on this point.

 

That's not necessarily the case though. There is a highway near where I live where the speed suddenly drops from 65 to 55 and then 45 over the course of maybe 300-500 feet. It then bumps back up to 65 after another 300 feet or so. Everybody keeps going 65 all the way through it. Everyone is speeding, they are going higher than the speed limit, but they are all going the "prevailing traffic" speed. It is literally nothing more than a revenue source speed trap. That's what it is for, it is literally designed to reduce safety and efficiency in exchange for higher police funding.

It is always much more dangerous on that stretch of road when someone follows the signs and suddenly slows to 55 and then suddenly slows to 45 100 feet later.

 

Anything change on that slow stretch, say hidden side roads, curves, whatever. Reservation territory? Something teritorial? Or this is out in the middle of nowhere?

 

Not around here -- LOL. Everyone speeds. The prevailing traffic is usually at least 10-15 MPH over the posted speeding limit.

 

Maybe you don't have this in Canada, but liquidtenmillion is talking about speed traps for profit that are fairly common in Southern parts of the US:

Speed trap profits could come to end in small towns, with new laws - CBS News

 

Yeah around here any one horse town that has a sliver of its border touching a major highway will reduce the speed limit of the highway by like 15-25mph just for that little sliver. There's nothing around, except for the 2 cops hiding behind the bushes around the corner.

I love that AAA bought a billboard warning people that the road they are on is about to turn into a speed trap, awesome. Gotta love freedom of speech, you know that down that gets 76% of its ENTIRE budget from speeding tickets probably tried their hardest to suppress that.

 

Jesus h santa clause on a pogo stick. The op is asking about oil!!!!

 

Yeah that happens a lot, but really the OP has been addressed. There is no way to know for sure, but it seems likely the car is still fine and to monitor oil levels weekly from here on out. If they decrease add more, it its decreasing a lot then maybe you should trade it in.

It is unlikely anything catastrophic will happen, it would have already happened most likely if that is the case.