You’re making that specious argument for all cars based on Toyota.
You’ve made the argument several times, so, you’re just trolling this thread, looking to stir up controversy.
2016 Dodge Charger 3.6L 66,000 total miles 11,000 miles on HPL 5w-30 HDEO CJ-4
- Thread starter wwillson
- Start date
You’ve made the argument several times, so, you’re just trolling this thread, looking to stir up controversy.
The problem with relying on a technicians word is that they only see the bad and rarely have accurate history of the car. The Toyota guy blames the 10k OCI based on what? A presumed notion that every gunked up oil burning engine followed the OEM maintenance schedule to a T? Controlled studies against millions of others on the road that followed the OEM schedule with no oil burning issue?
When your job only sees the bad, it's easy to make misleading assumptions. The sampling pool for their "data" is very tarnished and unreliable. Many techs recognize this sampling bias and look past it, but a lot of them don't.
When your job only sees the bad, it's easy to make misleading assumptions. The sampling pool for their "data" is very tarnished and unreliable. Many techs recognize this sampling bias and look past it, but a lot of them don't.
I am ignoring some of the statements made like," that sludge'l getcha everytime", but I agree with the statement made tangentially by Bill7.
A shorter OCI will be seen to be more beneficial over a long (10k or more ) over all engines, oils, climates, usage patterns, etc. (all variables combined). If one could combine all the engines in the world and log all these factors. I don't think anyone can reasonably argue with that. The best case to be made for a long OCI is that it doesn't do harm vs a shorter one, not that it is superior in some way. The reverse is true for a short OCI. The bias for a superior schedule lies with the shorter OCI, across all variables. I don't think that is arguable.
A shorter OCI will be seen to be more beneficial over a long (10k or more ) over all engines, oils, climates, usage patterns, etc. (all variables combined). If one could combine all the engines in the world and log all these factors. I don't think anyone can reasonably argue with that. The best case to be made for a long OCI is that it doesn't do harm vs a shorter one, not that it is superior in some way. The reverse is true for a short OCI. The bias for a superior schedule lies with the shorter OCI, across all variables. I don't think that is arguable.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Your brother drove 6,000 miles a year? So it took him 17 years to get to 100,000 miles? Also, see my previously posted flow chart for what is required for sludge to occur.
Trav also recommended running M1 0W-40 in these engines because more pedestrian oils just simply weren't sufficiently capable. If this is a high heat issue, then these are likely resin coated soot particle deposits, not sludge, which, per the chart, requires moisture (low heat, see: short tripping).
The cheapest "full synthetic" motor oil has no capability to clean. Oils are not formulated to clean, they are formulated to avoid allowing particles to agglomerate and fall out of suspension, allowing deposits to accumulate. When that capability is overwhelmed (which, as I noted in my earlier reply, is based on time, not miles, in service along with myriad other factors) then you get varnish, lacquer or sludge starting to form.
The "$90 oil change", if the product is blended with polar and/or high solvency bases like AN's and esters, has the ability to actually remove deposits, putting its capabilities well above the Walmart Special.
This "change your oil at 3K using a cheap synthetic" is akin to saying "hunt everything with 7.62x39". It's wholly inappropriate for some applications and potentially woefully inadequate for others. Amazon Basics 0W-40, a "cheap synthetic" doesn't have a single Euro OE approval, would I be comfortable running that in a high strung twin turbo Mercedes or Porsche engine for a short interval? Not on your life. Just like I wouldn't try to hunt Rhino with an SKS.
Just like this forum doesn't allow the ignorant to mindlessly pimp/promote products like Lucas based solely on the vapid premise that "it works", equally over-simplified positions and statements devoid of scientific evidence, following the same feeble premise, won't go unchallenged.
When the opportunity to expand one's knowledge and critical thinking skills presents, you have the choice to put in the effort and forge ahead, knowing this will likely be difficult, or simply shrug-off that challenge, doubling down on what's comfortable. Far too often it is the latter path that is chosen. If a subject/path seems simple, it's likely that you just don't adequately understand it.
Overkill.
You might want to edit your post. There's some kettle/pot going on.
You might want to edit your post. There's some kettle/pot going on.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
If you think so, then you haven't adequately read my posts nor understand my position on these matters.
I read enough of your posts.
Your thinking seems pretty ossified then, if you do not see it in the post above. There's enough there to work on.
See what? Articulate your point.
Last edited:
Arguably, both sides are ossified - each side continues to bring "evidence" to support their arguments. But it appears that neither side is open to altering their position.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
While I appreciate your efforts to pigeonhole me and present my character as rigid and one dimensional, I must vehemently disagree with your assessment.
Imploring people to take the time and make the effort to adequately understand complex subjects, which inherently results in more questions and a more nuanced view; results in the understanding there is no "one size fits all" because of the myriad of inputs and parameters, is not hypocritical, which is what you appear to be implying. If you take the effort to work this through yourself rather than just haphazardly judging and labelling me, you'd understand that. Alas, I expect you are more comfortable with your "judge and discard" approach demonstrated here.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
It should be apparent that there's a gaping chasm in knowledge between "it's complicated, there is no one size fits all" and "bro, just run 3k on Supertech, it's the best".
Sure, but there's also "this is complicated and there are many factors to consider, but for the "average user" who is unwilling to take time to fully understand (and analyze) the situation, maybe running 3-5K is the right answer for them."
4WD
$50 site donor 2024
And only people like those here know if they have direct or port injection and why it matters …
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
And this brings us to the discussion about whether one follows the advice of the OEM, who designed and constructed the vehicle, or the Quick Lube place that wants you in there more frequently along with some of the fun examples based on data we've gleaned on here that fall somewhere in between.
The purpose of intelligent OLM's is to figure this all out for Joe Average so he doesn't need to understand the complexity. This is also why we have product approvals, to ensure that the product being used is of sufficient quality to be suitable for the interval dictated by that OLM. Are we to encourage Joe Average to soundly ignore all of this engineering and testing because Jiffy tells he him needs to change it at 3K?
On the flip side, Toyota uses a mileage counter, which takes none of these parameters into account. They will argue this is fine. The counter here is that there's been some anecdotal evidence presented by mechanics that it isn't fine, and my personal opinion on that matter is that this is, at least in part, the result of using a simple mileage counter rather than an IOLM.
Honda's fuel dilution issues are another question mark. But, as many have pointed out, we don't see these engines dropping dead from it, so, for Joe Average, is it really of consequence? I'd say no. So then following the OEM in this case, despite resulting in conditions for the lubricant that we here deem suboptimal, doesn't seem to have a significant impact on long-term durability for the useful life of the vehicle.
And of course there are exceptions. We can't ignore the previous blunders that Toyota has made on this front with the sludge monsters, nor Honda's VCM fiasco. But, these are in the minority as are I suspect these current Toyota youtube examples, so, in most instances, the customer is likely sufficiently served by the OEM's maintenance interval, though I do think it of value to acknowledge the limitations, in some instances, of that policy, like with the Toyota mileage counters.
All that said, we are having this discussion in a thread about an extended change interval in a Dodge Durango on a message board whose function is to literally serve as an outlet for folks who obsess about these sorts of details, not blissfully reside in a cloud of ignorance on the matter. The statement made that kicked off this whole discussion was this one:
Bill7 said:
Which is far removed from this current tangent about what best serves Joe Average, the OEM interval or the Jiffy Lube one and subsequently my reply to your post.
Wayne isn't Joe Average, he's not partaking in this exercise from a position of ignorance and the individual in question, catastrophizing per the above, is soundly ignoring Wayne's knowledge and his reasoned approach, instead making conclusive claims about the condition of Wayne's equipment and accusing him of severely neglecting it because he's not following the Jiffy Lube schedule.
These are two very distinct discussions, but this last page has managed to mire them all into one giant steaming pile.
Last edited:
Extended OCIs are doable in most cars but the owner needs to know and monitor their engine. I am a big Toyota fan with extensive repair experience. I also watch the aforementioned Toyota mechanics's videos. Here's my assessment of what's really going on:
Bottom line is, if you use quality synthetic oil AND your car doesn't consume the oil AND you monitor oil level/contamination level regularly, extended OCIs are doable without doing damage to your engine as proven by OP.
- While Toyotas are renowned for their quality and reliability, not all models and years are perfect. The 2AZ engine, in particular, had issues related to the piston and ring design and it took Toyota several years to recognize and remedy the problem (recall, part redesign). The affected engines will all develop an oil consumption problem over time.
- With time and use, the engine develops significant blow-by and with it, oil consumption. This is is a double-edged sword. The oil is being consumed AND whatever oil is left is being severely degraded with combustion contaminants.
- With extended ~10k oil change intervals, a lot of these engines simply run out of oil (because the Typical Toyota owner never checks the dipstick) and/or the oil becomes so contaminated that it can no longer provide adequate lubrication. Either way, this leads to irreversible damage to engine bearings and other components.
- You can delay the inevitable death of the 2AZ engine with frequent oil changes but it cannot really be prevented.
Bottom line is, if you use quality synthetic oil AND your car doesn't consume the oil AND you monitor oil level/contamination level regularly, extended OCIs are doable without doing damage to your engine as proven by OP.
I think if you read Overkill's post, you can see why I responded the way I did. If you can't that's OK too.
Why don't you just state what you are trying to point out? I don't understand you unwillingness to just say it.
Because it seems like a waste of my time right now. Maybe I will later when I have free time. It’s pretty obvious, so I am a little surprised by all this.
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2022
- Messages
- 515
I still don't see better. I can buy Mobil 1 EP and a Fram Ultra for well under $90 and be confident doing 1 year 10k miles oil changes More isn't always better, just like air filter changes.
Similar threads
