Allow me to be the voice of discontent (as expected).
Yes, this RL UOA looks decent. There is nothing alarming here, and to be honest, it's another boring Dmax UOA. (Boring in a good way).
But compare/contrast this current UOA thread to my recent dino 10w-30 HDEO UOA:
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2323660&page=1
Over the same mileage (he's near 6.6k miles) and two seaons of towing (my UOA is also mostly towing, and was especially as brutal as I could make it), his wear metals and other criteria are no "better" than mine. He probably spent 3x or more money for RL, and got the exact same UOA results that I did, under nearly identical conditions, for the same duration.
I'm not saying the RL didn't do a decent job; it did. But it surely didn't result in 3x or 4x less wear now, did it? So if RL didn't provide "better" wear protection, then what can it give? The only alternative is to get "longer" wear protection.
If he does not GREATLY extend his OCI, he's wasting money big time. I fully understand that everyone is entitled to buy/use what they deem appropriate; I wouldn't have it any other way. But it is foolish to ignore the topic of ROI when viewing a UOA. UOAs are supposed to be tools to track the direct health of the lube, and the indirect health of the equipment. If those are in decent shape, then why not choose the least cost product that provides the "same" results?
To just break even, he'd have to run this out to 40k km or 7-8 years. Is he willing to do that? In fact, there are a lot of dino Dmax UOAs that show (even when towing) 10k miles is not out of the question. Could he go 50-60k km? Could he even keep his hands off the wrenches that long? Only he knows.
Food for thought ...
I will now return you to you regularly scheduled synthetic rhetoric.