A recent post contained a phrase to the effect of "oil is cheaper than an engine." Well, yes it is. But there's some really sloppy thinking represented in that conventional wisdom that makes it not actually wisdom at all. Something about that phrase always bothered me, I think I've figured out why it does bother me.
I think the main reason it bothers me is because it's just to justify almost any practice around. Run a premium oil and drain it well before it's done? That's ok, it's "cheap insurance." Run the cheapest stuff and dump it every 2k? That's ok, it's "cheap insurance." Buy a premium oil and stretch it to the limit with UOA backing? That's ok, it's "cheap insurance" to get the UOA done. How absurd must an oil change practice be before it is no longer "cheap insurance."? Dumping HPL every week? Well, it would take something nearly that extreme for a long time for you to spend more on oil than on a replacement engine.
So as far as its utility in discriminating one practice from another as being most economical, the concept of "cheap insurance" is garbage.
Why is this the case-- that it justifies anything we wish? I think it's because it represents fundamentally the wrong question. It's not a matter of whether to change your oil at all. So once you assume that some maintenance must be done, the question is one of marginal cost and marginal benefit.
In other words, the reason the question is perpetual is because nobody can agree on the *incremental* value of the next higher or lower tier of oil or drain interval relative to the incremental cost. It's simply too subjective because nobody agrees on the value of the hassle of oil changes. For some, they enjoy it and it's hardly a hassle at all (BITOGer). For others, it's tolerable. For many, it's just about being as cheap as possible and barely surviving the period of ownership.
Most us around here are indulging the "pristine corpse" tendency in that our vehicles will be hauled off the the crusher or sold or traded in with pristine engines that are over-maintained. We used a better oil that needed and changed it more often that needed because it made us feel better.
Why? Because it's "cheap insurance." Well, still cheaper insurance could have been bought, but we elected not to. Why? Because we are indulging an emotional need to feel smarter or wiser than others by maintaining our engines to pristine cleanliness. By indulging this, the only thing we are "insuring" is our collective egos and sense of well-being.
So let's at least be honest enough to admit it. The truth of the matter is revealed by the phrase " religiously maintained." It's because it satisfies a belief system, provides a sense of peace. It helps us feel superior to the unwashed masses. "Religiously-maintained" indeed! With all the aspects of faith and judgment and emotional fulfillment that comes along with such!
Thus the perpetual thick vs thin or whatever discussions. If it was purely up to reason or empirical results, there's no discussion to be had. The ambiguity-- the tension-- is the entire point.
To the extent that changing oil is insurance at all, it's not relevant to why one would choose one policy or company over another.
So I'd ask we stop using this garbage logic of "its cheap insurance" because that's just terrible thinking. Or if not, just know I'm secretly judging you for using it LOL.
