When Audi/VW had some deposit issues, it was suggested by some very bright people that it might help to run out the OCI, rather than change early. The notion does have some merits. I don't think, though, that we've seen any evidence of a big benefit in the real world (aside from saving OCI dollars). Some of those DI engines simply got deposits, despite long OCIs, properly specified oils, Italian tuneups, and all the bottles of additives you could throw at them.
WOULD you guys take the time to read this.
- Thread starter Speak2Mountain
- Start date
- Status
Sadly, DI/TGDI engines also have to deal with fuel dilution, which tends to be progressive and only curable with fresh oil. And the fuel-diluted oil in the sump is likely more volatile than fresh oil anyway, meaning more evaporation and oily vapors over the intake valves.
If too-frequent oil changes were really a risk it would be plastered all over owners' manuals, would show up in TSBs and would be mentioned by service advisors. And I''d challenge anyone to find a single example of a warranty claim denied because of too-frequent maintenance.
With my fuel diluters, I'll stick to a more-frequent oil change regimen. Even if the OP's article is correct, cleaning intake valves is more palatable than premature engine wear.
If too-frequent oil changes were really a risk it would be plastered all over owners' manuals, would show up in TSBs and would be mentioned by service advisors. And I''d challenge anyone to find a single example of a warranty claim denied because of too-frequent maintenance.
With my fuel diluters, I'll stick to a more-frequent oil change regimen. Even if the OP's article is correct, cleaning intake valves is more palatable than premature engine wear.
Originally Posted By: Danh
Sadly, DI/TGDI engines also have to deal with fuel dilution, which tends to be progressive and only curable with fresh oil. And the fuel-diluted oil in the sump is likely more volatile than fresh oil anyway, meaning more evaporation and oily vapors over the intake valves.
If too-frequent oil changes were really a risk it would be plastered all over owners' manuals, would show up in TSBs and would be mentioned by service advisors. And I''d challenge anyone to find a single example of a warranty claim denied because of too-frequent maintenance.
With my fuel diluters, I'll stick to a more-frequent oil change regimen. Even if the OP's article is correct, cleaning intake valves is more palatable than premature engine wear.
I was thinking the same thing.
Sadly, DI/TGDI engines also have to deal with fuel dilution, which tends to be progressive and only curable with fresh oil. And the fuel-diluted oil in the sump is likely more volatile than fresh oil anyway, meaning more evaporation and oily vapors over the intake valves.
If too-frequent oil changes were really a risk it would be plastered all over owners' manuals, would show up in TSBs and would be mentioned by service advisors. And I''d challenge anyone to find a single example of a warranty claim denied because of too-frequent maintenance.
With my fuel diluters, I'll stick to a more-frequent oil change regimen. Even if the OP's article is correct, cleaning intake valves is more palatable than premature engine wear.
I was thinking the same thing.
Originally Posted By: Danh
If too-frequent oil changes were really a risk it would be plastered all over owners' manuals, would show up in TSBs and would be mentioned by service advisors. And I''d challenge anyone to find a single example of a warranty claim denied because of too-frequent maintenance.
Bit of a strawman there...given that cusomers have to pay to get an OCI, why would you even need to tell them.
As to the second strawman, a failure 100 miles into an OCI would be the same.
I don't believe that within reason oil changes can be too frequent, but doesn't need nonsensical strawmen made up to support it.
If too-frequent oil changes were really a risk it would be plastered all over owners' manuals, would show up in TSBs and would be mentioned by service advisors. And I''d challenge anyone to find a single example of a warranty claim denied because of too-frequent maintenance.
Bit of a strawman there...given that cusomers have to pay to get an OCI, why would you even need to tell them.
As to the second strawman, a failure 100 miles into an OCI would be the same.
I don't believe that within reason oil changes can be too frequent, but doesn't need nonsensical strawmen made up to support it.
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: Danh
If too-frequent oil changes were really a risk it would be plastered all over owners' manuals, would show up in TSBs and would be mentioned by service advisors. And I''d challenge anyone to find a single example of a warranty claim denied because of too-frequent maintenance.
Bit of a strawman there...given that cusomers have to pay to get an OCI, why would you even need to tell them.
As to the second strawman, a failure 100 miles into an OCI would be the same.
I don't believe that within reason oil changes can be too frequent, but doesn't need nonsensical strawmen made up to support it.
Just responding to the assertion in the OP's penultimate paragraph. Doesn't seem nonsensical to me...
Originally Posted By: Danh
If too-frequent oil changes were really a risk it would be plastered all over owners' manuals, would show up in TSBs and would be mentioned by service advisors. And I''d challenge anyone to find a single example of a warranty claim denied because of too-frequent maintenance.
Bit of a strawman there...given that cusomers have to pay to get an OCI, why would you even need to tell them.
As to the second strawman, a failure 100 miles into an OCI would be the same.
I don't believe that within reason oil changes can be too frequent, but doesn't need nonsensical strawmen made up to support it.
Just responding to the assertion in the OP's penultimate paragraph. Doesn't seem nonsensical to me...
You have to be vigilant with these things because one shift of the equilibrium can affect another part of it. It's like whack-a-mole; you try and whack short OCIs on DI-turbo engines because you want to take advantage of one parameter- and then the 'increased wear of soot-loaded low-viscosity oil' pops it's head up.
One wouldn't want to risk eg. timing component longevity because of being too focused on evaporative losses, unless oil viscosity was sufficient to protect against excess soot wear as in the case withe diesel engines and their high-HTHS 40 grades since time immemorial. Extending OCIs in soot-generating engines with resource-conserving 20s and 30s is foolhardy at best IMO.
One wouldn't want to risk eg. timing component longevity because of being too focused on evaporative losses, unless oil viscosity was sufficient to protect against excess soot wear as in the case withe diesel engines and their high-HTHS 40 grades since time immemorial. Extending OCIs in soot-generating engines with resource-conserving 20s and 30s is foolhardy at best IMO.
3K kms is very very low seeing all the UOA here with triple that number and in the miles measurement! Even 5000kms is low but many here in Oz think Mazdas, Fords, Holdens etc need Motul or Mobil 1 PAO/Ester oils with 3-5k km max OCIs... and those brands cost around $20 per litre.
They might be onto something. Common sense being one at the least!
They might be onto something. Common sense being one at the least!
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
