Originally Posted By: Audios
... and its cheap insurance.
And there it is; the infamous BITOG claim that if something is good, more of it most always must be better, somehow ...
Is there any proof that a more frequent OCI is going to reduce the wear rates? Or improve the contamination rates?
Just because he OCIs more often in your plan, does he get less wear per 1k miles?
Explain to me please, how changing lube more often makes the engine create less soot.
There's a difference between the magnitude of a characteristic in a UOA, versus the rate at which something occurs!
An engine that has 10ppm of Fe in 5k miles has the same wear rate as an engine that has 20ppm in 10k miles.
An engine that gives 3 grams of soot in 5k miles is the same as one that makes 6 grams of soot in 10k miles.
There's no proof that shorter OCIs reduce wear in "normal" use. In fact, quite the opposite is true; longer OCIs (within moderation of normalcy) actually lower the wear rates. In studying more than 12,000 UOAs, I've never seen a "normal" condition have less wear by changing lube more often. Just does not happen my friends. The VAST majority of data shows that longer OCIs reduce wear rates.
Let's use an analogy here ...
Consider an older couple that live in a small home, and they have a maid come in once a week to clean dishes and do 4 loads of laundry, and she takes 8 hours for the job one day a week (1 day a week for 8 hours). Now, if we cut her daily time in half, but sent her in twice as often (2x a week at 4 hours each), she'd still be doing the same amount of laundry and dirty dishes, because the RATE of contamination is the same. How often you send in the "cleaner" has no affect on who makes the dirty stuff. However if we altered the rate at which dirty stuff is created (send in the grand-kids for a two week visit), then the RATE of CONTAMINATION would likely make for more frequent cleaning to attain the same level of "clean".
How often you take out the trash does not alter the rate at which you create trash.
Hence - changing oil more often does not make for less wear or less "sludge".
Some folks will never understand ....
And because we only have ONE UOA here to study, we really have no idea where the individual engine pattern will fall, so we can only rely on other macro data to make decisions.
There is nothing wrong with trying a shorter OCI, but there's no logic to think that it will magically make things "better". It's highly likely that the wear and soot will fall in line with exposure expectations. History teaches that with every UOA we see.