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."
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:
11k OCI and 27.5 months in the engine = Severe Neglect. Regardless of what the Oil Analysis says, your engine is likely full of sludge
and on its way to a premature catastrophic failure.
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.