I hear what you're saying; I just find untennable. I don't understand it because it defys logic based on facts and instead relies on specious assumptions and flawed narative.
In a sense of fairness, I'd like to take another stab at this to try and understand your POV. Seriously - I'm not trying to pick on you here. I'm all ears if you can help me understand your position. But to do so, I don't want to rely on rhetoric or mythology. Let's stick to parameters which can be articulated, quantified and proven. If you insist on your claim being right, and that's fine by me for you to do so, then please help me understand what you are using to measure the success of shorter OCIs?
Here are the things most of us would accept as tangible proof:
* wear-metal rates
* fiscal conservancy
Note that contamination rates don't change over an OCI, so this is a "constant" that is not affected by OCI duration. Parameters not influenced by the variable do not exhibit correlation, therefore no causation is proven. Contamination rates are moot. So we're going to put this topic aside. The only thing that would alter a contamination rate is for some physical control system to develop a flaw; a head gasket leaks more coolant; an air filter intake tube gets a crack and leaks air; fuel injector leaks into combustion chamber; etc ... These can be detected by UOAs and then subsequently fixed. And, the OCI duration cannot stop any of these ruinous problems; only repairs can fix these issues. So OCI duration does not play into contamination rates.
I'm going to separate your statement out, so that we can try to find the basis for your claim:
The first "superior in some way" trait is that wear-rates for the main metals (Fe, Al, Cu, Pb, Cr) all go lower as the OCI matures out to 15k miles. This is proven in results of macro and micro analysis. Not only does a longer OCI not do harm, it is truly beneficial in this manner.
Q1- do you believe lower wear-rates associated with longer OCIs to be inferior? If so, how?
Further, another "superior in some way" trait is that fewer oil changes saves money for the user.
Q2- do you believe that money savings inherrent with longer OCIs to be inferior? If so, how?
Also, longer OCIs are "superior in some manner" because less oil is consumed in a macro manner; less raw natural resources extracted from the earth, lower energy requirements for lube refinement, fewer production needs (packaging and shipping), and less recycling efforts needed at disposal time. For every OCI that is extended from 5k to 10k miles, that cuts in half the total effort needed to replace and recycle that same quantity of lube.
Q3- do you believe that less demand on oil and energy in a global format is a bad thing? If so, how?
What is it that is true here? A shorter OCI is to be considered superior? How so?
Q4- are the higher wear-rates present in shorter OCIs are desirable?
Q5- is spending more money than necessary for acceptable engine protection is desirable? (aka ... wasting money is somehow attractive?)
Q6- is using more natural resources and higher energy consumption in producing more lubes is a good thing?
You clearly have a "bias", but I fail to understand how you see this to be true. What quantifiable measure are you relying on to make this assertion? Wear rates and fiscal ROI all point to longer OCIs being favorable. So is there some other means of measuring the value of an OCI that you are using for your "bias"? The variables are listed above; how is it you see using more oil and more money to get higher wear rates as a postive bias?
Let's set aside the word "arguable" and call it debate. I believe that debate clearly shows your position as lacking substantive logic thus far. But I'm open to hear about anything you can add IF you can find credible sources of attribution.
I see two opportunities to have you prove your point:
1) you need to find proof that counters my facts of lower wear rates and money savings being desirable. The problem is, you've already admitted you don't have data to back up your claim. You said this:
If you cannot come up with data that counters mine, then what is the basis for your position? You have an opinion. OK - fine. But opinions are usurped by tangible facts.
2) you need to come up with some other means of objectively (not subjectively) assessing OCI duration not already identified above. If wear rates and financial considerations are already covered, and contamination is moot, what else can be used to judge the viability of an OCI?
I will summarize my position here ...
The following statements are generalizations which would exclude known "problem-child" engines (aka sludge engines, poorly maintained engines, etc):
- Short OCIs won't hurt an engine, but they will hurt your wallet
- Long OCIs won't hurt an engine, and can in fact reduce wear rates, and they will also help your wallet, and lessen global resource draws
Conceptually, any OCI can be too short or too long; the right way to select a lube is to identify the quantifiable parameters, define and decide condemnation limits, and then monitor the results and make decisions after all data is reviewed.
If you want folks, including me, to take you seriously, then please bring something objective (not subjective) to the discussion.
First,
I don't care if anyone here takes me seriously. That is not why I say what I say.
I will restate what I said.
"The best case to be made for a long OCI is that it doesn't do harm vs a shorter one, not that it is superior in some way. The reverse is true for a short OCI. The bias for a superior schedule lies with the shorter OCI, across all variables. I don't think that is arguable."
I said "all variables".
You have a large data set, but my assertion is it is not a representative group of all engines, in use everywhere. It is a large sample of engines that have had OA done. That alone, at minimum selects a group of owners/maintainers that will be likely be generally biased to a greater understanding of mechanics, and vehicle maintenance. You said it is impossible to get data on all engines everywhere, and I agree, but it is not impossible to reckon that all the engines in use everywhere are not all in perfect operating condition, and not all are of quality design, or execution by the manufacturer.
You said this:
"I will summarize my position here ...
The following statements are generalizations which would exclude known "problem-child" engines (aka sludge engines, poorly maintained engines, etc):
- Short OCIs won't hurt an engine, but they will hurt your wallet
- Long OCIs won't hurt an engine, and can in fact reduce wear rates, and they will also help your wallet, and lessen global resource draws."
The main reason I disagree with you, is that really, your own statements prove my point. Your position, based on the data you have, is stated above. I choose not to exclude what you call "problem child" engines or situations. These are very common, probably much more common than the reverse.
Here's more:
"Further, the data I have also indicates that contamination (soot, oxidation, coolant, silica, fuel) are parameters which must be monitored, but they do not become obscenely invasive as long as the systems are operating properly. When some form of contamination is present in an undesirable level, then that system needs addressed."
"There are always exceptions to the rule. Some infamous engines such as the Toyota's which sludged up; the Saturn SL2s which had no drain-back relief in the piston rings. But those are isolated in grand scheme of things."
So, yes you have data, and you cite some few situations that
you are aware of, where there might be exceptions to the rule presented in your data. My assertion is that you don't know what you don't know, and it indeed seems that you and others here find it difficult to imagine all the various situations where this data set would not apply. That is my point in the main.
If your data requires exceptions to be true, based on your own statements, then you actually agree with what I have stated, tangentially. Yes?
There are many more problem engines and usage patterns than either you or I know about, and your dataset does not represent completely or properly. Can you not imagine that this is true?
This also:
"Note that contamination rates don't change over an OCI, so this is a "constant" that is not affected by OCI duration."
The rate may not change, but the contaminant load in the sump, and all over the engine definitely changes. I assert that this is a big problem for many engines. It may not show up immediately, but it shows up. How many manufacturers with long drains, re-spec'ed to longer drains, once those engines in large numbers, were in the field? How many re-spec'ed to shorter drains?
In summary, I hope I clarified my points. And, I don't need data to state what I state, again. Some may see this and agree, and some may not. So be it. Hopefully people will think before they post. Most didn't after my previous post.