Originally Posted By: Bullwinkle007
He states his opinion, once you get to high mileage, you should change more often, because wear increases.
He states more than once " ... this is my opinion ..." and clearly states "I don't have any hard and cold scientific facts."
I do appreciate his honesty. But I have no reason to give his position any credence.
I do have facts and data; a LOT of it. My "opinions" are based on a lot of research into wear rates and OCI duration. My position is backed up with tons of data and posted for all to see.
I am being specific; a "wear increase" is a change in the rate of wear. I don't see any truth to that as a sole cause. It is true that any equipment used will have more accumulated wear with more exposure to use. But the "increases" implied are not proven out in real data. Generally, well cared for equipment will have a very consistent wear pattern, regardless of mileage.
My 2005 Grand Marquis has 245k miles on it; steady diet of dino lubes and "normal" to "extended" OCIs.
My 2007 Grand Marquis has 106k miles on it; steady diet of dino lubes and "normal" to "extended" OCIs.
Both exhibit the same wear rates; all "normal" wear, despite the large disparity of accumulated miles.
Even when I experiment with some syn lubes, the wear rates don't appreciably change; syns were not "controlling" wear more than dino.
Also, with over 12,000 UOAs in my database, I do not see any proof of causation with higher mile vehicles in regard to wear rates.
I do see correlation of some having higher wear and higher miles, but just as many that don't.
It is much more believable to think that wear rates are attributed to level of care and not accumulation of miles.
If you look at the several examples in my UOA study, the wear rates are shown to DROP slightly as the OCIs increase, all the way out to 15k miles.
It may be true that older equipment may "wear more" because it gets older and owners have less interest in maintaining it, or it gets sold two or three times and now the "current" owner neglects it due to a lack of resources and/or interest.
My point is that a vehicle with 250k miles on it can either be well cared for it's entire life, or get passed down several times and be submitted to near-abuse with each successive change of hands.
Wear is much-more-so a function of maintenance plan choices, not miles driven.
DATA and FACTS do not support the claim that shorter OCIs reduce wear. Nor do they show that older vehicles wear faster, if given the same commitment to care throughout their life-cycle.
The OPs first post can be boiled down to this:
1) emotion
2) emotion
3) emotion
Nothing wrong with making emotional decisions, as long as one realizes the inherent behaviors therein.
I prefer to OCI based on facts and proven, repeatable data.
