Is it really "cheap insurance"? I'm curious how you define that.
Insurance, as a "product", has to provide some manner of fiscal protection against an event, right?
What does changing oil sooner rather than later gain you? (setting aside peace of mind, because that's not a tangible item)
If data shows that wear rates stay low in longer OCIs, what are you gaining by shortening the life-cycle of the product well before it's time?
- If this were a topic of tires, would you change tires on your fleet of 6 rigs well before the wear tread indicators showed it was prudent? Would your tires go into the recycle bin with 50% tread still remaining?
- If this were a topic of brakes, would you change the pads/shoes on your fleet of 6 rigs well before the wear indicators showed it was necessary? Would the parts hit the trash can when only 40% of the material had been used?
What is it, exactly, that makes you believe 12k mile OCIs is the right decision? Why not 10k miles? Why not 5k miles? If you're going to use an arbitrary decision point, why is 12k miles "cheap insurance"? If shorter = better, why is 8k miles not "cheaper" insurance?
For the fleet ops program in this video, they clearly were able to use data and facts to greatly extend their OCIs, and yet still have excellent wear trends. Because UOAs are far less expensive than a multi-gallon sump dump, it's actually cheaper for them to test oil than change oil. Far cheaper, in fact. "Cheap Insurance" is using a low cost product to assure confidence in an outcome, right?
So how is blindly changing oil at some arbitrary limit "better" than KNOWING the ACTUAL wear rates, and doing your maintenance on a predictive, managed plan?
I would agree that simple OCIs based on the OEM criteria for a newer, small sump engine might well be cheaper than UOAs, depending upon where you get the service done. If you own a 2008 4 cyl Focus, and change oil at the OEM prescribed limit with qualified 5w-20 conventional oil, then it's probably cheaper to do that then send off a sample to Blackstone. That, I would agree with. Here, the "cheap insurance" is just to OCI on the OEM schedule, because the 2.0L engine is a known good performer with no major flaws, and so just keeping an eye on all fluid levels will show that things are likely OK. It's cheaper to dump 4 qrts/filter than to send in $32 for a full 'Stone report. And because the engine has shown itself to be a solid, reliable unit, there's no reason to suspect something going afoul unless you see coolant disappearing or some other contamination concern.
But running a fleet of 6 rigs, all with many gallons of oil in each unit, makes doing oil analysis far "cheaper" than guessing what your OCI should be, especially when other examples shows that 12k mile OCIs is pitifully short and can easily be extended.
One man's "cheap insurance" is another man's total waste.
