I'm 100% sure you didn't read my post correctly. I edited it.
Corrected, I meant PTU.
Yes I watched that video when he first made it. Laugh my ass off the whole time. Watch some of his other videos. One of the least accurate sources of information you could possibly rely on, I almost think AI provides a better information than this dude does. Lol and yes I read your post correctly
I just don't understand why you would be "LMAO" the entire time while watching his videos? Similarly like Lake Speed Jr. in the video I also worked for Richard Petty for 4 years. You can not comprehend the length the teams will go to gain the slightest advantage. Believe me he knows more about oil than everyone one this forum combined. Yea he's quirky and and a bit odd, but most intelligent people are.
I think he's very knowledgeable also. I have a nephew that has been a mechanic for 25-30 years and he swears by this guy.
Well idk about how Canadian vehicles are, but my oil life indicator starts at 100%, and when it hits 90% I’ve put 1000 miles on it.
my oil change I just did this past Sunday showed 58% left and I had 4200 miles on it.
So, yes. 10,000 miles. Same as my fusion was.
It’s possible, being in Canada the oil life indicator defaults to “severe duty” which would align with your mileage.
The reason I laugh at his videos is because most of what he's stating are exact scenarios basically under lab conditions that he's tested under conditions that real world users will never see more than a fraction of time in their life. Your vehicle will never be under those conditions continuously yes you're going to get where at break-in. Because that's exactly what it is it's a break in. For all parts to seat together my new amounts of flashing from casting and machining are going to come off small amounts of material are going to wear away as part seat together in those extreme tight tolerances. That's normal for every engine that has ever been built. It's nothing new. No need to do extreme small time frame oil changes especially at break-in. Sure you can do one early one if you're that paranoid. But statistics will prove that there's no need for this. The millions upon millions of people that drive a normal vehicle doing normal manufacturer prescribed oil changes have engines lasting just as long as the paranoid few that think that short oil change periods And multiple changes at the start of the engine's life. Engines broke down due to excessive wear early in their life in the old days when engine oil and filters were nowhere near as advanced as they are today. It's not even something to really need to worry about in modern era. Going excessively long amounts of time and not actually checking for the proper amount of oil in the engine is more detrimental than adhering to a manufacturer specified oil change time frame.
This is kind of a weak argument. I'll stick with what I know and be safe.
It's not an argument at all, it's just simply facts.
Its anecdotal, but I've seen plenty of instances that say different.
I'm not going to take a side here, because I can see both. I think "the oil geek" does a pretty good job of making statements and backing them up with data. In my opinion, his claims that an engine will experience less wear if you keep it clean from contaminants is sound and logical, and that those contaminants are more likely to be present in larger quantities during break in is also logical (reference "the no shit sherlock" comment
).
). I have also never performed "early" oil changes as recommended by the oil geek.
I'm not trying to convince you. But almost 50 years of experience, I've seen a thing or two. And that's why I have my opinion. And again what I said is actually a fact not just an opinion.
Exactly 100%. You have hit this right on the money.I'm not going to take a side here, because I can see both. I think "the oil geek" does a pretty good job of making statements and backing them up with data. In my opinion, his claims that an engine will experience less wear if you keep it clean from contaminants is sound and logical, and that those contaminants are more likely to be present in larger quantities during break in is also logical (reference "the no shit sherlock" comment
I have owned a LOT of vehicles in my life and have driven several beyond 170,000 miles and I have NEVER had a catastrophic engine failure (knocking on wood and praying that my BS doesn't make me eat these words!
I agree with those who say the vast majority of customers will never do this. Would doing these early oil changes extend engine life? I suspect it could IF the failure mode of an individual engine is caused by something specifically related to lubrication/excess wear, but obviously, that is not always the case (refer the user who just had their 2.0L BL fail at 62,000 miles due to coolant in the oil).
In all the cars I have ever owned that I have driven to what I would consider "end of life," my reason for getting rid of the vehicle was never engine related. So, while I do believe that with enough data, you could statistically prove that you could extend the life of an engine with these early oil changes, I don't believe the increase in extended life would be significant enough to be appreciated by most owners. I can say for sure it wouldn't matter to me based on my experience because a worn out engine (so far) has never been the reason I got rid of a vehicle. I wonder how many here have had to get rid of a vehicle (or replace an engine) solely due to excessive wear and not some other unrelated catastrophic engine failure?
Oil changes are not expensive or particularly time consuming. If you feel better about it, go for it. More often than not, l buy used vehicles, so it wouldn't be an option for me anyway.
