Part of my Email response to one of the gentlemen in this group - Ithink it pretty well sums it up for *me*!
"actually, I've already read quite a bit on the subject of
lubricants, and pretty well come to a few conclusions that at least fit my personal situation. I'm
65 years old, and bought my current Dodge new in '91. I retired in '96, and since the truck was new,
have put 117,000 miles on it. That's pretty much the "normal" 12,000 miles a year - it ALSO means
that even if I manage to put the same mileage per year on it (not likely!), I'll be *85* by the time
I even get CLOSE to wearing the engine out.
SOOoo, this constantly boiling argument about synthetics and extended oil changes is rather moot -
why should *I* be particularly concerned about FURTHER extending the life of my engine when it will
ALREADY outlast ME and the TRUCK in normal service lifespan? Any "extended life" that MIGHT be
provided will only benefit the NEXT owner, and frankly, I don't give a damn!
Even owners younger than I am RARELY keep vehicles longer than a few years - and their "need" to
increase engine life will not likely benefit them either - so why go to such expensive extremes for
so elusive a benefit?
Other than the above "logic" on the issue of synthetics, there is left the issue of offsetting the
expense by extending the time the more expensive synthetics are left in service - and I DO suspect
that such extended usage in other than commercial service is probably somewhat self-defeating. Sure,
commercial diesel operators, where engines are operated fairly non-stop would SEEM best suited to
benefit from an oil that would need less frequent service intervals - but their less frequent
short-haul and frequent hot/cold engine cycling would also seem to slant oil analysis and typical
tests that involve their operations. "
AND, for the tenacious few who claim PRICE is NOT the reason they employ extended oil changes, I ask, if your favorite synthetic only sold for 10 cents a quart, would you STILL use extended oil changes?
