Can I ask what the rationale is for giving them money for an oil change that isn't deemed necessary?
Before stating any kind of contamination comments, please be able to provide oil test results from new vs that is extracted if you are going to. Broscience doesn't answer questions, facts do.
I'm actually curious if anyone has actual evidence that this is necessary.
Here's a fact Brofessor. Oil contamination and degradation is a sliding scale, not a binary all-or-nothing event. Some people value longevity over perfect oil-change-economy, and thusly balance their efforts.
Keeping in mind such principles as "planned obsolescence" and the fact that Toyota is in the business of making money, not everlasting engines, people are free to value shorter oil change intervals over extended intervals.
Now, before
you respond, are you relying upon Toyota marketing for your convictions? Have you seen Toyota's data? Their underlying
facts?
Have you done the math? What are your assumptions, objectives, and inputs? Or are you just doing what Toyota tells you to do without reviewing their underlying studies and facts?
If you rely strictly upon data and facts, I wonder if you are a 25,000 mi Amsoil practitioner, as they claim to have more data and studies than anybody else. On what basis do you ignore their
facts?
I anticipate you to argue that there is no evidence before you that a shorter oil change interval extends engine life, but I remind you that there is no evidence before you that a shorter oil change internal
does not extend engine life.
You can demand all the facts you want, but you really should have some yourself before you require them of others.
I have perused BITOG and I know what a near-useless argument most motor oil discussions become as amateurs bandy about terms and facts they don't fully understand, with no real conclusions reached except for personal preferences.
Motor oil "facts" are overrated.