Break-in Oil Change Interval?

10,000 miles unless your Prius doesn't have an oil filter.

 

You won't find a consensus here...

I wouldn't feel too bad about leaving it in there up to 6 months/5K miles since it is a high quality syn though.

 

You will hear varying opinions on this but it's really not necessary with today's modern engines. But some are still sticking to the old school thought of changing it out as a preventative caution. Certainly do it if it will make you feel better, knowing that it won't provide you any measurable difference in longevity or performance. If you're the type to keep your cars 200,000+ miles, I think most preventative maintenance beyond factory recommended specifications may be worth the cost, but only to a point. If you trade your car at every few years, it's a waste of money and resources and certainly won't increase the value at time of sale or trade-in.

 

This topic has been beaten to death--here, and on every other car forum I've participated in. By your comments highlighted above, you've seen the opinions are all over the map on this, so why would another thread change that? I'm in the 1,000 mile camp.

Congrats & enjoy your new ride!

 

I did mine at 3500. The Prius is VERY easy on oil. It runs at low RPM's and much of the time it's not running at all for the miles it's 'driven'. Modern engines are so tight and well-engineered that the debris that used to be worried about isn't so much of a concern anymore. I'm sure you would be just fine changing it every 10K just as the factory says, but I changed mine at 3500 just to be cautious, and the oil looked brand new. It really wasn't necessary, but if it makes you feel good ... go ahead and do it.

I've even gone to a 10K synthetic oil change on my 05 Corolla that has 156,000 miles on it. I did it every 5K Up until around 120K ... now I do it every 10K. It still doesn't use a drop of oil, and the oil is still clear but darker when I drain it at 10K intervals.

I have no doubt that most cars will have 10K intervals in the next few years. Europe has been at 10K+ intervals for decades.

REV

 

Call me old school but add me to the 1000-5000 mile camp.

 

I will post some facts on why not to change it untill 10k

1. Not one person has proved that it needs to be done before 10k.
2. You can save 50-100 bucks
3. Less money goes overseas to people that hate us.
4. Less waste, they have to burn oil to get the motor oil to you.

 

I am in the 1,000 mile camp.

 

That's not a real justification for getting it done at 1,000 mi.

 

A stitch in time saves nine. Live by that statement and you will have a lot more time to enjoy life.

 

Why should anyone have to justify changing their oil early ? $35 is cheap insurance.

 

Some people feel better spending $2,495 on an extended warranty because it makes them feel better. In my option they are foolish.

I spent $30 on an oil change to flush out any metal that might be in the engine from when it was machined. It also flushes out any burs that might have been left. It also cleans out any cleansers or other chemicals that they use after putting the engine together. This makes me feel better.

 

You are incorrect. We do know that changing oil too early increases engine wear. If the early change was beneficial for the engine, it would be recommended by the engine maker. I have a boat with old-style iron duke 4-cycle GM engine and early change was recommended. Modern engines are different.

Old myths never die.

 

I thought someone's UOA at 1,000 mi showed negligible presence of metals, indicating that newer engines no longer have this problem thanks to modern manufacturing. Do you have evidence (UOA) to the contrary?

You refuse to waste even $1 on extended warranty because there's no basis for it, yet you quickly adopt extended warranty buyer's mentality when it comes to spending $30 on oil change. I bet your car will still last 300,000 miles even if you skip the 1K oil change

 

I don't think we should automatically assume that everything recommended by the manufacturer is for the good of the car or the long term owner. A lot of what is recommended is for marketing purposes, i.e. "lifetime" transaxle fluid. Manufacturers want to produce cars that require minimum maintenance because that helps sell cars. I suspect decisions on maintenance requirements are designed to insure a large percentage of the vehicles make it to the end of the warranty period without a major failure.

Those of us who plan to keep our cars for more than a few years and more than a 100K miles might be well advised to do a little extra maintenance.

 

When even the companies providing UOA believe an early change is unneeded, owners still live in 1962.

 

Yes, I understand that keenly. But, the manufacturers are very interesting in keeping engines healthy during the warranty periods too. Improper break in would destroy engines early on.

What most forum posters don't understand, that after toyota engines are assembled at a factory, they are briefly run on a dyno before installed in a car. Break in oil is replaced after that dyno run and there is very little more break in after the customer gets the car.

Most people also don't understand that fresh engine oil increases engine wear.

The argument about flushing machining particles or even about "casting sand" that is sometimes provided as an argument is a total BS. Maybe it was true at some point in the history though.