I have noticed that a lot of the people who claim 10k mile oil changes will inevitably result in engine damage use the Car Care Nut as justification as if his opinion is the ultimate verdict on the matter. He’s using personal anecdotes and not statistics. There aren’t any statistics on this matter that I know of.
On multiple occasions, he has spoken out against the maintenance guide, suggesting a potential conflict of interest in relying solely on information from the Toyota maintenance guide, given that it is produced by the manufacturer. This is definitely a valid concern as the guide’s recommendations could align with Toyota’s economic interests rather than being solely based on impartial maintenance needs. But this is only an assumption with absolutely no evidence. He keeps repeating it as if it were a fact.
The Car Care Nut on multiple occasions gave justifications that 10k mile oil change will destroy an engine since he himself has seen more blown motors having 10k miles oil changes than 5k changes. There’s many apparent levels of statistical bias to this thinking. Confirmation bias and selection bias immediately come to mind.
While the Car Care Nut’s recommendation for a 5k-mile oil change may be a prudent approach, relying on personal anecdotes rather than statistical analysis could very well raise scrutiny. Respectfully recommending a 5k-mile interval acknowledges the potential benefits without imposing harm on the engine. However, this does not mean 10k mile oil changes will inevitably result in engine damage.
You might have a better chance with a small street vendor. I noticed this is the case for some countries where the small street vendor sometimes doesn’t care to check your ID even when they are required to. Not sure if this is the case in Chile.