alt Hacker NewsI'm just gonna copy and paste a response to another similar comment:
The point that I am making (obviously, I think) is that tradeoffs exist, even if you don't think the right decision was made, your full view into the trade space is likely incomplete, or prioritizes something different than the engineers.
Putting some random number of hypothetical mpg improvement was clearly a mistake, but I assumed people here would be able to get the point I was trying to make, instead of getting riled up about the relationship (or lack thereof) of oil filters and fuel efficiency.
I did read that before commenting, to be clear - the specific nature of your proposed optimization is not important and I took your premise to be true ie it will improve fuel efficiency and therefore save some money.
—
In general, the point was it is not operational efficiency in ideal conditions alone and serviceability is an important component because it can add to the overall cost of ownership significantly and individual car owners (in comparison to fleet) are typically poorer in factoring this in their buy decisions.
——
It comes down to numbers , if the proposed change, results in 10% improvement probably not worth it, 10x then definitely so .
I.e will the car become 22 MPGe or 200MPGe . Larger the gain more trade-offs like serviceability or life expectancy all can be sacrificed.
hybrids costs more upfront (both sets of expensive components - transmission/motor +engine/battery) but still work if driven enough miles, as the gain in efficiency makes up for the upfront.
Exact number of that miles is localized to you and me - depends things like tax difference including tolls, gas prices, MPGe diff, electricity prices, interest and purchasing power of currency other consumables costs like tires and so on.