I hate the phrase "X is cheap, Y is expensive." because it's not super helpful. By that logic alone, you should change X after every drive. You would be broke because the cost of X adds up, and your Y would last marginally longer, if at all. There are diminishing returns.

There is definitely an ideal change interval based on average driving conditions, which provides the most economical benefit, so an actual number is needed, not "more frequently is more better". With transmission I think it's fairly straightforward to get a reliable evaluation of fluid condition by inspection. Engine oil is a bit more tricky because there a lot of variables involved

Only someone with severe OCD would change fluids after every drive. I do agree that there is a rational mean for changes. What the aphorism goes to is the undeniable fact that many vehicles are under maintained and too many owners are "penny wise, dollar foolish" about preventive maintenance. As for owners manual recommendations,these companies are in the business of selling cars, not maintaining them. Their recommendations, such as 10K oil change intervals or "lifetime" ATF fluids that never need changing are far from optimal. It's better to heed what independent mechanics have to say, based on the histories of the vehicles they service.

That's mostly true. But car makers still have to give recommendations that result in a vehicle that lasts a reasonable amount of time. If the service intervals caused frequent breakdowns then they lose money replacing things under warranty, and people would stop buying their cars.

"A reasonable amount of time" is often, in practice, either 100K miles or the end of the extended warranty they sell (6-7 years). That's what's understood by the engineers who design the guts of cars. When the ownership period extends beyond that (both mean and median age of  vehicles on the road today is 12 years), manufacturers perceive that fact as lost sales. In fact, it could be convincingly argued that the intensive and expensive digital technologizing of cars (which means that they're increasingly not economically viable for repair) is meant to shorten the ownership period. And the 10K recommendation for oil changes, when followed, has led to an exponential increase in engine failures.
I always ask myself this, about many things: Is what I'm being told or advised to do in my best interest? Or is it in the best interest of those peddling such advice? As far as optimal service intervals for my vehicle, as articulated by manufacturers, I know the answer to that question.

The average length of ownership of new cars is about 8 years. I believe 12 years is the average age of all cars on the road.

Lab analysis of engine oil has shown more than once that oil last longer than even the manufacturer tells you.

Of course, that's only valid in a perfect world, where auto makers build perfect, defect free engines.

Since there's no citation of sources, it's hard for me to comment the veracity of the claims or conclusions of what you've cited. (For example, who funded the study? How did they account for intermediate variables? What, actually, did they measure and fail to measure? And so forth. For the sake of this reply, I'll assume that the raw results are accurate, although I dispute the conclusion).

From conversations with mechanics that actually work on engines, someone of them over decades, they see a correlation between extended oil changes and premature engine wear. And that makes sense to me. Why? Several reasons:

1. Yes, the quality and lubrication properties of these oils are greatly improved. That's not even in question. There are intervening variables that may not be accounted for in this unreferenced report that you cite:

a. The newer oils have very effective detergent and additive packages. So much so, in fact, that the oil, while remaining essentially unchanged in its chemical properties, gets far dirty, far more quickly. That creates additional friction, sludge, varnish-like wear on the engines. It's fair to say that because these oils are better, they become dirtier more quickly than older formulations, all other things being equal;

b. "Severe" condition driving: Many folks, especially retirees, drive short distances, less than five miles. As I'm sure that you well know, engines never get to warm up sufficiently, and the heating and cooling cycle means that these oils often hold a lot of moisture. Too much moisture suspended in the oil creates conditions for electrolysis in the engine (and the radiator, as well). Electrolysis is destructive to engines, etc. So, the conditions under which one drives, as well, are what is known as "an intermediate variable."

c. The nature of engines, pistons in particular. One of the reasons for increased oil consumption, according to a Toyota Master Diagnostician who has a YouTube channel, has been changes in the design of pistons toward "low tension pistons rings" (to increase fuel economy). In my limited understanding, this reduces frictional drag and energy loss, while increasing fuel economy. The downside is what is known as "blow by" with contaminated oil and carbon deposits that accrues around the cylinder.

This goes to your the qualifier in your last sentence. It's not a perfect design, and dirtier oil, obviously, no matter if it retains its lubrication qualities, is going to sludge and carbon up the cylinder walls. It's a trade off -- better fuel economy, less pollution, but shorter engine life, all other things (such as oil change intervals) being equal.

d. I've had my 2008 Camry since late 2007. So, it's nearing its fourteenth year. It has a non-rebuilt 2AZ-FE engine, you know, the one with the too small oil holes on the piston rings, oil holes that get easily clogged up. More frequent oil changes are the only real line of defense against all who have non-repaired 2AZ-FE engines built in Kentucky between 2007-2009. (Camry, RAV4, etc.) So, I perform more frequent oil changes, for that reason, as well.

In sum: While there's no doubt that decent contemporary oils retain their lubrication properties for a long time, it's just one variable, among others, in determining oil change intervals. The factors discussed above guide my actions, with sufficient evidence to deem them reasonable acts of preventive maintenance.

I saw the same conclusion in a few different independent studies. This is the only one I have on hand:
Evaluation of High Efficiency Oil Filters in the State Fleet, California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, September 10, 2013

Engine wear would show up as metallic contamination in the oil, which they did not find.

(a)
Oil detergents act as emulsifiers. They keep contamination in suspension. That way it all comes out when you change the oil, instead of settling out, and creating sludge in the engine parts. Detergent keeps the engine cleaner. It does not cause additional friction. If detergents did what you say (the opposite of their purpose) then they would be absolutely useless.

(b)
Of course there are many variables that affect oil life. That's why car makers have started using oil monitors, which factor in time, engine speeds, engine temperatures, load, mileage, idle time, trip times, ignition starts and stops etc.
But oil is an insulator. Moisture is measured in the parts per million. Galvanic corrosion requires direct contact between two metals and an electrolyte and will never occur to any significant degree in engine oil

(c)
I've never owned a vehicle that burned oil. But I hear the Japanese ones do. Again, oil contamination would have shown up in the oil analysis. But if deposits are building up on their pistons, which is poor engine design IMO, then yes that would be reason to replace the engine oil more often. I can think of other examples too, like the Ford 3-valve engine with tiny oil passages that tend to plug up. (though I wonder how much neglect this takes). Or the GM AFM engines that get poor lubrication. (and even then oil changes MAY help, but won't save it)

So it seems that if it weren't for poor engine design, we might be able to get away with longer oil change intervals.

Notable, is that my oil life monitor usually warns me around 200 engine hours. Whereas elapsed distance varies greatly. I think distance driven is very poor indicator of oil condition. That's why you see tables like this one:

Here's a concise piece (with photos) of problems that can come from extended oil change, courtesy of AgcoAuto, in Baton Rouge: http://www.agcoauto.com/content/news/p2_articleid/54

The article makes a few good points. Ones that I make all the time. For example, cars that only drive short trips should change the oil more often. Oil should be changed based not only on mileage, but usage too.
However, this statement is false " oil analysis ... fails to account for the way which the vehicle is operated." Analysis does test for moisture content. And lack of lubrication due to sludgy oil would show up in various ways, including wear metal content. I'm trusting these AGCauto guys less and less.

Here is some more food for thought...

Motor Oil Myths and Facts: http://www.nordicgroup.us/oil.htm
- "Unfortunately, there are market forces that have a vested interest in convincing vehicle owners to change their oil more often than necessary. The legal prey of these market forces have become convinced that they are purchasing "cheap insurance" or "peace of mind" by changing their oil more often than necessary"
- "The oil change industry desperately desires that you NOT perform such an analysis. The almost certain result for most drivers will be that even at 7500 miles the oil will still be fine."

Here is a group of guys who send their oil off to be lab tested, and they gather the results, and chart the oil wear over time.
https://www.brianschreurs.org/neptune.spacebears.com/cars/stories/oil-life.html
Interesting results:
- "Engine wear actually decreases as oil ages. This has also been substantiated in testing conducted by Ford Motor Co. and ConocoPhillips, and reported in SAE Technical Paper 2003-01-3119. What this means is that compulsive oil changers are actually causing more engine wear than the people who let their engine's oil get some age on it. "
- "Based on the results we've got here, we'd recommend 8,000 miles between oil changes on an engine that uses no oil at all, perhaps 10,000 miles on an engine that uses some oil, and 15,000 miles or beyond with a filter change every 5,000 miles... One thing we're pretty sure about though: 3,000-mile intervals is a huge waste of resources."

https://millionmilevan.com/
The Million Mile Van
(actually 1.3M)
"I used Valvoline 10W-40 motor oil and change it every 10,000 to 20,000 miles. The longest I’ve went between oil changes is 55,000 miles ... I usually waited for the oil to turn black before changing it."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-yt5a1cWd4

Thanks for the links. I viewed them with interest. I'll summarize, the best I can, here: 1. Situations vary -- types of driving, average temperature, the nature of roads, engine design and overall engine quality, etc. It's my assessment that someone whose driving takes place in a relatively temperate climate, on the highway, over good roads, frequently will need fewer oil changes (perhaps 7K or so) than someone in my situation: My vehicle has an engine which is notorious for sludge problems, particularly in the oil holes in the pistons, the infamous 2AZ-FE. I live in a climate that is hot much of the year. For example, last August, twenty-eight of thirty-one days were above 100 degrees, with an average low of 80 degrees, at night. We have a gravel, sandy driveway that leads out to a dusty, gravel road for a half mile, a road that has not a small amount of small sand/grit particles. My driving habits are mixed: Some short trips, some longer trips. And the cars are not garaged. Taking the totality of circumstances into account, my car (and my wife's) are under a "severe use" schedule. Having moved them into a severe use schedule means a closer inspection of any-and-all fluids, and shortening of intervals (in terms of miles and/or time). As a result, I've stepped up maintenance and that has been very beneficial, in terms of reducing long-term costs, in our case. That's just a fact.

There are several positives about AgcoAuto. Unlike most American firms, Althazan is an acolyte of the late W. Edwards Deming, the management theoretician who invented Total Quality Management and (by extension) Continuous Quality Improvement. Why does that matter? Deming's greatest influence was in the development of famous Japanese production methods. After WWII, American auto manufacturers were uninterested in Deming's philosophy of production. But, the Japanese were very interested in Deming, and he profoundly influenced, through a series of lectures and presentations, beginning in the early 1950s, the production methods in fledgling vehicle manufacturers such as Toyota. He runs his own shop that way, and that is the best way to run an automotive-related business. This is a philosophical point, but it matters.

As for one of the Nordic Group's, I don't see manufacturers and oil producers making shorter claims for oil changes. The auto manufacturers emphasize, perhaps over-emphasize, a 10K change interval, for normal driving. The marketing for many synthetics also includes 10K plus change claims. So, I don't see what they claim, in the marketing literature. Very much the opposite, in fact.

What I can say is whether it's thecarcarenut (who is a Master Diagnostician for a Toyota dealership in the Chicago area) or AgcoAuto, or a number of other sources claim (including the owner's manuals, if you read them carefully) is that many folks assume "normal service" when they are, in fact, in the "severe service" category, which calls for 5K or 6 months intervals for changes. (The marketing elides that simple fact).

I think this next item is fair game, as well, when assessing evidence. (After all, you made this point with the GM TSB): The sites and tests cited are, well, there's no other way to put it, old data. For example, the Synthetic Oil Life Study data is from the 2002-2005 period. As Scotty, thecarcarenut and Althazan have made clear, there's been some very significant changes in engine design, and it seems like all of these changes, as well as the "so-called technological enhancements" actually produce engines that are discernibly more fragile, as the tolerances narrow. Each one of these folks, and many others, I have no doubt, echo this perception. Both Althazan and thecarcarenut claim they have seen a far greater number of early engine breakdowns and rebuilds, in late model vehicles, with the extended oil scheduling. I believe them, since they see hundreds if not thousands of vehicles, each year.

So, while I'm not questioning the specific validity of the data collected by these W. Virginia folks or the Nordic Oil folks, there's an assumption of engine designs of that period built in, and a oil weight of that period, 5W-30 or 10W-30, two viscosity/weights that have largely disappeared from engines sold in new vehicles over the last decade, at least, as engine design has changed (tighter tolerances, lower tension piston rings) and arguably, often the QC applied to said engines has also taken a hit. (Oil dilution, in the Honda's for example, which means one should be aware of oil composition or, alternatively, the many troubles of Kia/Hyundai engines).

As I mentioned above, in the early post, thecarcarenut, who is a working Master Diagnostician in a Toyota Dealership, claims that the primary reason for early engine failure are infrequent oil changes, which is what Althazan and AgcoAuto also claim, from inspecting and rebuilding engines that have failed. My educated guess is that their claims would be verifiable, via anyone who would conduct an assessment of what actually comes into shops, and for what reasons:

Here's the bottom line, for me: The whole idea of maintenance is to spend a bit upfront to save more, later (and to prevent stress when cars crap out in vulnerable situations) I'm 68 years old, I've had cars for decades, including two prior Toyotas. (2000 Camry and a 1977 Corolla). Since I've adjusted my maintenance schedules, and replaced the sloppy, careless work of some dealers and substandard independent shops (and I have stories about how their acts of negligence and incompetence actually put my life in danger, a couple of times) with a tighter schedule of maintenance, and done much more of the work myself, the overall cost has gone down, and the cars are lasting significantly longer.

Just about any electrical, mechanical or digital apparatus works better and lasts longer in a cleaner environment. As long as one tailors the cost/benefit curve for service effectively (after a certain point, benefits gained do not justify costs), preventive maintenance is always the cheaper and safer route to go.

Below is a link to the Toyota Diagnosticians exposition of "the stages of oil consumption" and problems brought on by infrequent oil change. Thanks for you input, mountainmanjoe. Dialogic is appreciated. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4JS7PybV2k

In my work, I've seen some guys that were supposedly experienced carpenters. And they could have been, but they obviously didn't learn very much from their experiences, because they did and said things that would make a complete novice's head spin. Titles don't mean anything to me anymore. Titles and yes even "experience" can be trumped with a few IQ points.

"thecarcarenut ... claims that the primary reason for early engine failure are infrequent oil changes"
I watched most of that video. It's a bit long and rambly.
Complete failure, yes perhaps. I think not very many cars are owned to complete engine failure. I doubt most of the problems I see here in the forum can be attributed to it. But without quantitative discussion about specific oil change frequency, it's not very helpful information. Also , it deals only with Toyota. Obviously a neglected car won't last long. Nobody will argue against that.

Hard to say about the commercial interests.
On the one hand, selling an oil that advertises longer change intervals may look attractive to consumers, but I think oil companies make more profit from people changing oil more often.
The story with car companies is a little different. Manufacturers want to sell you more cars. But dealerships (which are privately owned) want to bring you in for service as often as possible. They often contradict owner's manuals by stating shorter intervals, and of course push unnecessary services.

I'd like to hear about the reduced long term costs you mentioned, if you don't mind.

A few items here: First: What evidence do I have that these more intensive maintenance practices have extended the life of my vehicle? The answer is simple: Less expense and longer life of my current vehicle (and my wife’s vehicle) as opposed to my previous vehicles. For example: My prior vehicle, a 2000 Camry, which had a transmission flush at 60K, had a transmission clunk/blow out, under very dangerous circumstances, at 110K. Simultaneously, we followed dealership/manufacturer service intervals for my wife’s prior vehicle, a 2002 Saturn SL2. Again, the transmission failed at 100k. In terms of the Saturn SL2, there were other problems, such as engine oil leaks, etc.

These experiences led us to question whether these promoted service intervals were in our best interest. After investigation and analysis, we decided that the business model of manufacturers and dealerships was to recommend a set of service practices that would allow for a maximal vehicle life of 100K. Also, we found that many others (including AgcoAuto’s Althazan) had come to the same conclusion, many, many years before our belated realization.

So, “the proverbial proof in the pudding” has been lower total costs of ownership, and longer life, for both our vehicles. It’s a pragmatic test: Enhanced maintenance equals lower capital and maintenance costs, over time. That is our experience. In fact, there has been no major mechanical or electrical repairs necessary, for my wife’s 2013 Fit, over the entire eight-and-a-half years of ownership.

A few other items I’d like to address:

a. As stated before, the 2AZ-FE engine requires enhanced maintenance, given its defective design. In fact, Scotty has mentioned a 3K interval for oil changes on these engines, given the tendency of the too-small oil holes to clog and create substantial oil burning conditions. I found thecarcarenut’s exposition interesting precisely because he addressed, in greater detail than Scotty, how and why these particular engines burn oil, and how to recognize the stages of oil burning, as well as how to counteract it. His advice was consistent with Scotty Kilmer’s, but more detailed. My vehicle has this engine. The advice proffered by Scotty and AMD are broadly consistent with each other. On this issue, their assessments cohere with my own, and the cost of implementation is very low.

b. I would broaden this critique to include other engines, with tighter tolerances, that require 0W-20 or below (0W-16) viscosity oils. Scotty’s also mentioned enhanced engine oil change intervals for particular VW engines, most prominently those that combine a turbo with GDI. (When carbon deposits form, if memory serves me well, mechanics have to clean out the walls of cylinders via blasting with walnut shells). The only acts that slows that carbonization process down are more frequent oil changes combined with conservative driving habits. The very dated citations you’ve offered (nearly two decades old) while perhaps credible for engines of simpler designs and more forgiving tolerances, are not convincing given how the design of engines have changed (and continue to become more complex) over the last two decades.

c. In sum: I always ask the following: “Is what I’m being told/advised/sold/etc in my best interests?” In terms of what you’ve claimed about these long, extended oil change, or extended, longer ATF changes, (or even extended, long coolant service (by implication), I would make these analogies: This particular piece of advice or claim (and I'm ONLY discussing this piece of advice) that you’re expressed is equivalent to, let’s say, this kind of thing: “You only need to brush your teeth once a month." Of course, I brush my teeth every day Likewise, the vehicle’s fluids are attended in a manner consistent with the sources that I’ve cited. As one former, recently deceased President was wont to say: “It wouldn’t be prudent to do otherwise.”

It's illegal for them to do that. It violates the Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act

This is the specific wording and section of the Warranty Act that applies: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/16/700.10
__

To my mind, the critical text is this:
__

(c) No warrantor may condition the continued validity of a warranty on the use of only authorized repair service and/or authorized replacement parts for non-warranty service and maintenance (other than an article of service provided without charge under the warranty or unless the warrantor has obtained a waiver pursuant to section 102(c) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 2302(c)). For example, provisions such as, “This warranty is void if service is performed by anyone other than an authorized `ABC' dealer and all replacement parts must be genuine `ABC' parts,” and the like, are prohibited where the service or parts are not covered by the warranty. These provisions violate the Act in two ways. First, they violate the section 102(c), 15 U.S.C. 2302(c), ban against tying arrangements. Second, such provisions are deceptive under section 110 of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 2310, because a warrantor cannot, as a matter of law, avoid liability under a written warranty where a defect is unrelated to the use by a consumer of “unauthorized” articles or service. In addition, warranty language that implies to a consumer acting reasonably in the circumstances that warranty coverage requires the consumer's purchase of an article or service identified by brand, trade or corporate name is similarly deceptive. For example, a provision in the warranty such as, “use only an authorized `ABC' dealer” or “use only `ABC' replacement parts,” is prohibited where the service or parts are not provided free of charge pursuant to the warranty. This does not preclude a warrantor from expressly excluding liability for defects or damage caused by “unauthorized” articles or service; nor does it preclude the warrantor from denying liability where the warrantor can demonstrate that the defect or damage was so caused.

___

Note the burden of proof, at the end of the section. The "warrantor" has to demonstrate (provide evidence) that you caused the defective or damage. The burden is on THEM, not you.
__

It's up to you to hold them to this language. If it were me, I'd get the local "problem solver" or "consumer reporters" in your local TV station involved. If you have social media accounts, use them. And so forth.

I know, They hired an attorney. Nissan will end up having to cave in and fix it. To be honest I think some dealerships do that just to see who will fight and who will suck it up and try and buy a new car or just go away.