I'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.

▲

Arch-TK 4 hours ago | parent [-]

You can also read my reply in my other comment.

But to keep it concise: The core problem is that you are stating a truism in response to a famous counter-example to specifically that truism. The other problem being that you are stating a truism which everyone else is already familiar with.

	▲	its_ethan 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Given how many people have seemingly jumped on misinterpreting the truism as me making some claim of a specific fuel efficiency improvement, I'd disagree with people being already familiar with it. To be concise as well: it's been duly noted by me that contributing to a conversation by attempting to bring in nuance is not always well received when you make up a hypothetical for a topic people are very touchy about.