dnewton3
Staff member
Originally Posted By: DavesTundra
Double checked the manual and Toyota scheduled maintenance manual for the 2008 Tundra 5.7L. Recommends 5k OCI regardless if using dino/syn. Amsoil OE states that it should be run for the OEM recommended interval. Thus, I decided to check it at 5k before going longer. The UOA suggests it can be run for longer than 5k...So, next time I run this stuff, I will go 7,500 miles and UOA it.
So, I don't exactly call this a waste of syn. If I were to go and run 5k again, ya, it would be a waste of syn. This first run was part of my procedure to run this oil for longer than recommended OCI. If you think that is flawed, you are F.O.S.
Jumping from brand/grade to other brand/grade is a whole different story and could be discussed elsewhere I suppose. Considering the original purpose of this thread, it really does not need to be debated here, I suppose. My bad for bringing it up.
Thanks!!
I found the manual online and agree; 5k miles is the OEM OCI.
As for the extension, that could also be done with a dino fluid and UOAs; that concept is not unique to only synthetics.
As to the topic of "waste", it's all a matter of ROI. If you pay more for a syn (which one surely does) then you'd have to be able to drive that product further than the alternative, to make it pay for itself. Using a syn and dumping it at the OEM OCI is a waste, regardless if you define it that way or not. With few exceptions, OEM OCIs are not prediated on the use of syns. Therefore, a 4.8k mile syn OCI is a waste here. And because you jumped ship over to the GC, you have not developed a solid baseline for drawing any conclusions. The same will be true if you jump from the GC ...
You have not run a series of UOAs on conventional fluids (I presume because you've not posted them and you state this UOA is your first UOA), so you have no idea how far you can safely run a conventional lube. Therefore, you have no idea where the ROI brakepoint would be for the alternative of running the OE Amsoil (or any other synthetic lube). If your synthetic choice costs 2.5x more money, then you'd have to use it 2.5x further just to break even on investment. Since you probably don't know how far a dino oil can go, you have no basis to know where the syn breakpoint is.
As for the "original purpose of the thread", I'm not really sure what you're referring to. You actually don't mention any theme or purpose for your post, nor mention anything that would limit our comments. Most of us post up UOAs to show performance of products/equipment, and then have people comment.
You posted.
I commented.
I'm not trying to pick on you; I apologize if it comes off that way. But you're new to this site (and maybe or maybe not the concepts of UOAs) and your posts lead me to believe you have no real methodology in your maintenance plans. Nothing wrong with that; you have that right. But when you post the evidence of such endeavors, you're going to be challenged occasionally to defend your choices. That's all. If you can say with certainty that this is an emotional ride for you and you do it simply because you enjoy it and admit it's not rational, I have no problem with that and can accept that at face value. But if you say "it's better" without being able to define for defend such a statement, and show no logical plan to determine such cause, I'm inclined to challenge it.
Sorry if offended you; wasn't my intent.
Double checked the manual and Toyota scheduled maintenance manual for the 2008 Tundra 5.7L. Recommends 5k OCI regardless if using dino/syn. Amsoil OE states that it should be run for the OEM recommended interval. Thus, I decided to check it at 5k before going longer. The UOA suggests it can be run for longer than 5k...So, next time I run this stuff, I will go 7,500 miles and UOA it.
So, I don't exactly call this a waste of syn. If I were to go and run 5k again, ya, it would be a waste of syn. This first run was part of my procedure to run this oil for longer than recommended OCI. If you think that is flawed, you are F.O.S.
Jumping from brand/grade to other brand/grade is a whole different story and could be discussed elsewhere I suppose. Considering the original purpose of this thread, it really does not need to be debated here, I suppose. My bad for bringing it up.
Thanks!!
I found the manual online and agree; 5k miles is the OEM OCI.
As for the extension, that could also be done with a dino fluid and UOAs; that concept is not unique to only synthetics.
As to the topic of "waste", it's all a matter of ROI. If you pay more for a syn (which one surely does) then you'd have to be able to drive that product further than the alternative, to make it pay for itself. Using a syn and dumping it at the OEM OCI is a waste, regardless if you define it that way or not. With few exceptions, OEM OCIs are not prediated on the use of syns. Therefore, a 4.8k mile syn OCI is a waste here. And because you jumped ship over to the GC, you have not developed a solid baseline for drawing any conclusions. The same will be true if you jump from the GC ...
You have not run a series of UOAs on conventional fluids (I presume because you've not posted them and you state this UOA is your first UOA), so you have no idea how far you can safely run a conventional lube. Therefore, you have no idea where the ROI brakepoint would be for the alternative of running the OE Amsoil (or any other synthetic lube). If your synthetic choice costs 2.5x more money, then you'd have to use it 2.5x further just to break even on investment. Since you probably don't know how far a dino oil can go, you have no basis to know where the syn breakpoint is.
As for the "original purpose of the thread", I'm not really sure what you're referring to. You actually don't mention any theme or purpose for your post, nor mention anything that would limit our comments. Most of us post up UOAs to show performance of products/equipment, and then have people comment.
You posted.
I commented.
I'm not trying to pick on you; I apologize if it comes off that way. But you're new to this site (and maybe or maybe not the concepts of UOAs) and your posts lead me to believe you have no real methodology in your maintenance plans. Nothing wrong with that; you have that right. But when you post the evidence of such endeavors, you're going to be challenged occasionally to defend your choices. That's all. If you can say with certainty that this is an emotional ride for you and you do it simply because you enjoy it and admit it's not rational, I have no problem with that and can accept that at face value. But if you say "it's better" without being able to define for defend such a statement, and show no logical plan to determine such cause, I'm inclined to challenge it.
Sorry if offended you; wasn't my intent.
Last edited:
