2002 Tacoma 3.4 L 5VZFE | PU 5W30 | 10,167 Miles

[madibob]

Blackstone comments: This is the first report we've seen where copper is at average, so that's good. It's also the first time iron's been out of line, though. Iron comes from steel parts in the engine enduring excess wear. We're not sure what could be causing that, but hopefully it's a temporary thing as a result of something operational. If so it'll come down next sample. No contamination was found in the forms of fuel, water, or coolant. The TBN read 1.5, showing some active additive remaining. A 12,000 to 13,000-mile run should be fine for Schnooky!

Note: Copper was 17 last time and 56 the time before.

Miles on oil: 10,167
Miles on Unit: 110,167
Makeup oil: 0 qts

ALUMINUM - 4
CHROMIUM - 0
IRON - 21 (FLAGGED)
COPPER - 6
LEAD - 3
TIN - 0
MOLYBDENUM - 45
NICKEL - 3
MANGANESE - 1
SILVER - 0
TITANIUM - 0
POTASSIUM - 0
BORON - 210
SILICON - 10
SODIUM - 5
CALCIUM - 2663
MAGNESIUM - 13
PHOSPHORUS - 771
ZINC - 749
BARIUM - 0

SUS Viscosity @ 210°F - 57.7
cSt Viscosity @ 100°C - 9.57
Flashpoint in °F - 390
Fuel % - Antifreeze % - 0
Water % - 0
Insolubles % - 0.3
TBN - 1.5

Oil was in for 9 months and I used a Mobil 1 oil filter.

This oil had a hard life. I lived 1.5 miles form work over the winter so this had several very cold starts. I tried to let it warm up 5+ minutes if it was below about 30 degrees. Coming home it saw cold starts and cold shut downs. Because of this, I wanted to sample and see where it was at.

The copper is down. I always suspected the copper was due to the copper oil cooler. The elevated iron concerns me a bit. I can say that when I opened the filler cap on the valve cover, there is a steel baffle that had a considerately larger amount of rust on it after this run, which I'm sure is due to condensation. I'm wondering if this isn't the iron source.

Overall I'm impressed with the PU and disappointed it's getting harder to find.

Comments welcome!

 

[MrMeeks]

Did the oil appear to have thickened or thinned when it drained?
How much metal did the drain plug grab?

 

[Falken]

Considering the holy grail run, 10k+ miles, and Iron tracking with mileage, 21 ppm is very good.

I don't understand why it was flagged for a vehicle this age and with that many miles on the oil.

And all other wear metals are low to the extreme for the miles.

I must be missing something, but to me this is a flawless run on the oil.

Blackstone comments Iron is high, and they recommend extending the drain to 13,000 miles.

I'm scratching my head.

 

[madibob]

Originally Posted By: MrMeeks
Did the oil appear to have thickened or thinned when it drained?
How much metal did the drain plug grab?


I didn't visually notice any difference when I drained it. The drain plug doesn't have a magnet, so it didn't grab anything.

 

[madibob]

Originally Posted By: Falken
Considering the holy grail run, 10k+ miles, and Iron tracking with mileage, 21 ppm is very good.

I don't understand why it was flagged for a vehicle this age and with that many miles on the oil.

And all other wear metals are low to the extreme for the miles.

I must be missing something, but to me this is a flawless run on the oil.

Blackstone comments Iron is high, and they recommend extending the drain to 13,000 miles.

I'm scratching my head.


I agree about the blackstone comment. My iron has been 11 & 8 on the previous 2 samples.

 

[The_Captain]

Thanks for sharing. Those short trips are hard on the oil and engine. I hope your theory is right about the iron. Everything else looks good.

 

[FZ1]

10k max on that oci. I would run 6 month ocis October and April. Jmo

 

[Bandito440]

Originally Posted By: FZ1
10k max on that oci. I would run 6 month ocis October and April. Jmo

This is what I would do as well.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: Falken
I don't understand why it was flagged for a vehicle this age and with that many miles on the oil.

Exactly. How is 21 ppm over 10,000 miles high? If it's not quite at the norm, this is only one sample anyhow. I would never fuss about 21 ppm of iron in just about any UOA, let alone one for a 10,000 mile run.

 

[JAG]

It may be past time to change the PCV valve, which if clogged or stuck shut, will increase crankcase moisture.

 

[dnewton3]

I have two gripes here, so if you don't like my comments, or are not interested, then just ignore my thoughts below:

1) Some of you really don't understand how UOA is to be used
2) Some of you really don't understand how Blackstone processes info



First, the Fe is high, statistically ...

Read this article I wrote:
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/used-oil-analysis-how-to-decide-what-is-normal/
In there, I actually include detailed info on that very 3.4L engine family.

The Fe in this UOA is more than 2x higher than "normal" for the 10k miles exposure.

I have about 400 UOAs on this very engine family, and 67 of them are around the 10k mile mark; here is the data both "natural" and with flyers taken out (the "prime" columns denoted by apostrophe).

Html:
Toyota 3.4L v-6

OCI veh mi Insol's Al Cr Fe Fe' Cu Cu' Pb Pb'

avg 9,559 124,339 0.3 2.6 0.2 8.7 7.5 6.8 4.8 3.4 2.3

stdev 1006 53856 0.1 1.3 0.4 3.8 3.2 7.5 2.7 4.5 2.3

UL 12577 285906 0.6 6.5 1.2 19.9 17.2 29.4 12.8 16.9 9.1

ppm / 1k 0.3 0.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.2



As you can see, the 21ppm of Fe is indeed more than 2x higher (on a ppm basis) than it should be for this OCI duration. That does NOT make the oil unworthy or unusable. It means the wear rate is high for this OCI. It's nowhere near being condemned on this sole point alone. The 21ppm is technically over the 3rd sigma (above the Upper Limit) at 17.2ppm, so this is not "normal" to have 21ppm in 10k miles.

All the other wear metals are totally in line and fine. The vis, insol's, etc are also fine.

The cause of the Fe is up for speculation at this point. More data and investigation would need to be brought forth.

There is nothing scary here; this is cautionary, not condeming. If it were my UOA I'd investigate the Fe and keep an eye on it, and if extending, get TAN with the TBN.

This is, in short, why I seem so adamant about my repeated and nausiating postion on "normal" UOA data, and the performance of fluids in unique situations, and micro and macro data.


Second, some clarification on the comments ...
I don't work for Blackstone, but I have worked with them in collaboration for the two articles I wrote here. I suspect some of you are confusing two sublte distinctions. What is "high" does not mean it's hurtful, at this point. A typical condemnation limit for Fe would be 100ppm in a diesel engine. Gasser engines don't often see Fe that high because the OCIs are never long enough to accumulate such a high total. So while 21ppm of Fe is "high" for the given OCI exposure, it's not "high" in terms of condeming the fluid. This is the differnce between a "rate" and a "total". The wear rate for Fe is high in this UOA, but it's not anywhere near a point of accumulation to the point of condemnation.

See the distinction? That is why Blackstone flagged the Fe as "high" but allowed for continued use or more miles in the next OCI. Many folks don't understand this concept, and often bad-mouth Blackstone when they don't comprehend the rationale behind such notes. I will agree that there are times when the Blackstone comments befuddle me as well; I have scratched my head a few times over their statements. But more often than not, folks want to see a problem where one does not exist. If you pay for a Blackstone UOA, and you don't like or understand the data or comments, then by all means, call them up and ask them about it. You pay more than what the typical UOA costs, and with that comes personal service included. If you don't understand, then call and ask. They pride themselves on personal service, and rightly so. You may get a clarification you had previously not considered, or caught an error they are more than willing to disucss and correct. Are they flawless? No; but neither are any of us. It's not like I've never seen questionable data in a Cat, Polaris or Wix UOA either ...


'Nuff said.

 

[Clevy]

My guess is that the short trips in winter caused condensation which led to some rust on the oil fill baffle. The oil then washed the baffle increasing the iron.
Although as dnewton pointed out the iron level is double the universal averages its still not enough to condemn the oil and should perhaps be monitored a bit more often to see if it trends downward.

 

[FZ1]

Originally Posted By: dnewton3
I have two gripes here, so if you don't like my comments, or are not interested, then just ignore my thoughts below:

1) Some of you really don't understand how UOA is to be used
2) Some of you really don't understand how Blackstone processes info



First, the Fe is high, statistically ...

Read this article I wrote:
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/used-oil-analysis-how-to-decide-what-is-normal/
In there, I actually include detailed info on that very 3.4L engine family.

The Fe in this UOA is more than 2x higher than "normal" for the 10k miles exposure.

I have about 400 UOAs on this very engine family, and 67 of them are around the 10k mile mark; here is the data both "natural" and with flyers taken out (the "prime" columns denoted by apostrophe).

Html:
Toyota 3.4L v-6

OCI veh mi Insol's Al Cr Fe Fe' Cu Cu' Pb Pb'

avg 9,559 124,339 0.3 2.6 0.2 8.7 7.5 6.8 4.8 3.4 2.3

stdev 1006 53856 0.1 1.3 0.4 3.8 3.2 7.5 2.7 4.5 2.3

UL 12577 285906 0.6 6.5 1.2 19.9 17.2 29.4 12.8 16.9 9.1

ppm / 1k 0.3 0.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.2



As you can see, the 21ppm of Fe is indeed more than 2x higher (on a ppm basis) than it should be for this OCI duration. That does NOT make the oil unworthy or unusable. It means the wear rate is high for this OCI. It's nowhere near being condemned on this sole point alone. The 21ppm is technically over the 3rd sigma (above the Upper Limit) at 17.2ppm, so this is not "normal" to have 21ppm in 10k miles.

All the other wear metals are totally in line and fine. The vis, insol's, etc are also fine.

The cause of the Fe is up for speculation at this point. More data and investigation would need to be brought forth.

There is nothing scary here; this is cautionary, not condeming. If it were my UOA I'd investigate the Fe and keep an eye on it, and if extending, get TAN with the TBN.

This is, in short, why I seem so adamant about my repeated and nausiating postion on "normal" UOA data, and the performance of fluids in unique situations, and micro and macro data.


Second, some clarification on the comments ...
I don't work for Blackstone, but I have worked with them in collaboration for the two articles I wrote here. I suspect some of you are confusing two sublte distinctions. What is "high" does not mean it's hurtful, at this point. A typical condemnation limit for Fe would be 100ppm in a diesel engine. Gasser engines don't often see Fe that high because the OCIs are never long enough to accumulate such a high total. So while 21ppm of Fe is "high" for the given OCI exposure, it's not "high" in terms of condeming the fluid. This is the differnce between a "rate" and a "total". The wear rate for Fe is high in this UOA, but it's not anywhere near a point of accumulation to the point of condemnation.

See the distinction? That is why Blackstone flagged the Fe as "high" but allowed for continued use or more miles in the next OCI. Many folks don't understand this concept, and often bad-mouth Blackstone when they don't comprehend the rationale behind such notes. I will agree that there are times when the Blackstone comments befuddle me as well; I have scratched my head a few times over their statements. But more often than not, folks want to see a problem where one does not exist. If you pay for a Blackstone UOA, and you don't like or understand the data or comments, then by all means, call them up and ask them about it. You pay more than what the typical UOA costs, and with that comes personal service included. If you don't understand, then call and ask. They pride themselves on personal service, and rightly so. You may get a clarification you had previously not considered, or caught an error they are more than willing to disucss and correct. Are they flawless? No; but neither are any of us. It's not like I've never seen questionable data in a Cat, Polaris or Wix UOA either ...


'Nuff said.
You left out 3) Some of us understand both 1 and 2 but,simply,have a different opinion.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Many folks don't understand this concept, and often bad-mouth Blackstone when they don't comprehend the rationale behind such notes.

Yes. Let's assume the worst and this high iron was the symptom of something going south in a hurry. How would recommending to change the oil help? Changing the oil is just that. It doesn't fix head gasket leaks, bad bearings, and so forth.

But as you say, there's no reason for alarm right now. Changing the oil isn't going to "fix" anything and it's far too early to be tearing into the engine, absent any other symptoms.

 

[FZ1]

Just noting that the op said the oil was shot. I agree. He ran it 10k,the tbn is low,the iron is up,and it's starting to thin. Don't think Bstone comment was correct re a 13k run. Jmo.