Mobil 1 5w30 - 10,123 miles - 2011 Toyota Avalon

[HKPolice]

Very nice article. Particularly the part about Magnesium sulfonate: As shown in Figure 1, the magnesium sulfonate did not reduce AN at all over the base oil case. The greatest reduction in AN was observed with calcium phenate, but calcium sulfonate also afforded a meaningful reduction in D664 AN. This difference would indicate that the magnesium sulfonate detergent does not completely neutralize a weak acid, thus preserving its BN while allowing the AN to increase and a corrosive environment to be created. Judging the quality of a used engine oil solely on its BN retentional in some cases may not be recommended.

This is why SN formula Mobil1 has such great TBN retention since it uses a Mg+Ca detergent package.

Originally Posted By: aa1986
Quote:
Given the fact that a significant proportion of the acidic contaminants are the weaker organic acids, it can be concluded that a judgment of the used engine oil’s condition and suitability for extended service intervals should not be based on BN retention alone. In addition, the ability to control AN and oxidation must be evaluated because of the potential impact on bearing corrosion. Used oil condemning limits should, for the same reason, not be set based on just one used oil characteristic but on a combination of BN, AN increase, oxidation state and wear metal levels.


http://www.machinerylubrication.com/Read/354/reserve-alkalinity-oil

 

[timeau]

Originally Posted By: rhhsiao
I never said that there is an issue with correlation between TBN and TAN. In fact, I fully support looking at the relationship between TAN and TBN.


Seems I lost my ability to read or you don't remember what did you say a day ago:
Originally Posted By: rhhsiao
So what if TAN is almost 2X TBN?

Did I miss anything?


Originally Posted By: rhhsiao
But your entire argument and condemnation about this UOA from Blackstone that said the TBN issue was fine is because a different lab flags TBNsdiv>

You read somebody's else writing. Or don't get the point. These are my words:
Originally Posted By: timeau
"TAN almost twice higher than TBN. You definitely overrun the oil."

Isn't it clear that I meant the correlation of TBN and TAN only?


Originally Posted By: rhhsiao
What is it about this Russian lab that makes their analysis more trustworthy than Blackstone? The example you just posted doesn't even have a TAN measurement.

You missed it again. I gave the first link on another UOA:
My first link where is told that TBN is less than TAN

Originally Posted By: rhhsiao
You seem bent on the idea that because Blackstone said his report looks great, but a Russian lab has a different general conclusion about TBN that suddenly Blackstone is just wrong and "sometimes uses janitors for writing their reports".

Blackstone did not mention about the correlation of TBN and TAN. And this was the only thing that makes me unhappy. They must know about this if they dare to advise to regular users. If they provide just numbers, this would be fear. Otherwise they take at least moral responsibility for their words. That's why I compared their writers with janitors: same technical level, IMO.

Originally Posted By: rhhsiao
You're making direct comparisons of oil analysis when the two have different types of assumptions of how to interpret the data.

You have some relation to politicians, right? Just them can change their opinions to opposite twice a day. Where did I compare two UOA? I gave you links on two UOAs for:
1. To demonstrate that the situation when TAN>TBN is abnormal (oil is overrun), from link 1.
2. Wear numbers are almost meaningless: other conditions are much more important (picture 2).

Please, do NOT assign me what I did not say.

 

[Artem]

Interesting conversation...

I think it's pointless to debate this very much because I'm all out of the SM formula, so the engine will never see it again. I strongly believe that the SN formula is better anyway, and that's pretty much what I'll be running in the engine.

Regarding the TBN vs TAN debate... I think it comes down to who's evaluating the UOA and what condemnation limits are in place.

Perhaps the TBN / TAN crossover was set by someone who doesn't mind trashing perfectly useable oil as soon it as loses 1/3rd of its original TBN because that person wants only THE BEST for his engine.

Perhaps Blackstone looks at it differently and realizes that a little TAN isn't going to hurt anything in the long run and the engine will be just fine by 200k miles even with the suggested 12k OCIs on this oil.

Perhaps Blackstone realizes that there's money to be saved from excessive oil changes and it's silly to trash perfectly useable oil, based on their oil condemnation limits and the fact that I mark "interested in extended OCIs" when I sent the sample in.

Obviously the old 3,000 mile OCI is still around because there's a reason for it... People dump perfectly good oil because the TAN line is almost touching the TBN line. Haha.

 

[rhhsiao]

Originally Posted By: timeau
Originally Posted By: rhhsiao
I never said that there is an issue with correlation between TBN and TAN. In fact, I fully support looking at the relationship between TAN and TBN.


Seems I lost my ability to read or you don't remember what did you say a day ago:
Originally Posted By: rhhsiao
So what if TAN is almost 2X TBN?

Did I miss anything?


Originally Posted By: rhhsiao
But your entire argument and condemnation about this UOA from Blackstone that said the TBN issue was fine is because a different lab flags TBNsdiv>

You read somebody's else writing. Or don't get the point. These are my words:
Originally Posted By: timeau
"TAN almost twice higher than TBN. You definitely overrun the oil."

Isn't it clear that I meant the correlation of TBN and TAN only?


Originally Posted By: rhhsiao
What is it about this Russian lab that makes their analysis more trustworthy than Blackstone? The example you just posted doesn't even have a TAN measurement.

You missed it again. I gave the first link on another UOA:
My first link where is told that TBN is less than TAN

Originally Posted By: rhhsiao
You seem bent on the idea that because Blackstone said his report looks great, but a Russian lab has a different general conclusion about TBN that suddenly Blackstone is just wrong and "sometimes uses janitors for writing their reports".

Blackstone did not mention about the correlation of TBN and TAN. And this was the only thing that makes me unhappy. They must know about this if they dare to advise to regular users. If they provide just numbers, this would be fear. Otherwise they take at least moral responsibility for their words. That's why I compared their writers with janitors: same technical level, IMO.

Originally Posted By: rhhsiao
You're making direct comparisons of oil analysis when the two have different types of assumptions of how to interpret the data.

You have some relation to politicians, right? Just them can change their opinions to opposite twice a day. Where did I compare two UOA? I gave you links on two UOAs for:
1. To demonstrate that the situation when TAN>TBN is abnormal (oil is overrun), from link 1.
2. Wear numbers are almost meaningless: other conditions are much more important (picture 2).

Please, do NOT assign me what I did not say.


Clearly we're kind of passing each other in the night here.

Your comment was that a TAN of 2X TBN means Artem overran his oil. I then asked the question of so what if TAN is 2X TBN? My question was meant to advance the discussion of why you think a TAN almost 2X TBN means he overran his oil? At no point did I say I have a problem with looking at the correlation but if you're going to make the point that a TAN almost 2X TBN means too long of an OCI, I wanted to know why that's the case? Why is TAN approaching 2X TBN or higher, the condemnation point for you? You then posted a UOA from a different lab on a different oil that shows the 2X issue BUT only really flags the TBN for being under a certain value which in my interpretation looks to be when it drops below 2.0, unless I'm missing something in the Russian writing. You also posted another example from the same lab that doesn't even have a TAN measurement. The interpretation I'm getting from the Russian UOAs is that they don't like TBN when it drops below a certain value because in neither instance have they flagged the TAN as well. In both instances they flagged it when they were below 2.0 while one of the UOAs also had an issue with viscosity. I don't necessarily feel the Russian methodology is wrong, but what is it about how they interpret data that invalidates Blackstone? Blackstone did indeed look at TAN. They mentioned it in their report that it was actually lower than before. As a result, to a certain extent, they took into account the TAN issue although it sounds like not to your liking.

My point is this. You're trying to use one set of assumptions and conclusions to completely invalidate the report of a different lab with a different set of assumptions. If you had said, this Russian lab which flags UOAs with TBN below a certain value and TAN above a certain value, you might want to consider shortening your oil run, I would have had ZERO issues. But your emphatic statement of TAN almost being 2X TBN is a bad idea seems way too far in the direction of only catering to what you personally feel comfortable with. It's fine if you feel that way. My problem is when people mistake their personal opinions for universal truth.

 

[timeau]

Originally Posted By: Artem
People dump perfectly good oil because the TAN line is almost touching the TBN line. Haha.

Expect 1 quart oil consumption per 1500 miles at about 80-90r miles. Then be prepared to replace the catalyst: you have two of them, $700+ each. But this is your choice.

Originally Posted By: rhhsiao

Clearly we're kind of passing each other in the night here.

Have a nice day!

 

[timeau]

Originally Posted By: Artem
People dump perfectly good oil because the TAN line is almost touching the TBN line. Haha.


One more confirmation that good laughing is the laughing at the end:

http://www.machinerylubrication.com/Read/2170/oil-drain-interval-tan-tbn

Quote:

In the past, standard practices for determining optimal drain intervals using fluid analysis have required testing the oil for TBN and TAN. The theory was that when new, an oil’s TBN is high and its TAN is low, and the longer the oil is used, TBN decreases while TAN increases. The point at which they meet is the optimal time to change the oil. It is important to note that ASTM D-4739 should be used when testing the TBN of used (in-service) oils as opposed to ASTM D-2896, which may be used when testing TBN in new oils. ASTM D-4739 uses a weaker acid for titration than does ASTM D-2896 and, therefore, produces slightly lower TBN results.
Historical test data shows the relationship between TBN and TAN to be quite consistent. TAN just begins to increase when TBN depletion reaches 50 percent. As the TBN drops below 50 percent, TAN begins increasing rapidly. So in reality, TBN depletion can reach about 65 percent before it becomes necessary to change the oil.

Consider a CJ-4 engine oil with a starting TBN of 9.0. TAN will hold steady at around 1.75 to 2.0 until TBN depletes to around 5.5, at which point TAN begins to increase. The two will meet at around 3.15 to 3.5. As a result, most laboratories do not require both a TAN and a TBN to make extended drain recommendations.

The following table represents TBN/TAN test results across a fleet of more than 450 pick-up/delivery trucks. TAN remains fairly steady until the TBN depletes from 12 to about 6. The two meet at between 50 and 65 percent depletion of the TBN. The TAN is significantly higher than the TBN after the TBN has reached 65 percent depletion, which indicates that the oil’s ability to neutralize acids has dropped significantly. The oil should be changed to prevent corrosive engine wear from occurring.

 

[rhhsiao]

Originally Posted By: timeau
Originally Posted By: Artem
People dump perfectly good oil because the TAN line is almost touching the TBN line. Haha.


One more confirmation that good laughing is the laughing at the end:

http://www.machinerylubrication.com/Read/2170/oil-drain-interval-tan-tbn

Quote:

The following table represents TBN/TAN test results across a fleet of more than 450 pick-up/delivery trucks. TAN remains fairly steady until the TBN depletes from 12 to about 6. The two meet at between 50 and 65 percent depletion of the TBN. The TAN is significantly higher than the TBN after the TBN has reached 65 percent depletion, which indicates that the oil’s ability to neutralize acids has dropped significantly. The oil should be changed to prevent corrosive engine wear from occurring.


Hey Artem, guess based on the concluding sentence here, the complete lack of corrosive wear seems to indicate your run went great! Thanks for the UOA post, always appreciated.

 

[Artem]

Originally Posted By: timeau
Originally Posted By: Artem
People dump perfectly good oil because the TAN line is almost touching the TBN line. Haha.


One more confirmation that good laughing is the laughing at the end:

http://www.machinerylubrication.com/Read/2170/oil-drain-interval-tan-tbn

Quote:

In the past, standard practices for determining optimal drain intervals using fluid analysis have required testing the oil for TBN and TAN. The theory was that when new, an oil’s TBN is high and its TAN is low, and the longer the oil is used, TBN decreases while TAN increases. The point at which they meet is the optimal time to change the oil. It is important to note that ASTM D-4739 should be used when testing the TBN of used (in-service) oils as opposed to ASTM D-2896, which may be used when testing TBN in new oils. ASTM D-4739 uses a weaker acid for titration than does ASTM D-2896 and, therefore, produces slightly lower TBN results.
Historical test data shows the relationship between TBN and TAN to be quite consistent. TAN just begins to increase when TBN depletion reaches 50 percent. As the TBN drops below 50 percent, TAN begins increasing rapidly. So in reality, TBN depletion can reach about 65 percent before it becomes necessary to change the oil.

Consider a CJ-4 engine oil with a starting TBN of 9.0. TAN will hold steady at around 1.75 to 2.0 until TBN depletes to around 5.5, at which point TAN begins to increase. The two will meet at around 3.15 to 3.5. As a result, most laboratories do not require both a TAN and a TBN to make extended drain recommendations.

The following table represents TBN/TAN test results across a fleet of more than 450 pick-up/delivery trucks. TAN remains fairly steady until the TBN depletes from 12 to about 6. The two meet at between 50 and 65 percent depletion of the TBN. The TAN is significantly higher than the TBN after the TBN has reached 65 percent depletion, which indicates that the oil’s ability to neutralize acids has dropped significantly. The oil should be changed to prevent corrosive engine wear from occurring.


Again, who's to say how much TAN is needed before corrosive engine wear begins to happen?

Since oils naturally have TAN to begin with, an addition of 2-3 points doesn't neccesarily make the oil acidic to the point that it's now eating away at the engine's internal parts. In reality, a lot more TAN is needed before this begins to happen. This is why Blackstone suggested I extend the OCI further because TAN simply hasn't reached a critical level yet when damage starts to happen.

 

[Artem]

Check out this UOA of my 2007 Civic EX (RIP)

How about that TBN - TAN crossover...? Blackstone recommended that I go longer, so I did.

Engine was SPOTLESS with 150,000 miles when the car was TOTALED. So what would I have gained by doing 3,000 mile intervals with a high end synthetic oil, to keep TBN > higher then TAN, in order to "supposedly" keep corrosion under control???

 

[Artem]

Originally Posted By: timeau
Originally Posted By: Artem
People dump perfectly good oil because the TAN line is almost touching the TBN line. Haha.


One more confirmation that good laughing is the laughing at the end:

http://www.machinerylubrication.com/Read/2170/oil-drain-interval-tan-tbn

Quote:

In the past, standard practices for determining optimal drain intervals using fluid analysis have required testing the oil for TBN and TAN. The theory was that when new, an oil’s TBN is high and its TAN is low, and the longer the oil is used, TBN decreases while TAN increases. The point at which they meet is the optimal time to change the oil. It is important to note that ASTM D-4739 should be used when testing the TBN of used (in-service) oils as opposed to ASTM D-2896, which may be used when testing TBN in new oils. ASTM D-4739 uses a weaker acid for titration than does ASTM D-2896 and, therefore, produces slightly lower TBN results.
Historical test data shows the relationship between TBN and TAN to be quite consistent. TAN just begins to increase when TBN depletion reaches 50 percent. As the TBN drops below 50 percent, TAN begins increasing rapidly. So in reality, TBN depletion can reach about 65 percent before it becomes necessary to change the oil.

Consider a CJ-4 engine oil with a starting TBN of 9.0. TAN will hold steady at around 1.75 to 2.0 until TBN depletes to around 5.5, at which point TAN begins to increase. The two will meet at around 3.15 to 3.5. As a result, most laboratories do not require both a TAN and a TBN to make extended drain recommendations.

The following table represents TBN/TAN test results across a fleet of more than 450 pick-up/delivery trucks. TAN remains fairly steady until the TBN depletes from 12 to about 6. The two meet at between 50 and 65 percent depletion of the TBN. The TAN is significantly higher than the TBN after the TBN has reached 65 percent depletion, which indicates that the oil’s ability to neutralize acids has dropped significantly. The oil should be changed to prevent corrosive engine wear from occurring.


Based on what you're telling me, I should have NOT listened to Toyota's recommendation for oil change intervals and I should have changed the oil WAY BEFORE the maintenance light came on (every 5,000 miles) because TAN is creeping up behind TBN...?

I decided to double the recommended oil change interval with a higher quality oil and all was well until the car was sold with 115k on the clock

I don't have any valve cover pic of that engine but it ran FLAWLESSLY the day it was sold.

So why stress over a little TAN?

 

[Artem]

Originally Posted By: rhhsiao
Originally Posted By: timeau
Originally Posted By: Artem
People dump perfectly good oil because the TAN line is almost touching the TBN line. Haha.


One more confirmation that good laughing is the laughing at the end:

http://www.machinerylubrication.com/Read/2170/oil-drain-interval-tan-tbn

Quote:

The following table represents TBN/TAN test results across a fleet of more than 450 pick-up/delivery trucks. TAN remains fairly steady until the TBN depletes from 12 to about 6. The two meet at between 50 and 65 percent depletion of the TBN. The TAN is significantly higher than the TBN after the TBN has reached 65 percent depletion, which indicates that the oil’s ability to neutralize acids has dropped significantly. The oil should be changed to prevent corrosive engine wear from occurring.


Hey Artem, guess based on the concluding sentence here, the complete lack of corrosive wear seems to indicate your run went great! Thanks for the UOA post, always appreciated.


I agree, unless corrosive wear from TAN doesn't show up in a UOA and the engine is being eaten apart from inside by corrosion as I type this! I'm gonna go change the oil!

 

[285south]

Originally Posted By: GM4LIFE
Man, Mobil 1 is better than I thought! If you can run regular Mobil 1 to 12K miles, what's the point of going with the EP version? Seems like Mobil 1 can go the distance!


EP is stated to go 15K but I'm sure one can push it to 25K miles without a sweat.

 

[285south]

Originally Posted By: Merkava_4
That's unreal. I don't believe it.


I do, look at the oil tank, it's similar to BMWs

Engine oil capacity:
6.5qts

 

[Clevy]

Isn't the comment timeau quoted in relation to Diesel engines?

 

[Clevy]

Originally Posted By: Artem
Originally Posted By: aa1986
Kudos for paying for TAN.

Do you go with Blackstone's recommendation that TBN is ok until it reaches 1?

What do you think of those who say TAN crossing TBN / TBN reaching 50% of virgin TBN is the time to change oil?


I trust Blackstone's analysis but personally have a TBN cutoff @ 2.0 just to leave more room for error / safety. I'm not trying to save the world by extending oil changes to the limit.

I feel the old 50% of virgin TBN OCI is outdated and doesn't apply today. If oil needs to be changed with 50% of TBN gone, Mobil 1 (among others) wouldn't have oils rated for 15k OCIs. They'd say to change the oil every 3k miles.

It seem the oil can definitely keep cleaning and keep the engine lubricated with 10% TBN remaining.

Originally Posted By: GM4LIFE
Man, Mobil 1 is better than I thought! If you can run regular Mobil 1 to 12K miles, what's the point of going with the EP version? Seems like Mobil 1 can go the distance!


The EP is suppose to have more additives, so technically I should have more TBN leftover and Blackstone would be saying to go 15k.

Originally Posted By: timeau
Originally Posted By: Artem
p.s. this run was 2x the mileage that Toyota recommends (which is 5k intervals).

Bad idea. TAN almost twice higher than TBN. You definitely overrun the oil. It is not worth to make a single ruble profit.


I don't feel I over ran the oil. It still looked great after a year of use and the lab confirms that. It's good to know that I can go further if needed but I'm capping it at 10k. It's easy to remember and I'll simply reset the maintenance meter when it trips the first time and change the oil when it comes on the second time.


I hard cap at 10k miles too. I know my intervals are cost effective and engine cleanliness is perfect.


Originally Posted By: timeau
Originally Posted By: Artem
People dump perfectly good oil because the TAN line is almost touching the TBN line. Haha.

Expect 1 quart oil consumption per 1500 miles at about 80-90r miles. Then be prepared to replace the catalyst: you have two of them, $700+ each. But this is your choice.

Originally Posted By: rhhsiao

Clearly we're kind of passing each other in the night here.

Have a nice day!



Absurd. Sunkship has returned it looks like.
So I've been running 10000 mile intervals on everything I own or service. My 7.3 cube Van consumed a bit of oil but it has since I bought is 6 years ago and I really couldn't are less.
All my gassers are past your magic mileage and they don't consume any old. Will I wake up tomorrow and suddenly it's going to start consuming.
Why are you even here. Many here show you the way which you ignore because you think you know better. Ends up looking like nothing more than trolling.
So troll away. Not like anyone really pays any attention unless it's to expose your error anyway.

 

[CarbonSteel]

The TAN on M1 does not start at zero (at least not for 5W-20). It starts at 2.9 and from what I understand it is the rise of TAN that you monitor from the starting point to determine how much acid build-up there is. I have allowed the TAN to cross over TBN a number of times, but there was no increase in wear metals (check the UOA tab in the spreadsheet above). In addition, until the TAN goes up fairly high, it is not acidic enough to cause wear (Blackstone has tested this a number of times--this is aircraft oil).

My M1 AFE run of 15K looked just fine so your 10K run is well within the limits. DNewton has posted a number of times about the relationship of TBN versus TAN and (thus far) I have not seen anything to contradict what he has said (which is TAN crossing TBN is not the absolute condemnation point of the oil). Blackstone also told me that until gasoline motor oil has a TAN of above 9.x and a very low TBN, the chance of increased wear is quite low. My UOAs seen to bear that out as do several others that have been posted here. If we were to change oil strictly on when TAN crosses TBN, I think that we would all be surprised how quickly even synthetic would have to be changed.