184K mi Toyota 3RZ-FE w/M1 internal pics

Status
Not open for further replies.
G

GMZ

Joined
Jun 4, 2006
Messages
297
Location
PNW
I searched via Google and couldnt find a teardown thread and I thought this would get the most traffic in here. These were posted on a 4Runner forum and I thought they might interest you guys. It was said this 3RZ-FE has 184k mi and had been fed M1+OEM filters every 4-5K since 15K mi. No other pics or stats, I think it looks good. I think it is located in WA.
valvecover3.jpg
valvecover2.jpg
valvecover1.jpg
valvecover4.jpg
valvecover5.jpg
 
Just another data point, among many, establishing that it really doesn't matter whether they make Mobil-1 from weasel wizz -- it gets the job done far better than it really has to.
 
Originally Posted By: Max_Wander
Engine looks remarkably clean of stains and varnish, but the cam lobe noses also look remarkably similar to the Seq IV-A failure and NOTHING like the pass photos. Mileage has been taken into account.

http://www.swri.org/4org/D08/GasTests/ivatest/default.htm

That's a lot of shine, with what looks like slowly polished lateral impact marks. Yikes!

Good eye. you must be a real expert on these oil matters.
 
4-5k oci with mobil 1. I expect that engine to be spotless with those oci with a synthetic!! NOT IMPRESSED
 
Max:

I don't think you can make that judgment looking at photos taken from this angle. I looked carefully at the lobes, and I think most of what we're seeing here is reflections against clean, shiny metal. I would expect that there would be some wear in an engine of this age, and carefully examining the lines (or should I say curves) of the lobes, from the side, they look pretty good. Clearly, there's some wear there, but it looks slight to me. I thought there might be a bit of a ridge on the left one, but following it to the side, there's no ridge visible against the curve of the cam lobe. That I can see anyway. Wish he'd taken a macro shot of a lobe from the side.
 
Originally Posted By: Crustacean
Originally Posted By: Max_Wander
Engine looks remarkably clean of stains and varnish, but the cam lobe noses also look remarkably similar to the Seq IV-A failure and NOTHING like the pass photos. Mileage has been taken into account.

http://www.swri.org/4org/D08/GasTests/ivatest/default.htm

That's a lot of shine, with what looks like slowly polished lateral impact marks. Yikes!

Good eye. you must be a real expert on these oil matters.


Well we all know the rumor that m1 doesnt pass Gf-4 specs on cam lobe wear some saying it's barely able to pass Gf-3 spec of 120 microns but i wanna know how they can get a pass from the certification group and have a completely different formulation selling to mass market or is this certification done in house??????? I'm kinda skeptical it wouldnt pass if that was the case dino oils would have a major issue by now with worn cam lobes. I know the VW tdi engines had major issues even with they're speced oils
 
Originally Posted By: Crustacean
Originally Posted By: Max_Wander
Engine looks remarkably clean of stains and varnish, but the cam lobe noses also look remarkably similar to the Seq IV-A failure and NOTHING like the pass photos. Mileage has been taken into account.

http://www.swri.org/4org/D08/GasTests/ivatest/default.htm

That's a lot of shine, with what looks like slowly polished lateral impact marks. Yikes!

Good eye. you must be a real expert on these oil matters.


Well I wouldnt call myself an expert, but I do have a bit of engine building experience. If you'll notice the ramps on the cam still look like a picture perfect pass, it's just at highest stress point, can you see evidence of an instantaneous breakdown of both hydrodynamic and boundary lubrication...and it looks quite severe. To think this will happen on a mild/stock spring rate and cam profile
crazy2.gif
 
Originally Posted By: ekpolk
Max:

I don't think you can make that judgment looking at photos taken from this angle. I looked carefully at the lobes, and I think most of what we're seeing here is reflections against clean, shiny metal. I would expect that there would be some wear in an engine of this age, and carefully examining the lines (or should I say curves) of the lobes, from the side, they look pretty good. Clearly, there's some wear there, but it looks slight to me. I thought there might be a bit of a ridge on the left one, but following it to the side, there's no ridge visible against the curve of the cam lobe. That I can see anyway. Wish he'd taken a macro shot of a lobe from the side.



ekpolk, just follow the cam along the edge to see the indentation at the nose, it's certainly apparent and there are more than one (most likely from varying RPMs).
 
So let me get this straight. If the lobes were scratched/gouged or showing any signs of wear of course someone will come say M1 is garbage. Now if they're polished someone complains too, and without one measurement assumes wear issues?

If this is what you expected, or this was surprisingly good, that makes sense to me. To see these pics and have something bad to say about M1 makes me wonder if you basically showed up to say something negative regardless of the pics.
 
Sorry I dont have more specific data for you guys. IIRC it is spec'd for 10W-30 and the owner is supposed to be on point IRT maint being properly done, but thats about as close as I can get.
 
You can see those lines easy with a magnifying mouse.

Is there a link showing what oil scored what in this test?
I know its only one test, and I run M1 in various grades depends on my inventory. I would like to read up.
 
Originally Posted By: bepperb
So let me get this straight. If the lobes were scratched/gouged or showing any signs of wear of course someone will come say M1 is garbage. Now if they're polished someone complains too, and without one measurement assumes wear issues?

If this is what you expected, or this was surprisingly good, that makes sense to me. To see these pics and have something bad to say about M1 makes me wonder if you basically showed up to say something negative regardless of the pics.


Relax, I havent mentioned 'Mobil 1' once until now, that you bring it up. What are the chances?

GMZ, if those were my cams, I'd be alarmed. Our Camry 2.2L cams (with considerably higher mileage) look nothing like that, and it's never been reshimmed since it was built.
 
Originally Posted By: Crustacean
You can see those lines easy with a magnifying mouse.

Is there a link showing what oil scored what in this test?
I know its only one test, and I run M1 in various grades depends on my inventory. I would like to read up.


Indeed, the images are of reasonably high resolution to see clearly. I'd like to know which test you're referring to. I do know that one of BobIsTheOilGuy's tests (which some people will inevitably poo-poo) way back in '02 showed a markedly poor result for Mobil 1 compared to it's competitors at the time. Again, the claims are not mine, and the tests are not mine. There is zero personal vested interest for me in trying to 'bring to light' anything that hides in the shadows, but a moral obligation.
 
Originally Posted By: Crustacean
You can see those lines easy with a magnifying mouse.

Is there a link showing what oil scored what in this test?
I know its only one test, and I run M1 in various grades depends on my inventory. I would like to read up.


Better still, I've examined them closely in Photoshop. I've tried setting various different resolutions (realizing that setting a higher resolution does not add information to the photo...), and then zooming in close. Clearly, there is some visible wearing on these cam lobes. The problem is that it is very difficult to separate what is a predictable optical effect given the curved, shiny metal, and what is actually a physical distortion of the metal surface. Again, I'm NOT saying there's no wear here. I'm just not comfortable jumping to any hard conclusions based upon photos like this. I'd have shot these using some sort of stabilizer (I've got one of those mini-pods with the flexible legs you can wrap around anything nearby -- probably perfect for a shot like this). Then I'd shield the cam from bright lights, so as to prevent undue reflections. Of course, it would be really nice to actually put one's fingers on these lobes. . .

BTW, the clearer image of damage, IMO, is the first pic. Look at the lobe on the right, closest to the camera. Something's definitely going on there.
 
Max, maybe you could show us some internal pics of your 2.2L for comparison.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

B
2016 Equinox 2.4
2 3
Replies
48
Views
6K
SteveG4
Z
2016 Kia Soul 1.6 Base G4FD Valvoline 5w30 Advanced FS 2,784 mi/6mo
Replies
18
Views
4K
zigziggy
T
Made it to 48 states - stats/writeup (several loop roadtrips)
2
Replies
22
Views
4K
TmanP
C
  • Locked
Sludge remediation regimen: Toyota 3MZ-FE V6
2
Replies
34
Views
14K
KL31
V
  • Locked
Full synthetic options w/ extra seal conditioners?
2
Replies
39
Views
10K
VeryNoisyPoet
Back
Top