Mobil 1 0W30 AFE 7014 Miles 06 Toyota Tacoma V6

Messages
60
Location
New Mexico
Thread starter
This is the third UOA I have run on my 2006 Toyota Tacoma 1GR-FE 4.0L V6 Doublecab. This UOA was done at 319,459 miles on 3/16/13 with 7014 miles on oil. Previous oil change at 312,445 miles was performed on 12/30/12. I changed the oil to Mobil 1 0W30 AFE and this report looks at that. All previous oil used in this truck has been Mobil 1 5W30 EP. I tried the 0W30 for cold weather starts during the winter. Indeed there were a large number of very cold starts (down to -18 F). The OCI was kept near 7k miles for consistent basis of comparison with previous report on M1 5W30 EP. I changed back to Mobil 1 5W30 EP during the last change. Discussion of previous UOA's on this truck were in these two threads: http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2921817 http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2784866 I am including the UOA in both an image and a code block.
Code:
OIL          M1 AFE 0W30   M1 EP 5W30   M1 EP 5W30   
MILES IN USE       7,014       11,604        7,090          
MILES            319,459      312,445      300,841     
SAMPLE TAKEN    03/16/13     12/30/12     10/21/12  

ALUMINUM	       4            3            3
CHROMIUM	       1            1            0
IRON		      20           19           14
COPPER		       1            1            1
LEAD		       0            0            1
TIN		       1            0            0
MOLYBDENUM	      73           72           87
NICKEL		       0            1            0
MANGANESE	       0            0            0
SILVER		       0            0            0
TITANIUM	       0            0            0
POTASSIUM	       2            3            0
BORON		      36           32           43
SILICON		      12           13           17
SODIUM		      10            8            6
CALCIUM		     940         1045         1136
MAGNESIUM	     726          736          813
PHOSPHORUS	     600          653          733
ZINC		     708          765          967
BARIUM		       0            0            1

SUS Viscosity @ 210°F 58.7       58.9         57.9
cSt Viscosity @ 100°C 9.86       9.90         9.61
Flashpoint in °F       390        430          425
Fuel %		      <0.5       <0.5         <0.5
Antifreeze %	       0.0        0.0          0.0
Water %		       0.0        0.0          0.0
Insolubles %	       0.3        0.3          0.3
TBN		       1.8        1.8          2.2

 
Last edited:
Messages
33,544
Location
Southern NJ
Thanks for sharing and comparing these two products. Here is what I noticed. The detergent level of the EP is slightly higher which makes sense claiming the 15k mile interval. Tbn retention does look better with the EP. Mobil 1 is now a low/mid SAP oil I believe. SA is .8, lower than all the majors. Pennzoil, Valvoline are all using more metallic detergents. So this is pretty good performance from an oil that has a SA of .8. Mobil's stance on TBN is that it's not black/white. There is no oxidation present and you have to look at other variables to really determine if the oil is spent. I don't think it is here.
 
Messages
33,544
Location
Southern NJ
I emailed XOM about the TBN and they gave me this (what I thought was a good response)
Quote:
"Thanks for your message, Mike. We appreciate the feedback. A slight reduction in ash is desirable for advanced engine technology such as gasoline direct injection (GDI) engine and passenger car diesel engines. With GDI engines, higher levels of ash appear to result in a higher occurrence of Low Speed Pre-Ignition. The industry is currently developing tests and specifications to address Low Speed Pre-Ignition. In the future, passenger car engine oil specifications such as ILSAC GF-6 and dexos1 (next generation) are likely to have requirements such as lower ash to address Low Speed Pre-Ignition. As for TBN retention, it is only a single parameter that provides an indication of the used oil condition. A reduction in TBN is an indication that the overbased detergent is doing its job by neutralizing acids that form as a result of combustion. TBN should be used in combination with other used oil parameters such as oxidation, nitration, TAN (Total Acid Number), ICP metals, D4684 MRV viscosity, and D445 kinematic viscosity to determine the overall condition of the used oil. Finally, in our experience in severe-service Las Vegas field testing, Mobil 1 engine oil TBN levels typically do not drop below 2 for vehicles with 15,000 mile oil drain intervals. Furthermore, it is our experience that those oils tend not to drop any lower when we continue to 20,000 mile oil drains. We hope this information was both helpful and informative. Than
 
Messages
34,442
Location
NY
Originally Posted By: buster
I emailed XOM about the TBN and they gave me this (what I thought was a good response)
Quote:
"Thanks for your message, Mike. We appreciate the feedback. A slight reduction in ash is desirable for advanced engine technology such as gasoline direct injection (GDI) engine and passenger car diesel engines. With GDI engines, higher levels of ash appear to result in a higher occurrence of Low Speed Pre-Ignition. The industry is currently developing tests and specifications to address Low Speed Pre-Ignition. In the future, passenger car engine oil specifications such as ILSAC GF-6 and dexos1 (next generation) are likely to have requirements such as lower ash to address Low Speed Pre-Ignition. As for TBN retention, it is only a single parameter that provides an indication of the used oil condition. A reduction in TBN is an indication that the overbased detergent is doing its job by neutralizing acids that form as a result of combustion. TBN should be used in combination with other used oil parameters such as oxidation, nitration, TAN (Total Acid Number), ICP metals, D4684 MRV viscosity, and D445 kinematic viscosity to determine the overall condition of the used oil. Finally, in our experience in severe-service Las Vegas field testing, Mobil 1 engine oil TBN levels typically do not drop below 2 for vehicles with 15,000 mile oil drain intervals. Furthermore, it is our experience that those oils tend not to drop any lower when we continue to 20,000 mile oil drains. We hope this information was both helpful and informative. Than
Good reply, you gotta love that DI. hide
 
Messages
33,544
Location
Southern NJ
Here is hypothetical scenario. Mobil 1 is down to 1.8 TBN and brand B is also down to 1.8 TBN, but is a run of the mill synthetic, such as Mobil Super, Amsoil OE etc. If the additive packages of both are depleted, doesn't it now come down to the base oils resistance to oxidation in which the Mobil 1 would clearly last a lot longer? Just a thought... Look at most Amsoil UOA's, which start out with a TBN of 12.8. Do the TBN really hold much longer than any other synthetic? I'm not convinced.
 

dnewton3

Staff member
Messages
8,463
Location
Indianapolis, IN
The engine is wearing decently; that is true. But this UOA is nothing but average. That is great as far as the engine is concerned; boring is good. But your wallet is taking a pounding. There are a multitude of decent quality dino lubes that could run these distances and achieve the same wear statistically. I'm going to suggest you consider a decent dino oil; make a couple of runs and try it. I think you might be quite shocked to see how capable today's conventional lubes are. You could easily run 7-10k miles and get similar results. And save a lot of money at the same time. Why not break out of the infamous BITOG mold and try to expand the knowledge base? At 320K miles, it's not like warranty is an issue. Your high mileage suggests that your use is complimentary to the "drive it and not let it sit" mode. While you likely are cringing at the idea, I can assure you it's safe. Try it to 7k miles first, then to 10k miles. Convince yourself a little bit at a time. Or, you can stay with the syns, but then you need to greatly extend your OCIs, to meet/beat the ROI. One way or another, try to get some value out of your lubes. You're not hurting your engine; but you're abusing your wallet.
 
Last edited:
Messages
60
Location
New Mexico
Thread starter
The 7k mile OCI here was only for comparison to a previous report. My typical OCI is 10-12k miles with some as high as 14-15k miles (mentioned in the links to older reports). Frankly, the difference in cost between dino and Mobil 1 is just in the noise compared to the cost of gas. With 320k on this truck, the engine runs like new and is very clean inside. I plan to run this truck to at least 400k miles, with 500k possible. Thanks for the thoughts, but I am sticking with Mobil 1.
 
Messages
33,544
Location
Southern NJ
Quote:
But your wallet is taking a pounding. There are a multitude of decent quality dino lubes that could run these distances and achieve the same wear statistically.
How is it breaking the wallet? Oil is cheap. All oil. Mobil 1 0w30 can be had for a little over $5qt. It's dexos 1 approved, meets GM 4718M and has a good slug of PAO. This oil will keep the engine cleaner than a conventional run at this distance. You have to consider UOA's don't pick up on that. The new Mobil 1 SN formulations are claimed to be good for 10-15k miles under certain conditions. The lower metallic adds seem to work ok, but I'm not sure it's better than the heavy calcium based additive system Amsoil and Mobil 1 0w40 use. For longer drains that is.
 

dnewton3

Staff member
Messages
8,463
Location
Indianapolis, IN
This isn't a DEXOS application; it's a 2006 Toy V-6. Why you brought that up is beyond me. The Toyota requirement for this application is an SM rated 5w-30 oil, IIRC.
Originally Posted By: buster
Oil is cheap.
Cheap is only a term that is relative when defined. What is cheap to you might well be expensive to the next guy. For the purpose of this conversation, I'll define waste this way: paying well more than the base-line cost for the same performance result. It was my clear inference that he is wasting lubes. Either run dino oil for this OCI duration, or greatly extend the AFE to get the ROI. Oil that is $2.50/qrt could run these numbers, so paying $5/qrt is not "cheap" in my book, when the wear data all points to "normal" results. - Would you be happy paying $8/gallon for gas that had the same octane rating, same detergency level, and gave the same fuel economy as $4/gallon fuel? - Would it be "cheap" to buy $40/gallon paint that covered and lasted as long as paint that was $20/gallon on your mini-barn? - Would it be fulfilling to pay $30 for a large pizza that was as tasty and nourishing as one that was $15? Like it or not, this UOA shows "average" wear well within the statisical normal parameters. This AFE load did nothing spectacular; it did a good job, but a job that just about any other oil could do, in an engine that is already one of the better wearing ones out there. So, why pay 2x more money for the same "normal" results? About the only thing you could "yabut" (yeah - but ...) this around would be the whole topic of "cleanliness". But as a person that has two vehicles with over 200k miles on each, run on a variety of brand name and even house brand dino lubes, I can attest that normal OCIs do not manifest into "cleaner" engines with syns by some magical event. Cleanliness is a matter of engine design and OCI frequency. I have two very clean examples in my stable to prove it. I've popped the valve covers off and taken compression readings; I'd know if my engines were filthy from the use of 200k miles of conventional lubes. They are not dirty; they are very admirably clean. Again - I guess you and I define "cheap" differently. I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree.
 
Last edited:
Messages
60
Location
New Mexico
Thread starter
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Like it or not, this UOA shows "average" wear well within the statisical normal parameters. This AFE load did nothing spectacular; it did a good job, but a job that just about any other oil could do, in an engine that is already one of the better wearing ones out there. So, why pay 2x more money for the same "normal" results? About the only thing you could "yabut" (yeah - but ...) this around would be the whole topic of "cleanliness". But as a person that has two vehicles with over 200k miles on each, run on a variety of brand name and even house brand dino lubes, I can attest that normal OCIs do not manifest into "cleaner" engines with syns by some magical event. Cleanliness is a matter of engine design and OCI frequency. I have two very clean examples in my stable to prove it. I've popped the valve covers off and taken compression readings; I'd know if my engines were filthy from the use of 200k miles of conventional lubes. They are not dirty; they are very admirably clean. Again - I guess you and I define "cheap" differently. I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree.
Looking at the recent 11,604 mile OCI report listed above in the same report, which is typical of my OCI and oil selection of M1 EP, shows about the same or better performance as the 7k run on AFE. I think the report is quite good for a nearly 13k OCI on an engine with 312k miles on it. Convenience is a big deal to me, and sometimes I end up with 14-15k on oil before I have time to change it. Having the freedom to perform oil changes anytime up to 15k miles is worth a lot to me, more than the difference in oil price. At $3.40/gal and 20 mpg, 320k miles is about $54,000. Saving $12 per 10k OCI over 320k miles is $384. So my point is I don't care about the oil cost, the flexibility it provides me is well worth it. Now, how many dino run engines out there are there with 320k miles on them that run like new and are VERY clean inside? A few for sure, but I have been using M1 for 20 years, and have run vehicles to some very high mileage without any engine repairs and with all being very clean inside. So the confidence I have in Mobil 1 is well worth the fistfull of dollars I am "wasting". I understand your perspective, it is valid, but not compelling enough for me to change.
 
Last edited:

dnewton3

Staff member
Messages
8,463
Location
Indianapolis, IN
Originally Posted By: Sam_Julier
Originally Posted By: tig1
qnyla, I have never understood this obsession with saving a few cents per week over oil.
^ +1
That's OK; I never understood the desire of some to justify their waste with platitudes and rhetoric. For a vehicle that has over 300+k miles on it, if he could cut his OCI costs in half, that would be a LARGE savings by now, even if only "a few cents per week". And I am being specific here; I'm talking about waste in regard to denial and/or emotion. There is nothing "wrong" with waste, if you admit to it as a desire or reaction to non-logical processes. I do it too; I have things I "want" but don't "need". I suspect we all do it. It's human nature to a large degree. What I object to is how many BITOGers try to justify or otherwise rationalize their actions with "what if ..." and "Yabut ..." (yeah - butt ...) scenarios. Facts are facts; data does not lie. This UOA shows the syn did nothing special here. It did NOT exemplify any positive ROI in this situation. Further, there is PLENTY of credible data and studies that show longer OCIs on dino oils (in a healthy engine) are very safe. Most engines see wear rates continue to drop, even with dino fluids, out towards 15k miles. So this debate about "cheap insurance" or "pennies per day" is foolish; data shows us what is really possible and attainable. Hypothesis and conjecture are not needed when data and facts are present. If one wants to waste money, that is one's perogative. But don't try to pass it off as solid logic, because real world evidence proves otherwise. In fact, while many see this as yet another one of my attacks on synthetics, it's not. It's a challenge against wasteful use of fluids; any fluid. Here, in this situation, I suspect any decent dino oil could go further than 7k miles. It not that the use of syntehtic was a waste; it's a matter of changing any oil too soon is a waste. Even if this had been dino oil, and had the same UOA numbers, I'd say he changed oil too soon. After all, why do we pay for the UOAs anyway? Is it to learn about how far we can safely extend our OCI on any given lube choice, or is it some silly toy that we use to self-justify our actions, and purposely ignores the data we paid for? Is the OP using the UOAs to guide him towards meaningful decisions, or is he lock-step set on certain pre-conceived notions (emotional limits) despite good information? Has he set reasonable and thoughful condemnation limits for his criteria, or is he just paying for UOAs show he can show the numbers while bench-racing here on BITOG? I see the dumping of fluid this early, and the act of ignoring data one paid for, as emotional folly. That's fine for the OP; he can do what he wants. But that does NOT mean it's not wasteful; it only means he's satisfying an emotional desire rather than an intellectual quest. We can agree to disagree.
 
Last edited:

dnewton3

Staff member
Messages
8,463
Location
Indianapolis, IN
BTW - I'm curious about this statement:
Originally Posted By: qnyla
... there were a large number of very cold starts (down to -18 F)
Where is this occuring at and when?
 
Last edited:
Messages
28,129
Location
Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
Originally Posted By: tig1
I have never understood this obsession with saving a few cents per week over oil.
But, tig1, you do save a few cents per week on oil. I would suggest that your OCIs are over double the average, and probably double the average synthetic OCI, too. You're not changing every 3,000 miles or 5,000 miles because you know you can more than double that with how you drive and what you're using.
 
Messages
60
Location
New Mexico
Thread starter
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
BTW - I'm curious about this statement:
Originally Posted By: qnyla
... there were a large number of very cold starts (down to -18 F)
Where is this occuring at and when?
In the mountains of northern NM and southern CO in January and February.
 
Messages
949
Location
Hermon, ME
I don't mean to hijack the thread, but dnewton3, do you have, or have you posted any pics of your engines with the valve covers off? I would be interested in seeing them.
 

dnewton3

Staff member
Messages
8,463
Location
Indianapolis, IN
Originally Posted By: REDDOG
I don't mean to hijack the thread, but dnewton3, do you have, or have you posted any pics of your engines with the valve covers off? I would be interested in seeing them.
I've got some upcoming UOAs but it will take awhile. I took pix prior to the start of these long runs, and I'll also do the same after. So I was going to wait until I get the data and post with pics. I will have both the Villager and Galange on extended OCIs with pics.
 
Last edited:
Messages
60
Location
New Mexico
Thread starter
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
In fact, while many see this as yet another one of my attacks on synthetics, it's not. It's a challenge against wasteful use of fluids; any fluid. Here, in this situation, I suspect any decent dino oil could go further than 7k miles. It not that the use of syntehtic was a waste; it's a matter of changing any oil too soon is a waste. Even if this had been dino oil, and had the same UOA numbers, I'd say he changed oil too soon. After all, why do we pay for the UOAs anyway? Is it to learn about how far we can safely extend our OCI on any given lube choice, or is it some silly toy that we use to self-justify our actions, and purposely ignores the data we paid for? Is the OP using the UOAs to guide him towards meaningful decisions, or is he lock-step set on certain pre-conceived notions (emotional limits) despite good information? Has he set reasonable and thoughful condemnation limits for his criteria, or is he just paying for UOAs show he can show the numbers while bench-racing here on BITOG? I see the dumping of fluid this early, and the act of ignoring data one paid for, as emotional folly. That's fine for the OP; he can do what he wants. But that does NOT mean it's not wasteful; it only means he's satisfying an emotional desire rather than an intellectual quest. We can agree to disagree.
You sir are a condescending [censored]. I clearly stated the reason the oil was drained at 7k miles was to facilitate a 1:1 comparison with another report, as this was the first time I had used this oil. I clearly stated the typical OCI is 10-12k miles. I clearly stated the flexibility to change oil on a convenience basis when I had time provided me with more value than the cost of the oil. You ignored all these points. Where do you get off with all this [censored] about "satisfying an emotional desire", "bench-racing here on BITOG", "pre-conceived notions (emotional limits)", "emotional folly" etc. ? Your point is valid, I told you so, but that convenience offers me more value, and you respond with this condescending diatribe and ignore my points. Where is ANY data on this engine being run this long on dino oil? Is it really necessary for you to be so rude when discussing oil? How is throwing around insults "agreeing to disagree"?
 
Last edited:
Messages
14,722
Location
Illinois
qnyla, There is no argument against the success you have had with your engine. 320K with an engine that still runs great and is very clean. There is nothing to improve on in your case.
 
Top