Mobil 1 0W30 AFE 7014 Miles 06 Toyota Tacoma V6

Status
Not open for further replies.
It all depends on the engine and application. OEM's that demand more performance out of lubricants set specification targets that have to be met. Most of those can only be met with synthetic base oils.

If your manual doesn't call for synthetic, then no you don't need one. *However, some engines such as the Honda V6's that run hot could definitely benefit from a good synthetic. Mobil 1 can handle temperatures up to 500F.

Oils like Mobil 1 EP and Amsoil do have additives and base oils that are designed for longer oil change intervals. They are more expensive as a result, but you generally get what you pay for.

The savings are small compared to much other expensive variables like fuel efficiency and other general maintenance items.

If you want to look at it from a completely economical standpoint, I think the value of the blends from PZ and Valvoline are great. Mobil 1 full synthetic at WM is still tough to beat for what you're getting. SOPUS products too.
 
Why_Synthetics_High_Temperature_Chart_zpsc02c63a0.jpg


High-Temperature Deposit Test

The motor oil industry uses a proprietary Honda high-temperature deposit test to measure an oil’s resistance to deposit formation in high-temperature turbochargers. In this severe-service, high-temperature deposit test, Mobil 1 5W-30 advanced full synthetic oil exhibited superior performance as compared to a competitive full synthetic formulation and our conventional motor oil (which met industry-standard GF-5/API SN requirements).

http://www.mobiloil.com/USA-English/MotorOil/Synthetics/Mobil_1_Heat_Protection.aspx
 
To really test Mobil 1 here vs a conventional, I'd like to see both run out to 15,000 miles despite the 1.8 Tbn. See what oil holds up longer despite very low Tbn. At that point, the synthetic base oils should provide superior oxidation resistance despite the depleted Tbn. It's also possible the Tbn would remain >1.5 for another 10,000 miles. I would suggest going that far, but it's possible.

Which engine would have less varnish and deposits at those intervals? Would a UOA show that? I don't think it would.
 
Heck,at $5 per gallon of gas and 19 mpg,I can't afford not to run a synthetic.
 
Originally Posted By: FZ1
Heck,at $5 per gallon of gas and 19 mpg,I can't afford not to run a synthetic.


You really think that synthetic oil improves fuel economy?
I haven't seen any difference in cars I've run on both dino and syn, and I log each tank in each car.
 
I got,slightly,better mpg when I changed from dealer fill to M1. Just my experience. Depending on your mpg #s and the price of gas,you may break even or come out ahead using synthetic. Synthetic is a better fluid than conventional and doesn't cost me more $. I'm a big picture guy,I don't want to make my oil last as long as possible:I want to make my car last as long as possible. Just a different approach.
 
I agree with you that making your car last as long as possible is a worthwhile goal.
Synthetics are so often offered with some kind of a MIR deal that they are usually cheaper to use then dinos, at least for me.
If the synthetics that I usually use provide some small but hardly noticed improvement in fuel economy, so much the better.
 
Originally Posted By: SlipperyPete
Whether to take advice from automotive engineers and tribologists or a guy who read some $25 UOA's is like deciding whether to have surgery performed by an actual surgeon or a guy who thinks he has read enough junior high level anatomy texts to declare himself a surgeon.



Well, I do statistical process quality control for a living.

I used to work at Ford for 16 years, running maintenance PM programs for the entire facility, including both production and building equipment, as well as the powerhouse and waste treatment. I have done thermal analysis and UOAs on everything from gearboxes and bearings to the multi-million dollar cent. air compressors, and everything in between.

I have tens of thousands of UOAs in my databases. I collect them from both work and hobby interests. Much of my data comes from collaboration with Blackstone, but my full data is not limited to that source by any means.

I wrote this article:
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/used-oil-analysis-how-to-decide-what-is-normal/
and this article:
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/used-oil-analysis-2/
have you read either?

I run UOAs to put my money where my mouth is:
running longer dino OCIs with validation of UOA, visual inspections, compression checks, etc:
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2832204&page=1
and this one:
hammering a dino oil with extreme towing in mountains and summer heat in AZ and UT
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2323660&page=1

Ford and Conoco have logged this study in the SAE files; much of my "theory" is proven in the lab:
http://papers.sae.org/2007-01-4133/
I am an SAE member and have paid for the article, and actually read it; have you?

I currently work for a world-wide HVAC industry leader. I sit in meetings frequently where corporate ROI is the main topic; I understand how big companies balance their fiscal position against customers' concerns. I have direct interaction with warranty claims data and problem resolution.

I am good at what I do, I have credible evidence to back up my claims, I practice what I preach, and I have spent most of my adult life being paid to run data analysis on products and equipment and make recommendations that affect the bottom line.

But you're right; I'm not a surgeon.
 
Last edited:
Dave, I don't doubt your integrity and analysis. I actually agree with you for the most part. I would just point out that visual inspection is very important.

The additive package plays such a big role. What you're seeing though is the increase demand of synthetics because you need synthetic base oils to meet the more stringent specs.

It sounds like you may be the guy that would put Pennzoil YB in an turbo because wear metals are low, but a visual inspection would show deposits and varnish.
 
O.K. Here is my issue with this whole thing.

  • We started out talking about oil.
  • We ended up talking about "waste" yet again. (off topic and taken there [yet again] by a moderator)
  • The OP has not been on BITOG since 03/30 - Probably safe to assume that is the last data we will see from him.


It doesn't matter how right you are if your approach is such that no one cares any longer.
 
Originally Posted By: buster
Dave, I don't doubt your integrity and analysis. I actually agree with you for the most part. I would just point out that visual inspection is very important.

The additive package plays such a big role. What you're seeing though is the increase demand of synthetics because you need synthetic base oils to meet the more stringent specs.

It sounds like you may be the guy that would put Pennzoil YB in an turbo because wear metals are low, but a visual inspection would show deposits and varnish.




No - I think you and I are pretty much on the same page.

I have NEVER, EVER suggested to blindly run out OCIs to extreme distances without verification. That verification is a package deal; UOAs, visual inspections, PCs, compression testing, oil consumption monitoring, knowing equipment history, etc, etc.

When all those are used together, there is plenty of evidence to show that dino fluids can go way further than most folks think.

But I certainly have never said to do such things on blind faith. Use the tools; use one's noodle!
 
Originally Posted By: DuckRyder
O.K. Here is my issue with this whole thing.

  • We started out talking about oil.
  • We ended up talking about "waste" yet again. (off topic and taken there [yet again] by a moderator)
  • The OP has not been on BITOG since 03/30 - Probably safe to assume that is the last data we will see from him.


It doesn't matter how right you are if your approach is such that no one cares any longer.




You seem to think that those topics are mutually exclusive ... to think that ROI (the antithesis of waste) is not meaningful in lubricant maintenance programs is to be short-sighted.


Those that understand how to PROPERLY use UOAs, and PCs, and other indicators such as visual inspections, etc, know that smart decisions are a culmination of many data streams.

And then there's the typical BITOGers that under-utilize a lube (dino or syn; does not matter), pay for UOAs, and then promptly pats oneself and each other on the back while ignoring the data they pay for ....

The PROPER use of a UOA is NOT to see who can get the lowest number; it's not a game such as that.

Rather, the PROPER use of UOAs (along with the other tools in the analysis tool box) is to stretch out the lube life (regardless of base stock) to get full value out of the lube, to wit gaining full ROI, while still SAFELY staying within the confines of reasonable condemnation limits. Way too many BITOGers think that this is some kind of game, and that he who has the lowest numbers wins. What a shame; what a waste.

Yes, waste is a big part of the consideration.

If some folks want to play that game, fine by me. But don't get upset when I call folks out on it.

Is it your mantra that cost means nothing at all, ever? Then why OCI at 7k miles with a syn? Why not OCI at 5k miles with syn? Or 2k miles with syn? If a short OCI with syn is "good" then a shorter OCI must, by your logic, be "better". Waste is not of issue in your world, right? So why not "waste" the lube at 1k mile OCIs?

Additionally, one's privilege to post here is extended by the ability to follow the rules, and nothing more. My status as a moderator has nothing to do with my contributions to the threads. I'm not "limited" to keep quiet simply because I moderate. I am called upon to moderate when folks break the rules. Could you please point out where anyone has broken the rules in this thread that I missed? If not, then my status as a moderator is moot to this conversation.

If you go back and read my posts here, I clearly tied in my concepts to this particular UOA, but I'll do it one last time. This UOA is nothing special. The data is typically "normal" (read my article if you don't fully understand what I'm talking about). In that stream of thought, then this UOA shows short-to-moderate OCIs with syns is a waste of money. Any dino could have turned in these numbers, safely, while still not grossly contributing to sludge. This engine family is not known for sludging. Further, it's known to wear quite well. The OP stated his OCI was done at 7k miles for the sake of comparison/contrast for other UOAs; good. But that does not means there still isn't a lesson to learn here. This is just more evidence that syns do not excel past a dino in normal use. I started out stating that, and I'm finishing saying the exact same thing.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: dnewton3

Is it your mantra that cost means nothing at all, ever?


No, my mantra is that no one who post here could possibly have missed your position on this - give it a rest.

It is as bad as the one oil filter one OCI thing if not worse.
 
Curious. Could you "feel" any difference between the AFE and the M1 EP? Thanks.
 
Originally Posted By: DuckRyder
Originally Posted By: dnewton3

Is it your mantra that cost means nothing at all, ever?


No, my mantra is that no one who post here could possibly have missed your position on this - give it a rest.

It is as bad as the one oil filter one OCI thing if not worse.


AMEN ........ here the OP is worried about running a business ........ where mistakes that have nothing to do oil could cost him thousands if he is not alert ..... and we got dnewton3 with idle time on his hands who has to critize the guy for changing his oil too often. YIKES !!!!!!!

I just appreciate knowing Mobil works well in Toyota engines and I appreciate it when people post their blackstone results so I don't have to pay for it !!!!!

I use Mobil 1 in my 2GRR-FE V6 7K OCI.
 
Originally Posted By: Paul3637
Originally Posted By: DuckRyder
Originally Posted By: dnewton3

Is it your mantra that cost means nothing at all, ever?


No, my mantra is that no one who post here could possibly have missed your position on this - give it a rest.

It is as bad as the one oil filter one OCI thing if not worse.


AMEN ........ here the OP is worried about running a business ........ where mistakes that have nothing to do oil could cost him thousands if he is not alert ..... and we got dnewton3 with idle time on his hands who has to critize the guy for changing his oil too often. YIKES !!!!!!!

I just appreciate knowing Mobil works well in Toyota engines and I appreciate it when people post their blackstone results so I don't have to pay for it !!!!!

I use Mobil 1 in my 2GRR-FE V6 7K OCI.



So you're happy with the way Mobil 1 works? Good for you; nothing wrong with that.

But there are a lot of other people that don't like to waste money, and they have had a great deal of success with other lube brands and base stocks. And when they run a business, every penny counts to the bottom line, so waste in any form is unacceptable.

I have a good friend down the road that has the same engine in his Tacoma. He runs dino oils and gets these same kind of UOAs numbers with similar exposure.

Which is why I say that the M1 in this UOA did nothing outstanding at all; it was completely "normal" and did nothing more than a decent dino oil would do. The macro data does not lie, despite how people "feel" about oil.

After all, why let facts and data get in the way of mythology and rhetoric?

People should spend more time reviewing the results and less time staring at the name on the bottle. If folks posted UOAs with zero brand info, and stuck to the wear metals and property criteria (soot, vis, fuel) there would be a lot of hapless members here with nothing to fret over, because the data would speak volumes while oil bigotry would sit silent.
 
Last edited:
For what it's worth, I appreciate your articles and postings Dnewton. You have cured me of my 5K syn interval with the facts. Thank you.
 
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Originally Posted By: buster
Dave, I don't doubt your integrity and analysis. I actually agree with you for the most part. I would just point out that visual inspection is very important.

The additive package plays such a big role. What you're seeing though is the increase demand of synthetics because you need synthetic base oils to meet the more stringent specs.

It sounds like you may be the guy that would put Pennzoil YB in an turbo because wear metals are low, but a visual inspection would show deposits and varnish.




No - I think you and I are pretty much on the same page.

I have NEVER, EVER suggested to blindly run out OCIs to extreme distances without verification. That verification is a package deal; UOAs, visual inspections, PCs, compression testing, oil consumption monitoring, knowing equipment history, etc, etc.

When all those are used together, there is plenty of evidence to show that dino fluids can go way further than most folks think.

But I certainly have never said to do such things on blind faith. Use the tools; use one's noodle!


But this ties into the question I asked pages ago that nobody answered....
whistle.gif
 
Originally Posted By: SlipperyPete
So the bottom line is that it is perfectly safe to run 15k OCI's with conventional oil, and the auto makers and oil companies know this, but the CEO's of each and every one of these companies choose to side with the attorneys and marketing people (none of whom actually run a company) who don't want to let them do it despite the huge coup it would be for any auto maker or oil company.

I think you're missing Dave's point. It's not exactly the lawyers and the marketing people who want a shorter OCI. Heck, the marketing people want a longer OCI for obvious reasons. It's another group of statisticians that want a lower OCI - the actuarians. They want to shift the risk.

There is risk to extending OCIs. Dave has never denied that. OCIs could be greatly extended for the average person, using conventional or synthetic. There's a very minor risk for each individual motorist. That risk can be reduced further by UOAs.

However, when the automaker tells you to extend the OCI, they're accepting all of that risk. That's why we see normal and severe service schedules, rather than UOA based service schedules. They want to minimize their risk, without damaging their reputation or product or making things so complex as to drive away customers.

That's why we're seeing more OLMs. That eliminates the interpretations we see between severe and normal service.

Look at my taxi fleet experience. The severe service schedules at the time (which explicitly included taxi service) were for 3000 mile OCIs. We doubled those OCIs and the engines lasted into the hundreds of thousands of miles. We accepted that risk and it paid off. Given the price of oil and filters at the time, in some vehicles we saved $1000 in lube and filter costs over the life of a vehicle. That's not a huge amount of money, but it's better in my pocket than in the pockets of the oil companies and filter manufacturers. Plus, particularly at the time, I could do a lot of engine work for $1000.

The crux is that the manufacturer could have greatly extended the OCI, or exempted taxis from severe service restrictions. What would the manufacturer have gained out of that, though? At the time, warranties were short (so I had no incentive to religiously preserve them) and short OCIs were the norm. The manufacturer had no incentive to extend the OCI and I had no incentive not to.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top