SuperTech Syn SM 10,220 mi 06 scion tc (2AZ-FE)

[dsmdriver2588]

This oil run was from 4/11 to 1/12. I drive the vehicle pretty hard. I floor it all the time, and it sees redline at least two to three times daily. On this oil run it has also seen a few street races as well with plenty of times going past 100mph. It saw temps anywhere from 34 degrees to high 90s. I do about 60% highway and 40% city driving. 0.75 quarts of makeup oil was added at about 4800 miles. When i changed the oil, it was right at the minumum line on the dipstick. P1 oil filter used.

Current mods on the vehicle include injen cold air intake with amsoil filter, DME header (cat delete), invidia down pipe, magnaflow cat-back exhaust, agency power lightweight crank pulley.

 

[Topo]

Very impressive, very little wear metal. I say you might want to cut back on you OCI, looks like maybe 8500 miles would be a safe bet with your TBN of 1.

 

[dave1251]

Originally Posted By: dsmdriver2588
This oil run was from 4/11 to 1/12. I drive the vehicle pretty hard. I floor it all the time, and it sees redline at least two to three times daily. On this oil run it has also seen a few street races as well with plenty of times going past 100mph. It saw temps anywhere from 34 degrees to high 90s. I do about 60% highway and 40% city driving. 0.75 quarts of makeup oil was added at about 4800 miles. When i changed the oil, it was right at the minumum line on the dipstick. P1 oil filter used.

Current mods on the vehicle include injen cold air intake with amsoil filter, DME header (cat delete), invidia down pipe, magnaflow cat-back exhaust, agency power lightweight crank pulley.

Nice UOA on a 10K run of supertech syn. But watch the street racing that is not necessary and not a good idea at all.

 

[daves87rs]

With the hard runs, it makes me wonder..

 

[volk06]

Can't complain about a uoa that looks like that! It held up very well

 

[rjacket]

I am becoming increasingly surprised reading Blackstone's comments. If the TBN is 1.0 at 10k mark, how can they suggest extending it to 12k to 15k next time?

 

[volk06]

Originally Posted By: rjacket
I am becoming increasingly surprised reading Blackstone's comments. If the TBN is 1.0 at 10k mark, how can they suggest extending it to 12k to 15k next time?


Completely agree. On my recent VOA they said the 5w30 could be classified as a 10w-40 LOL

 

[chubbs1]

I sure wouldn't have any complaints about that UOA. Excellent. Wouldn't go past 10k though.

 

[3311]

Thanks for posting this. Now why not take your roving bands of street "racers" out to Speed World in Bithlo and get off the street? Here is a link: http://www.speedworlddragway.com/index.html

Smarten up!

 

[Artem]

Originally Posted By: rjacket
I am becoming increasingly surprised reading Blackstone's comments. If the TBN is 1.0 at 10k mark, how can they suggest extending it to 12k to 15k next time?


You're obviously not reading them too well. They said that with wear looking good, he can extend further if he uses another oil (a better oil)

 

[Artem]

Originally Posted By: Topo
Very impressive, very little wear metal. I say you might want to cut back on you OCI, looks like maybe 8500 miles would be a safe bet with your TBN of 1.


TBN at 1.0 is getting LOW. its not done yet. I think capping this oil at 10k seems fine. No reason to cut back just to be throwing away oil with 2.0 TBN.

 

[Artem]

OP, nice run indeed. I went with Amsoil's best while trying to do 10k OCI's, you went with the cheapest synth available and made it happen before I did.

It's ok, I should have a 10k UOA posted in a week or two. Currently @ 9,700 miles.

 

[crazyoildude]

lol not with a scion... maybe a vette...

 

[dnewton3]

I'd say he has great wear with this oil. At univ avg with nearly 2x the mileage.

As for the TBN, that is a matter of "what if" contention.

Could he extend the OCI out with this oil? Actually, probably just a bit. TBN is a big issue with short OCIs and moisture intrusion, because the acids are going to be an issue. However, given his driving patter (more highway that not, at or near WOT at times) I'd say his burning out the moisutre nearly always. Hence, low TBN is not a death-trap assurance. Here, a TAN reading would be helpful; where are the acids at? If the acids are low, and the TBN is low, the oil could go a bit further.

TBN controls acids. Acids eat away at metals. Where are the wear metals here? WELL below average for wear rates. It leads one to presume the low TBN isn't a major concern yet. Just because TBN is low does not mean TAN is high. With low wear metals, it's possible that the TAN is still not an issue.

Now, I'd admit that taking a risk isn't necessarily worth it with a nice car. But it is wrong to condemn the oil immediately without knowing the TAN in this case; the oil could possibly go futher. It's just that it's probably cheaper to OCI than to test oils to the "n"th degree.

If nothing else, I'd say 10k miles is a nice, safe, reasonable number to run with the next time. Could it go further? Probably so, but you've got a nice easy number to shoot for, and things are wearing nicely, and you probably got the value out of the oil.

 

[dsmdriver2588]

Originally Posted By: 3311
Thanks for posting this. Now why not take your roving bands of street "racers" out to Speed World in Bithlo and get off the street? Here is a link: http://www.speedworlddragway.com/index.html

Smarten up!


ok, thanks for the link. I appreciate it.

 

[dsmdriver2588]

Originally Posted By: Artem
OP, nice run indeed. I went with Amsoil's best while trying to do 10k OCI's, you went with the cheapest synth available and made it happen before I did.

It's ok, I should have a 10k UOA posted in a week or two. Currently @ 9,700 miles.


That'll be very interesting to see, thanks.


Quote:
I'd say he has great wear with this oil. At univ avg with nearly 2x the mileage.

As for the TBN, that is a matter of "what if" contention.

Could he extend the OCI out with this oil? Actually, probably just a bit. TBN is a big issue with short OCIs and moisture intrusion, because the acids are going to be an issue. However, given his driving patter (more highway that not, at or near WOT at times) I'd say his burning out the moisutre nearly always. Hence, low TBN is not a death-trap assurance. Here, a TAN reading would be helpful; where are the acids at? If the acids aer low, and the TBN is low, the oil could go further.

TBN controls acids. Acids eat away at metals. Where are the wear metals here? WELL below average for wear rates. It leads one to presume the low TBN isn't a major concern yet. Just because TBN is low does not mean TAN is high. With low wear metals, it's possible that the TAN is still not an issue.

Now, I'd admit that taking a risk isn't necessarily worth it with a nice car. But it is wrong to condemn the oil immediately without knowing the TAN in this case; the oil could possibly go futher. It's just that it's probably cheaper to OCI than to test oils to the "n"th degree.

If nothing else, I'd say 10k miles is a nice, safe, reasonable number to run with the next time. Could it go further? Probably so, but you've got a nice easy number to shoot for, and things are wearing nicely, and you probably got the value out of the oil.


Thanks, I learned a lot from your post.

 

[Brons2]

Great report from a wear metal perspective, but I think the oil itself is weak sauce from an additive perspective. I'd spend a few more bucks for something else. PP, QSUD, or SN M1.

 

[dnewton3]

Originally Posted By: Brons2
Great report from a wear metal perspective, but I think the oil itself is weak sauce from an additive perspective. I'd spend a few more bucks for something else. PP, QSUD, or SN M1.


I'll differ here.

If his intent is to OCI every 10k miles or so, he's found the least cost, safe and effective fluid. Why spend more?

If his intent is to go well past 10k miles, then perhaps a higher end product might be in view.

When you look at VOAs, there are many times when ST fluids play right in line with all the other big brand names. That in mind, I don't know that a different fluid is an assurance of more mileage. It may or may not be true. If he wants to try it; there is no reason not to. But if he's happy with 10-12k miles, he's found great protection for the least cost.

The wear here is so low that any shift +/- a few ppm is just noise. Therefore, an upper end syn product would not appreciably reduce wear any more than the ultra low numbers that already exist. (Cu and Pb are already so low here that you can't expect any "better"; just what would a premium syn do? Would it somehow add Cu and Pb back onto the bearing shell and replate the wear surface??? Now THAT would be an impressive feat!) I suppose Fe could be brought down, but to be a truly viable effort, it would have to come down lower than the standard deviation ppm shift; hard to imagine Fe at 3-5ppm for 12k miles. I'd have to see the UOA to believe it. The ST syn wear rate for Fe is 1.3ppm/1k miles. How much lower could it realistically be? The "average" Fe wear rate is 2.7ppm/1k miles; he's at half that with the ST syn. For a competing syn product to be "better", it would have to go well under 1.0ppm/1k miles for Fe. And don't forget that the Cu and Pb were at 1/2 the "average" but at 2x the distance; in essence, the wear rates for those metals were 1/4 the "average"!

He went nearly 2x the univ avg distance, and got at and less than "normal" wear for his metals. I don't see the statistical opportunity to call anything "better" at this OCI duration. So, the ONLY way a more expensive syn product could outperform the ST syn would be to go for much more distance. If that is in his plan, a more expensive syn might make sense. But to get the value out of it, it would have to perform on a level = or > than the cost ratio increase. If it cost him 2x more money, the product would have to go 20-24k miles with the same wear rates.

If he plans to stick around 10-12k miles, I don't think there is any plausible way to out-do this particular maintenance plan. Outstanding wear; maximized return; minimal cost. To buy a more expensive product and get the same statistical results would be a step backwards. Only if he could greatly extend the OCI, and yet net the same wear rates, would a premium syn be "better".

 

[qr25de]

Originally Posted By: dsmdriver2588
Originally Posted By: 3311
Thanks for posting this. Now why not take your roving bands of street "racers" out to Speed World in Bithlo and get off the street? Here is a link: http://www.speedworlddragway.com/index.html

Smarten up!


ok, thanks for the link. I appreciate it.


Whilst I agree that street racing is dangerous, it is hypocritical and ignorant to place the closest facility a three hour drive away from where most people live. I typically shut down at 140 km/h'ish and never really give it 100% on the street but there are many times where street "racing" is perfectly fine. And, since most "streets" are within civilization, the response time from EMS is hundreds of times better than going to the track. Also, if I crash on the street, I get insurance. If I crash on the track, I get jack squat.

I'm not condoning the actions of F&F'ers by any means but there is a time and place for everything and the "track" is hardly the sun-lit, rainbow covered place that non-enthusiasts claim it is.

 

[qr25de]

Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Originally Posted By: Brons2
Great report from a wear metal perspective, but I think the oil itself is weak sauce from an additive perspective. I'd spend a few more bucks for something else. PP, QSUD, or SN M1.


I'll differ here.

If his intent is to OCI every 10k miles or so, he's found the least cost, safe and effective fluid. Why spend more?

If his intent is to go well past 10k miles, then perhaps a higher end product might be in view.

When you look at VOAs, there are many times when ST fluids play right in line with all the other big brand names. That in mind, I don't know that a different fluid is an assurance of more mileage. It may or may not be true. If he wants to try it; there is no reason not to. But if he's happy with 10-12k miles, he's found great protection for the least cost.

The wear here is so low that any shift +/- a few ppm is just noise. Therefore, an upper end syn product would not appreciably reduce wear any more than the ultra low numbers that already exist. (Cu and Pb are already so low here that you can't expect any "better"; just what would a premium syn do? Would it somehow add Cu and Pb back onto the bearing shell and replate the wear surface??? Now THAT would be an impressive feat!) I suppose Fe could be brought down, but to be a truly viable effort, it would have to come down lower than the standard deviation ppm shift; hard to imagine Fe at 3-5ppm for 12k miles. I'd have to see the UOA to believe it. The ST syn wear rate for Fe is 1.3ppm/1k miles. How much lower could it realistically be? The "average" Fe wear rate is 2.7ppm/1k miles; he's at half that with the ST syn. For a competing syn product to be "better", it would have to go well under 1.0ppm/1k miles for Fe. And don't forget that the Cu and Pb were at 1/2 the "average" but at 2x the distance; in essence, the wear rates for those metals were 1/4 the "average"!

He went nearly 2x the univ avg distance, and got at and less than "normal" wear for his metals. I don't see the statistical opportunity to call anything "better" at this OCI duration. So, the ONLY way a more expensive syn product could outperform the ST syn would be to go for much more distance. If that is in his plan, a more expensive syn might make sense. But to get the value out of it, it would have to perform on a level = or > than the cost ratio increase. If it cost him 2x more money, the product would have to go 20-24k miles with the same wear rates.

If he plans to stick around 10-12k miles, I don't think there is any plausible way to out-do this particular maintenance plan. Outstanding wear; maximized return; minimal cost. To buy a more expensive product and get the same statistical results would be a step backwards. Only if he could greatly extend the OCI, and yet net the same wear rates, would a premium syn be "better".


Bang on. Wear levels and wear rates paint two entirely different pictures.