19 Tacoma 2.7 M1 0w40 10k oci
- Thread starter Doublehaul
- Start date
- Status
Good to know. My last one never got a UOA but went over a half a million hard miles. It got 5w30 citgo made bulk or 15w40 shell bulk all its life as it was free for me. Jobber filters made by fram
Last edited:
Looks like an excellent report for a young engine, and the oil has plenty of useful life left.
The M1 0w40FS was not stressed. Keep on trucking!
The M1 0w40FS was not stressed. Keep on trucking!
Originally Posted by skyactiv
Read the bottom paragraph.
![[Linked Image]](http://i67.tinypic.com/4iizqb.jpg "[Linked Image]")
I wish the OEM attempting to deny a warranty using this the best of luck. About the only way that argument is flying if someone used a 70 grade in the artic then immediately floored it after engine start.
Read the bottom paragraph.
I wish the OEM attempting to deny a warranty using this the best of luck. About the only way that argument is flying if someone used a 70 grade in the artic then immediately floored it after engine start.
Originally Posted by kschachn
Oh no, I don't think that I know more than the engineers. I just haven't seen a warranty statement yet that says if you use a grade that's not recommended it will void your warranty. I do think there's a lot of fear mongering going on in regards to that however.
I agree. Using a different viscosity won't cause damage so the fear monger's argument is if there's some other reason for engine damage related to oil and you just happened to use a different viscosity, even if it's not the proximal cause, they will deny warranty. It is FAR fetched and I too have never heard of an actual real world case where someone had engine damage related to something other than viscosity and viscosity was blamed.
Oh no, I don't think that I know more than the engineers. I just haven't seen a warranty statement yet that says if you use a grade that's not recommended it will void your warranty. I do think there's a lot of fear mongering going on in regards to that however.
I agree. Using a different viscosity won't cause damage so the fear monger's argument is if there's some other reason for engine damage related to oil and you just happened to use a different viscosity, even if it's not the proximal cause, they will deny warranty. It is FAR fetched and I too have never heard of an actual real world case where someone had engine damage related to something other than viscosity and viscosity was blamed.
Originally Posted by Doublehaul
Also...the V6 is HORRIBLE to change the oil on. That and my current 4runner are the worst vehicles to service i have ever seen in my life.
2.7? Easy as pie
Just changed the oil on my 2GR on my Lexus....it was as easy as it could be and MUCH easier than changing the oil filter on my 3.5L V-6 Pilot.
Also...the V6 is HORRIBLE to change the oil on. That and my current 4runner are the worst vehicles to service i have ever seen in my life.
2.7? Easy as pie
Just changed the oil on my 2GR on my Lexus....it was as easy as it could be and MUCH easier than changing the oil filter on my 3.5L V-6 Pilot.
Originally Posted by dave1251
Originally Posted by skyactiv
Read the bottom paragraph.
I wish the OEM attempting to deny a warranty using this the best of luck. About the only way that argument is flying if someone used a 70 grade in the artic then immediately floored it after engine start.
I think the point here is that, if the OEM decided to be difficult (and there's no guarantee they would) they could produce an engineer at arbitration with all kinds of data showing 0w-40 was harmful to the OP's engine. Perhaps this would be wrong or poorly founded but how would the OP counter? Hire his own engineer and tribologist? The safest path is to follow the manual during warranty and not give the OEM and easy out.
Originally Posted by skyactiv
Read the bottom paragraph.
I wish the OEM attempting to deny a warranty using this the best of luck. About the only way that argument is flying if someone used a 70 grade in the artic then immediately floored it after engine start.
I think the point here is that, if the OEM decided to be difficult (and there's no guarantee they would) they could produce an engineer at arbitration with all kinds of data showing 0w-40 was harmful to the OP's engine. Perhaps this would be wrong or poorly founded but how would the OP counter? Hire his own engineer and tribologist? The safest path is to follow the manual during warranty and not give the OEM and easy out.
wemay
Site Donor 2023
I've never recieved that TSB.
Originally Posted by Danh
Originally Posted by dave1251
Originally Posted by skyactiv
Read the bottom paragraph.
I wish the OEM attempting to deny a warranty using this the best of luck. About the only way that argument is flying if someone used a 70 grade in the artic then immediately floored it after engine start.
I think the point here is that, if the OEM decided to be difficult (and there's no guarantee they would) they could produce an engineer at arbitration with all kinds of data showing 0w-40 was harmful to the OP's engine. Perhaps this would be wrong or poorly founded but how would the OP counter? Hire his own engineer and tribologist? The safest path is to follow the manual during warranty and not give the OEM and easy out.
The only reasonably likely oil-related failure in an engine is failure due to lack of oil volume. Assuming the oil meets the correct certifications I don't think an engineer can produce data that conclusively shows putting 5W-30 or 0W-40 in an engine spec'd for 0W-20 can cause failure....because I don't think it can...as in it's not physically possible. At least not legitimate data...and to think a manufacturer is going to manufacture false data to not pay a warranty repair is crazy.
Originally Posted by dave1251
Originally Posted by skyactiv
Read the bottom paragraph.
I wish the OEM attempting to deny a warranty using this the best of luck. About the only way that argument is flying if someone used a 70 grade in the artic then immediately floored it after engine start.
I think the point here is that, if the OEM decided to be difficult (and there's no guarantee they would) they could produce an engineer at arbitration with all kinds of data showing 0w-40 was harmful to the OP's engine. Perhaps this would be wrong or poorly founded but how would the OP counter? Hire his own engineer and tribologist? The safest path is to follow the manual during warranty and not give the OEM and easy out.
The only reasonably likely oil-related failure in an engine is failure due to lack of oil volume. Assuming the oil meets the correct certifications I don't think an engineer can produce data that conclusively shows putting 5W-30 or 0W-40 in an engine spec'd for 0W-20 can cause failure....because I don't think it can...as in it's not physically possible. At least not legitimate data...and to think a manufacturer is going to manufacture false data to not pay a warranty repair is crazy.
wemay
Site Donor 2023
Originally Posted by PWMDMD
Originally Posted by Danh
Originally Posted by dave1251
Originally Posted by skyactiv
Read the bottom paragraph.
I wish the OEM attempting to deny a warranty using this the best of luck. About the only way that argument is flying if someone used a 70 grade in the artic then immediately floored it after engine start.
I think the point here is that, if the OEM decided to be difficult (and there's no guarantee they would) they could produce an engineer at arbitration with all kinds of data showing 0w-40 was harmful to the OP's engine. Perhaps this would be wrong or poorly founded but how would the OP counter? Hire his own engineer and tribologist? The safest path is to follow the manual during warranty and not give the OEM and easy out.
The only reasonably likely oil-related failure in an engine is failure due to lack of oil volume. Assuming the oil meets the correct certifications I don't think an engineer can produce data that conclusively shows putting 5W-30 or 0W-40 in an engine spec'd for 0W-20 can cause failure....because I don't think it can...as in it's not physically possible. At least not legitimate data...and to think a manufacturer is going to manufacture false data to not pay a warranty repair is crazy.
It would be almost impossible to negate a claim based on the owner using what's on the oil cap. That's just plain silly. And to go a step further, their chart shows 5w20 and 5w30 on the same temperature range.
Originally Posted by Danh
Originally Posted by dave1251
Originally Posted by skyactiv
Read the bottom paragraph.
I wish the OEM attempting to deny a warranty using this the best of luck. About the only way that argument is flying if someone used a 70 grade in the artic then immediately floored it after engine start.
I think the point here is that, if the OEM decided to be difficult (and there's no guarantee they would) they could produce an engineer at arbitration with all kinds of data showing 0w-40 was harmful to the OP's engine. Perhaps this would be wrong or poorly founded but how would the OP counter? Hire his own engineer and tribologist? The safest path is to follow the manual during warranty and not give the OEM and easy out.
The only reasonably likely oil-related failure in an engine is failure due to lack of oil volume. Assuming the oil meets the correct certifications I don't think an engineer can produce data that conclusively shows putting 5W-30 or 0W-40 in an engine spec'd for 0W-20 can cause failure....because I don't think it can...as in it's not physically possible. At least not legitimate data...and to think a manufacturer is going to manufacture false data to not pay a warranty repair is crazy.
It would be almost impossible to negate a claim based on the owner using what's on the oil cap. That's just plain silly. And to go a step further, their chart shows 5w20 and 5w30 on the same temperature range.
Lots of naysayers, but this is the exact oil that Mobil 1 recommends for Toyota's in Australia.
No because the data does not exist M-1 0W40 is bad for an engine. Because the OEM not only has to prove the owners choice is the only reason to cause failure the OEM would also have to contend with XOM the XOM product caused failure. Good luck arguing with XOM their PCMO's are garbage.
- Status
