'17 Toyota Highlander V6 3.5L 2GR-FKS - SuperTech Advanced Full Synth 0W-20 10,368 miles

[Soobs]

Hey all,

This is the first oil report I've done and it's on my 2017 Highlander XLE 3.5L V6 that has just over 70,000 miles. I used SuperTech Advanced Full Synthetic 0W-20 for 10,368 miles which was in use for 9 months. The ST bottle claims 20,000 mile protection, but I've no interest in going over Toyota's recommendation of 10,000 miles or 12 months. This is our daily driver/kid hauler and sees approximately 70% city driving, some mountains/hills, and a wide range of ambient temps. The engine oil filter I use is the Toyota 04152-YZZA1 and the engine air filter is Toyota 17801-YZZ11. I was particularly interested to see how this report would come out since this is the 2GR-FKS engine that has the ever-so-annoying start/stop technology. I've always been concerned it adds unnecessary wear & tear. Everything looked good to me on the report and I see no reason to change anything. What do you folks think?

 

[FZ1]

Wow! Great report!

 

[Oliveoil2]

Wow wow! Super report and it looks like with 3.6tbn it could go much longer!

 

[IndyFan]

Looks like this Supertech Advanced is the real deal! Great report!

I ran it for about 4600 miles in my wife's Jeep and it came out in great shape. I just bought another jug for $20 and will run it soon probably in my daughter's Renegade. We'll go the distance on the OLM which I think winds up between 7k and 10k.

 

[doublebase]

I really didn’t think there was any difference between the regular ST and the advanced, except price. I might have been wrong. This looks a great report, a few more of these with different engines, I think would further prove there is a difference.

 

[himemsys]

That is impressive. I think it's a combination of a good oil and great engine.

 

[Sayjac]

Looks quite good to me. That said, having viewed VOAs of 10k mi. ST Syn vs the topic Advanced, I determined I wouldn't pay more for the Advanced. No doubt the Advanced performed well here. Be interesting to see how the 10k mi. version would have done. It's possible VOAs don't tell the whole story.

 

[doublebase]

Looks quite good to me. That said, having viewed VOAs of 10k mi. ST Syn vs the topic Advanced, I determined I wouldn't pay more for the Advanced. No doubt the Advanced performed well here. Be interesting to see how the 10k mi. version would have done. It's possible VOAs don't tell the whole story.

Right, I'd like to see some uoa's comparing the two...or at least a few more uoa's of the advanced before I really know if there is a difference. And let's face it, a Toyota isn't exactly a difficult engine for an oil to perform in. Having said that, I have to give this ST Advanced some credit though.

 

[Gene K]

Right, I'd like to see some uoa's comparing the two...or at least a few more uoa's of the advanced before I really know if there is a difference. And let's face it, a Toyota isn't exactly a difficult engine for an oil to perform in. Having said that, I have to give this ST Advanced some credit though.

Current Online Prices
10K $17.98
20K $19.98

As long as you are willing to run it longer it's a no brainer.

 

[ssspencerjr]

Is that a DI engine? Going going that long on a DI engine scares the hell out of me.

 

[Soobs]

Is that a DI engine? Going going that long on a DI engine scares the hell out of me.

It’s a combo. The 2GR-FKS has direct & port injection. Why does it scare you to run the oil up to the manufacturer OCI?

 

[The Critic]

It’s a combo. The 2GR-FKS has direct & port injection. Why does it scare you to run the oil up to the manufacturer OCI?

Because most of those intervals are inadequate unless you want to sell it before 150K.

 

[Soobs]

Because most of those intervals are inadequate unless you want to sell it before 150K.

Ah, I see. What do you suggest? The report indicates most are around 7000mi OCIs.

 

[CB22]

Look ma, I spent $40k on this car and I'm using the lowest cost 0w20 made. I'm so smart!

 

[Soobs]

Look ma, I spent $40k on this car and I'm using the lowest cost 0w20 made. I'm so smart!

Do you see an issue with the UOA?

 

[The Critic]

Ah, I see. What do you suggest? The report indicates most are around 7000mi OCIs.

Usually 5K.

Do you see an issue with the UOA?

No, but the only thing this report tells you is the oil was free of any excessive fuel or coolant contamination. Beyond that, there isn't much else that can be learned.

 

[Soobs]

Usually 5K.


No, but the only thing this report tells you is the oil was free of any excessive fuel or coolant contamination. Beyond that, there isn't much else that can be learned.

I’ll probably drop the OCI toward 5k then. I also thought these reports were good for seeing if the viscosity held up as well.

Not really sure how long I’ll keep this vehicle, but considering I had over 420,000 miles on the previous car it may be a while! That one predominately only saw conventional 10W-30 from Costco (Chevron), but it was 3k OCIs.

 

[dnewton3]

Look ma, I spent $40k on this car and I'm using the lowest cost 0w20 made. I'm so smart!

So the inference we should take is what ... that he made a bad decision using a house brand lube?

I'd like to ask you to be more specific since you're making a fairing pointed accusation here; what's wrong with the ST oil and these results?

And more importantly, show us in this UOA where the problem is. The way I see it, the entire report is in a desirable state:
- Fe wear is below 1ppm/1k miles
- other wear metals are so low they're noise in the UOA
- coolant, fuel and other contamination are essentially non-exisitent
- insolubles (soot and others) are admirably low
- physical properties are in the expected ranges

If the OP had run a 50/50 mix of goat milk and dog urine in the engine, and got these results, why would it matter? Why are you so focused on the cost of the product and not the results it produces? I'll never understand folks like you who put such a premium on appearances and not content. CB22, you have every right to spend your money the way you see fit, and so does the OP. But your comment makes me think you're just a typical BITOG oil biggot; you're not happy unless the most expensive lube is used. If that's the case, then I'll just summarily dismiss anything I ever read of you simply because you're more interested in harassing someone based on money spent, rather than focusing on the reality of results from the crankcase.


How about we flip this around? I'd say this of the OP:
Look ma, I'm not a wasteful, easily fooled, gullable spender; I got excellent results for minimal investment.

 

[dnewton3]

Because most of those intervals are inadequate unless you want to sell it before 150K.

What makes them "inadequate"?

It certainly cannot be the UOA results; they're about as good as anything we could ever expect.

So is there some concrete evidence that can be illuminated about the "inadequate" OCI? Is this engine series particularly known to be sensitive to OCI duration? And if so, what is that sensitivity based on? Is this engine known to sludge up? What's specific about the OCI that drives you to make this comment? What happens AFTER 150k miles that is at direct risk of the OCI? What makes 5k miles OK, but not 7k or 10k, and what does that directly affect?

Be specific please, and bring proof. Proof is not an anecdotal YT video of some goof ball's opinion. Proof is an OEM statement of OCI limits, or SAE study specific to this engine series, or ASE written document of specific issue(s).

 

[The Critic]

What makes them "inadequate"?

It certainly cannot be the UOA results; they're about as good as anything we could ever expect.

So is there some concrete evidence that can be illuminated about the "inadequate" OCI? Is this engine series particularly known to be sensitive to OCI duration? And if so, what is that sensitivity based on? Is this engine known to sludge up? What's specific about the OCI that drives you to make this comment? What happens AFTER 150k miles that is at direct risk of the OCI? What makes 5k miles OK, but not 7k or 10k, and what does that directly affect?

Be specific please, and bring proof. Proof is not an anecdotal YT video of some goof ball's opinion. Proof is an OEM statement of OCI limits, or SAE study specific to this engine series, or ASE written document of specific issue(s).

Agree to disagree - we have discussed this before.

I disagree with your approach of using UOA's to validate long oil changes. This is an example of using poor data to justify your argument. UOA's only capture a narrow range of particle sizes. Engine cleanliness is also an area that is not measurable in UOA's. We do not know if an oil with a TBN of 2.0 remaining is able to keep an engine as clean as one with a TBN of 3.5 remaining.

From my personal sample size of a 3 digit number of engines, the ones being serviced at varnished up or developing oil consumption issues.