2019 Ram 1500 5.7 "Extended" Oil Changes

That proves that the buildup happens between 5k-10k when the oil remained in spec ?
It is just his opinion on that motor …
How did Tig do this for 40 years ?
He telling you if you change your oil at 5K instead of 10K, you won't have this issue. If you don't believe him, then go 10K and "save" all that money.
 
The oil control ring stack is low tension, so they usually stick compressed, not out, so if Toyota has something else going on then it sounds more like a design issue.
Regardless of why, it doesn't happen with more frequent oil changes, (5K). So why push it? Again what are you saving, as compared to what you're risking? I'm not seeing any big "win" here by going 10K between oil changes.
 
The oil control ring stack is low tension, so they usually stick compressed, not out, so if Toyota has something else going on then it sounds more like a design issue.

I wouldn't either, but that's because the HEMI is a dirty running engine that's known to produce a ton of carbonaceous grit, that's why AMSOIL had to pull the Ea15K for both the HEMI and the LS engine, the engine produced too much particulate to allow the claimed interval for the filter.
I’d bet a good old fashioned iron liner is tough enough or we wouldn’t have all those crazy miles on Chevy vans running bulk oil and Baldwin filters …

Indeed an engine issue here …
 
5:30 in the video


OK, I've taken several pictures from the video.

1. He notes that the two middle cylinders are "fine". All show a burnish mark that appears to align with the skirt. Only the two outer cylinders he says he can feel scoring:
Screen Shot 2023-04-01 at 10.14.34 AM.jpg


2. This is the piston from the above hole, he says the rings are stuck, but they clearly move when he's touching them in the video, so they are not seized/stuck, they do however, not appear to compress, which would indicate either improperly sized rings (they are butting) or something behind the rings preventing them from compressing. I will say again, they DID MOVE, so they are NOT seized. You can also see the polished section on the skirt that mirrors the burnish mark on the bore:
Screen Shot 2023-04-01 at 10.16.16 AM.jpg


3. This is the piston from one of the inner holes, he says the rings are also seized, but this hole doesn't have scoring (but it has the burnish mark). These rings also clearly move when he touches them, so they are not seized/stuck. However, they appear how I'm used to seeing them when buggered up, deeper in the groove, basically flush with the piston:
Screen Shot 2023-04-01 at 10.16.55 AM.jpg


I think there's more to this story/analysis.

We have some curious things here:
- Rings that clearly move, but don't compress. So, they aren't seized
- Burnish marks on all the bores and pistons
- Only the outermost holes have scoring, the two inner holes are fine
- Compression rings look clean and free
 
Regardless of why, it doesn't happen with more frequent oil changes, (5K). So why push it? Again what are you saving, as compared to what you're risking? I'm not seeing any big "win" here by going 10K between oil changes.
But this is BITOG. Discussing the *why* is what we do here. If somebody's position is do 5K on Supertech, they aren't going to benefit much from a large portion of the discussions on this forum 🤷‍♂️
 
OK, I've taken several pictures from the video.

1. He notes that the two middle cylinders are "fine". All show a burnish mark that appears to align with the skirt. Only the two outer cylinders he says he can feel scoring:
View attachment 147897

2. This is the piston from the above hole, he says the rings are stuck, but they clearly move when he's touching them in the video, so they are not seized/stuck, they do however, not appear to compress, which would indicate either improperly sized rings (they are butting) or something behind the rings preventing them from compressing. I will say again, they DID MOVE, so they are NOT seized. You can also see the polished section on the skirt that mirrors the burnish mark on the bore:
View attachment 147898

3. This is the piston from one of the inner holes, he says the rings are also seized, but this hole doesn't have scoring (but it has the burnish mark). These rings also clearly move when he touches them, so they are not seized/stuck. However, they appear how I'm used to seeing them when buggered up, deeper in the groove, basically flush with the piston:
View attachment 147899

I think there's more to this story/analysis.

We have some curious things here:
- Rings that clearly move, but don't compress. So, they aren't seized
- Burnish marks on all the bores and pistons
- Only the outermost holes have scoring, the two inner holes are fine
- Compression rings look clean and free
I don’t deny dirty/coked pistons are a thing these days - in fact that’s why HPL’s EC is in my 2017 now …
But running it past 5k (OLM does about 7k) did not suddenly change the oxidation stability of Mobil 1 AP …
Edit: about 9 months on most changes …
 
I don’t deny dirty/coked pistons are a thing these days - in fact that’s why HPL’s EC is in my 2017 now …
But running it past 5k (OLM does about 7k) did not suddenly change the oxidation stability of Mobil 1 AP …
Exactly. As long as the additive package is suitably robust and keeping contaminants in suspension, in a properly designed engine, longer intervals, within the limits of the lubricant, won't yield a buggered-up oil control ring stack.
 
Exactly. As long as the additive package is suitably robust and keeping contaminants in suspension, in a properly designed engine, longer intervals, within the limits of the lubricant, won't yield a buggered-up oil control ring stack.
Indeed - I’m changing because of GDI and known dilution damaging some good lubes …
The Lexus has the dual point so running out OLM does not scare me
 
I think there's more to this story/analysis.

We have some curious things here:
- Rings that clearly move, but don't compress. So, they aren't seized
- Burnish marks on all the bores and pistons
- Only the outermost holes have scoring, the two inner holes are fine
- Compression rings look clean and free
Let's just say all that may be true. It doesn't change anything. Because there is no getting around the fact, that you have less chance of this happening by cutting the OCI interval in half.

All that crap in the rings didn't come from changing the oil too often. 50% of the cylinders are scored. How many have to be?

And if we want to go with the reasoning that it's a "troublesome" engine by design. How is leaving oil in it twice as long going to help it? Again, where is the big gain?

He has said that he's seen the same engines with 5K OCI's go 300,000 to over 400,000 miles. This one was shot with only 180K on the clock..... With religious 10K OCI's.
 
Let's just say all that may be true. It doesn't change anything. Because there is no getting around the fact, that you have less chance of this happening by cutting the OCI interval in half.
If it's a mechanical issue, like with HEMI lifter failure, there's no avoiding it regardless of OCI length, so yes, understanding *why* certainly changes how we discuss this Bill.

If you don't want to discuss it beyond this point and make this a technical discussion, I'm fine with that, but let me know so I don't waste my time.
All that crap in the rings didn't come from changing the oil too often. 50% of the cylinders are scored. How many have to be?
Right, 50% of the cylinders are scored, the other 50% aren't. Why? But they ALL have very visible burnish marks on both the bore and piston, which is completely missing its anti-friction coating in that area and down to the bare aluminum.
And if we want to go with the reasoning that it's a "troublesome" engine by design. How is leaving oil in it twice as long going to help it? Again, where is the big gain?
Is it troublesome or is there a supply chain or design defect? That's what we are discussing here.
He has said that he's seen the same engines with 5K OCI's go 300,000 to over 400,000 miles. This one was shot with only 180K on the clock..... With religious 10K OCI's.
Yes, and I've seen HEMI's go insane mileage and yet we know some of them lose a lifter before 100,000 miles. If you've got a materials or supplier QC issue, in many instances, like with the HEMI, it only presents in a small percentage of applications.

So, the counter question is how many of these engines is he NOT seeing that are being operated on 10K OCI's? That's the statistic we need. He's not tearing down every one of these that's coming into his shop, noting the OCI and taking a peek at the bore, piston and oil control ring stack.

This seems to very much mirror the discussion happening in @wwillson's Durango thread where extended intervals are just being universally condemned because of this Toyota-specific video 🤷‍♂️
 
You've got much the same thing going on with a lot of these Honda engines. Only with massive fuel dilution problems. Some are seeing the oil level rise a full quart or more in under 1,000 miles of driving. Regardless if this is a "design problem" or not, the only solution is very frequent oil changes.

You can use what you think may be the best super synthetic oil money can buy. (Insert your favorite brand here). It isn't going to matter because it's crap if you dump a quart of gasoline into it.

Again more frequent OCI's to the rescue..... Because there isn't anything else you can do if you're stuck with one of these flea ridden dogs. I'll all but guarantee you, this guy doesn't really care about, "why".... Other than asking himself why he bought it.

Toyota = Scored cylinder walls from gunked up rings.

Honda = Massive fuel dilution issues. (Again from poorly designed rings causing massive fuel blow by).

Chrysler HEMI's = Questionable lifter design that may be prone to premature failure...... "Sometimes". And generally a dirty running engine overall.

Answer? There really is none that appear to benefit the owners of these engines..... EXCEPT to adopt more frequent oil changes. The sooner, apparently the better.

 
You've got much the same thing going on with a lot of these Honda engines. Only with massive fuel dilution problems. Some are seeing the oil level rise a full quart or more in under 1,000 miles of driving. Regardless if this is a "design problem" or not, the only solution is very frequent oil changes.
For specific engines, sure, but the point is you can't use these specific anecdotes to broadly condemn longer OCI's, as there are many engines that don't have these issues.
Toyota = Scored cylinder walls from gunked up rings.
You and CCN assume this is the cause. It may be a design or materials issue.
Honda = Massive fuel dilution issues. (Again from poorly designed rings causing massive fuel blow by).
Why do you think it's the rings? I've not seen any evidence presented that it's blow-by that causes the Honda issue, rather, it seems to be a DI system design problem coupled with tiny displacement. Put bluntly, Honda's DI implementation is garbage and they should be looking to BMW as to how to avoid this problem, as they (BMW) clearly have it figured out.
Chrysler HEMI's = Questionable lifter design that may be prone to premature failure...... "Sometimes". And generally a dirty running engine overall.
Yes, and the one isn't related to the other.
Answer? There really is none that appear to benefit the owners of these engines..... EXCEPT to adopt more frequent oil changes. The sooner, apparently the better.
Of course there are specific examples of engines that do not lend themselves to extended drain intervals and I tend to hold up the HEMI as an example of that simply due to how dirty it runs. But, one cannot simply unilaterally condemn the practice because there are a few designs that don't respond well to it. Extended OCI's can be safely implemented in many situations without any associated risk provided the oil level is checked and UOA's are used to determine what is safe.
 
For specific engines, sure, but the point is you can't use these specific anecdotes to broadly condemn longer OCI's, as there are many engines that don't have these issues.

You and CCN assume this is the cause. It may be a design or materials issue.

Why do you think it's the rings? I've not seen any evidence presented that it's blow-by that causes the Honda issue, rather, it seems to be a DI system design problem coupled with tiny displacement. Put bluntly, Honda's DI implementation is garbage and they should be looking to BMW as to how to avoid this problem, as they (BMW) clearly have it figured out.

Yes, and the one isn't related to the other.

Of course there are specific examples of engines that do not lend themselves to extended drain intervals and I tend to hold up the HEMI as an example of that simply due to how dirty it runs. But, one cannot simply unilaterally condemn the practice because there are a few designs that don't respond well to it. Extended OCI's can be safely implemented in many situations without any associated risk provided the oil level is checked and UOA's are used to determine what is safe.
And again, if it is a bad fuel injection system instead of rings, (and it very well could be), the only solution is again, shorter OCI's. Same with Toyota's cylinder scoring.

If you as a consumer have one of these engines, and the dealer has no solution, or else blatantly tells you flat out there is no problem, (like Honda has told their customers), what do you do?

I agree with the Toyota mechanic in that they, (Toyota) recommend 10,000 mile OCI's, solely for offering less maintenance. Less maintenance is always appealing to customers. Toyota knows by doing this the engine will live past the warranty. Which is all they're concerned with.

However for long term customers, as the mechanic showed in the video, it's basically a death sentence. Toyota refuses to budge on the issue, and continues to "recommend" 10,000 mile OCI's..... Except in "severe" conditions.

It's the same with the whole 0W-16 oil argument. CAFE pushes manufacturers toward the use of these ultra thin oils, to achieve better mileage standards, and gain CAFE credits in the process.

Then they turn around play with words to justify it in their own manuals. Saying crap like it's "recommended", but a higher viscosity may be, "better suited" under some severe conditions.

It all comes down to common sense. Can you go 10,000 miles? Sure. Can you get away with it? Perhaps. But I just don't see the sense of it. Not when it's so cheap and easy to do it more often.
 
It all comes down to common sense. Can you go 10,000 miles? Sure. Can you get away with it? Perhaps. But I just don't see the sense of it. Not when it's so cheap and easy to do it more often.
And that's fine that you, as an individual, are willing to trade some perceived peace of mind for the tradeoff of poorer economics, more time under the vehicle and per @dnewton3, potentially higher wear rates.

But, as you've agreed, from a justification perspective, outside of very specific problem child applications like we've discussed, the argument is one based on emotion (peace of mind, feeling you are doing more "right" by your vehicle) not facts or data that support longer OCI's being inferior.

As I noted earlier, there is some serious overlap between this discussion and Wayne's, and I think Dave Newton does a great job laying out his well-reasoned position in this post, which I agree with:
 
Comes down to this imo.
Does the OLM exist to get you past engine warranty and allow manufacturers to claim lower $ per mile maintenance costs?
I believe it does, and I do change my oil on a severe schedule, which means changing the oil at 40% or so oil life remaining.
Never did reply

I agree. However,

Owners manual states, follow the OLM or one year with MS-6395 spec oil. Good ol Pennzoil Yellow Bottle is MS-6395 compliant. The OLM doesn’t know I’m using a better oil (full synthetic) and is still ticking along.

Will PYB get you past warranty following the OLM? Almost certainly.

Will you get to 200k following the OLM with PYB? Maybe. Probably. Will it be pretty, certainly not.

Using a higher grade oil is why I’m comfortable following the OLM to 0% and I currently have two reports to back it up.

Now I’m just using an even better oil, so we’ll see where that takes us, it’ll take the OLM to 0 with no troubles I’m sure. Can it go further? Maybe.
 
Never did reply

I agree. However,

Owners manual states, follow the OLM or one year with MS-6395 spec oil. Good ol Pennzoil Yellow Bottle is MS-6395 compliant. The OLM doesn’t know I’m using a better oil (full synthetic) and is still ticking along.

Will PYB get you past warranty following the OLM? Almost certainly.

Will you get to 200k following the OLM with PYB? Maybe. Probably. Will it be pretty, certainly not.

Using a higher grade oil is why I’m comfortable following the OLM to 0% and I currently have two reports to back it up.

Now I’m just using an even better oil, so we’ll see where that takes us, it’ll take the OLM to 0 with no troubles I’m sure. Can it go further? Maybe.
IIRC, synthetic is beneficial as it tends to keep the oil in grade or closer to grade vs. conventional, over time.
Benefits regarding contamination suspension, more lubricity, etc are less clear.
I need more convincing on your position.
 
IIRC, synthetic is beneficial as it tends to keep the oil in grade or closer to grade vs. conventional, over time.
Benefits regarding contamination suspension, more lubricity, etc are less clear.
I need more convincing on your position.

Wouldn’t that be something that an uptick off wear metal on a UOA would show? I know the UOA isn’t gospel but it’s a tool.

I’ll keep doing UOAs every few oil changes and we’ll see what happens.
 
That's why I asked. It was the filter that was used on the pre electric steering DS trucks and it fits, but it is tight, on the DT trucks. I don't recall if anybody has tried to see if it will fit on the DS (Classic) with the electric power steering or not.

5000 mile filter change time on HPL PCMO (4637 miles actually, but who's counting). Yes, I'm going to cut the filter.


I bought a plain PH2 filter for test fitting purposes and surprisingly, I was able to fit it in there and tighten it down, I did not leave it on and put another Amsoil EA15K50 on. I bought the PH2 because it's one of the cheapest for test purposes. I generally access the filter from the front since it's on a lift. It was certainly VERY close to the hard lines that run next to the oil filter (transmission lines I think). Had all of 1-2 mm of clearance. Not sure how much of a potential issue this would be. I feel like I would want a standard size filter on hand at all times just in case one filter ended up being a hair larger since I definitely wouldn't want them rubbing.

Biggest downside I can see if that I don't see how my OilUdder will work now with the bigger filter. I think I'd have to get the 6" but I'm not sure if it would actually fit in there.
 
Back
Top