I changed this oil on a relative's 4Runner last spring. He ran it 26k mi with a lot of long distance driving. On his visit this Christmas, I changed it again. Horrified at the OCI, I ran this test, to see the carnage. I haven't run a test in a few years, oil is so good now it doesn't really matter except as an engine diagnostic near EOL, imo. Either way, wow. Oil is really, really good now.
26k mi OCI, Mobil 1 5w-30 EP, 2018 4Runner
- Thread starter dsr70
- Start date
Destroy this evidence and never talk about it ever again. Say 5 Hail Mary's and promise silence.
edyvw
$50 site donor 2025
He is missing TAN in his UOA. At 26k mile OCI, that is the most important thing.
His oil probably thinned well into 20, then thickened up to almost 30 again.
Mobil has always had outstanding oxidation resistance. I would have really liked to see a virgin/used oxidation reading. Going by viscosity can be tough because fuel can offset that a bit. Looks really good despite all that.
TBN is 1.6 but of oxidation isn't occurring then I'm not sure it's an issue. But for a complete analysis you really need TAN, TBN, virgin and used oxidation. Otherwise, the UOA is incomplete. Wear is under control though so that is good.
TBN is 1.6 but of oxidation isn't occurring then I'm not sure it's an issue. But for a complete analysis you really need TAN, TBN, virgin and used oxidation. Otherwise, the UOA is incomplete. Wear is under control though so that is good.
Overall from the data provided, not too bad. But I cannot fathom an OCI that long though 
Old habits are hard to break.
Old habits are hard to break.
With a tbn of 1.6 and no tan I would not do more than 20k. I'd prefer 15k or less to be safe and that's with a lot highway driving since you say last spring so no more than a year but some drivers can do 26k a year with low speed driving and a lot of idling. Iron ppm of 0.34/1000 miles though.
So this engine really had no top up? did you ask if oil was ever added.
So this engine really had no top up? did you ask if oil was ever added.
I tossed the filter at the time. The 4Runner uses a non-can unit, would have been easy to lay open. It was either a Fram Ultra or SE, as at the time I expected a longer OCI. I can assure you this is real info, but that means nothing obviously.
I don't understand the "averages don't track." Does not Blackstone keep track and average for a specific vehicle over time? This vehicle isn't mine and had never been sent in. Average of 1.
I don't recall TAN being an option on the small check sheet when sending in. TBN was the extra $. Correct, no makeup oil. My relative is not a maintenance guy. The oil was down about 3/4 qt. Know the 4Runner specs 0w-20, but I had put in 5w-30 given he lives in Arizona, drives long distances regularly, the OCI I expected to be longer than average (like 12-15k), and Toyota does allow 5w-30.
See the far right column, and their comment that their reported averages to you were based on 6k OCI with the same engine.
edyvw
$50 site donor 2025
TAN has to be ordered separately in the comments. Extra $10. It would show oxidation, which is an issue with such a long OCI.
IMO, I would cut this OCI dramatically. Oil probably thinned well into 20, then thickened (oxidized) close to 30.
Wear is not indicative of how oil did.
Dang, I would have done a TAN. I see it on their website, but don't recall the option on the tiny order sheet.
dnewton3
Staff member
I admit it seems hard to fathom such low wear came from 26k miles.
Regarding the TBN and need of TAN ... This is a great example of why I say "Who cares?" Why are folks focused on the TAN? Does it matter? Where's the proof? If we take the stance that this is a true 26k mile OCI, then the WEAR NUMBERS are telling you that the TAN is not an issue. Regardless if the TAN is 2.0, or 5.0, or 10.0 ... What effect did it have on wear? ABSOLUTELY NONE!!! I continue to be amazed at folks who focus on the nuances of the oil and ignore the tales of the engine. The "concern" is that acids would build up and attack the engine components. And if this were to happen, then we'd see colloidal metals reacting, and result in spikes in the ICP analysis. AND YET, THE EVIDENCE SHOWS NO ISSUES WITH WEAR METALS. If significant acid effects were present, we'd see all the metals reacting. But we don't. GET OVER IT. TAN isn't a problem unless the metals are reacting.
I admit I'm not convinced this is 26k miles, but it really doesn't matter. Even if this is half that, at 13k miles, it's still very, very low wear and NO evidence of acid concerns.
Regarding the TBN and need of TAN ... This is a great example of why I say "Who cares?" Why are folks focused on the TAN? Does it matter? Where's the proof? If we take the stance that this is a true 26k mile OCI, then the WEAR NUMBERS are telling you that the TAN is not an issue. Regardless if the TAN is 2.0, or 5.0, or 10.0 ... What effect did it have on wear? ABSOLUTELY NONE!!! I continue to be amazed at folks who focus on the nuances of the oil and ignore the tales of the engine. The "concern" is that acids would build up and attack the engine components. And if this were to happen, then we'd see colloidal metals reacting, and result in spikes in the ICP analysis. AND YET, THE EVIDENCE SHOWS NO ISSUES WITH WEAR METALS. If significant acid effects were present, we'd see all the metals reacting. But we don't. GET OVER IT. TAN isn't a problem unless the metals are reacting.
I admit I'm not convinced this is 26k miles, but it really doesn't matter. Even if this is half that, at 13k miles, it's still very, very low wear and NO evidence of acid concerns.
Simply not enough iron for 26K miles.
But still not taking anything away from the oil or engine.
Carry on marathon Toyota!
But still not taking anything away from the oil or engine.
Carry on marathon Toyota!
dnewton3
Staff member
This is a classic example of how folks don't understand how to properly read a UOA.
There are two basic, fundamental concepts:
- oil health
- engine wear
BOTH are implied by the UOA.
In regard to oil health, we look at vis, oxidation, FP, TBN, etc and determine how long the oil still might be serviceable. Changes which occur do NOT mean that the engine is at risk of eminent demise; they only mean one should watch closer for the effects of wear rate changes. Just because FP drops, or dilution increases, or TAN crosses TBN does NOT automatically mean the oil is unfit. It only means the oil has changed and the wear rates MIGHT change, and the only way to know is to track the wear, relative to the oil parameter changes.
In regard to the engine itself, the metals can tell us about normal and abnormal wear. Steady numbers in the expected ranges generally indicate all things are "normal". Whereas spikes and upward trends can indicate something is wearing abnormally. Some upward trends are typical; Fe often tracks with miles accumulated as well as is a function of loading. But the other metals are pretty much only reactive to adverse conditions (the only exception being chelation from chemical reactions such as leaching Cu out, etc).
The only thing that would give me pause regarding this UOA is that there's no real history which the 26k miles built upon. I do NOT advocate for blindly extending OCIs out to 25k miles or more. You want to build a history of engine health and understand how well it tracks to "normal" expectations. This UOA, if we accept it's claim of 26k miles, is very impressive, but it was a risk; we all know that. Had there been a UOA of this load at 10k miles, then 15k miles, then 20k miles .... that would give confidence that the long OCI was warranted.
*************
The Fe being so low, and the insolubles being so low, would make me really doubt the 26k miles. Not that the OP is trying to dupe us, but maybe an OCI sneaked in when he wasn't looking? I'm not really familiar with the Mobil 1 additives; does this appear to be as claimed, or could it be another lube from an unknown OCI?
Looking at this VOA https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/threads/mobil-1-triple-action-5w30-ep-voa.367619/
it appears either the formulation changed, or the oil is not as claimed?
There are two basic, fundamental concepts:
- oil health
- engine wear
BOTH are implied by the UOA.
In regard to oil health, we look at vis, oxidation, FP, TBN, etc and determine how long the oil still might be serviceable. Changes which occur do NOT mean that the engine is at risk of eminent demise; they only mean one should watch closer for the effects of wear rate changes. Just because FP drops, or dilution increases, or TAN crosses TBN does NOT automatically mean the oil is unfit. It only means the oil has changed and the wear rates MIGHT change, and the only way to know is to track the wear, relative to the oil parameter changes.
In regard to the engine itself, the metals can tell us about normal and abnormal wear. Steady numbers in the expected ranges generally indicate all things are "normal". Whereas spikes and upward trends can indicate something is wearing abnormally. Some upward trends are typical; Fe often tracks with miles accumulated as well as is a function of loading. But the other metals are pretty much only reactive to adverse conditions (the only exception being chelation from chemical reactions such as leaching Cu out, etc).
The only thing that would give me pause regarding this UOA is that there's no real history which the 26k miles built upon. I do NOT advocate for blindly extending OCIs out to 25k miles or more. You want to build a history of engine health and understand how well it tracks to "normal" expectations. This UOA, if we accept it's claim of 26k miles, is very impressive, but it was a risk; we all know that. Had there been a UOA of this load at 10k miles, then 15k miles, then 20k miles .... that would give confidence that the long OCI was warranted.
*************
The Fe being so low, and the insolubles being so low, would make me really doubt the 26k miles. Not that the OP is trying to dupe us, but maybe an OCI sneaked in when he wasn't looking? I'm not really familiar with the Mobil 1 additives; does this appear to be as claimed, or could it be another lube from an unknown OCI?
Looking at this VOA https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/threads/mobil-1-triple-action-5w30-ep-voa.367619/
it appears either the formulation changed, or the oil is not as claimed?
Last edited:
The way this is worded, it doesn't sound like the oil analysis is of the 26k mile run, but of the run after. Can you clarify? Like, you changed it after 26k, then on his visit this Christmas, you changed it AGAIN, and then did the oil analysis. At least that's how I read it.
Maybe a contributing factor is that Toyota 4Runners seem to go 400k miles in many instances. They are indestructible mechanically.
The 4Runner has old school designs, and it's engine and ride is not so smooth, but they can go the distance.
The engine can withstand a 26k OCI.
It would be interesting if you could do another 26k OCI with either Kirkland or Super Tech, and see if the results match the Mobil 1.
The 4Runner has old school designs, and it's engine and ride is not so smooth, but they can go the distance.
The engine can withstand a 26k OCI.
It would be interesting if you could do another 26k OCI with either Kirkland or Super Tech, and see if the results match the Mobil 1.
And only being down 3/4 of a qt. after 26k miles???
dnewton3
Staff member
I have to believe that the OP believes it's a 26k mile OCI.
The only way BS would know it's 26k miles for the report is from the info the OP would have written onto the submission form.
The only way BS would know it's 26k miles for the report is from the info the OP would have written onto the submission form.
Similar threads
