AMSOIL position on API Licensing
- Thread starter 68redlines73
- Start date
- Status
Bob,
With all due respect, if there are no problems with this engine, why did Toyota CHANGE the design of the cam drive mechanism and possibly the PCV system? I think the answer is obvious .... Clearly if they did not change this design, they would have to start recommending significantly shorter change interals for this motor, which would hurt sales and their reputation.
Even an engine manufacturers maximum recommended drain interval should include a factor of safety of perhaps 1.2, to account for those 5% of car owners who are really lax about basic maintenance. So if they recommend 7500 miles max, you really should be able to go to 9000 miles without any problems....
BTW,this new design looks like the chain drive on my 2.4L Tacoma engine, except for the variable valve timing mechanism on the intake valve side.
I think Toyota does some great automotive design and my '95 truck has been basically flawless, but the V-6 clearly isn't Toyotas best work ....
I don't think this problem is oil related at all ...the SL/GF-3 formulations perform perfectly in other applications - even with reduced levels of ZDDP.
With all due respect, if there are no problems with this engine, why did Toyota CHANGE the design of the cam drive mechanism and possibly the PCV system? I think the answer is obvious .... Clearly if they did not change this design, they would have to start recommending significantly shorter change interals for this motor, which would hurt sales and their reputation.
Even an engine manufacturers maximum recommended drain interval should include a factor of safety of perhaps 1.2, to account for those 5% of car owners who are really lax about basic maintenance. So if they recommend 7500 miles max, you really should be able to go to 9000 miles without any problems....
BTW,this new design looks like the chain drive on my 2.4L Tacoma engine, except for the variable valve timing mechanism on the intake valve side.
I think Toyota does some great automotive design and my '95 truck has been basically flawless, but the V-6 clearly isn't Toyotas best work ....
I don't think this problem is oil related at all ...the SL/GF-3 formulations perform perfectly in other applications - even with reduced levels of ZDDP.
TS, As you pointed out, They too need to be able to extend the maintance program and obviously they are reconizing that it's not as possible with the inside gear design. As stated before, just because an engine puts more demand on an oil, doesn't quailfy it as a bad engine. Fact is, it is an excellent engine provided it is properly maintained. Proble was, when lower antiwears were incorporated, and extended drain intervals were increased, someone didn't do their homework and take into account what will happen when those engines encounted those factors.
Same with motorcycle oils. You'll notice that shared sump tranny and engine m/c's recommend SH version oils... Guess what, that was pre 97. Why? cause the shearing effect of gears in the bike like the toyota would destroy the newer version oil. Simple concept. Now tack on the extended drain recommendatoins, bad move...
BTW, this issue of pcv valves contributing to the failure, not so. Fact is, they still use the same exact part(verified part numbers old with replacement part). There is no way a pcv valve going to cause oil to shear down from a 30wt to a 20wt inside 4k miles. I bet you can't get the oil to shear down in visocity in 10k miles with a pcv valve problem. Not gonna happen. This is a physical destruction of the oil produced by the gears. That is the only difference between a honda,nissan and toyota engine is those gears. Also factor in sump capacity, and enclosed limited air flow across the engine and stop and go traffic. All of these factors apply to contribute the shearing/sludgeing effect of the oil but everyone of those cars have those factors except none have the gears except toyota.
As stated before, this was not a replacement design for that engine but a newer design for newer vehicles. They still make that engine and still sell them, but I believe they will be moving away from the internal gear system in the near future.
[ January 08, 2003, 12:40 PM: Message edited by: BOBISTHEOILGUY ]
Same with motorcycle oils. You'll notice that shared sump tranny and engine m/c's recommend SH version oils... Guess what, that was pre 97. Why? cause the shearing effect of gears in the bike like the toyota would destroy the newer version oil. Simple concept. Now tack on the extended drain recommendatoins, bad move...
BTW, this issue of pcv valves contributing to the failure, not so. Fact is, they still use the same exact part(verified part numbers old with replacement part). There is no way a pcv valve going to cause oil to shear down from a 30wt to a 20wt inside 4k miles. I bet you can't get the oil to shear down in visocity in 10k miles with a pcv valve problem. Not gonna happen. This is a physical destruction of the oil produced by the gears. That is the only difference between a honda,nissan and toyota engine is those gears. Also factor in sump capacity, and enclosed limited air flow across the engine and stop and go traffic. All of these factors apply to contribute the shearing/sludgeing effect of the oil but everyone of those cars have those factors except none have the gears except toyota.
As stated before, this was not a replacement design for that engine but a newer design for newer vehicles. They still make that engine and still sell them, but I believe they will be moving away from the internal gear system in the near future.
[ January 08, 2003, 12:40 PM: Message edited by: BOBISTHEOILGUY ]
They're drain claims are RIDICULOUS. 25k may be good with a bypass but not without. They really need to change that ASAP!
There's more going on with he 3.0L engines used in the Toyota autos and vans than can be explained by the cam drive mechanism. The 3.0L, 3.4L, and 4.0L V6 engines used in the trucks and 4Runners use the same cam drive system and there've been no reports of sludging or oil sheardown in those engines...
The 98-03 Sienna in paticular has to pull more weight and has less air flow around the engine compartment then the rest of the Toyota applications with this engine.5qt sump.
They also like higher octane gasoline.
I have a relative who has a 98 Sienna with around 80K on it.3K OCI's with Castrol GTX and it really doesn't show indications of sludge at all.
They also like higher octane gasoline.
I have a relative who has a 98 Sienna with around 80K on it.3K OCI's with Castrol GTX and it really doesn't show indications of sludge at all.
You only get significant polymer shearing if you have particular engine design features like gear driven cams, multivalves, turbos, etc - AND you have very high cylinder head/oil temps.
It is the combination of very high oil temps and mechanical shearing that causes permanent viscosity loss. In motorcycles for example, I think it's the 230F-250F sustained oil temps that cause the bulk of the shearing and not simply using the same oil to lube the transmission gears.
It is the combination of very high oil temps and mechanical shearing that causes permanent viscosity loss. In motorcycles for example, I think it's the 230F-250F sustained oil temps that cause the bulk of the shearing and not simply using the same oil to lube the transmission gears.
Spector
"They also continue to label their XL series as synthetic."
What is the base in Amsoils XL series if not synthetic? I had assumed it was full synthetic like advertized???
"They also continue to label their XL series as synthetic."
What is the base in Amsoils XL series if not synthetic? I had assumed it was full synthetic like advertized???
It's a group III. It's not that it's a bad oil, but your paying $4-$5qt for a grp III when you can buy Mobil 1 0w-20 which is a grp. IV and V for the same price. The XL line is a big waste of money IMO. And when you look at M1 0w-20 UOA's and additive package, Amsoil's XL line looks even worse.
[ March 07, 2004, 02:39 PM: Message edited by: buster ]
[ March 07, 2004, 02:39 PM: Message edited by: buster ]
I believe in the API as a reliable sourse of data that sets minimum guidlines for the oil my vehicle manufacture recomends. If I have special racing needs that is another set of conditions to address and API does not address that. Why would I go against the manufactures recomendations based on the selected set of criteria that is used for Amsoil advertising? If you like Amsoil then go for it. I for one am satisified with Mobil 1 at about 1/2 the price and feel comfortable using it when GM,Ford,Chryler,Porsch, and Honda formula 1 vehicles use it, recomend it and put it in their new cars. I know many friends who run name brand dino oils that get 150,000 miles from there cars and read on other news groups that many people get 200,000 + miles with the lowly Mobile 1 which meets ALL manufactures specifications. I would like the hear from Amsoil drivers who have over 150,000 miles using any Amsoil product. I asked this question many months back and guess what no one responded. Maybe this time someone will step up. Ed Hayes
There are thousands of people that have gotten well over 150k miles using Amsoil and they have posted in here several times. Using an API dino oil is fine and will get you just as much life out of your engine. Amsoil relies on extra ZDP for extended drains. Mobil has substituded ZDP with Borate esters and more calcium. The API is good at setting minimum standards, but not everyone wants minimum standards. I don't also think they have "maximum" protection in mind. Mobil 1 SS is a great oil and really is tough to beat considering convenience and price.
Ed wrote:
You said it, minimum......
If you get M1 at 50% the purchase price of Amsoil, then go for it. In my position the delta isn't so much.
I'm at 245,000 miles, (10K mile OCI's) and many, many folks are well over 200K miles on Amsoil. But there are many folks over 150K with anyoil as well.
Makes you wonder if any of the "testimonies" on the amsoil website have any truth to them. Like the one where the guy pulled his heads after 80k and still has the crosshatch to them.
>>>Makes you wonder if any of the "testimonies" on the amsoil website have any truth to them. Like the one where the guy pulled his heads after 80k and still has the crosshatch to them.
Well, as I recall, Mobil ran a BMW for over 1,000,000 miles on Mobil 1, and still had crosshatch in the cylinders. And a Mack diesel on AMSOIL had crosshatch on it with about 600,000 on the engine and 409,000 on the oil.
Get plenty of reports of fairly high mileage engines with non-synthetic that still have crosshatch.
Or, maybe, all AMSOIL dealers/users are inveterate liars---
Well, as I recall, Mobil ran a BMW for over 1,000,000 miles on Mobil 1, and still had crosshatch in the cylinders. And a Mack diesel on AMSOIL had crosshatch on it with about 600,000 on the engine and 409,000 on the oil.
Get plenty of reports of fairly high mileage engines with non-synthetic that still have crosshatch.
Or, maybe, all AMSOIL dealers/users are inveterate liars---
Perhaps that one wasn't so far fetched. What about this one:
"Glen Cove, NY -- Ed Nasalgia, a 40-year motorcycle enthusiast, bought his Honda Goodwing new in 1983. At 600 miles he installed AMSOIL Synthetic 10W-40 Motor Oil. Ed now uses AMSOIL Synthetic 10W-40 Motorcycle Oil.
Ed's motorcycle shows 144,000 miles on the odometer, and Ed says, "I never have to add oil to it. Even after putting 18,000 miles on it last summer, the oil level was still in the safe zone this spring. The engine has never been taken apart for any work and it still runs extra smooth and feels very powerful."
92 Camry V6, 163,000 miles, Amsoil 10W30 since 1000 miles and a 7500 mile OCI. Original trannsmision using Amsoil ATF every 30,000 with a drain and fill.
But I do not consider this great, when I reach 250,000 I will blow a horn. I probably could have done this on dino at 3000 mile OCI as well.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
