A good article on additives and their role on timing chain wear.
https://www.infineuminsight.com/insight/oct-2016/timing-chain-wear
https://www.infineuminsight.com/insight/oct-2016/timing-chain-wear
Infineum insight to Timing Chain Wear
- Thread starter StevieC
- Start date
- Status
Lower quality oil, lol. Well, I don't speak in code or assumption which this article demands I do. More specifics would be great. All I have to say is thank God for timing chains because it is putting the Kibosh on gf-6 which will be a disaster for many engines except di 4 banger turbo's in the long run.
what does toyota use?
My 2018 Highlander with Direct Injection has a timing chain and it calls for a 0w20 ILSAC GF-5 or better oil in the manual.
Originally Posted by StevieC
A good article on additives and their role on timing chain wear.
https://www.infineuminsight.com/insight/oct-2016/timing-chain-wear
Interesting read - I believe Dexos 1 Gen 2 plays nicer with timing chains which is what I look for (along with a 30W oil) .
A good article on additives and their role on timing chain wear.
https://www.infineuminsight.com/insight/oct-2016/timing-chain-wear
Interesting read - I believe Dexos 1 Gen 2 plays nicer with timing chains which is what I look for (along with a 30W oil) .
The new signature series Amsoil formulations that happened last fall use the Infineum add pack in their blending so it should yield good results with the timing chain in my engine along with the direct injection. I have the 0w20 in there right now.
I'm do for my first UOA soon (6,000km to go).
I'm do for my first UOA soon (6,000km to go).
Last edited:
Yes GM has to create a new proprietary oil spec Dexos 2 to cover up for their crummy timing chains with all the recalls and the poor design and paying out all those warranty claims. And just a few years ago GM had to recall 800,000 vehicles and reset their oil change interval downwards, to get around widespread balance chain failures. Then paper over the design failures with this new oil spec to work around problems of their own creation, and on top of that they crow about it. And then they act like everyone needs it. Chevrolets apparently cannot run on industry standard oil, but Toyotas do just fine. Talk about turning lemons into lemonade.
I guess i didn't get that much from the article except for GF-6 will take cam chain wear into consideration. This is good to know but it really dont give us any other information. What is bad oil? Is this old API -SA oil or what? What additives promote good cam chain wear? Thicker or thinner viscosities.
I think it's more like WDN mentioned. Poor engineering by certain OE's versus others. I mean timing chains aren't new and certainly not to engines that have had fuel dilution issues. Look at the old timer engines that were chain based and had rich carburetors and were just fine with much poorer conventional oils than we have today.
While it would be good for them to investigate and tune an oil to offer the best protection possible I think it's OE's job to properly design an engine, and not demand that oils fix their mistakes.
I'm not picking on GM because every OE has their issues from time to time but it seems to me that GM has had a long history of not getting things right the first time and using their customers as beta testers. The same can be said about Hyundai and their engine woes as of late.
We had a slant 6 engine in the family with a carburetor and it rolled the odometer 4 or 5 times in the 26 years we had it before its chain let go.
While it would be good for them to investigate and tune an oil to offer the best protection possible I think it's OE's job to properly design an engine, and not demand that oils fix their mistakes.
I'm not picking on GM because every OE has their issues from time to time but it seems to me that GM has had a long history of not getting things right the first time and using their customers as beta testers. The same can be said about Hyundai and their engine woes as of late.
We had a slant 6 engine in the family with a carburetor and it rolled the odometer 4 or 5 times in the 26 years we had it before its chain let go.
Last edited:
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
All the old boys who put gear drives in their Small Block Chevy's: "this is our moment!"
Interesting article.
I am wondering simply, how many miles or a range of mileage on the engine when the chain is stretched out of spec? Is it 20k mi, 50k mi, 100k mi?
I didn't see it listed as an item in the maintenance schedule for the car...….
I am wondering simply, how many miles or a range of mileage on the engine when the chain is stretched out of spec? Is it 20k mi, 50k mi, 100k mi?
I didn't see it listed as an item in the maintenance schedule for the car...….
GDI engines produce very fine soot particles that are not filtered with the oil filter. This, from what I understand, is a major contributor to timing chain wear.
This would indicate shorter OCIs are prudent for GDI engines. One reason GM decreased their OCIs.
For those beating up GM for their dexos 1 and dexos 2 specs, but are fine with Porsche A40, MB MB 229.XX, VW 505/507, etc....wow. Hypocrite much?
This would indicate shorter OCIs are prudent for GDI engines. One reason GM decreased their OCIs.
For those beating up GM for their dexos 1 and dexos 2 specs, but are fine with Porsche A40, MB MB 229.XX, VW 505/507, etc....wow. Hypocrite much?
The German OE's are another group of "It's the oils fault" not our "Elite" engineering. The reason we don't see tons and tons of vehicles on the road still after 20 years like the Asian manufacturers.
Last edited:
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted by StevieC
The German OE's are another group of "It's the oils fault" not our "Elite" engineering. The reason we don't see tons and tons of vehicles on the road still after 20 years like the Asian manufacturers.
The API is comprised of a host of oil companies and other related entities, including some auto makers, to define the performance metrics for the basic API designations for diesel and gas.
ACEA is a conglomerate comprised primarily of manufacturers looking to define the minimum performance standards for the various categories broken up by fuel type, performance, fuel economy...etc.
Many of the manufacturers, including Japanese ones, have, at times, come up with their own oil specifications to deal with perceived deficiencies in the more overreaching API and ACEA performance categories. This can be something as simple as a high heat deposit test (Honda HTO-06) or something more extensive like Porsche A40, which includes actual tear-down performance of an engine run on a simulated lapping of the Nurburgring over many hours. We can choose to poo-poo that or acknowledge that the result has been significantly better oils for the consumer.
The reason ACEA exists is due to a lack of effort by oil manufacturers to formulate products that were of high enough quality to protect the engines of the day under the expected operating conditions and change durations. It has become an evolution of that philosophy since.
Because both of the overreaching categories are designed to be broad spectrum and met by a variety of formulations, incorporating more stringent specs for certain areas like say NOACK or deposit control....etc doesn't strike me as an engineering cop-out as much as an acknowledgment of the limitations of the protocols employed by the API (and ACEA) process and subsequently a way to ensure that the product used in that brand's engines are of higher quality than that. Historically, the API testing regimen was not overly strict and the limits pretty generous. There are plenty of cheaply blended oils out there that could get API SM but would never pass A40 for example. That may not be relevant to the driver of a Toyota Yaris, but it certainly would be for the guy with his 911 doing laps at Mosport. Same reason Honda didn't spec 5w-30 for the S2000, because the API protocol was not sufficiently robust that any OTS 5w-30 would be suitable for that engine driven as intended, hence the 10w-30 (less VII) or 5w-40 requirement.
There are plenty of old Mercs and BMW's on the roads, particularly in Europe, where they make up the majority. Lots of Asian manufacturers products rusted into the ground. It's not being intellectually honest to give them a gold star for being able to spec the bottom rung of the oil specification hierarchy and completely ignore the fact that they couldn't deal with body corrosion. That's elitist Nippon-pushing nonsense. The way Euro cars are designed differs significantly from the Japanese; the philosophies are not similar. The Mercedes will be more expensive to operate, particularly when following the maintenance schedule, but that doesn't mean it won't reach the same mileage as the Camry, though the owner may not decide to spend the money on upkeep to get it there. Given the rift in features, comfort and performance, to acknowledge that caveat isn't an admission of engineering inferiority but rather the understanding of the tradeoffs and value.
The primary issue most had with the GM DEXOS spec, as opposed to their earlier specs, is the royalty mechanism employed. BMW, VAG, Mercedes...etc all simply charge a nominal fee for their test and cert. GM demands a fee for every litre sold bearing their coveted "DEXOS" logo, which seems like a bit of a money grab.
The German OE's are another group of "It's the oils fault" not our "Elite" engineering. The reason we don't see tons and tons of vehicles on the road still after 20 years like the Asian manufacturers.
The API is comprised of a host of oil companies and other related entities, including some auto makers, to define the performance metrics for the basic API designations for diesel and gas.
ACEA is a conglomerate comprised primarily of manufacturers looking to define the minimum performance standards for the various categories broken up by fuel type, performance, fuel economy...etc.
Many of the manufacturers, including Japanese ones, have, at times, come up with their own oil specifications to deal with perceived deficiencies in the more overreaching API and ACEA performance categories. This can be something as simple as a high heat deposit test (Honda HTO-06) or something more extensive like Porsche A40, which includes actual tear-down performance of an engine run on a simulated lapping of the Nurburgring over many hours. We can choose to poo-poo that or acknowledge that the result has been significantly better oils for the consumer.
The reason ACEA exists is due to a lack of effort by oil manufacturers to formulate products that were of high enough quality to protect the engines of the day under the expected operating conditions and change durations. It has become an evolution of that philosophy since.
Because both of the overreaching categories are designed to be broad spectrum and met by a variety of formulations, incorporating more stringent specs for certain areas like say NOACK or deposit control....etc doesn't strike me as an engineering cop-out as much as an acknowledgment of the limitations of the protocols employed by the API (and ACEA) process and subsequently a way to ensure that the product used in that brand's engines are of higher quality than that. Historically, the API testing regimen was not overly strict and the limits pretty generous. There are plenty of cheaply blended oils out there that could get API SM but would never pass A40 for example. That may not be relevant to the driver of a Toyota Yaris, but it certainly would be for the guy with his 911 doing laps at Mosport. Same reason Honda didn't spec 5w-30 for the S2000, because the API protocol was not sufficiently robust that any OTS 5w-30 would be suitable for that engine driven as intended, hence the 10w-30 (less VII) or 5w-40 requirement.
There are plenty of old Mercs and BMW's on the roads, particularly in Europe, where they make up the majority. Lots of Asian manufacturers products rusted into the ground. It's not being intellectually honest to give them a gold star for being able to spec the bottom rung of the oil specification hierarchy and completely ignore the fact that they couldn't deal with body corrosion. That's elitist Nippon-pushing nonsense. The way Euro cars are designed differs significantly from the Japanese; the philosophies are not similar. The Mercedes will be more expensive to operate, particularly when following the maintenance schedule, but that doesn't mean it won't reach the same mileage as the Camry, though the owner may not decide to spend the money on upkeep to get it there. Given the rift in features, comfort and performance, to acknowledge that caveat isn't an admission of engineering inferiority but rather the understanding of the tradeoffs and value.
The primary issue most had with the GM DEXOS spec, as opposed to their earlier specs, is the royalty mechanism employed. BMW, VAG, Mercedes...etc all simply charge a nominal fee for their test and cert. GM demands a fee for every litre sold bearing their coveted "DEXOS" logo, which seems like a bit of a money grab.
I never gave the Asian manufacturers a gold star but there is plenty of them 20 years old still running around when a good portion of American and German cars are no longer. Rust affects all makes/models so that isn't fair.
StevieC, why do you use Amsoil SS in your Toyota? It's a Toyota, it should run forever on cheap Motomaster oil.
Originally Posted by skyactiv
StevieC, why do you use Amsoil SS in your Toyota? It's a Toyota, it should run forever on cheap Motomaster oil.
This engine calls for a synthetic 0w20. So I use Amsoil 0w20.
StevieC, why do you use Amsoil SS in your Toyota? It's a Toyota, it should run forever on cheap Motomaster oil.
This engine calls for a synthetic 0w20. So I use Amsoil 0w20.
- Status
Similar threads
