LE MonolecUltra 10w-30 @15,000 miles,'10 ToyTundra
- Thread starter Firemedic565
- Start date
- Status
I've been using this oil in a few vehicles for several years. I haven't paid much attention to the Toyota 5.7L engine, but here is a report from my 09 RAV4:
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb...rue#Post2282436
Here are some reports from my 4.7L Tundra engine that has a VOA included:
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb...rue#Post1933689
The batch of LE 8130 that you used could very easily be somewhat different than the one I tested. But I suspect that the high Si level is either from residual assembly lube, castings, or dirt. The Fe levels are a little high IMO.
Do you know what might be made of Ti in your engine?
This was a nice long run, but I would want more information on a UOA if I went this long.
Did you refill with 8130?
I'm sure the warranty guys here will say something.
Two comments from me:
1) Nice report.
2) Obviously not a 800ppm P compliant oil.
Why would you 'wreck' your warranty on a brand-new, $40k+ truck for the sake of running an oil you want to???
Toyota specs an API-spec., 20-weight for this engine, and 10k OCI's, AFAIK. You're so out of the realm you 'should be i'n with this oil...I just don't get it.
I really hope you never need warranty work done on this truck.
I'm sorry, but IMO, you're being a complete idiot here.
Predicted that. I had this same discussion about warranty yesterday. His entire warranty is not in jeopardy. If you had a problem caused by the OCI, the damaged parts and labor may not be covered. Also, if you are the one person to lose a cat early from P, (tough to prove) - Toyota may not be there for you.
Okay, I'll 'simplfy' my point that he will have 'trouble' with his warranty, maybe not a complete refusal.
Even if he goes in for a repair, NOT related to the engine, there is a chance that an SA will ask for OC receipts just to 'make sure' he's complied with his warranty requirements in general.
He doesn't have them, OR he shows evidence of 15k changes, the dealer will take the opportuninty to refuse the warranty work, as conditions were not followed in general - saves them money - you don't think they will take that opportunity?
Op can fight it, show that the required repairs aren't related to OC's, etc...but then it becomes a back-and-forth fight, and meanwhile, whatever he went in for DOES NOT get fixed.
Hey, if the OP wants that 'hassle', all the more power to him.
I don't understand 'wanting/accepting' that hassle.
A savvy consumer doing extended OCI's merely needs to ask: "What does my (radio/rear wiper/seat heater/door jamb defroster) have to do with my motor oil?"
dnewton3
Staff member
As for the UOA here; looks decent. I'd say worthy of further use.
As for the warranty issue, I'll say this ...
I agree with Pablo.
What this comes down to is the M/M warranty act. That is legislation that protects the warrantor (and warrantee to some degree).
If you follow warranty conditions, then you're covered. No real debate there. The burden of proof is upon the OEM should any issue arise.
If you choose to NOT follow warranty conditions, the burden of proof is upon you to prove that your actions did NOT cause the failure of component xyzpdq. If you use a non-approved lube, then the OEM can push the issue to you. I would presume that LE also has a warranty. This is the same as Amsoil and others like RP, RL.
If you have a part that fails, and it is a lubricated part, and you use a NON-approved fluid, then I'd turn to the lube OEM for assistance. They can often give some help in the "David/Goliath" war you'd enter.
Of course, those lube OEM also have warranty conditions you have to comply with.
Great example: GM spec's ATF in the xfer case in my generation of GMT800 trucks. Some people choose to use 5w-30 motor oil rather than ATF. GM isn't going to cover that warranty claim, and would push the burden to you. So, if you use Ammsoil "HDD" in the t-case, and there were to be a failure, then Amsoil would ALSO deny you coverage because their warranty is predicated upon using properly spec'd fluids. (think I'm wrong? go read teh DETAILS of the Amsoil warranty ...) However, if you used Amsoil "ATF" of "ATD" in the t-case, then Amsoil would cover you; that is a properly spec'd fluid application. Amsoil would likely push the burden of proof back to GM, as Amsoil could well prove that their fluid, via testing standards and protocol, would perform "as if" a spec'd fluid.
How do I know this? I had a "lemon law" claim against Ford back in 1990. I learned way more than I wanted to know about the M/M act. The legal precedent is that the burden of proof lays with the OEM unless the user shifts that burden to himself or others by using non-spec'd products.
Caveot Emptor.
Last edited:
Wow, nicely worded, dnewton3. Really good info too.
I have to fully agree.
The thing that i want to add is that, with most warranty's being over @ 60k or 100k, it's not a long time before that period is over with, esp with extended OCIs like this in a short period of time, and then the owner is left on their own.
We all know that, using ANY ONE of today's high end oils like, RP, M1EP, PP, PU, just to name a few with 20k OCIs will keep the engine spinning just fine up until the warranty period. Having seen many 40-60k mile sludged up engines posted online without an oil change on who knows what type of oil and still somehow running... i truly believe that today's modern engines and latest oil spec will keep things under control.
Would i be the Guinea Pig in that type of experiment with my $20-40,000 vehicle? NOPE! but the OP is more then welcome to try it... after all, he does have the UOA behind with proof that the engine is perfectly fine.
I think it's safe to say, and i hope many will agree with is that, although extended the OCIs like this and using a different spec oil then the factory spec while still under warranty, and your ave Joe definitely shouldn't do it blidly, given the OPs circumstances, High End oil of choice, which is clearly completely capable of handling the use, his engine will be competely FINE!
Last edited:
[/color]Obviously not a 800ppm P compliant oil.[color:#66FFFF]
Newbie here. Could somebody explain this to me? What is this, and how can you tell the oil is not compliant? I assume this is bad, but the numbers seem pretty good from what little I know. Thanks!
Found this in another forum and think it answers my question, if the poster was correct:
"Phosphorus is the key component for valve train protection in an engine, and 1600ppm (parts per million) used to be the standard for phosphorus in engine oil. In 1996 that was dropped to 800ppm and then more recently to 400ppm - a quarter of the original spec. Valvetrains and their components are not especially cheap to replace and this drop in phosphorus content has been a problem for many engines. So why was the level dropped? Money. Next to lead, it's the second most destructive substance to shove through a catalytic converter. The US government mandated a 150,000 mile lifetime on catalytic converters and the quickest way to do that was to drop phosphorus levels and bugger the valvetrain problem. Literally."
Originally Posted By: zstand
Found this in another forum and think it answers my question, if the poster was correct:
"Phosphorus is the key component for valve train protection in an engine, and 1600ppm (parts per million) used to be the standard for phosphorus in engine oil. In 1996 that was dropped to 800ppm and then more recently to 400ppm - a quarter of the original spec. Valvetrains and their components are not especially cheap to replace and this drop in phosphorus content has been a problem for many engines. So why was the level dropped? Money. Next to lead, it's the second most destructive substance to shove through a catalytic converter. The US government mandated a 150,000 mile lifetime on catalytic converters and the quickest way to do that was to drop phosphorus levels and bugger the valvetrain problem. Literally."
If you look at the label it is dual marked CJ-4/SM, which is how they are getting away with the extra Phos.
Yes, limit for SN is 800ppm, just as it was for SM. I dont know where the FUD that SN dropped it even further came from; but I have seen it all over the place, here, and elsewhere.
What SN does do is specify Phos Retention. In otherwords limits the amount that can evaporate out of the oil. So, after use, in theory, an SN oil should have MORE phos left than an identical SM oil in the same use situation.
Last edited:
The original poster for this thread has been blocked from BITOG (accidentally I think). When he tries to login, he gets a message that he has multiple accounts and should use his other account. He has emailed the administrator, but not heard back. He asked me to get on here and see if anyone knows how to fix this. We had to log him in to my computer this morning to upload the UOA so maybe this caused this??? Any help would be appreciated!
^Close your web browsers, clean the cookies with an application like CCleaner(search for that on Download.com or CCleaner.com) and run the app. Re-open your web browser and try to log-in to BITOG's forum. If that doesn't work, browser reset.
- Status
