M1 AFE 0W16, 5178 mi OCI, 2021 Toyota Sienna Hybrid A25A-FXS

Status
Not open for further replies.
I mention SP GF-6B oil because very thin oils are saved not by MOFT, but by add pack. Does not high dose Moly mitigate loss from washing by fuel diluted oil ?
 
Neighbor has one of these hybrid Camry's with the same engine, he has over 300K on it, use what ever the cheapest 5w-30 he can find as he does monthly O.C. since he drives close to 5000 miles a month, picking up medical lab tests across 3 states.
 
If it doesn’t have a temp gauge, a scanner can be used to see engine temp on a phone. I have been doing that, just switching it between cars or on other people’s cars. I got one for about $28 on Amazon. This way you can be the judge if the engine gets hot enough. It‘s better than a gauge, has the exact value. It went up a little on price for the 2022 model, $34. There are lots of kinds of them. This was the description.

NEXAS Nexlink Car Bluetooth 5.0 OBD2 Scanner, Compatible with Many Third-Party APPs Motorcycles Diagnostic Scan Tool OBDII Adapter Check Engine Code Reader for iPhone, Android & Windows PC​

 
Last edited:
An oil that has no licenses nor approvals and isn’t even an SAE grade. Why would you suggest such a product?
Availability in Europe.
Millers Oils chart says SP. It is also recommended by Millers Oils for Toyotas. And Hondas.

Are the thickies getting grumpy ?
Not very useful.
And besmirching Millers Oils and Car Care Nut ? They are both generally recognized as solid.

So this whole thing comes down to finding balance and making a choice considering durability weighed alongside efficiency.

If SP is required to be more protective than SN, why the hangup about viscosity ?
 
Last edited:
I don't really care what it is, it could be a Murcielago, the issue isn't with the brand or model, it's with the level of fuel being observed, which is very similar to the issue Honda has been having and, in general, is a DI issue, though some are clearly more susceptible to severe manifestations of the issue than others. This is very severe!
The answer is shorten the OCI. OP is fully capable of weighing the effects of his consistent hypermiling on his oil.
Yes... that's what we've been saying. The OP may also want to go with a slightly heavier oil if this level of dilution continues, just to keep viscosity within the range that Toyota has spec'd.
So where we really disagree is viscosity. Accepted. But OP does want to continue hypermiling. That is his choice and would point to staying with 0W16 Advanced Fuel Economy.
OK, but this is the completely opposite issue, so I'm not sure why you are bringing that up?
TBH oxidative thickening might be another issue where you got hyperbolic, just like fuel dilution. It seems the Wearcheck tech drives a 2007 Honda Fit (very apt re my Insight) and he was not at all concerned about the numbers. 5.7 vs 6.3.
Well, that's unfortunate. It's an interesting experiment to watch.
I will be sure to provide pictures should a rebuild be necessary. :rolleyes:
 
The answer is shorten the OCI. OP is fully capable of weighing the effects of his consistent hypermiling on his oil.

So where we really disagree is viscosity. Accepted. But OP does want to continue hypermiling. That is his choice and would point to staying with 0W16 Advanced Fuel Economy.

TBH oxidative thickening might be another issue where you got hyperbolic, just like fuel dilution. It seems the Wearcheck tech drives a 2007 Honda Fit (very apt re my Insight) and he was not at all concerned about the numbers. 5.7 vs 6.3.

I will be sure to provide pictures should a rebuild be necessary. :rolleyes:
I resent you qualifying my legitimate concerns as hyperbolic. If you'd like to continue to engage with me, I suggest toning down the patronization and attempted seeding of skepticism regarding legitimate issues I've brought to the fore.
 
I resent you qualifying my legitimate concerns as hyperbolic. If you'd like to continue to engage with me, I suggest toning down the patronization and attempted seeding of skepticism regarding legitimate issues I've brought to the fore.
You have accused me of such things as absurdity. Edit. I said you might have been hyperbolic in takes on both oxidative thickening AND fuel dilution.

It's more like I am the only one around here passionate enough about oil to try and stand up to a bunch of bullies on the championship Thickies Debate Team and at least try to have a fresh, real 2022 discussion about motor oil.
 
Last edited:
You have accused me of things.
If I have done so, it is because I've had grounds on which to base those claims. I do not make it a habit of classifying people's contribution in a manner in which they might find offensive unless that is the case, and they've pushed the envelope with me to the point where I feel that is required.

You do not have any technical bases from which to critique my comments about fuel dilution, nor oxidation, let alone qualify them as being hyperbolic. Both of these are widely accepted as being legitimate issues, broadly, and you are pushing against the consensus here with your attempt at making a mockery of the concerns expressed by not only myself, but several other members in this thread.

Some industry reading on the issue of fuel dilution (what we are discussing in this thread):
Total:
Castrol (this is diesel, but the same concern applies):
Savant Labs:
Fluid Life (oil analysis) who condemns fuel dilution at 4%:
AZO Materials Labs:
And the freakin' SAE (you'd have to buy this though):

And from a paper:

3.3. Impact of Fuel and Water Content on the Anti-Wear Effectiveness of ZDDP​

The impact of fuel and water contents on the performance of ZDDP was also studied. Figure 4 compares the friction behavior and wear rate of the ZDDP additized PAO without and with fuel (3%) or water (1%). The addition of ZDDP reduced the risk of scuffing failure for the PAO base oil, similarly to our previous experience [17,18]. The inclusion of fuel or water in the lubricant had little impact on the friction behavior but reduced the anti-wear effectiveness of ZDDP, as shown in Figure 4. The cross-sectional profiles of the wear tracks on cast iron are shown in Figure S3. Surface characterization revealed that the fuel and water content significantly affects the morphology and composition of the tribofilm produced by ZDDP, as described below.
1652323377279.png


So, not only does fuel dilution reduce MOFT, but it also has a negative impact on the effectiveness of ZDDP.
 
If I have done so, it is because I've had grounds on which to base those claims. I do not make it a habit of classifying people's contribution in a manner in which they might find offensive unless that is the case, and they've pushed the envelope with me to the point where I feel that is required.

You do not have any technical bases from which to critique my comments about fuel dilution, nor oxidation, let alone qualify them as being hyperbolic. Both of these are widely accepted as being legitimate issues, broadly, and you are pushing against the consensus here with your attempt at making a mockery of the concerns expressed by not only myself, but several other members in this thread.

Some industry reading on the issue of fuel dilution (what we are discussing in this thread):
Total:
Castrol (this is diesel, but the same concern applies):
Savant Labs:
Fluid Life (oil analysis) who condemns fuel dilution at 4%:
AZO Materials Labs:
And the freakin' SAE (you'd have to buy this though):

And from a paper:

3.3. Impact of Fuel and Water Content on the Anti-Wear Effectiveness of ZDDP​

The impact of fuel and water contents on the performance of ZDDP was also studied. Figure 4 compares the friction behavior and wear rate of the ZDDP additized PAO without and with fuel (3%) or water (1%). The addition of ZDDP reduced the risk of scuffing failure for the PAO base oil, similarly to our previous experience [17,18]. The inclusion of fuel or water in the lubricant had little impact on the friction behavior but reduced the anti-wear effectiveness of ZDDP, as shown in Figure 4. The cross-sectional profiles of the wear tracks on cast iron are shown in Figure S3. Surface characterization revealed that the fuel and water content significantly affects the morphology and composition of the tribofilm produced by ZDDP, as described below.
View attachment 99559

So, not only does fuel dilution reduce MOFT, but it also has a negative impact on the effectiveness of ZDDP.
But Nut Care Car guy?
 
Availability in Europe.
Millers Oils chart says SP. It is also recommended by Millers Oils for Toyotas. And Hondas.

Are the thickies getting grumpy ?
Not very useful.
And besmirching Millers Oils and Car Care Nut ? They are both generally recognized as solid.

So this whole thing comes down to finding balance and making a choice considering durability weighed alongside efficiency.

If SP is required to be more protective than SN, why the hangup about viscosity ?
Like how solid? Rock solid? Pudding solid? And who recognizes them as solid? YouTube likes?
Toyota in these engines recommends C3 oils. That is where discussion stops whether somehow these oils can damage engines.
We all knew that, but Nut guy…
 
I just read the Fluid Life stuff an hour ago as well as earlier today.

Monolithic.
A trademark of BITOG.
A wasted opportunity for good discussion.
But a debate win at least for the army of thickies.

So I ask you OVERKILL. What do you make of carmakers respective postures on fuel dilution and viscosity ? They do have to balance maintaining the value of their brands reputations for quality and durability with CAFE compliance. Why have tests for passing SP ? Is it ALL just complete bull hockey ? Is it all something that went right past factory engineers, tribologists ?
 
Like how solid? Rock solid? Pudding solid? And who recognizes them as solid? YouTube likes?
Toyota in these engines recommends C3 oils. That is where discussion stops whether somehow these oils can damage engines.
We all knew that, but Nut guy…
Tacoma World gives Car Care Nut a thumbs up. And Millers Oils makes a VW C3 5W30 just for you, in addition to the evil witches brew 0W16. There have even been hand written letters of certification, from Wolfsburg to West Yorkshire.
 
I just read the Fluid Life stuff an hour ago as well as earlier today.

Monolithic.
A trademark of BITOG.
A wasted opportunity for good discussion.
But a debate win at least for the army of thickies.

So I ask you OVERKILL. What do you make of carmakers respective postures on fuel dilution and viscosity ? They do have to balance maintaining the value of their brands reputations for quality and durability with CAFE compliance. Why have tests for passing SP ? Is it ALL just complete bull hockey ? Is it all something that went right past factory engineers, tribologists ?
Pigeonholing members and casting labels like "thickies" is juvenile and unbecoming. Allusion to the potential for "good discussion" must be satirical given the labels being tossed around and flippant dismissal of industry recognition of the issue being discussed.

Clearly, fuel dilution is a problem that many of the OEM's haven't properly dealt with. Again, I give you the example of Honda with the 1.5L. Despite Honda's extensive expertise in engine design and their reputation, they still managed to create that situation and the subsequent reflash campaign still didn't resolve it!

SP is just an evolution of SN Plus, just like all the API approvals, what do you think its role is here in fuel dilution? Clearly, it doesn't do anything to mitigate it, it can't, and if an engine or the operating conditions create a situation where excessive fuel dilution is experienced, then it is up to the owner to either go after the manufacturer about the issue or change their behaviour to try and mitigate it.

We've already discussed the mitigation mechanisms but you dismiss the increasing of initial viscosity, to allow for more loss (and I've not even recommended a grade, just mentioned that this is a functional method, you increase starting viscosity, obviously there's more buffer before you slide out of spec, that's not up for debate) because it appears that it doesn't align with whatever you've chosen to mentally invest in here, making this entire exchange with you quite futile.

My takeaway from this thread, and your contributions thus far, are that you have no interest in actually understanding the issue or even WHY it's an issue. You go looking for material to reinforce your viewpoint (like videos on Youtube) so you can be combative and dismissive of the expertise and experience shared, which is of no benefit to this forum, or its members.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top