Mobil 1 5w30 - 10,123 miles - 2011 Toyota Avalon

Messages
5,528
Location
Florida
Vehicle: 2011 Toyota Avalon Limited Engine: 3.5L V6 Engine oil capacity: 6.5qts Oil type: Mobil 1 5w30 SM formula Oil additives: None Gas Additives: None during this run. Make up oil added: None Oil filter: Toyota TRD Oil Filter. Air filter: OEM Toyota Air Filter. I opened the box and dusted the air filter of bugs and loose dirt and plan to use it for another run. USE: highway/city @ 40/60. The car didn't get much abuse during this run and was driven "normally" by my parents. I'm all out of the old M1 SM formula and refilled the beast with a 50/50 mix of Mobil 1 0w40 and 0w20 EP. I don't plan on sampling anymore and will continue "blindly" with 10k intervals until we decide to trade the Avalon for something else. p.s. this run was 2x the mileage that Toyota recommends (which is 5k intervals).
 
Messages
706
Location
Virginia
Kudos for paying for TAN. Do you go with Blackstone's recommendation that TBN is ok until it reaches 1? What do you think of those who say TAN crossing TBN / TBN reaching 50% of virgin TBN is the time to change oil?
 
Messages
424
Location
Texas
Man, Mobil 1 is better than I thought! If you can run regular Mobil 1 to 12K miles, what's the point of going with the EP version? Seems like Mobil 1 can go the distance!
 
Messages
748
Location
Northern Michigan
I recently switched the old minivan over to Mobil 1 HM (after much angst about whether to use it or Maxlife). My main reason was I had used it for quite awhile in my PT Cruiser and had good results. The start-up noise I get (particularly when it's really cold...like now) that persists until the engine starts to warm up (it's either a lifter or slight piston knock) is much less with the Mobil 1 HM than the PZ Ultra I had been using. I'm guessing the thicker viscosity has a lot to do with it but so far I'm very happy with it...the current line of Mobil 1 products are great.
 
Messages
335
Location
Maryland
Originally Posted By: Artem
p.s. this run was 2x the mileage that Toyota recommends (which is 5k intervals).
Bad idea. TAN almost twice higher than TBN. You definitely overrun the oil. It is not worth to make a single ruble profit.
 
Messages
201
Location
Los Angeles, CA
Originally Posted By: timeau
Originally Posted By: Artem
p.s. this run was 2x the mileage that Toyota recommends (which is 5k intervals).
Bad idea. TAN almost twice higher than TBN. You definitely overrun the oil. It is not worth to make a single ruble profit.
So what if TAN is almost 2X TBN?
 
Messages
9,783
Location
Saskatoon canada
Originally Posted By: timeau
Originally Posted By: Artem
p.s. this run was 2x the mileage that Toyota recommends (which is 5k intervals).
Bad idea. TAN almost twice higher than TBN. You definitely overrun the oil. It is not worth to make a single ruble profit.
So you know more than the lab does do ya. Do tell where might you be employed that your such an expert. OP stay the course. Looks great
 

Artem

Thread starter
Messages
5,528
Location
Florida
Originally Posted By: aa1986
Kudos for paying for TAN. Do you go with Blackstone's recommendation that TBN is ok until it reaches 1? What do you think of those who say TAN crossing TBN / TBN reaching 50% of virgin TBN is the time to change oil?
I trust Blackstone's analysis but personally have a TBN cutoff @ 2.0 just to leave more room for error / safety. I'm not trying to save the world by extending oil changes to the limit. I feel the old 50% of virgin TBN OCI is outdated and doesn't apply today. If oil needs to be changed with 50% of TBN gone, Mobil 1 (among others) wouldn't have oils rated for 15k OCIs. They'd say to change the oil every 3k miles. It seem the oil can definitely keep cleaning and keep the engine lubricated with 10% TBN remaining.
Originally Posted By: GM4LIFE
Man, Mobil 1 is better than I thought! If you can run regular Mobil 1 to 12K miles, what's the point of going with the EP version? Seems like Mobil 1 can go the distance!
The EP is suppose to have more additives, so technically I should have more TBN leftover and Blackstone would be saying to go 15k.
Originally Posted By: timeau
Originally Posted By: Artem
p.s. this run was 2x the mileage that Toyota recommends (which is 5k intervals).
Bad idea. TAN almost twice higher than TBN. You definitely overrun the oil. It is not worth to make a single ruble profit.
I don't feel I over ran the oil. It still looked great after a year of use and the lab confirms that. It's good to know that I can go further if needed but I'm capping it at 10k. It's easy to remember and I'll simply reset the maintenance meter when it trips the first time and change the oil when it comes on the second time.
 
Messages
335
Location
Maryland
Originally Posted By: Clevy
Originally Posted By: timeau
Originally Posted By: Artem
p.s. this run was 2x the mileage that Toyota recommends (which is 5k intervals).
Bad idea. TAN almost twice higher than TBN. You definitely overrun the oil. It is not worth to make a single ruble profit.
So you know more than the lab does do ya. Do tell where might you be employed that your such an expert.
I have a feeling that sometimes Blackstone uses janitors for writing their comments. Because other labs consider this situations as critical: http://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/6523/16219540.6/0_90acb_83d94c31_XXXL
Originally Posted By: Artem
I trust Blackstone's analysis but personally have a TBN cutoff @ 2.0 just to leave more room for error / safety.
Read here: http://bmwservice.livejournal.com/36911.html And the whole site is a pretty good source of oil-related info.
 
Messages
201
Location
Los Angeles, CA
Originally Posted By: timeau
Originally Posted By: Clevy
Originally Posted By: timeau
Originally Posted By: Artem
p.s. this run was 2x the mileage that Toyota recommends (which is 5k intervals).
Bad idea. TAN almost twice higher than TBN. You definitely overrun the oil. It is not worth to make a single ruble profit.
So you know more than the lab does do ya. Do tell where might you be employed that your such an expert.
I have a feeling that sometimes Blackstone uses janitors for writing their comments. Because other labs consider this situations as critical: http://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/6523/16219540.6/0_90acb_83d94c31_XXXL
Originally Posted By: Artem
I trust Blackstone's analysis but personally have a TBN cutoff @ 2.0 just to leave more room for error / safety.
Read here: http://bmwservice.livejournal.com/36911.html And the whole site is a pretty good source of oil-related info.
You do realize that from lab to lab, tests for TBN values can differ?
 
Messages
335
Location
Maryland
Originally Posted By: rhhsiao
You do realize that from lab to lab, tests for TBN values can differ?
Really? ASTM D4739 vs ASTM D2896? I did not know about this. crackmeup You do realize that report marked red due to "TAN exceeds TBN?" Ask somebody who can read Russian to translate two lines above the stamp.
 
Messages
201
Location
Los Angeles, CA
Originally Posted By: timeau
Originally Posted By: rhhsiao
You do realize that from lab to lab, tests for TBN values can differ?
Really? ASTM D4739 vs ASTM D2896? I did not know about this. crackmeup You do realize that report marked red due to "TAN exceeds TBN?" Ask somebody who can read Russian to translate two lines above the stamp.
So your argument for why TAN being almost 2X TBN is a bad thing is a UOA from a completely separate lab, on a different oil, used in a different car, operated under what is likely completely different conditions? And yes, different labs can provide different TBN values. There's natural deviation using the exact same methodology lab to lab. Many conditions can impact what value the test spits out. If there's anything I've learned from this site, it's that spot UOAs aren't as meaningful as people may think. http://www.valvoline.com/valint/international/english/static_document/2011_001_Interpreting_TBN.pdf
 
Messages
335
Location
Maryland
Originally Posted By: rhhsiao
So your argument for why TAN being almost 2X TBN is a bad thing is a UOA from a completely separate lab, on a different oil, used in a different car, operated under what is likely completely different conditions?
Hm-m-m... I did not even guess that things are SO bad here. Let's start. You are insisting that TBN numbers could not be compared one to one due to "separate lab, on a different oil, used in a different car, operated under what is likely completely different conditions". Just for your information: TBN is a weight in milligrams. And milligramm is always a milligram, in any conditions, in any country and in any weather. So any referenses on "lab..., oil..., car..." (c) are just ... how to say in the most polite way... incorrect. One more time: the most important thing is not the absolute number of TBN and/or TAN, but their correlation. On the next picture TBN is 1.34, still more than 1. But is this oil sutable? This came from MB AMG, about 12k miles oil in use.
Originally Posted By: rhhsiao
And yes, different labs can provide different TBN values.
If their equipment is correct, difference could be in the methodology, i.e. ASTM D4739, ASTM D2896 or something else. And even here the difference is just the acid which is used. There are other differences, but they are almost meaningless.
Originally Posted By: rhhsiao
There's natural deviation using the exact same methodology lab to lab.
Not at all, if they are using same methology. Difference could be explained just by observational error (few percents).
Originally Posted By: rhhsiao
Many conditions can impact what value the test spits out.
Are we talking about measurement in the laboratory?
Originally Posted By: rhhsiao
If there's anything I've learned from this site, it's that spot UOAs aren't as meaningful as people may think.
Learn a little bit more and you'll find out that some numbers are meaningful and another are meaningless. All wearing elements are from second group. But viscocity, additives, TBN, TAN are definitely from the first. Look on the picture above. All UOAs are result of very precise measurements, but the interpretation depends from many other factors.
 
Messages
201
Location
Los Angeles, CA
Originally Posted By: timeau
Originally Posted By: rhhsiao
So your argument for why TAN being almost 2X TBN is a bad thing is a UOA from a completely separate lab, on a different oil, used in a different car, operated under what is likely completely different conditions?
Hm-m-m... I did not even guess that things are SO bad here. Let's start. You are insisting that TBN numbers could not be compared one to one due to "separate lab, on a different oil, used in a different car, operated under what is likely completely different conditions". Just for your information: TBN is a weight in milligrams. And milligramm is always a milligram, in any conditions, in any country and in any weather. So any referenses on "lab..., oil..., car..." (c) are just ... how to say in the most polite way... incorrect. One more time: the most important thing is not the absolute number of TBN and/or TAN, but their correlation. On the next picture TBN is 1.34, still more than 1. But is this oil sutable? This came from MB AMG, about 12k miles oil in use.
I never said that there is an issue with correlation between TBN and TAN. In fact, I fully support looking at the relationship between TAN and TBN. But your entire argument and condemnation about this UOA from Blackstone that said the TBN issue was fine is because a different lab flags TBNs<2. What is it about this Russian lab that makes their analysis more trustworthy than Blackstone? The example you just posted doesn't even have a TAN measurement. Is it because you have a pre-conceived notion that a TBN at a certain value automatically dictates that the oil is no longer suitable and the reporting from a specific lab agrees, or is it because on a macro level all UOAs that show a TBN < half of the TAN means the oil is no longer usable? I understand that in this example you provided shows thickening (likely from oxidation) and is starting to show the oil is likely out of life. But with Artem's UOA, viscosity seems to be right on point.
Originally Posted By: timeau
Originally Posted By: rhhsiao
There's natural deviation using the exact same methodology lab to lab.
Not at all, if they are using same methology. Difference could be explained just by observational error (few percents).
Originally Posted By: rhhsiao
Many conditions can impact what value the test spits out.
Are we talking about measurement in the laboratory?
Indeed we are. That was one of my points and nothing more. There's going to be deviations lab to lab, even technician to technician, and comparing two UOAs directly on a single point in time doesn't really tell us anything. You seem bent on the idea that because Blackstone said his report looks great, but a Russian lab has a different general conclusion about TBN that suddenly Blackstone is just wrong and "sometimes uses janitors for writing their reports".
Originally Posted By: timeau
Originally Posted By: rhhsiao
If there's anything I've learned from this site, it's that spot UOAs aren't as meaningful as people may think.
Learn a little bit more and you'll find out that some numbers are meaningful and another are meaningless. All wearing elements are from second group. But viscocity, additives, TBN, TAN are definitely from the first. Look on the picture above. All UOAs are result of very precise measurements, but the interpretation depends from many other factors.
That's exactly my point! You're making direct comparisons of oil analysis when the two have different types of assumptions of how to interpret the data.
 
Messages
553
Location
Toronto, Canada
Blackstone's TBN measurements are a joke. They always recommend extending intervals until TBN nears 1.0 even without measuring TAN as long as wear metals look ok.
 
Messages
201
Location
Los Angeles, CA
Originally Posted By: HKPolice
Blackstone's TBN measurements are a joke. They always recommend extending intervals until TBN nears 1.0 even without measuring TAN as long as wear metals look ok.
Yeah, I definitely see that all the time. But at least in this instance they're somewhat pointing out the TAN issue.
 
Messages
706
Location
Virginia
Quote:
Given the fact that a significant proportion of the acidic contaminants are the weaker organic acids, it can be concluded that a judgment of the used engine oil’s condition and suitability for extended service intervals should not be based on BN retention alone. In addition, the ability to control AN and oxidation must be evaluated because of the potential impact on bearing corrosion. Used oil condemning limits should, for the same reason, not be set based on just one used oil characteristic but on a combination of BN, AN increase, oxidation state and wear metal levels.
http://www.machinerylubrication.com/Read/354/reserve-alkalinity-oil
 
Top