PP 5w30, 5205 miles, '05 Corolla

[tarbasd]

Hi,


Here is my most recent UOA. I also included an old UOA (the only other one I have done on this engine), and the "Universal Averages" provided by Blackstone.

Code:


OIL PP5w30 PP5w30 Universal

Averages

MI on Oil 5205 5164

MI on Unit 105739 65224

Sample Date 11/28/2012 4/25/2010

Make Up Oil Added 0.5 qt



ALUMINUM 2 2 3

CHROMIUM 0 0 0

IRON 4 6 8

COPPER 0 1 2

LEAD 0 0 1

TIN 3 0 1

MOLYBDENUM 51 49 76

NICKEL 0 0 0

MANGANESE 0 1 1

SILVER 0 0 0

TITANIUM 0 0 1

POTASSIUM 0 0 1

BORON 3 27 39

SILICON 36 8 15

SODIUM 3 4 44

CALCIUM 2730 3407 2179

MAGNESIUM 13 13 124

PHOSPHORUS 793 734 715

ZINC 891 903 843

BARIUM 0 0 0

Values

Should Be

SUS Vis @ 210 F 56.9 56.5 55-63

cSt Vis @ 100 C 9.34 9.21 8.8-11.3

Flashpoint in F 410 390 >365

Fuel %
Antifreeze % 0 0 0

Water % 0 0
Insolubles % 0.2 0.2
TBN 2.4 3 >1.0

TAN

ISO Code


Blackstone comments: Silicon is quite a bit higher in this sample that it was last time, but considering you ran the oil a little longer than last time and still got good metal readings, we doubt the silicon is a problem. It could be just some sort of sealer material or silicon product that was used. If you have any doubts (or can't think of any products you might have used), you could check the air filter just in case, but it's just a preemptive measure at this point.The TBN is a little lower, but still good at 2.4 and metals are still just fine. Go ahead and try up to 7000 miles for your next run.

My thoughts: I will keep the 5000 mile intervals. The TBN at 2.4 is too low for me to go any further. The silicone is worrisome, especially because I did not use any additives or silicone products that I can think of. The air filter was replaced at 90,000 miles about a year ago. The official maintenance interval is 30,000 miles or 3 years. I checked it, and it seems to be seated well, and it has no visible defects. What I read, that if it really was air filtration problem, the wear metals would be higher. The only other thing I can think of is that the intake manifold gasket was replaced two years ago at 76,000 miles.

 

[friendly_jacek]

Not sure about silicon, but 5,000 miles in this engine is good for any dino oil and waste of synthetic oil. I'm doing 10,000 mile/12 months OCI with synthetics in my corolla now.

 

[LeakySeals]

How many months is 5200, and what are the conditions? (city, highway, idling, etc) It looks like your SILICON levels were low prior to the IM gasket change. What was the reason for changing the gasket? Wonder if something related to the replacement may be awry (hoses or new gasket seating)

 

[tarbasd]

This OCI was only two months, including mostly urban interstate and city street driving with one long (1300 mile) road trip to the coast (a sandy barrier island, but I doubt it matters). The gasket was replaced because the car was idle hunting in cold weather. Toyota engineers released a TBS about this and redesigned the gasket. The replacement fixed the idle hunting issue. If anything, this should decrease silicon levels, because it stopped the uncontrolled air being sucked into the engine.

Edit: Yeah, I know I could probably do this on conventional, but I will keep using synthetic (feel good factor, whatever, I can afford it). Many labs (not Blackstone) suggest the TBN below 3.0 is not adequate any more.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: tarbasd
Many labs (not Blackstone) suggest the TBN below 3.0 is not adequate any more.


Do note that some labs that recommend a different TBN cutoff also use a different method of measuring TBN. Also, TBN depletion is not linear.

 

[LeakySeals]

Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: tarbasd
Many labs (not Blackstone) suggest the TBN below 3.0 is not adequate any more.

Do note that some labs that recommend a different TBN cutoff also use a different method of measuring TBN. Also, TBN depletion is not linear.

Here was a response from XOM regarding TBN. If Blackstone is suggesting that, there will be an issue with most M1 UOA's. https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2703713#Post2703713

 

[Garak]

True. That being said, we haven't seen a lot of guys pushing and pushing M1 until the TBN hits Blackstone's limit of 1. Mobil seems to cover their bases, as it were, by having their 10,000 mile and 15,000 mile warranties for M1 and M1 EP, respectively, regardless of what the TBN might be at those points.

 

[tarbasd]

Well, I took apart the air intake system, and the PCV system, and nothing is visibly wrong. The hoses are somewhat old and they are getting hardened, so there is some chance that the joints might leak, but again, everything seemed to be in good enough shape. Replacing all the air hoses would cost a small fortune, I'm sure. Would it be OK to put sealant around some of the joints? (E.g. silicone, just for the fun of it.)

 

[dnewton3]

Quote:
The TBN at 2.4 is too low for me to go any further.

Really? What logic did you use to apply this self-induced panic-o-meter limit?


I would remind you all that, as Garak stated, the methodology of TBN testing affects the "low limit" recommendation. Blackstones method limit is 1.0, so others don't apply here.

Further, knowing TBN is not, Not, NOT a sole reason to condem the fluid.

When TBN is higher, there is no reason to concern yourself; when TBN approaches a lower limit, then you MUST also know the TAN.

My recent UOA of 10k miles on ST dino oil is a perfect example:
https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2827445&page=1
My TBN was 1.9, but the TAN was only 3.6.
The low limit of 1.0 for TBN was not reached.
The high limit of 8-10 for TAN was NOWHERE in sight.
TBN depletion is not linear.
Therefore, condemation would have been wasetful and foolish.

And so it is in this UOA; the TBN of 2.4 is PLENTY of remaining capacity. Only when the TBN approaches the low limit, should you get a TAN reading. And even then, if the TAN is also low, then the fluid is not a risk for continued use.

tarbasd - you are free to do what you wish. But I can assure you that your TBN concerns are far overblown.

 

[tarbasd]

dnewton: Thanks for the input! Lesson learned: I do believe you that the TBN is plenty good. I did not know that measurement method is important. (It still puzzles me, because it should be simply the amount of potassium hydroxide per gram (in mg) - that's a well defined number, so I don't understand how can it depend on the measurement method. But I don't care that much, and I do believe you that 2.4 is plenty.)

But please, can somebody give me some constructive advice on the much more important silicon problem?

 

[dnewton3]

Si has two possible sources. I'll do a quick review for you, or if you already know, some of those who don't know ...

Si in a UOA can either be from silicone (typical sealer and/or used in things like high-end ADBVs). Or can be silica (dirt/sand type abrasive). UOAs cannot distinguish the difference.

So, if you're sure you didn't seal up a leak with silicone (like RTV blue, etc), then perhaps check for an air intake leak. Check and recheck all intake boot seals, clamps, etc and make sure the filter is fully seated properly in the housing. Even check the filter itself for any void in the media that would be less than obvious.

 

[SatinSilver]

Originally Posted By: tarbasd
The gasket was replaced because the car was idle hunting in cold weather. Toyota engineers released a TBS about this and redesigned the gasket. The replacement fixed the idle hunting issue.


I have a 05 Matrix XR with the 1.8. Was the replacement gasket repair done for free and did the engine seem a little nosier than it used to be? Idle seems a little rough when at a stop light. Did you have any cel's when you brought yours in? Mine has 65k miles on it and purchased new. Thanks!

 

[Clevy]

Ha. So the people who do the analysis' tell ya that you can extend the interval another 2000 miles and you are just gonna do what you want anyways? That's Hillarious. Why bother with a uoa then.
Why bother gettin your money's worth from the oil. Coulda saved a few bucks and not even bothered with the uoa since it's a no-brainer that pp can do 5000 mile intervals.
This site has been great for a few laughs today.

 

[fdcg27]

It depends upon who you want to believe.
WRT TBN you can believe Blackstone and a mod who is quite savvy, or you can believe Polaris Labs, which would consider the percentage of TBN remaining from virgin too low for continued service.
Either way, the OP isn't spending all that much on oil or UOAs, and he apparently feels that the peace of mind is worth it.

 

[dnewton3]

Originally Posted By: fdcg27
Either way, the OP isn't spending all that much on oil or UOAs, and he apparently feels that the peace of mind is worth it.


"... feels ...." is the correct description here.

There is no logical route to his actions; he's running on emotion. He "feels" that he needs synthetics at 5k mile OCIs, and then wants to spend additional money so that he can ignore the very information he's paying for.

There is no reasonable explanation to this approach; he's "feeling" his way through this. So fdcg27 hit the nail right on the head. And I'd agree there is nothing inherently wrong with this, as long as one acknowledges it for what it is, and not try to pass it off as a good idea or "cheap insurance". There is nothing "cheap" about this approach; it's heaping waste (syns in short OCIs) upon waste (ignoring UOA data that confirms the syn waste).

Just because he can do it, and wants to do it, does not make it a good thing to do.

 

[fdcg27]

Thanks for quoting me while omitting those parts of my post that would have called your opinions into question.
Like it or not, not every commercial testing lab agrees with you on oil life and suitability for service.
You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but the OP is as well.
The OP's opinion seems to be that his current maintenance regime is working for his car as he uses it, so why worry about changing it to save maybe 1/4 cent per mile of operation?
It is fine for you to suggest that a poster might consider extending his OCIs based upon your interpretation, but the stridently expressed editorial comment that inevitably accompanies such an ascertion on your part is inappropriate, especially coming from a mod.
Your reply to me boardered on insulting to the OP.
At worst, the OP has given us another data point.
It may be that you've also helped the OP to decide never to post another UOA on this board, as well as a number of others.
That would be a shame.

 

[dnewton3]

It is not my obligation to be silent as a member, just because I'm a moderator; I would ask that you distinguish the difference between participation and moderation. My duty as a member is to obey the rules; my responsibility as a moderator is to enforce the rules. I have not violated the rules, nor has anyone here in this thread. So what's your beef with my non-moderation where no violation exists? Is it your suggestion that, as a moderator, I'm supposed to be the silent and never contribute? Or, that I would only be allowed to participate only when I agree with anyone? Or maybe I'm supposed to be the Walmart greeter and smile at everyone when they enter, and only speak if they get out of line?

It is not my intent to insult anyone. But I don't have an obligation to agree as a member nor be silent just because I'm a moderator.

I offer my sincere apology if I hurt the OPs feelings. I have ZERO problems with people doing what they want to do. But I also have ZERO obligation to agree with it. If it is your assertion that I must either agree or be silent, then perhaps THAT is the greatest shame here.

 

[Garak]

Of course, it's a "good" UOA. We should expect nothing less from PP (or any other premium synthetic) at a 5,000 mile OCI. I bet, however, that conventional PYB would have done just as well. Conversely, I doubt that something like PU could have made the UOA look any "better."

Dave, I just had the synthetic/conventional argument with a friend of mine (another Dave). He came out with the usual point that synthetic is "better." I asked how, and there was the usual hand waving. I said conventional is "better," because the price is "better." He replied that, well, MB and Audi and so forth use synthetic. Yes, for very long OCIs. But, it's much better in the winter. Perhaps, if it's a 0w30 versus a 5w30. But it's better in the heat with turbochargers. Oh, the 95 C max sump temperature in the Audi? But, you didn't complain about me using 10w-40 RP in my Cummins. Well, I got you to extend the OCI and it's a reasonable year round choice for that engine and meets all required specs.

The sad thing was he has been my friend for decades and saw with his own eyes the taxis last for hundreds of thousands of miles on conventional. None of this was new to him.

Really, I have no problem with a person wanting to run a synthetic for a short OCI. It's totally up to them. However, don't tell me it's necessary or "better" or point to glowing UOAs that are no more glowing than would a UOA on conventional over the same OCI. People say "better" because they tend to want to justify the extra they spent or wish to be certain they're taking care of their vehicles as carefully as possible.

 

[tarbasd]

Interesting arguments. I was not offended, even though dnewton was quite direct in his criticism. I actually like people who state their opinion.

My main reason of getting the UOA was not that I wanted to extend the drain interval. I wanted to see potential hidden problems with the car. The fact that the high silicon jumped out proves that the spending was justified, even if I don't change the OCI. Plus, it is sort of a hobby to see the results, to post them to provide an extra data point for the community, and to let other people look at them.

I admitted in one of my first posts, that my reason of using synthetic is mostly the feel-good factor. I make enough money that the price difference in completely negligible. If PP was $50 a bottle, I would use PYB, of course, with the same OCI. But those few extra dollars that I don't even feel in my budget is worth the warm feeling that I get from looking at the beautiful platinum bottle. (Another subjective reason of the short OCI: I really do enjoy changing the oil.)

I would not call this a "good" UOA, because of the silicon, but of course that has nothing to do with the oil or the OCI.

 

[dnewton3]

It's actually refreshing to hear someone be candid and speak of their desires, and acknowledge their emtional wants. You have done nothing wrong, and if you're happy with your decision, then that is the most important thing.

What I see is that you can differentiate between your wants and needs. You clearly realize this won't plan necessisarily pay off for you, but you're into it anyway as a hobby. Good for you! I'm not being sarcastic nor condescending; I really believe it's important for people to enjoy some of the things they are into, and it sounds as though this makes you happy.

What I tire of (and I'm not including you in this statement) is that fraction of people who try to justify their actions with no suporting logic and/or support others who do likewise. And together they try to convince still more that it's the right thing to do because it's considered "cheap insurance". They ignore the facts and data that clearly contradict their position.

You're happy with your plan, and you recognize and admit it's not cost effective, and you're not trying to pan it off as anything more than personally satisfying. THAT is what I respect; that is worthy of praise. Thank you for being honest.

Whether or not you value my opinion if of no consequence. Do you value your own opinion? In that regard, you are (most importantly) being honest with yourself, and I suspect that is why you have such a balanced view of the entire topic. In that regard, I'd agree you've made the right decisions.

Kudos to you, sir!