RLI Bio-Syn 0w-30 - 7,510 miles -'06 Camry 2AZ-FE

[addyguy]

I agree on maybe not getting another UOA if you don't want to. But dumping a perfectly good, expensive syn at 3-4k miles is a huge waste.

Mind you, that seems to be the 'fashionable' thing to do on this board - like hating Fram filters. None of it is based on logic...

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: addyguy
I agree on maybe not getting another UOA if you don't want to. But dumping a perfectly good, expensive syn at 3-4k miles is a huge waste.

Mind you, that seems to be the 'fashionable' thing to do on this board - like hating Fram filters. None of it is based on logic...


If you saw the most recent FRAM post in the filters section, I think you might be able to begin to understand some of our "logic". Though I agree that dumping a high-dollar syn early is a waste.

 

[FZ1]

I agree with BW. Metal is metal and Tan is tan. Just run the PP and change it out every 6 months. I prefer Fall and Spring changes.

 

[lewdwig]

I'd get my miles out of the RLI (I like it in my 2001 Saturn).

 

[21Rouge]

Originally Posted By: Built_Well
Well, before I write what Blackstone said, I'd like to hear what you guys have to say.


I think there has been lots of input

so can you let us know what gems of wisdom BStone put forth? Wait now that I think of it maybe it is already posted in this thread?

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: saaber1
A agree with others that to get an accurate "test" of RLI a second run would be very helpful.

I also respect the OP if he doesn't want to mess with it. It's his car and judging by the precision of his post, he is really trying to do the best thing he can for it. It's totally his choice but I would guess things will settle down in run 2 and 3 of RLI.

I second these comments.

By the way, why 0w-30? Wouldn't 0w-20 be a better fit anyway?

 

[ARCOgraphite]

OP - Why not send report to RLI and get explanation. I'm sure they'd respond and assuage your fear ( or, maybe not ... )

 

[21Rouge]

Originally Posted By: ARCOgraphite
OP - Why not send report to RLI and get explanation. I'm sure they'd respond and assuage your fear ( or, maybe not ... )


Arco for sure that is an obvious but BRILLIANT idea!

RLI is a small family owned? company. I am sure they would respond quickly and intelligently to the questions that have arisen in Built_Well's UOA. No harm in trying this Built_Well.

 

[21Rouge]

Originally Posted By: d00df00d
By the way, why 0w-30? Wouldn't 0w-20 be a better fit anyway?


Interesting. Just wondering why you say this.

FWIW the owner's manual for this car only mentions the use of 5W30 or 0W30 SM oil.

 

[Built_Well]

ArcoGraphite, that is a good idea. I emailed RLI several hours ago. I'll let folks know what the response is.

The '06 2AZ-FE Camry's manual specs 5w-30 (or 10w-30 if 5w-30 isn't available). It's also been back-spec'd through an official Toyota bulletin to 5w-20 and 0w-20. 0w-30 is not discussed by Toyota, but that's what I use in place of 5w-30, mostly because Dr. Haas' oil tutorial at FerrariChat is very convincing.

 

[21Rouge]

Originally Posted By: 21Rouge
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
By the way, why 0w-30? Wouldn't 0w-20 be a better fit anyway?


Interesting. Just wondering why you say this.

FWIW the owner's manual for this car only mentions the use of 5W30 or 0W30 SM oil.


Shoot! Of course I am wrong. I was thinking about my *own* car

 

[21Rouge]

Originally Posted By: Built_Well
I emailed RLI several hours ago. I'll let folks know what the response is.


You *might* also consider using T Dyson's expertise to better analyze this Blackstone UOA. I know it costs but if he is able to make the case that all is well with your last run of RLI this might convince you to stick with the current fill instead of needlessly and expensively dumping it.

 

[FZ1]

Or, he could just switch back to PP and call it a day with the UOA money.

 

[21Rouge]

Originally Posted By: FZ1
Or, he could just switch back to PP and call it a day with the UOA money.


That's not the BITOG way!

Built_Well must go where no man has gone before i.e two consecutive runs of RLI 0W30 with a UOA for each.

 

[Built_Well]

Originally Posted By: 21Rouge
Built_Well must go where no man has gone before i.e two consecutive runs of RLI 0W30 with a UOA for each.


RI_RS4 has done many consecutive UOAs of Bio-Syn. Of course, he tested the 40-weight oil, not this 30-weight.

I hope RI_RS4, the champion of Bio-Syn on this forum, steps in with his own analysis of my UOA.

I already know I'm not going to use this 30-weight Bio-Syn in the future because the TAN : TBN ratio of 8.5 to 2.0 makes a novice like me uneasy. I really wasn't expecting anything more than a ratio of 5 : 3 at the worst.

Do I like the oil. Sure, I like it. My engine has never sounded quieter and smoother, but once I reach 3,000 or 4,000 miles on this second fill of Bio-Syn, I will have to say goodbye.

If some of you want me to keep the oil in to 5,000 miles and get another UOA, you'll have to pay for the UOA, because I already know this oil is not for me.

 

[21Rouge]

Originally Posted By: Built_Well
I emailed RLI several hours ago. I'll let folks know what the response is.


Looking forward to their take on this UOA.

 

[RI_RS4]

I'd suggest the RLI 5W30 instead of the 0W30 in your climate. You don't need a 0W oil in Missouri, and the 5W30 will be an oil with lower volatility and lower deposit formation. The other alternative is the 5W20, if you're willing to go to a lower viscosity oil.

It takes about 2 oil changes with RLI before the previous chemistry has been removed from the engine, which is the "cleaning" that others are talking about. You probably did run the oil a bit too long on the 1st change. I'd monitor it at 5K for the next OCI, and determine whether to change or not based on that UOA. TAN for RLI oil tends to read and start out higher anyway, because of the esters.

The one thing I'd look at is the Silicon numbers. They look high to me, and might indicate poor air filtration.

 

[Doug Hillary]

Hi,
Built_Well - IMHO it is wise to be very cautious when endeavouring to evaluate any lubricant's performance from one single pass "simple" UOA

 

[21Rouge]

Originally Posted By: Doug Hillary
Hi,
Built_Well - IMHO it is wise to be very cautious when endeavouring to evaluate any lubricant's performance from one single pass "simple" UOA



Doug I do understand that trends are where its at but what would a first UOA of an oil used for the first time look like for one to say: "This oil isnt going to work in this engine?"

One can see why Well_Built might be somewhat hesitant to try it a second time.

 

[Doug Hillary]

Hi,
21Rouge - To answer your question I would have been more concerned for instance had the viscosity been out of whack! It's not. Agonising over what are really quite minor escalations in other areas is not really productive

The Report looks reasonable and if the Poster likes the thought of this lubricant in his engine then he should probably give it another try

But then mine is just another viewpoint like the other contributors here