Toyota Avalon 08 132,190 mi. Pennzoil Plat 5w30

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Jun 21, 2006
Messages
97
Location
North Carolina
This is my most current UOA on my Avalon. I'm concerned about the spike in Sodium. So, I'm trying to figure out what might be going on. I'm wondering if Redline fuel treatment might be the cause. I know I'm going to get hammered for my early changes, I acknowlege that.
The current change is 10/10 Penzoil Platinum,
7/28 Eneos Sustina 5W30
3/02 Valvoline White Bottle 5W30
02/02 Lubrication Engineers 5W30
Since the previous oil used was Eneos Sustina, Sodium didn't come from there.

Thanks in advance.

DR

TOYOTA AVALON - Front Gasoline Engine
Unit Make : TOYOTA
Unit Model : AVALON Date Rec'd : Oct 16, 2012
Comp Make : {n/a} Cust. Ref No. : {n/a} Sample Date : Oct 10, 2012

RECOMMENDATION

Oil and filter change at the time of sampling has been noted. Resample at the next service interval to monitor.

Sample Date 02/02/12 03/02/12 07/28/12 Current UOM
Time on Unit 109771 112699 126529 132190 mls
Time on Oil 2925 2928 3103 3084 mls
Time on Fltr 2925 2928 3103 3084 mls
Oil Maint. changed changed changed changed ---
Filter Maint. changed changed changed changed ---

CONTAMINATION

Sodium and/or potassium levels are high. Test for glycol is negative.

Sample Date 02/02/12 03/02/12 07/28/12 Current Abn
Silicon 4.1 5.5 6.8 9.2 30
Potassium 0.0 0.0 1.7 9.8 20
Sodium 17 274 5.5 95 80
Fuel (%) Glycol --- --- --- --- 0.06
Water (%) Soot (%) 0 0 0 0 3
Sulfation 18 11 13 17 100
Nitration 8 7 8 8 100



OIL CONDITION

Oil Type: 6.4 QTS of PENNZOIL
The condition of the oil is acceptable for the time in service.

Sample Date 02/02/12 03/02/12 07/28/12 Current Base
Boron 8.3 2.7 38 5.5 ---
Barium 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ---
Calcium 1906 1461 1782 2393 ---
Magnesium 9.2 7.1 10 11 ---
Molybdenum 2.2 1.2 105 49 ---
Sodium 17 274 5.5 95 ---
Phosphorus 728 623 674 736 ---
Sulfur 2807 1973 1769 2484 ---
Zinc 734 669 730 829 ---
Visc@40°C --- --- --- --- ---
Visc@100°C 9.2 9.23 9.58 10.34 ---
VI --- --- --- --- ---
Oxidation 31 16 16 16 ---
TAN 2.46 1.26 3.47 1.86 ---
TBN --- --- --- --- ---



WEAR

All component wear rates are normal.

Sample Date 02/02/12 03/02/12 07/28/12 Current Abn
*White Metal NONE NONE NONE NONE ---
*Babbitt NONE NONE NONE NONE ---
PQ --- --- --- --- ---
Iron 2.1 2.6 3.1 4.7 150
Nickel 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 5
Chromium 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 20
Titanium 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.2 ---
Copper 0.1 0.4 0.8 0.6 155
Aluminum 0.9 1.0 3.8 2.5 40
Tin 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.1 10
Lead 0.0 0.8 0.0 1.2 50
 
Most everything is pretty typical of a very-low OCI UOA.

The sodium may be used as an additive. I don't memorize add-packs, but I'm sure someone here does ... But we cannot discount the bit of coolant showing up on the report. Too early to tell for sure.

Consistiency makes it easier to read/diagnose issues; bouncing from lube to lube just confounds things.

It would be helpful if you put the data into a block-text tool such as Notepad or such; makes for much easier viewing.
 
Last edited:
If the numbers on the far right in your columns are the most recent UOA, then I would say you have a serious problem. Contaminant (coolant and fuel) as well as wear metals are ridiculously high compared to your previous UOA's. Are you having to add coolant to your reservior often?
 
The far right numbers are the "abn" (abnormal) limits per the UOA service.
Which goes to my point; UOAs like this are hard to read.
 
Last edited:
I agree, it's hard to read, and I am sorry. I messed with Photobucket for more than an hour, and couldn't upload the image. I've looked at Notepad, and I am not sure how get the document in the requested format.
 
AVALON - Front Gasoline Engine
Comp Model : {n/a} Stub No. : WC-M2209471 Diagnostician : Jonathan Hester


RECOMMENDATION

Oil and filter change at the time of sampling has been noted. Resample at the next service interval to monitor.

Sample Date 02/02/12 03/02/12 07/28/12 Current UOM
Time on Unit 109771 112699 126529 132190 mls
Time on Oil 2925 2928 3103 3084 mls
Time on Fltr 2925 2928 3103 3084 mls

CONTAMINATION

Sodium and/or potassium levels are high. Test for glycol is negative.

Sample Date 02/02/12 03/02/12 07/28/12 Current Abn
Silicon 4.1 5.5 6.8 9.2 30
Potassium 0.0 0.0 1.7 9.8 20
Sodium 17 274 5.5 95 80
Fuel (%) Glycol --- --- --- --- 0.06
Water (%) Soot (%) 0 0 0 0 3
Sulfation 18 11 13 17 100
Nitration 8 7 8 8 100


OIL CONDITION

Oil Type: 6.4 QTS of PENNZOIL
The condition of the oil is acceptable for the time in service.

Sample Date 02/02/12 03/02/12 07/28/12 Current Base
Boron 8.3 2.7 38 5.5 ---
Barium 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ---
Calcium 1906 1461 1782 2393 ---
Magnesium 9.2 7.1 10 11 ---
Molybdenum 2.2 1.2 105 49 ---
Sodium 17 274 5.5 95 ---
Phosphorus 728 623 674 736 ---
Sulfur 2807 1973 1769 2484 ---
Zinc 734 669 730 829 ---
Visc@40°C --- --- --- --- ---
Visc@100°C 9.2 9.23 9.58 10.34 ---
VI --- --- --- --- ---
Oxidation 31 16 16 16 ---
TAN 2.46 1.26 3.47 1.86 ---
TBN --- --- --- --- ---

WEAR

All component wear rates are normal.

Sample Date 02/02/12 03/02/12 07/28/12 Current Abn
*White Metal NONE NONE NONE NONE ---
*Babbitt NONE NONE NONE NONE ---
PQ --- --- --- --- ---
Iron 2.1 2.6 3.1 4.7 150
Nickel 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 5
Chromium 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 20
Titanium 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.2 ---
Copper 0.1 0.4 0.8 0.6 155
Aluminum 0.9 1.0 3.8 2.5 40
Tin 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.1 10
Lead 0.0 0.8 0.0 1.2 50

Hopefully, this is better.
 
I'm not sure there's any really useful info in this UOA. OCIs are really short with a different oil every time and it sounds like you've been throwing fuel treatments, etc. at it along the way. Unless you have a reason to suspect a coolant leak or something else I'd roll way back on this maintenance frenzy. If you're bent on changing the oil at 3000 miles then buy something cheap and stick with it and pull a sample every 10-20k miles just to keep tabs and develop a baseline and trend.
 
I would agree with the premise you mention OrdnanceMarine on some level, but also disagree on others.

What this series of UOAs cannot prove is that any one lube was "better" than another. (see my article ...)

But what we CAN realize is that none of these lubes really distinguished themselves in service here, and therefore none were "better" than the other. Also, it might be telling us that lube selection really is not nearly as important as some folks think, and that additives really do not manifest into tangible benefits at all times (sometimes yes, sometimes no). (again - see the article).
 
Last edited:
This started as an experiment to find out if synthetic was better than conventional in my application. This experiment morphed into a “which lube is best” quest. I haven’t had any issue with this car, overheating or otherwise, so it’s not that. It’s just an over maintenance obsession.
dnewton3, I’ve always respected “Conventional oils vs. Synthetic oils isn't about which is "better"; it's about which lasts longer, in relation to cost. Any product can be over or under utilized.
Make an informed decision; first consider your operating conditions, next determine your maintenance plan, and then pick your lube. Don't do it the other way around ... “And I have given it quite a bit of thought.
INDYMAC, yes, I’m still using Toyota’s pink fluid.
 
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
I would agree with the premise you mention OrdnanceMarine on some level, but also disagree on others.

What this series of UOAs cannot prove is that any one lube was "better" than another. (see my article ...)

But what we CAN realize is that none of these lubes really distinguished themselves in service here, and therefore none were "better" than the other. Also, it might be telling us that lube selection really is not nearly as important as some folks think, and that additives really do not manifest into tangible benefits at all times (sometimes yes, sometimes no). (again - see the article).


Having a hard time figuring out what you disagree about. Reread my post and tell me where you think I'm wrong.
 
Quote:
I'm not sure there's any really useful info in this UOA.


There is useful info in there, but it's not what people would expect.

These UOAs are showing that there is no difference in the performance, regardless of which lube was used. You stated that there was no useful info; I disagree. This isn't about proving what is "better"; it's proving that most all are about the same. There is value in that. I am referring to this from a macro-analysis POV. UOAs like this cannot be used to call one lube "better" or "worse" than another. But they can be used to determine how "normal" the results may or may not be. See me article about UOA normalcy and it will make more sense.

As far as your other comments, I don't see any major descrapancy in our views, overall.
 
Last edited:
Code:
Sample Date 02/02/12 03/02/12 07/28/12 Current UOM

Time on Unit 109771 112699 126529 132190 mls

Time on Oil 2925 2928 3103 3084 mls

Time on Fltr 2925 2928 3103 3084 mls



CONTAMINATION



Sodium and/or potassium levels are high. Test for glycol is negative.



Sample Date 02/02/12 03/02/12 07/28/12 Current Abn

Silicon 4.1 5.5 6.8 9.2 30

Potassium 0.0 0.0 1.7 9.8 20

Sodium 17 274 5.5 95 80

Fuel (%)
Glycol --- --- --- --- 0.06

Water (%)
Soot (%) 0 0 0 0 3

Sulfation 18 11 13 17 100

Nitration 8 7 8 8 100



Sample Date 02/02/12 03/02/12 07/28/12 Current Base

Boron 8.3 2.7 38 5.5 ---

Barium 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ---

Calcium 1906 1461 1782 2393 ---

Magnesium 9.2 7.1 10 11 ---

Molybdenum 2.2 1.2 105 49 ---

Sodium 17 274 5.5 95 ---

Phosphorus 728 623 674 736 ---

Sulfur 2807 1973 1769 2484 ---

Zinc 734 669 730 829 ---

Visc@40°C --- --- --- --- ---

Visc@100°C 9.2 9.23 9.58 10.34 ---

VI --- --- --- --- ---

Oxidation 31 16 16 16 ---

TAN 2.46 1.26 3.47 1.86 ---

TBN --- --- --- --- ---



WEAR



All component wear rates are normal.



Sample Date 02/02/12 03/02/12 07/28/12 Current Abn

*White Metal NONE NONE NONE NONE ---

*Babbitt NONE NONE NONE NONE ---

PQ --- --- --- --- ---

Iron 2.1 2.6 3.1 4.7 150

Nickel 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 5

Chromium 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 20

Titanium 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.2 ---

Copper 0.1 0.4 0.8 0.6 155

Aluminum 0.9 1.0 3.8 2.5 40

Tin 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.1 10

Lead 0.0 0.8 0.0 1.2 50

Posting this information has been a huge PITA.
 
3,000 mile OCI with quality oils? What a waste. Modern Toyota engines are specified for 5,000 mile OCI on dino oils and 10,000 on synthetics. Even that is conservative.
 
Friendly, maybe. I (me personally) would have an issue running anything 10,000 miles, I certainly wouldn’t call the intervals you mentioned conservative. I‘d agree the short intervals and the UOA is a waste, not to mention taking the time to post them.
 
You have an air leak, I suspect.

Something is driving up your Si, and that in turn is driving up some of your wear metals.

Look at the successive progression of Si and Fe, Al, Tn, Cu and Pb. They are all on an upward trend, despite the consistent 3k mile OCI pattern.

You are not at condemnation limits, but there is obvious progression. These are telling you something. This is why it's good to have them in a data-text-block format like this; makes the view much clearer!

You can extend your OCIs out, and it will help with the ROI, but it won't help with the intrusion.

Act now or your wear will continue to escalate. Get the intrusion eliminated, and then you can extend your OCIs in a safer manner.
 
DNewton,
Thank you for the reply. The Avalon has a funny air box, the front left side has a notch and never apprears completely sealed and it is very easy to close it incorrectly. I'll check it, wheather permitting.
 
Hey Ramsey, I lurk a lot and just noticed your UOA. I have a 2008 Toyota RAV4 V6, which for the purposes of this discussion, should be indentical to your Avalon. Like you, I was running Pennzoil Plat 5w-30 and my UOA too showed high sodium with no traces of coolant. I find the spike odd too and just thought you'd like to know that you are not on an island. The RAV4 is due for an oil change and I plan on sampling again. If I can remember, I'll give you an updates.

Here is the last UOA:
RAV4UOA5-2012.jpg
 
Lowered a Highlander's Si by going to OEM air filters and away from Wix.
Filtration wasn't the issue but the hard plastic (Wix) didn't seal as well as the soft material on the OEM.
A thought.
Your Na spike could be related to formerly using LE brand oil.
On another of your posts I thought I saw LE useage, don't know if you may have used or topped off with some of it. Has a high sodium content like Castrol GTX.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top