Toyota Highlander Hybrid 2006 PP 5w20 3MZ-FE 3.3L 6200 miles

[paulri]

Well you guys finally got to me. Here is my first UOA.

One thing to note is that I didn't indicate to OAI, that I had poured in a 10 oz bottle of LiquiMoly MOS2 when I did the oil drain, so that explains the moly.

I am 80% sure that it was Pennzoil Platinum 5w20; there is a slight chance that it was M1 HM 5w20 (just vanilla M1, not AP/EP/AFE), but I am pretty sure the Mobil1 was poured into my Sienna. If it wasn't one, it was the other. The run was for about 6200 miles. It wouldn't be more than 100 miles lower or higher than that amount, so let's just use 6200. I promise next time to write this stuff down. I used the Wix 51348 for this one.

I have to say I'm pleased with the low wear metal results. A few things here I didn't quite expect, the sodium and base number.

One reason why I did this, is that I have been considering a 10K run (I would love to land my oil drains on the 140,000 mile mark on the odometer, 150K, etc.). The wear metals as you can see are fairly low; but what concerns me is the base number.

(1) Given that this reading is for a 6200 mile run, I'm not sure I want to take it 10,000 miles, given the base number.

(2) if not for coolant (I did 2 drain & fills early on in the OIC), what else would be contributing to the sodium? Or is that even enough to be worried about?

(3) What might the boron be from?

I'd want some clarification on these points before pushing to 10K; perhaps I need to sample it at some point in between 6 and 10K, just to be sure? On the other hand, if 10K isn't in the cards, that's ok, before doing a UOA I had lined up these two vehicles for 7K OCIs.

 

[paulri]

Is anyone having trouble viewing the PDF? I did upload it, but some times I can see it, other times I can't.

 

[PimTac]

Boron is a common additive used as a dispersant but it also has other properties as well.

As for the sodium, this is the second analysis today where this has come up. Is sodium making a comeback?

 

[paulri]

One other thing, OAI got it on Sep 27, and by entering the sample # at their site, I was able to view the test results today. Pretty good turnaround. I have not gotten an email notification yet, but still, I was able to access test results three days after they got it.

 

[paulri]

As far as sodium making a comeback--seriously I'll keep better records from here on out, but this PP could have been 2-3 years old; it has been in my garage oil stash for quite a while, definitely not bought recently. It is ABSOLUTELY pre-SN+.

 

[paoester]

Originally Posted by paulri
but what concerns me is the base number.

(1) Given that this reading is for a 6200 mile run, I'm not sure I want to take it 10,000 miles, given the base number.

(2) if not for coolant (I did 2 drain & fills early on in the OIC), what else would be contributing to the sodium? Or is that even enough to be worried about?

(3) What might the boron be from?

Boron is just an additive, not a contaminant.

Base number is too low. Definitely a problem going to 10 thousand miles.

Sodium might be coming in from dust into the air filter. Marine salts or something. If it was from coolant, potassium would also be high, and its not. I doubt 32 ppm Na is a problem at all.
Valvoline had around 450 ppm sodium additives in there a couple of years ago. Your low 32 ppm is not an indication they are putting it in there, its too low to do much as an additive.

 

[Gubkin]

Mr. not sure !

not sure that:
- PP 5w20
- Mobil1
- want to take it 10,000 miles, given the base number

 

[paulri]

I live in a desert, would marine salts be an issue? As far as sodium from oil, the previous fill was ACDelco Dexos oil (from receipt), and this VOA gives it hardly any at all, so it most likely wasn't from the previous oil change. https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/4631313/AC_Delco_full_syn_Dexos_1_ver2

 

[paulri]

I couldn't find a VOA of MOS2 that I poured in--perhaps that was the source of the sodium?

 

[jimbrewer]

The wear numbers don't get any better than that. Leave it alone use the same oil (if you can remember what it was) and plan on changing at 6K.

The relatively low base number is kind of a mystery. I have great confidence that you could find something that did better, but the wear numbers would likely be a bit worse.

Leave well enough alone.

 

[dnewton3]

Several comments I can make, in no particular order ...

- the wear rates are commendable; nothing but praise. You can EASILY go 10k miles based on these wear rates, and in fact run 15k miles. I would advocate for methodical extension by 5k miles intervals.
- the TBN is low, but could well be an error, or could be correct. However, there is ZERO correlation shown in UOAs today between TBN/TAN and the wear rates. When the OCIs are under 15k miles, there's no proof that low TBN or high TAN have any affect on wear
- the other additives and contaminants have shown no correlation to wear, also, so why worry about it?

Don't fret about potential changes in the physical properties of the lube. Rather, focus on the wear rates of the engine; everything is OK in that regard. It's important to track the inputs, so that when something changes, you can observe closer for a change in outputs. But the outputs are FAR more important than the inputs.

 

[paulri]

Fair enough. I have looked for a correlation between high TAN & wear rates in UOAs, and I have seen none. Even assuming that acid corrosion might take time, I saw no correlation between high TAN in one particular OCI, and a later UOA. I'm with you so far.

My question though--could/would high acid levels lead to corrosion/degradation of seals, or anything else that isn't metal?

Originally Posted by dnewton3

- the TBN is low, but could well be an error, or could be correct. However, there is ZERO correlation shown in UOAs today between TBN/TAN and the wear rates. When the OCIs are under 15k miles, there's no proof that low TBN or high TAN have any affect on wear

 

[jimbrewer]

Several comments I can make, in no particular order ...

- the wear rates are commendable; nothing but praise. You can EASILY go 10k miles based on these wear rates, and in fact run 15k miles. I would advocate for methodical extension by 5k miles intervals.
- the TBN is low, but could well be an error, or could be correct. However, there is ZERO correlation shown in UOAs today between TBN/TAN and the wear rates. When the OCIs are under 15k miles, there's no proof that low TBN or high TAN have any affect on wear
- the other additives and contaminants have shown no correlation to wear, also, so why worry about it?

Don't fret about potential changes in the physical properties of the lube. Rather, focus on the wear rates of the engine; everything is OK in that regard. It's important to track the inputs, so that when something changes, you can observe closer for a change in outputs. But the outputs are FAR more important than the inputs.

Respectfully disagree Mr. Newton. I'd say don't argue with the numbers. Otherwise why do the test?

If the test shows base chemicals depleted then act accordingly and change.

If they didn't make a difference then they wouldn't be there in the first place.

Yeah, you have to kind of wonder if the number isn't a mistake. That's an argument for retesting next change.

If squeezing an extra 5K out of the OCI is really important then I have no doubt that Mobil One EP or Castrol Edge EP would do the trick for an extra $4 or so a change and still provide fairly similar wear results.

Running the oil to the brink of failure in 5K increments to save an extra $5.53 per oil change seems inadvisable, especially when you've paid for a UOA —-and then ignored the unexpected and unwelcome results.

 

[paulri]

I called back and requested that they retest the base number. I was worried that they would toss the sample soon, but the customer rep told me that OAI keeps the sample for 30 days, so that is very nice. I'll post back when I hear if they decided to do it, and what the new result is.

If anyone wants to continue the discussion about how significant the base number actually is, I'm all ears.

 

[paulri]

They did the retesting, and the new base number is 1.51, instead of the original 1.57.

There is one more point I'll bring up with them tomorrow about the oil that might be a possible cause of confusion.

 

[paulri]

OK like I said, they retested the base number and it is actually a bit lower.

They confirmed on the phone today that this is the case.

 

[jimbrewer]

If it's important to get more miles between changes, pay the extra 5 bucks per jug and get a fancy pants Extended Performance oil and run it to 10K without bothering with a UOA. If you want to go longer than that, I would test at the 10k mark given your history.

Your wear numbers can't improve but I doubt that they would be materially worse.

Nothing wrong with running Pennzoil Platinum to 6K intervals.

 

[paulri]

Coming back to this thread, again, I couldn't see the UOA, so I decided to upload it as a picture, here: