What Happens When Oil Changes Are Ignored, Poor Care?

[kschachn]

Is that unique to Toyota or all engines? Is it a bad design or are the 10K OCIs causing wear? Are the oil filters premium or rock catchers? Are the engines DI or MPI? What oils were used in those engines? Were the air filters maintained?

Plenty of vehicles that run 10K OCIs and do not have issues. I had a 2010 FX4 with a 5.4L in it that starting at 100K miles I ran 10K-17K OCIs and it saw heavy towing for 45% of the 160K miles that I put on it. Zero oil consumption between OCIs.

I do not think you can make a general statement that "something that happens to the oil between 5k and 10k where it shears/get dirtier/additive package gets weaker, etc" and have it universally apply to every engine--far too many of them with 10K OCIs for far too many years for that to be true.

Much agreed. My old 1MZ-FE and my almost as old 1NZ-FE are good examples. They are very different engines in terms of what they do to the oil. I typically run about 10K on the ECHO and when I had the valve cover off at around 300k it looked very good inside, much like the Sienna did at less than half that mileage on the front cylinder bank. Conversely I would never, ever run 10k on the Sienna regardless of the oil.

 

[Bill7]

Is that unique to Toyota or all engines? Is it a bad design or are the 10K OCIs causing wear? Are the oil filters premium or rock catchers? Are the engines DI or MPI? What oils were used in those engines? Were the air filters maintained?

Plenty of vehicles that run 10K OCIs and do not have issues. I had a 2010 FX4 with a 5.4L in it that starting at 100K miles I ran 10K-17K OCIs and it saw heavy towing for 45% of the 160K miles that I put on it. Zero oil consumption between OCIs.

I do not think you can make a general statement that "something that happens to the oil between 5k and 10k where it shears/get dirtier/additive package gets weaker, etc" and have it universally apply to every engine--far too many of them with 10K OCIs for far too many years for that to be true.

Probably most use the rock catcher OEM Toyota oil filters rated at 50% efficiency @20 microns.
The Car care nut's simple advice is to do 5k/6month OCIs, and not Toyota's recommended 10k/1 year OCIs.

Yes, in your case, your engines can take the 10k oil change intervals.
But it's helpful to have a simple rule of thumb (ex: 5k/6month whichever comes first) that you can use for all vehicles and never have to worry.

I have 4 Honda Odyssey J35 vehicles, and they seem to be very tough on the oil, as the VCM causes the front bank of 3 cylinders to get very high temperatures which can bake the oil. So I prefer 4k/6month OCI because I want to avoid sludge/varnish and be able to take each of them to reach 200k-300k miles. I also change ATF fluid every 15k miles, as ATF fluid is so cheap, and drain/fill procedure is so easy.

 

[OVERKILL]

Good to know. In your opinion, what is the final verdict on those articles. After the Tribologist's revisions, do the articles convincingly show that "thin" oils provide better engine protection than "thick" oils, or is that still undetermined.

I don't think the articles are designed to facilitate that determination, their purpose is to educate on the basics of tribology.

 

[CarbonSteel]

Probably most use the rock catcher OEM Toyota oil filters rated at 50% efficiency @20 microns.
The Car care nut's simple advice is to do 5k/6month OCIs, and not Toyota's recommended 10k/1 year OCIs.

Yes, in your case, your engines can take the 10k oil change intervals.
But it's helpful to have a simple rule of thumb (ex: 5k/6month whichever comes first).
I have 4 Honda Odyssey J35 vehicles, and they seem to be very tough on the oil, so I prefer 4k/6month OCI because I want each of them to 200k-300k miles.

It sounds like a bad design in combination with a low efficiency oil filter versus anything with the OCI and for those engines a shorter OCI may be advisable.

For others, not applicable and in the case of your Odyssey, depending on what "hard on the oil" actually means, it will likely not know the difference between a 4K OCI or a 7K or even a 10K one at the 300K mark.

 

[Wylie6G72]

Well as long as you don't let her run out of oil (just topping it off when needed) pretty much nothing happens.
Topping the oil off over the years is like a very slow, but steady oil change.
I'm think no engine ever died., behause the oil was "too old" - more like from: "there was not enough oil anymore".

Of course there are variables, like if you drive just short distances, and the oil never has a chance to get really hot for a while, or if you redline it all the time etc. - but under "normal" conditions, no engine will die from "old oil".

Frank

Completely untrue. I witnessed the death of a 1989 Pontiac 2.3 that was caused strictly by old oil. The owner hadn't changed it since she bought the car, so slowly out the drain hole came the factory fill with 22,000 miles on it. She had been topping it off with something, because it was not low on oil. Compression was so low that the engine would not start, which is how it ended up in the service department. The kicker? GM warrantied it.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Good to know. In your opinion, what is the final verdict on those articles. After the Tribologist's revisions, do the articles convincingly show that "thin" oils provide better engine protection than "thick" oils, or is that still undetermined.

Thin oil provides better protection than thick oil? What would make you think that, some "Oil 101" articles not written by a Tribologist that somehow spread misinformation all over the internet. lol?

Hasn't anyone seen the basic law of Tribology that shows more viscosity results in more film thickness between moving parts? It's the most basic law of Tribology and is talked about in about every "thick vs thin" oil thread.

I respect his Oil 101 articles with the multiple huge paragraphs. After googling HTHS wear graph, that 1 picture says a thousand words.
When HTHS drops below 2.6, engine wear starts to increase exponentially.

Doesn't that answer your own question? HTHS viscosity and film thickness (MOFT) are directly related, and that will never change.

 

[kschachn]

Thin oil provides better protection than thick oil? What would make you think that, some "Oil 101" articles not written by a Tribologist that somehow spread misinformation all over the internet. lol?

Hasn't anyone seen the basic law of Tribology that shows more viscosity results in more film thickness between moving parts? It's the most basic law of Tribology and is talked about in about every "thick vs thin" oil thread.


Doesn't that answer your own question? HTHS viscosity and film thickness (MOFT) are directly related, and that will never change.

We have moved into yet another area of the Twilight Zone in this thread.

 

[demarpaint]

Hasn't anyone seen the basic law of Tribology that shows more viscosity results in more film thickness between moving parts? It's the most basic law of Tribology and is talked about in about every "thick vs thin" oil thread.

I agree, only in this thread the OP is implying that thin oil turning thick from neglecting to change it is going to provide that thick oil protection. Then somehow is coming up with the idea that it will provide the same protection as fresh clean thick oil being used from the get go. That's what I'm getting out of this, I think. SMH.

 

[Bill7]

Thin oil provides better protection than thick oil? What would make you think that, some "Oil 101" articles not written by a Tribologist that somehow spread misinformation all over the internet. lol?

Hasn't anyone seen the basic law of Tribology that shows more viscosity results in more film thickness between moving parts? It's the most basic law of Tribology and is talked about in about every "thick vs thin" oil thread.


Doesn't that answer your own question? HTHS viscosity and film thickness (MOFT) are directly related, and that will never change.

We all know HTHS and film thickness are key to engine protection. I was only asking about the 101 articles as Overkill had mentioned they were fact checked by the Tribologists. Just wanted to see if there was any new conclusion that I had missed.

 

[ZeeOSix]

He seems to place very little importance on HTHS and MOFT, and he tends to focus more on faster flow of ultra thin oils and how that relates to adequate oil pressure.

Oil pressure really doesn't have much effect on the actual "lubrication" of moving parts as long as an adequate oil volume is still getting to all the moving parts within the oiling system. All the oil pressure says is that it takes X PSI to push Y GPM at Z viscosity through the flow resistance of the oiling system. This is because the oil is being moved by a PD oil pump - as long as the pump is not in pressure relief, then all oil leaving it will go through the oiling system. If the pump is putting out 5 GPM at 3000 RPM with 10W-40 then it's also going to be putting out the same flow with "0W-5", assuming the doesn't actually lose pumping efficiency with the much thinner oil, which it probably will in reality. Oil pumps lose some pumping efficiency due to internal "slip" with thinner vs thicker oil.

So the real aspect of proper lubrication is 1) Getting adequate oil flow/volume to the moving parts, and 2) The oil that gets between the moving parts is adequate in terms of film thickness (to provide good MOFT) and film strength (a good AF/AW package to provide a protective tribofilm). Film thickness (MOFT) is the primary protection and the film thickness (AF/AW tribofilm) is the secondary protection when the MOFT fails to adequately protect. So it seems he is going in the wrong direction based on the shear basics of Tribology, hoping that the film strength will do most of the engine protection.

 

[ZeeOSix]

This thread about extended oil change intervals causing less wear really makes no sence.

It has to be looked in the proper context. The theory that longer OCIs (up to a point of course) can cause less wear is focused on the premise that the AF/AW tribofilm can be better with a longer OCI. But obviously that is not the only factor going on in the myriad of factors that can cause engine wear. The tribofilm stripping and re-building is probably down in the noise level compared to all the other factors going on that can cause engine wear.

 

[Bill7]

It has to be looked in the proper context. The theory that longer OCIs (up to a point of course) can cause less wear is focused on the premise that the AF/AW tribofilm can be better with a longer OCI. But obviously that is not the only factor going on in the myriad of factors that can cause engine wear. The tribofilm stripping and re-building is probably down in the noise level compared to all the other factors going on that can cause engine wear.

So this whole issue of more wear after an oil change would affect people using thin oils more, because thin oils depend more on the secondary protection of film strength to mitigate metal on metal contact.

 

[CarbonSteel]

This thread about extended oil change intervals causing less wear really makes no sence.

Have you looked at a run of multiple extended OCIs to see the wear patterns?

Within the context of what a UOA can measure, here are all of the runs I did in my 2010 FX4 from birth until I sold it at 160K miles. Look at the iron generation per mile in the shorter OCIs versus the longer ones. Most times, there is less iron per mile in the long OCIs versus the short ones.


2010 FX4 Iron Generation

 

[Bill7]

Have you looked at a run of multiple extended OCIs to see the wear patterns?

Within the context of what a UOA can measure, here are all of the runs I did in my 2010 FX4 from birth until I sold it at 160K miles. Look at the iron generation per mile in the shorter OCIs versus the longer ones. Most times, there is less iron per mile in the long OCIs versus the short ones.


2010 FX4 Iron Generation

Thanks for providing those. Will take a look. Might I ask what viscosity oil you use.

 

[CarbonSteel]

Thanks for providing those. Will take a look. Might I ask what viscosity oil you use.

It is all listed in the sheet with the brand and there is a mix of synthetic and conventional, but it was all xW-20 oil.

 

[Fahrvergnügen]

Is that unique to Toyota or all engines? Is it a bad design or are the 10K OCIs causing wear? Are the oil filters premium or rock catchers? Are the engines DI or MPI? What oils were used in those engines? Were the air filters maintained?

Plenty of vehicles that run 10K OCIs and do not have issues. I had a 2010 FX4 with a 5.4L in it that starting at 100K miles I ran 10K-17K OCIs and it saw heavy towing for 45% of the 160K miles that I put on it. Zero oil consumption between OCIs.

I do not think you can make a general statement that "something that happens to the oil between 5k and 10k where it shears/get dirtier/additive package gets weaker, etc" and have it universally apply to every engine--far too many of them with 10K OCIs for far too many years for that to be true.

This is all modern engines. I have worked at a whole lot of manufacturers as a tech and still am a tech. We tech’s try to push the 5,000 mile intervals due to what is seen when oil is pushed beyond that point. Engines today are a lot harder on oil and between the turbos and fuel dilution, valve timing etc and it never ends good in the long run with the extended drains. I have seen it too much.

 

[Fahrvergnügen]

Much agreed. My old 1MZ-FE and my almost as old 1NZ-FE are good examples. They are very different engines in terms of what they do to the oil. I typically run about 10K on the ECHO and when I had the valve cover off at around 300k it looked very good inside, much like the Sienna did at less than half that mileage on the front cylinder bank. Conversely I would never, ever run 10k on the Sienna regardless of the oil.

Can’t compare and old style engine to modern.

 

[PimTac]

Thin oil provides better protection than thick oil? What would make you think that, some "Oil 101" articles not written by a Tribologist that somehow spread misinformation all over the internet. lol?

Hasn't anyone seen the basic law of Tribology that shows more viscosity results in more film thickness between moving parts? It's the most basic law of Tribology and is talked about in about every "thick vs thin" oil thread.

The protection factor is adequate.

The belief that one needs a thicker oil to provide excellent west protection is countered by the numerous reports on here of 20 and 16 grades showing stellar wear meta numbers. In fact the 0W-8 thread report is stellar and that is over 20,000 miles.

 

[CarbonSteel]

This is all modern engines. I have worked at a whole lot of manufacturers as a tech and still am a tech. We tech’s try to push the 5,000 mile intervals due to what is seen when oil is pushed beyond that point. Engines today are a lot harder on oil and between the turbos and fuel dilution, valve timing etc and it never ends good in the long run with the extended drains. I have seen it too much.

It cannot be all modern engines. Anecdotely speaking, if that were true we'd have many many engines failing at lower mileage. With the exception of some bad designs in modern engines, we are seeing engine longevity longer than we ever have in history.

 

[Bill7]

It is all listed in the sheet with the brand and there is a mix of synthetic and conventional, but it was all xW-20 oil.

Thanks CarbonSteel. Yes, the UOA's show longer OCI's were fine for your engine.