Sorry, clicked on the wrong year. It appears to be standard language in pretty much all Toyota Manuals although I haven't looked in the ones that are really Subaru or BMW.
Why Do We Complicate Things?
- Thread starter Gene K
- Start date
Sorry, clicked on the wrong year. It appears to be standard language in pretty much all Toyota Manuals although I haven't looked in the ones that are really Subaru or BMW.
Since I can’t be certain if, or when, during an oil change interval the Tundra might be pressed into towing a heavy load, or running at high speed, I cover the contingency by running 5w30.
If the truck was used solely for daily driver, and never pulled a load, or ran at sustained high speed on hot days, I’d be fine with 0W20.
Might be fine with it anyway, but that bit of language in the owners manual gives me pause. I get better MPG with the Tundra now at 45,000 on 5W30 than I did when it was new running 0W20 TGMO. There’s a lot more, important, factors in MPG than a slight change in oil viscosity.
If the truck was used solely for daily driver, and never pulled a load, or ran at sustained high speed on hot days, I’d be fine with 0W20.
Might be fine with it anyway, but that bit of language in the owners manual gives me pause. I get better MPG with the Tundra now at 45,000 on 5W30 than I did when it was new running 0W20 TGMO. There’s a lot more, important, factors in MPG than a slight change in oil viscosity.
Ok I found the same language in mine.
That is sufficiently vague as to be construed as an example rather than guidance. That is, although a higher viscosity may be used in an example vehicle, the previous page clearly states that recommended viscosity is 0w20.
Is there any Toyota clarification of that, that isn’t wishful thinking?
Vague will be all you get until CAFE rules are changed.
It is likely standard language across manuals. Manuals in aviation are updated by the page. The language is therefore generic and hasn’t been updated. This is not meant to be operational guidance. That is given elsewhere.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
I think you are hoping for something more like this excerpt from the 2019 Corvette manual, correct?
It appears they updated it when they adopted 0W-20 since the grade is included in the statement. If I had a Tundra and towed and preferred 5W-30 I wouldn't think twice with that statement in the manual.
The manual states a higher grade (than 0W-20) may be better suited to heavier loads and so Toyota is going to deny warranty because you used the better suited grade?
If an Aviation Manual (since you used that as an example) said "a lower grade may be better suited for Artic Operations" would you assume that you were required to use the generally recommended grade in extremely low temps?
Disclaimer: Of course I would hope an Aviation Manual would be more specific to the actual grade for Artic Operations.
The Corvette manual offers operational guidance.
That doesn’t exist in my Highlander manual, that I can find. If the later discussion about oil in general is the basis for thinking one can use their judgment to decide a different oil is better then Toyota could easily deny a warranty claim. They are not going to allow anyone to cost them money or liability when operated outside of recommendations.
A discourse about general use of oil, for example, would be elsewhere in aviation. Aviation is a bit different in that every aspect of operation is approval only. That is, you can only do those things which are approved. In the Artic if all you can use is 50wt then you have to preheat the engine. You can’t use thinner oil because you think it’s better suited.
Emission regulation is moving that way. Aviation has enforcement teeth. They can and may verify you use the approved oil. Using unapproved oil changes the emissions of your engine. Enforcement has happened, yet.
I see that is what you were referring to. That is not operational guidance. They are using that number as an example only.
I see it as Toyota's way of allowing the option of a higher grade for people with a specific need within the requirements imposed by government regulations (which require the majority use the oil grade they test with).
I see no reason for the inclusion of
"An oil with a higher viscosity (one with a higher value) may be better suited if the vehicle is operated at high speeds, or under extreme load conditions." if the intent was simply to explain that 0W-20 doesn't have a lower viscosity at operating temps than 5W-20.
Ford does essentially the same thing by having nothing that recommends higher grade than 5W-20 and then having Customer Service instruct inquiries about track use to contact FRPP (Ford Racing Performance Products) who instruct you to use 15W-50 on the track.
I guess we will have to disagree as to why Toyota felt the need to include that in the owner's manual. It seems to be at odds with the previous part of the statement if it was intended to simply reassure people that 0W-20 was not to thin.
What you use off road is of no concern to the EPA, you could use Castor Oil if you thought it was prudent. Since grade is an engineering trade off it should be changed thoughtfully. Although it is the presence of clean oil oil that is primary with grade and brand as far secondary considerations.
It will be interesting to see the reaction of owners as EPA requirements gets into the consumers wallets. EPA requirement have been sort of win win with increased fuel mileage and better performance a pleasant surprise. Start Stop will cause batteries to die in 2 to three years or just outside of warranty. OEM’s have found another tenth mpg by charging to 80%. Climate control defaults to recirculated and fan to low, etc.
Perhaps you’re right. Although I think it’s a right hand left hand thing where the person making the actual edit is simply mechanically illiterate and doesn’t know to ask the question.
But if your going to change grade for towing why just go to 5w30? Why not use 15w50?
It will be interesting to see the reaction of owners as EPA requirements gets into the consumers wallets. EPA requirement have been sort of win win with increased fuel mileage and better performance a pleasant surprise. Start Stop will cause batteries to die in 2 to three years or just outside of warranty. OEM’s have found another tenth mpg by charging to 80%. Climate control defaults to recirculated and fan to low, etc.
Perhaps you’re right. Although I think it’s a right hand left hand thing where the person making the actual edit is simply mechanically illiterate and doesn’t know to ask the question.
But if your going to change grade for towing why just go to 5w30? Why not use 15w50?
Which was what I was afraid might happen with Joe Average and said the following earlier,
"I'm guessing they thought people would know better than to put SAE 70 in a truck that speced 0W-20 in Barrow Alaska in January just because it occasionally used a plow. Maybe to much leeway for the American Populace".
To actually respond to the OP.
Over my years here, I have watched the mindset shift and finally become two types of members here. When I first joined the conversation it was about what oil is best for a given application, based on science without concern for OE recommendation. Years later the census was conversation of whats the most efficient or cost effective oil I can run in a given application, or"run what the manufacture suggests", to which I have no interest in. Both of these mind sets also included OCI discussions with the second focusing on "how long can I go for as cheap as possible" (again, efficiency an cost effectiveness).
Now you have two types of people here.... ( I tend to be a of the first mind set)
1. I want the absolute best protection for my application, I don't care what the manufacturer specifies, I care about what the UOA proves (science).
2. Don't stray from the OE spec, and how long can I go at the lowest possible price with still having a suitable UOA and best MPG.
Not that either are right or wrong for any reason, just an observation. Different people want different things from theri oil and vehicle. However I personally enjoyed the forum allot more when it was all about the first mindset.
Over my years here, I have watched the mindset shift and finally become two types of members here. When I first joined the conversation it was about what oil is best for a given application, based on science without concern for OE recommendation. Years later the census was conversation of whats the most efficient or cost effective oil I can run in a given application, or"run what the manufacture suggests", to which I have no interest in. Both of these mind sets also included OCI discussions with the second focusing on "how long can I go for as cheap as possible" (again, efficiency an cost effectiveness).
Now you have two types of people here.... ( I tend to be a of the first mind set)
1. I want the absolute best protection for my application, I don't care what the manufacturer specifies, I care about what the UOA proves (science).
2. Don't stray from the OE spec, and how long can I go at the lowest possible price with still having a suitable UOA and best MPG.
Not that either are right or wrong for any reason, just an observation. Different people want different things from theri oil and vehicle. However I personally enjoyed the forum allot more when it was all about the first mindset.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
But UOA's don't tell you how an engine is wearing. They are at best a tool that gives you a rough idea as to the engine's health and whether you may be experiencing the onset of catastrophic failure. They are designed to tell you the condition of the lubricant and its suitability for continued use, they lack the resolution to discern differences in wear performance between different oils. They are also useful to detect coolant or dirt ingress.
To actually determine performance in preventing wear, one would have to do teardowns and analysis. This is what is performed when Porsche validates an oil against A40 for example. This is what the wear performance in all of the ACEA and many of the API sequences are based on as well. If these bodies could get by just comparing PPM's in UOA's instead of that they would.
Redline oils, which are highly regarded here and in numerous racing circles, often show elevated levels of various metals for example, because of the chemistry of the lubricant.
Your answer why is this thread 8 pages long?
Decision Process
I read this on another thread and thought it provides insight to a design process. Perhaps even a cautionary tale before selecting a non approved oil.
I read this on another thread and thought it provides insight to a design process. Perhaps even a cautionary tale before selecting a non approved oil.
Interesting perspective.
Aren’t we all type 1 until we see the price tag?
As for number 2, every commercial aircraft you’ve ever ridden on was serviced like that. They have an exceptionally safe accident per mile operation.
There is nothing in that link that would even remotely support the assertions you've made in this thread.
There are mechanically illiterate comments in this thread, that part of your earlier comment is true. Some individuals have demonstrated they have no clue what they are talking about.
Hah hah!
Now that's the BITOG I've come to expect.
One of the problems these days is discerning where the engineering stops and the regulations begin. I see a lot of comments like, I'd feel better about this or that oil. Which of course is just opinion. Thats quite a bit different than having a UOA to make a statement with. Overkill actually had examples to make his point. Anyone can be an internet Superman by their own claim.
Actually for the overwhelming percentage of UOA posted here feelings and UOA are exactly the same. There isn't much of a correlation between a UOA and oil "performance", at least not in the way you're discussing.