dnewton3
Staff member
There is nothing here to cause an OCI. Further extension would be safe. Getting TBN/TAN will be important as the miles accumulate.
See my "normalcy" article; there is Dmax data that clearly confirms nothing is wrong here, and everything is right.
Given this current performance, I would think he could double the OCI, but should check on TBN/TAN next time.
As for the rest of the conversation I'll say this (and I've pointed this out many times before) ...
Why pay for information to promptly ignore it?
I can understand if someone sticks to the OEM OCIs; they are typically safe and very effective, and will generally assure hundreds of thousands of good miles. In a Dmax, it's almost a "sure thing" if you follow the OLM you'd be fine. These engines are setting the bar for light-duty diesel wear; nothing up to this point has been as easy on oil and the Dmax. So, if you simply want to stick to the OLM for the OEM OCI, that's OK. There will be some inherent waste in the OCI, because the OEM OCI is purposely conservative to protect their warranty concerns. Safe, yet typically wasteful.
But ...
Doing and UOA and then ignoring data that CONFIRMS the safe extension of OCI is (IMO) just plain silly. Why would one pay for information, yet then turn away from it, just so his gut can be happier than his head? That is waste for sure. The UOA confirms the waste of oil, and then the avoidance of the confirmation is waste heaped onto waste. While I don't find it advisable to waste, I certainly cannot find solace in waste on top of waste. On top of this, we're talking synthetic oil here, which costs more money. To get any sense of a ROI, the OCI extension is mandatory if the lube is to pay for itself. To ignore the data here, a syn in a Dmax, is waste heaped upon waste.
This UOA (albiet lacking the TBN/TAN relationship) certainly points to a long life of the lube still available, as no parameter is anywhere near condemation, other than some folks mentally pre-determined "ohcrapometer" mileage calibration.
BTW - I will update the title. MOD
See my "normalcy" article; there is Dmax data that clearly confirms nothing is wrong here, and everything is right.
Given this current performance, I would think he could double the OCI, but should check on TBN/TAN next time.
As for the rest of the conversation I'll say this (and I've pointed this out many times before) ...
Why pay for information to promptly ignore it?
I can understand if someone sticks to the OEM OCIs; they are typically safe and very effective, and will generally assure hundreds of thousands of good miles. In a Dmax, it's almost a "sure thing" if you follow the OLM you'd be fine. These engines are setting the bar for light-duty diesel wear; nothing up to this point has been as easy on oil and the Dmax. So, if you simply want to stick to the OLM for the OEM OCI, that's OK. There will be some inherent waste in the OCI, because the OEM OCI is purposely conservative to protect their warranty concerns. Safe, yet typically wasteful.
But ...
Doing and UOA and then ignoring data that CONFIRMS the safe extension of OCI is (IMO) just plain silly. Why would one pay for information, yet then turn away from it, just so his gut can be happier than his head? That is waste for sure. The UOA confirms the waste of oil, and then the avoidance of the confirmation is waste heaped onto waste. While I don't find it advisable to waste, I certainly cannot find solace in waste on top of waste. On top of this, we're talking synthetic oil here, which costs more money. To get any sense of a ROI, the OCI extension is mandatory if the lube is to pay for itself. To ignore the data here, a syn in a Dmax, is waste heaped upon waste.
This UOA (albiet lacking the TBN/TAN relationship) certainly points to a long life of the lube still available, as no parameter is anywhere near condemation, other than some folks mentally pre-determined "ohcrapometer" mileage calibration.
BTW - I will update the title. MOD
Last edited:
