2005 Tundra V6 AMSOIL OE5w-30, 21,500

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Dec 13, 2002
Messages
2,528
Location
North Carolina
This sample is from a friends Tundra with the 4.7 v6. He went 13 months and 21,500 miles on AMSOIL's OE 5w-30 with a Car Quest Blue filter,(pictures in another thread of filter cut open). He kept meaning to come in for an oil change but with his job time got away from him. I need to check his air filter. Here is the Blackstone report.

Code:
Derick's Tundra doesn't look too bad, but there was more aluminum in the sample than we like to see. Iron's up,

too, but that's an element that tracks with miles and is actually good on a per mile basis. Universal averages are for an

oil run of 6,800 miles. Aluminum tends to stick closer to the average, so there was some extra piston wear. The silicon

could show dirt getting past the air cleaner, which would account for the piston wear. The TBN was very low, showing

the oil's additive package was depleted. Drop the interval to 15,000 miles and check back.







OIL AMSOIL OE 5w-30 Universal

MILES IN USE 21,500 averages

MILES 214,054

SAMPLE TAKEN 7/15/2016



ALUMINUM 6 3

CHROMIUM 1 0

IRON 17 7

COPPER 1 3

LEAD 0 1

TIN 0 1

MOLYBDENUM 64 73

NICKEL 0 0

MANGANESE 0 0

SILVER 0 0

TITANIUM 1 1

POTASSIUM 3 2

BORON 33 48

SILICON 33 14

SODIUM 18 39

CALCIUM 1918 2031

MAGNESIUM 9 226

PHOSPHORUS 619 674

ZINC 771 798

BARIUM 0 0





SUS VIS 210ºF 66.4 56-63

cSt @ 212ºF 11.98 9.1-11.3

FLASHPOINT ºF 375 >365

Fuel%
Antifreeze% 0 0

Water% 0
INSOLUBLES 0.3
TBN 0.7 >1.0

TAN
 
I don't like Blackstone's advice on "dropping the interval back to 15K miles" because OE is a econo grade Amsoil
I think 10K is pushing it especially with the same lower grade filter ( rated for 10K). I'd be at 7500 miles myself.
 
Originally Posted By: simple_gifts
Thanks for that; 4.7 is a V8 BTW. Not sure if that is a typo.

Seems like the extra long run was of little consequence.


Yes a typo and when is this site going to update to a better format, or at least let us edit our posts longer than a few minutes?
 
I agree with Blackstone on this one and actually it is a pretty good reporting just back it down a bit.
 
I see the wear rates as superb ........
blush.gif
 
Wow, nice report - even at 1/2 the mileage! Too bad there was no TAN reported...

IMO the OE is better than XL in many regards, and credit also goes to Toyota for building this engine right!
 
Originally Posted By: Kuato


IMO the OE is better than XL in many regards, and credit also goes to Toyota for building this engine right!


Please expand on your OE vs XL theory if you would... Thanks!
 
Rat407, don't forget that oil had 21K+ miles on it and 33ppm of silicon isn't too bad for those miles. It was accumulating for a long time. Maybe it's due for a filter but the silicon seems quite reasonable.

Do you know if there was any oil added or what the oil level was at sample time?
Thanks for sharing that report.
 
Originally Posted By: dustyroads
Rat407, don't forget that oil had 21K+ miles on it and 33ppm of silicon isn't too bad for those miles. It was accumulating for a long time. Maybe it's due for a filter but the silicon seems quite reasonable.

Do you know if there was any oil added or what the oil level was at sample time?
Thanks for sharing that report.


He didn't add any oil and it was down about 3/4 of a qt.
 
I think engine wear numbers don't really tell the whole story because under normal driving conditions, a mechanically sound engine will always produce low numbers. Wear numbers will only go up exponentially if the oil's viscosity goes way out of grade(sludge, coolant or fuel contamination) or if there is not enough oil in the pan or if the engine is running in extreme conditions like racing.

Running oil beyond its useful life but not long enough to cause sludge will still deposit varnish in the engine and carbon in the pcv system and intake valves. This does not show up in any UOA and gives people a false sense of security when running their oil past its useful life.

The symptoms of varnish/sludge and carbon build up may not show for years which is why some people keep feeling safe about extending their intervals.

For sure this run was too long and while wear numbers are decent, there is no way of telling how much varnish or carbon has been deposited unless the engine gets torn down.
 
Originally Posted By: HKPolice
I think engine wear numbers don't really tell the whole story because under normal driving conditions, a mechanically sound engine will always produce low numbers. Wear numbers will only go up exponentially if the oil's viscosity goes way out of grade(sludge, coolant or fuel contamination) or if there is not enough oil in the pan or if the engine is running in extreme conditions like racing.

Running oil beyond its useful life but not long enough to cause sludge will still deposit varnish in the engine and carbon in the pcv system and intake valves. This does not show up in any UOA and gives people a false sense of security when running their oil past its useful life.

The symptoms of varnish/sludge and carbon build up may not show for years which is why some people keep feeling safe about extending their intervals.

For sure this run was too long and while wear numbers are decent, there is no way of telling how much varnish or carbon has been deposited unless the engine gets torn down.


Agree.

I will say though Toyota makes among the best/low wearing engines out there.
 
Wow, for Amsoil's cheap oil, I'm impressed. That was ran about 3x longer than the oil was designed for and metals look low for that long of a run.
 
I wonder what 0.5 qt added at 15,000 mi would have done for TBN. Think it would have made 1.0 at 20,000 mi?

I think XL and a NAPA Platinum for 20,000 mi would be tempting in that app.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top