What oil changing interval are your running?

[hedydd]

The point of my earlier post is that this is not always the case because manufacturers will not pay to license a standard with little market relevance even if their oil would qualify to meet it. This is especially true if they have another product in their line targeted at that market (Mobile 1 European formula). It is even possible that a manufacturer could use the same product but bottle and label it differently to reduce licensing costs and allow for better segment marketing.

For example the value of the using Mercedes standards is low in the North American market because of the Mercedes' low market share and the fact that their owners are not typically DIYers. The oil producer may not chose to label the oil with the standard even if it will meet it.

The Mercedes standards appear to value higher viscosities at operating temperatures (ie mostly xw-40 weight oils). This is probably because the Mercedes engines are designed for these viscosities. The UZ engine in the 100 was designed for 5W-30 weight oils and the UOAs indicate this. It does not get superior results from oils with a higher viscosity at operating temperature (xW-40, GC 0W-30). The best UOAs from the UZ come from oils with lower operating viscosities (Mobile 1 5w-30,0W-30).

Please post up your UOA results in the FAQ UOA thread.

Answering you point by point

1. The fact that Amsoil is one of very few oils that do not meet or display the basic API standard should tell you two things.
a) It does not cost much to license an oil that achieves the basic API standard.
b) It does not meet the API standard. That is not to say that it is a poor oil, just that it may not meet some emission control standards within the standard if burnt though the cylinder in large quantities. That is, it may harm the catalyst if consumed in large quantities in a well worn engine.

2. The value of the Mercedes standards and ACEA equivilents is not for use in Mercedes vehicles. It is purely to educate you of the relative gradation of performance levels. Something to which you may not be accustomed having been brainwashed just to think of possibly whether a certain base oil is used and whether it is a synthetic or true synthetic, which is absolutely no guide to the true potential of any one oil. You should take special note of the fact mentioned clearly that certain Mobil1 viscosities do not meet fairly basic performance and longevity standards. This is totally detached from their viscosity and is purely a chemistry and marketing decision taken by Mobil.

 

[hedydd]

API ratings are not very telling about the quality of an oil. You know when an oil meets the MB 229.5 (and now 229.51) as well as BMW LL-01, LL-04, and Porsche requirements, that it is designed to be run for extended intervals. Note the only oils that meet these standards are Group IV PAO and Group V Ester based oils.

So how does this apply in a 100 series? It gives an idea of what oils are good oils to start with. The 100 series (like the 80) has the benifits of a large sump and an engine design that is easy on oils. As such, name brand mineral oils should easily go the factory recommended 7500 mile interval. Any "synthetic" whether it be group III, IV, or V, should go 10,000-12,000 miles without an issue. Group IV & V Synthetics will likely go 15,000+ mile intervals without trouble, but until you do specific UOA's that tell you how a specific oil holds up for your driving conditions, you will not know. BTW, we don't know how M1 0w-40 will compare to the xw-30 oils in the 100, because we have not seen back to back runs with the same driver and same engine. It is likely we may see slightly lower wear rates with the 0w-40, but we don't know until we run it (typically the lowest wear rates for engines seem to be with oils that are in the 3.5-4.0 HTHS range, that is assuming they are not specifically designed for low HTHS oils, ala audi, which the Toyota engine is not).

The simplest answer for most people is to run Mobil 1 5w-30 for 10,000 mile intervals. It is widely available (including 5 quart jugs at Walmart), has shown to comfortably run longer intervals, and 10,000 mile intervals are easy to remember.

Now I will sit back and

I think we are pretty well agreed on this. In the UK [which is humid to wet but not very cold in Winter due to a maritime climate] the standard oil change interval for all Toyota's apart from some specialist models, is 10,000 miles on nothing more special than API SL or API CF4 according to fuel used. In general the Europeans are nothing like as anal about having short oil change intervals, being well aquainted with having up to 12000 mile service intervals since the early 1980's.
I have a friend who ran his Audi Allroad diesel for 4 years and just over 200,000 miles running the Audi flexible service system which generally told him to change the oil at nearly every 20,000 miles. It still ran like new when he sold it.

 

[cary]

You should take special note of the fact mentioned clearly that certain Mobil1 viscosities do not meet fairly basic performance and longevity standards. This is totally detached from their viscosity and is purely a chemistry and marketing decision taken by Mobil.

Not correct. A requirement of the MB 229, BMW LL-01 & LL-04, and Porsche standards are that the oil has a minimum HTHS of 3.5. This is also a fundamental requirement of ACEA A3. HTHS is directly correleated with viscosity, generally an oil will have to have a thickness of greater than 12 centestokes at 100c in order to have an HTHS of more than 3.5. This corresponds to oils in the heavy 30 weight range, to low 40 weight range.

Mobil 1 30 weight oils are forumulated to be about 10 centastokes at 100c and have an HTHS of about 3.1. As such they are automatically disqualified from the above standards, but meet the mutual exclusive standard of ACEA A1/A5. ACEA A3 and A5 are identical, aside from the one requires oil have an HTHS of more than 3.5, the other requires an HTHS of less than 3.5 but more than 2.9.

The European certifications by the ACEA and manufactures tells you an oil is a good oil. The fact an oil does not carry those certifications does not make it a bad oil. Mobil feels comfortable enough they guarantee no oil related failures from using their EP formulas at 15,000 mile intervals.

 

[cary]

I think we are pretty well agreed on this. In the UK [which is humid to wet but not very cold in Winter due to a maritime climate] the standard oil change interval for all Toyota's apart from some specialist models, is 10,000 miles on nothing more special than API SL or API CF4 according to fuel used. In general the Europeans are nothing like as anal about having short oil change intervals, being well aquainted with having up to 12000 mile service intervals since the early 1980's.
I have a friend who ran his Audi Allroad diesel for 4 years and just over 200,000 miles running the Audi flexible service system which generally told him to change the oil at nearly every 20,000 miles. It still ran like new when he sold it.

You forget the other motivating factor, oil costs in Europe are 3-4x the price as in the US. Believe me if Mineral oil ran $5 a quart here and synthetics $18 a quart, for the most part the 3000 mile oil change would be gone.

 

[Jim_Chow]

You forget the other motivating factor, oil costs in Europe are 3-4x the price as in the US. Believe me if Mineral oil ran $5 a quart here and synthetics $18 a quart, for the most part the 3000 mile oil change would be gone.

At an Autobacs (like Pepboys) shop I visited in Japan, I saw oil that was about $100 for a 4 or 5 liter can! How many of you would be doing 3K mi intervals at that price?

 

[1loudLX]

thats insane jim! wow i would not even drive at that cost for oil!

 

[Jim_Chow]

Don't forget the $200+/month for a parking space at my apartment not to mention expressway tolls...sometimes as much as $1 per kilometer. Then there's the yearly car inspection fee for vehicles over ~5 yrs, engine tax (you get taxed on the displacement and #cylinders, hence the past trend of high-output 4-cylinder engines in Japan), so another $1-2K there, then there's registration/licensing.... If your car so much as leaks a single drop of oil, you get hammered...thousands of dollars of fines/repair bills, has to be done at the dealer (not yourself), etc. Now you see why I just bit the bullet and didn't buy a car? Oh, yeah, if you drive to work, you have to buy a permit (like $100/mo). A few people I knew drove to work, but they got cheaper parking spots in a remote dirt lot 1 km away for $50-70/mo. OTOH, if you took public transportation, all but $4 of the monthly pass was free. And if you were like me and lived within 2 km of the company, you had to walk, as you were not allowed to ride a bike at park it in the bike lot at work. Now you can kind of see why there aren't many obese people there, eh? Train stations also have no elevators; ones in the city as escalators, but where i lived in the 'burbs, it was stairs only. I had to carry a gourmet convection oven I bought in CA up/down the stairs one time!

Anyways, as I lived near the seashore near a popular driving route, I quickly discovered why there are plenty of used Japanese engines being imported to the US...people sit in traffic idling for hours upon hours, thinking the driving is great. So the vehicles get few miles, and most people end up dumping them at 5 yrs old to avoid paying the $1K+ vehicle inspection fee that kicks in afterwards. BTW, to get back on topic, relatives tell me the OCI there (in the city/burbs) is ~1500 miles due to all the idling.

 

[hedydd]

Not correct. A requirement of the MB 229, BMW LL-01 & LL-04, and Porsche standards are that the oil has a minimum HTHS of 3.5. This is also a fundamental requirement of ACEA A3. HTHS is directly correleated with viscosity, generally an oil will have to have a thickness of greater than 12 centestokes at 100c in order to have an HTHS of more than 3.5. This corresponds to oils in the heavy 30 weight range, to low 40 weight range.

Mobil 1 30 weight oils are forumulated to be about 10 centastokes at 100c and have an HTHS of about 3.1. As such they are automatically disqualified from the above standards, but meet the mutual exclusive standard of ACEA A1/A5. ACEA A3 and A5 are identical, aside from the one requires oil have an HTHS of more than 3.5, the other requires an HTHS of less than 3.5 but more than 2.9.

The European certifications by the ACEA and manufactures tells you an oil is a good oil. The fact an oil does not carry those certifications does not make it a bad oil. Mobil feels comfortable enough they guarantee no oil related failures from using their EP formulas at 15,000 mile intervals.

Mobil have chosen not to meet ACEA A3/B3 or mb229.1 or higher with these oils [excepting 0w/40 and 15w/50].
Other brands such have low viscosity oils that do meet these standards such as Castrol Syntec 0w/30 and Shell Helix 5w/30 and very many others do meet the standards. It is as much to do with the additive package as the viscosity because 229 is both a petrol and diesel [multi-fleet] oil with high detergency and desperant performance to hold large amounts of contaminant in suspension.
Just look at the huge list of oils that meet long-drain high performance standards on this list.
http://www.whnet.com/4x4/oil.html

Many are indeed 0w/40 and 5w/40 viscosities but there are very many that are 0w/30 and 5w/30 as well. Notwithstanding this, it is a fact that Mobil1 [in the relevant viscosities] do not meet the performance standards for long drain intervals. Mobil might 'say' anything but those oils are just plain not approved to international and specific manufacturers standards for long service use. If they wished to formulate the oils to actually meet those standards, they could do so as illustrated by the fact that other blenders oils do indeed meet them in viscosities that match the non approved Mobil. As it is they lack the high temperature shear stability needed and provided by some rivals over an extended period. Once an oil shears it loses viscosity and provides much reduced and unacceptably low protection to the engine with accellerated wear rates until changed.
The fact that they do not meet the standards does not make them poor oils, that is true in the same way, but to a lesser extent, that not meeting API standards does not make Amsoil a bad product. Personally I would always use an oil that meets at least the standard I require and ideally exceed it somewhat. I would certainly avoid an oil that plain does not meet the standard that I require no matter what the platitudes and excuses used.

Fact is of course that for the vast majority of your compatriots, all that matters is that an oil meets the basic API standards because they will not challenge the oil significantly. It is for those that are lax in their servicing schedule that a high performance long-drain oil is important. It is probable that those most in need of the extended protection are those least likely to make use of the products which provide it.

 

[cary]

I will try to explain it again. In order for an oil to be rated MB 229, BMW LL, Porsche OE, or ACEA A3, it must have an HTHS of 3.5 or higher. HTHS is short for High Temperature High Shear, and measures an oils thickness at 150c after being run through a shearing test. Typically an oil must be on the thick end of the 30 weight scale or heavier to have an HTHS that high. The terms 30 weight and 40 weight encompass a range of thicknesses, similar to the way a 90-100% is an A, 80-89% is a B and so on. 30 weight oils run the range from 9.3-12.5 Centastokes at 100C, and 40 weights 12.6-17.5 centestokes at 100c. Generally with synthetics, we see that oils that are thicker than 11.5-12.0 centastokes will have an HTHS of more than 3.5.

The above standard basically favor an oil that is as thin as possible while meeting the minimum HTHS to maximize gas mileage while minimizing valvetrain wear. What you will find is that most, if not all of those oils in the list you cite, are between 12.0 and 14.0 centastokes at 100c putting them right on the breakpoint between 30 and 40 weight oils. When manufactures are looking to make oils that meet this spec, they are not even looking at the 30 or 40 weight label.

Mobil 1 30 weight oils are formulated to be about 10 centastokes at 100c. They do this because their 40 weight oil already meets the german manufactures and A3 specs so they don't need another oil that is labled as a "30 weight" that meets the exact same specs and further confuses customers.

Do you understand that ACEA A5 and ACEA A3 are identical, except that A5 is for oils with an HTHS of 2.9-3.5 and A3 is for oils with an HTHS of more than 3.5. They are mutually exclusive and an oil cannot be both. A1 is just a lower standard of A5 for shorter change intervals.

Once again, the ACEA and German auto manufacture ratings tell you an oil is a good oil and designed for extended change intervals. The fact that an oil does not carry these ratings tells you nothing about it. Arguably Mobil 1 5w-30 EP has a more robust additive package than the 0w-40 because it does not meet the API standards (which strictly limit some antiwear additives and ash levels) and the lower weight span requires less supersyn.

 

[hedydd]

And I'll explain it again and add that other brands manage to meet the standards with both 0w/30, 5w/30 and ?/40 viscosities within their range of oils. If the repeat passages annoy you, even though they have been edited, please migrate to the last paragraph but one [marked thus ], from which the text is unique to this post as is this first paragraph.

Mobil have chosen not to meet ACEA A3/B3 or mb229.1 or higher with their oils [excepting 0w/40 and 15w/50].
Other brands have low viscosity oils that do meet these standards such as Castrol Syntec 0w/30 and Shell Helix 5w/30 and very many other similar oils do meet the standards. It is as much to do with the additive package as the viscosity [although any individual component could fail the standard] because 229 is both a petrol and diesel [multi-fleet] oil with high detergency and desperant performance to hold large amounts of contaminant in suspension as indeed is BMWLL oil.

Just look at the huge list of oils that meet long-drain high performance standards on this list.
http://www.whnet.com/4x4/oil.html

Many are indeed 0w/40 and 5w/40 viscosities but there are very many that are 0w/30 and 5w/30 as well. Notwithstanding this, it is a fact that Mobil1 [in the relevant viscosities] do not meet the performance standards for long drain intervals. Mobil might 'say' anything about the performance of their oil but those oils are just plain not approved to international and specific manufacturers standards for long service use. If they wished to formulate the oils to actually meet those standards, they could do so as illustrated by the fact that other blenders oils do indeed meet them in viscosities that match the non approved Mobil. As it is they lack the high temperature shear stability needed and provided by some rivals over an extended period. Once an oil shears it loses viscosity and provides much reduced and unacceptably low protection to the engine with accellerated wear rates until changed.
The fact that they do not meet the standards does not make them poor oils, that is true in the same way, but to a lesser extent, that not meeting API standards does not make Amsoil a bad product. Personally I would always use an oil that meets at least the standard I require and ideally exceed it somewhat. I would certainly avoid an oil that plain does not meet the standard that I require no matter what the platitudes and excuses used.

Fact is of course that for the vast majority of your compatriots, all that matters is that an oil meets the basic API standards because they will not challenge the oil significantly. It is for those that are lax in their servicing schedule that a high performance long-drain oil is important. It is probable that those most in need of the extended protection are those least likely to make use of the products which provide it.

Please do not copy a similar post again as a reply as I can also do it, as I have above. As in this post above, it does not add to knowledge, just repeats it and makes the poster [me in this case] look like a bit of a plonker. It isn't clever and I do understand the point you are making but I do not think you appreciate my main point which is simply that Mobil1 does not meet the standards met by others. It [Mobil in certain viscosities]] does not have the high temperature shear stability expected and needed to be approved. Unless you have some odd affection or affiliation to Mobil, I cannot see why you have a problem with this. The centistoke at 100C of some of the oils is posted on the web site. What it does not state and you have not appreciated is that those long drain standards generally include a multi-fleet additive package which allows an extended drain despite a very heavy soot load which is the case with direct injection petrol and emmissionised diesel engines as well as a viscosity/shear stability standard.

VW group have an even higher standard VW 506.01 in 0w/30 viscosity which is approved for petrol engines up to 20,000 miles and in diesels, even the camshaft operated PD engines which have huge shear forces and high soot/carbon contamination, up to 30,000 miles. The main reason for lesser maximum intervals in the petrol engines is the potential fuel dilution that is normal for petrol engines. Without resort to *standards* it would be reasonable to assume that a Mobil1 0w/30 would be adequate for these engines. Quite frankly the Mobil1 is not remotely in the same class. *Standards* are there for a reason and that reason is to help chose and compare products that are, at first glance similar. Standards are set and measure the performance of so many aspects of life that they are taken for granted and possibly ignored in some cases in favour of marketing mumbo jumbo.

 

[cary]

It's not worth arguing with you. I have carefully explained why the 30 weight/40 weight issue is irrelevant, as they are arbitrary breakpoints established years ago. You don't seem to be interested in hearing it.

It is pointless to formulate two oils that are virtually identical, one called a 40 weight one called a 30 weight. Mobil purposely formulates their 30 weights to meet the API fuel saving requirements. There is no need for them to be formulated to meet ACEA A3 or the other standards since their 0w-40 already does.

BTW, you have a good basic grasp of oil formulation, but have missed a few things. You really need to go back and take a careful look at the ACEA standards, not just a list of approved oils. Then you will start to see why the arbitrary weight numbers are irrelevant.

 

[hedydd]

It's not worth arguing with you. I have carefully explained why the 30 weight/40 weight issue is irrelevant, as they are arbitrary breakpoints established years ago. You don't seem to be interested in hearing it.

It is pointless to formulate two oils that are virtually identical, one called a 40 weight one called a 30 weight. Mobil purposely formulates their 30 weights to meet the API fuel saving requirements. There is no need for them to be formulated to meet ACEA A3 or the other standards since their 0w-40 already does.

BTW, you have a good basic grasp of oil formulation, but have missed a few things. You really need to go back and take a careful look at the ACEA standards, not just a list of approved oils. Then you will start to see why the arbitrary weight numbers are irrelevant.

It certainly is [pointless arguing] ;p You say the 30/40 weight is irrellevant yet you make the point that the weight is indeed relevant to acheiving a standard. I have argued that it it is relevant only in that some Mobil1 weights do not meet certain standards while other brands that have the same SAE weight from other blenders do indeed meet those performance standards. All 0w30 and 5w/30 oils that I know of meet the API fuel saving standard. You conveniently ignore the multifleet dispersant and acid neutralising aspect of those long drain standards.

Thank you for your [condescending] limited approval of my lubricant knowledge. None was sought.

Are you affiliated in some way with Mobil, a Mobil affiliate or supplier, or a Mobil wholesaler/distributor or retailer?

 

[NMuzj100]

And I'll explain it again and add that other brands manage to meet the standards with both 0w/30, 5w/30 and ?/40 viscosities within their range of oils. .... Many are indeed 0w/40 and 5w/40 viscosities but there are very many that are 0w/30 and 5w/30 as well.

Your frequently linked list of "approved" oils shows that all of them list viscosities (@100c) of 11.4 cSt or greater with many above 14 cSt (40weights). The three Mobil 1 products listed as specifically not approved are all listed as < 10.1 cSt. This indicates that the cutoff point for viscosity for the API classification and the 229 standard are different.

because 229 is both a petrol and diesel [multi-fleet] oil with high detergency and desperant performance to hold large amounts of contaminant in suspension as indeed is BMWLL oil.

The multi-fleet capability indicated by the 229 standard may actually prevent that oil from being ideal in a gasoline engine like the UZ. The lubrication requirements of diesel engines and gasoline engines are quite different and I wonder why Mercedes felt the need to have a a single multi-fleet standard. Is it too much to ask of an auto tech to know whether a vehicle has a diesel or gasoline engine to select an oil.

VW group have an even higher standard VW 506.01 in 0w/30 viscosity which is approved for petrol engines up to 20,000 miles and in diesels, even the camshaft operated PD engines which have huge shear forces and high soot/carbon contamination, up to 30,000 miles. The main reason for lesser maximum intervals in the petrol engines is the potential fuel dilution that is normal for petrol engines.

Why would this be a "higher" standard if it only allows the oil to run a similar interval (20k) as the Mobile 1 products that do not meet the standards.

Is Mobil 1 SuperSyn European Car Formula 0W-40 made to a higher standard than Mobil 1 SuperSyn 5W-30 ? No, they are made to "different" standards. One for the needs of most gasoline powered North American market vehicles and one tailored to meet the Mercedes 229 standard and presumably the needs of the European multi-fleets.

Which would be better in your cruiser ? Trials using UOA is probably the only method available to find out.

 

[hedydd]

Your frequently linked list of "approved" oils shows that all of them list viscosities (@100c) of 11.4 cSt or greater with many above 14 cSt (40weights). The three Mobil 1 products listed as specifically not approved are all listed as < 10.1 cSt. This indicates that the cutoff point for viscosity for the API classification and the 229 standard are different.

The API do not generally specify a viscosity within their standards, hence the whole range of oil viscosities that meet the minimum current API standards.

The multi-fleet capability indicated by the 229 standard may actually prevent that oil from being ideal in a gasoline engine like the UZ.

That is not so. It facilitates longer drain intervals and cleaner engine internals given that other systems such as the filtration are compatible or can be made compatible [with longer drain intervals]

The lubrication requirements of diesel engines and gasoline engines are quite different and I wonder why Mercedes felt the need to have a a single multi-fleet standard.

There are very many multifleet oils, they are not new or rare and have been around since the mid 1980's that I know of. One of my favourites which is mostly available in 15w/40 viscosity is an oil available from many blenders which meets both petrol SL and heavy diesel CH4 second tier super high performance diesel oil specification [which is the same as ACEA E3 and mb sheet 228.3 to all intents and purposes]
Care should be taken lately that low ash oils consistent with the latest engines are used due to emmission control and equipment.

Is it too much to ask of an auto tech to know whether a vehicle has a diesel or gasoline engine to select an oil.

He has to select an oil that meets or exceeds latest regulation and the engine manufacturers recommendation. Anything more is down to human choice. If you were uncomfortable using a mb229.3 oil in your petrol cruiser, then simply don't use it. It's not important, just a personal choice not to use a superior performance oil.

Why would this be a "higher" standard if it only allows the oil to run a similar interval (20k) as the Mobile 1 products that do not meet the standards.

I do not know of a single engine manufacturer who would advise long drain intervals [on suitable engines, mainly European in origine] using an oil that does not meet their minimum specification. None condone the use of those 30 weight Mobil 1 oils whereas many other blenders' 30 weight are approved.

Is Mobil 1 SuperSyn European Car Formula 0W-40 made to a higher standard than Mobil 1 SuperSyn 5W-30 ? No, they are made to "different" standards. One for the needs of most gasoline powered North American market vehicles

With 'standard' relitively short service intervals, yes.

and one tailored to meet the Mercedes 229 standard and presumably the needs of the European multi-fleets.

They do not meet those requirements, no.

Which would be better in your cruiser ? Trials using UOA is probably the only method available to find out.

If you can be bothered. Personally I would use just a slightly better standard of oil than specified, a standard API SL would qualify, and run it on manufacturers recommended service intervals. A dino oil would be fine and a synthetic would only really be advantageous in extremes of climate to minimise [though not eliminate] cold start wear.

 

[tabraha]

If you were uncomfortable using a mb229.3 oil in your petrol cruiser, then simply don't use it. It's not important, just a personal choice not to use a superior performance oil.

Personally I would use just a slightly better standard of oil than specified, a standard API SL would qualify, and run it on manufacturers recommended service intervals. A dino oil would be fine and a synthetic would only really be advantageous in extremes of climate to minimise [though not eliminate] cold start wear.

What? You're advocating that the mb229.3 is a superior performance oil without ANY analysis on your particular engine to back it up other than standards that have been set forth? If you've got the UOA's then post 'em up! That would be AWESOME to have more data on different oils for this engine. Engine designs are all over the board these days and advocating that one oil is the best independent of engine type is craziness. The UOA is the only real world proof of an oil's performance characteristics. The rest is quite simply theory, speculation, and playing stat jockey. I've shown how well M1 runs in the 2UZ-FE and I haven't seen anything to touch it yet. That's not to say I'm presumptive enough to pronounce it "King of Oils" however. It would be awesome to have more choices but the fact of the matter is folks, especially over here in the states, are uneasy about long intervals because of standards that insinuate that the oil cannot last that long. I personally hope that the Amsoil poster will show us a UOA at somewhere in the 14,000 mile range so we can compare it against the M1 in the 2UZ-FE. It could open up more doors for us as the end users. I would also really like to see what the mb229.3 oil is capable of and I think you should run it for 14,000 miles get it analyzed and let us see the performance of the oil, not the theoretical superiority.


I am shocked that you would tout the mb229.3 standards yet in the same breath suggest that a factory interval and dino oil be used. Why not run the mb229.3 spec oil for an extended interval? There's got to be more to what you're saying.

Don't take what I say to be harsh as web boards always take things out of context but if you feel you've got a superior oil option for us then step up to the plate and prove it so we can explore our options!!!!

 

[hedydd]

What? You're advocating that the mb229.3 is a superior performance oil without ANY analysis on your particular engine to back it up other than standards that have been set forth?

I did write a more comprehensive answer than this one is going to be but lost it when the phone conection dropped.

As I said above, if you are not happy, stick to the manufacturers recommended oils and intervals. I am not advocating you do anything else. Toyota usually has a clause in their manual that states that the use of synthetic oil is not advised and no benefits will be gained by such use. Believe what makes you happy.

If you've got the UOA's then post 'em up! That would be AWESOME to have more data on different oils for this engine. Engine designs are all over the board these days and advocating that one oil is the best independent of engine type is craziness.

They are not all over the place. The fact that Toyota advocates standard API rated oils and nothing more in most of their engines demonstrates that they have no special requirements.

The UOA is the only real world proof of an oil's performance characteristics. The rest is quite simply theory, speculation, and playing stat jockey. I've shown how well M1 runs in the 2UZ-FE and I haven't seen anything to touch it yet. That's not to say I'm presumptive enough to pronounce it "King of Oils" however. It would be awesome to have more choices but the fact of the matter is folks, especially over here in the states, are uneasy about long intervals because of standards that insinuate that the oil cannot last that long. I personally hope that the Amsoil poster will show us a UOA at somewhere in the 14,000 mile range so we can compare it against the M1 in the 2UZ-FE. It could open up more doors for us as the end users. I would also really like to see what the mb229.3 oil is capable of and I think you should run it for 14,000 miles get it analyzed and let us see the performance of the oil, not the theoretical superiority.

Standards are set so that people like you can compare and place a product in a hierachy. API only generally set a minimum standard below which an oil is unacceptable during a contemporary time and for engines produced in that time frame.
Once upon a time I did analyse my then 40 or so engines regularly but these need to be done regularly so a pattern develops and abnormalities can be spotted. Just a linear deterioration in an oil with use does not give any useful information and varies between engine designs, duty and oil performance quality used. One needs to know where to draw the line between what is acceptable and what is not.
For a regularly serviced engine there is little useful information to be gained and I gave up playing around with analysis about twenty years ago. Now if I had a hire fleet of heavy earthmovers for instance, I might see a benefit but not for my Land cruiser. I can't be arsed.

I am shocked that you would tout the mb229.3 standards yet in the same breath suggest that a factory interval and dino oil be used. Why not run the mb229.3 spec oil for an extended interval? There's got to be more to what you're saying.

Don't take what I say to be harsh as web boards always take things out of context but if you feel you've got a superior oil option for us then step up to the plate and prove it so we can explore our options!!!!

I am not advocating anything except the use of a slightly better oil to use within the manufacturers schedule. Anything I do personally, which isn't far from that, is at my own risk. If you wish to push the boudaries of the service intervals by a significant amount then you are asking for trouble and you just might find it if you don't know what you are doing. If you do not trust mb229.3 [I think 229.1 is a waste of time when you could use 229.3] then don't use it. If you think that M1 5w/30 is as good an oil please do consider that mb do not approve it for their extended intervals of around 15000 miles while they do approve of m1 0w/40 and other blenders 5w/30 oils are indeed approved.
At your standard Toyota service intervals, Toyota give you a minimum API standard to use and I have no doubt that such an oil is more than adequate, excellent even.

 

[tabraha]

I understand what yo are saying now. "slightly better oil to use within the manufacturers schedule". It's just buried in extraneous information in all of the posts!

I don't think we needed such an abundance of info for such a safe bet as that do we?


Bottom line folks, the 2UZ-FE in my 100 runs like a sowing machine on M1 5W-30 oil. It may run longer on 0W-40 oil. I don't believe anyone has tested that to see. I've posted the data for everyone on here to examine as have several others as to the afinity of M1 5W-30 in this engine.

Anyone interested in extended OCI's should know that it is a reality and should venture over to www.bobistheoilguy.com and explore the possibilities. Heck, I may look into 0W-40 M1 now that it's been suggested.

Also if anyone is wondering, my UOA's are very similar to the newest magical Mercedes MB229.5 oils, even when used in the MB engines the specs were created around. In fact the MB engines that I'm comparing to have less than HALF the total mileage and a larger sump than my venerable '99 does and still manage no less wear than I am getting. to Toyota!

 

[NMuzj100]

Also if anyone is wondering, my UOA's are very similar to the newest magical Mercedes MB229.5 oils, even when used in the MB engines the specs were created around. In fact the MB engines that I'm comparing to have less than HALF the total mileage and a larger sump than my venerable '99 does and still manage no less wear than I am getting. to Toyota!

UOAs cannot be usefully compared between different engines because of the different engine designs/materials ect ....

If you want to run a 229.5 spec'ed oil I still think it would be best to stick with a 0/5W-30.

I would go with the famous German Castrol ($5/quart at Autozone ). Well loved at BITOG and has specs to satisfy even hedyyd. From the Castrol coporate site

SAE 0W-30:
Castrol SYNTEC 0W-30 European Formula is engineered to meet the Mercedes Benz 229.5 specification. The 0W-30 viscosity grade is ideal for winter conditions where low temperature pumpability is required. A unique, low-temperature formulation provides exceptional pumpability in cold weather and allows for unaided engine starts down to -40°F. Exceeds all car and light truck manufacturer's warranty requirements for the protection of gasoline, diesel and turbocharged engines where API SL, SJ, SH, CF or CD is recommended. Exceeds European ACEA: A3, B3, B4; VW 502 00, 505 00, 503 01; MB 229.1, 229.3, 229.5; BMW LL-01; GM-LL-A-025, GM-LL-B-025 and the engine protection requirements of ILSAC GF-3 for API Certified Gasoline Engine Oils.​

A UOA comparison of this with the Mobile 1 would be great.

 

[tabraha]

UOAs cannot be usefully compared between different engines because of the different engine designs/materials ect ....

You know I know better than to do that but I was making a point that if "supposedly" engine design had no influence on how an oil performed as someone had errantly posted earlier then the UOA's would be comparable across the board....you and I know that to not be the case.

I just changed oil in my 100 so it'll be a while before I get to try it out! You're next! I want to see that oil tested as well.

 

[1loudLX]

Ok, wow. I just tried to read all these long posts about standards and such. You guys have way too much information stored up in your brains. Can you help me out guys. Ive been running Mobil 1 Clean 7500 5W-30 which is a syn blend of 18% i believe.

Anyways, i went to go buy some oil today and the guy i always buy from didnt have what i wanted. So i decided to grab some Mobil 1 5W-30 Full sythetic with supersyn technology.

I would just like some help trying to figure out what potential differences in performance would be between using these two different types of oil. Granted, i might not even ever notice anything. Things like cold starts(its getting to be winter here and ive already seen temps below 32*...but its going to be 70* tommorrow, go figure.

Any input to just ease my mind about changing oil would be great. I also switched to this oil just because i see it everywhere and ied rather just run something that is easily aval, and not need to special order my stupid clean 7500.


Also, i think im going to sit here one night and read thru all your guys post and take notes on it and try and learn about these different oil specs and what not...but not right now ive got test for school to study for.