You don’t have to prove the baseline works—that’s already been done.
You do have to prove your change improves it.
Sponsored
Sponsored
5w-30
- Thread starter GSPHerder
- Start date
- Watchers 32
You do have to prove your change improves it.
That only applies if the baseline is optimal. You haven’t shown that.
You keep repeating the same generic points, but there’s still no actual explanation behind them.
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2025
- Threads
- 3
- Messages
- 150
- Reaction score
- 77
- Location
- California
- Vehicle(s)
- 2024 TRD Off-Road 6MT
Too funny
I've always been in the camp of frequent drain intervals 3k mi or less; full-syn became my norm years ago. In the last 30k or so in my last car (toyota), I used nothing but Valvoline Restore and Protect, and it made a positive difference with oil burning, so I set out to use that from the start with my truck. The thin, low-tension oil rings are actually my primary concern for longevity, along with carbon coking in the turbo, and I plan to put 200k mi on my truck.
I got my truck used with 1,500 on it, so I began sampling at 2,500-5,000 miles and roughly 2,500-mile intervals since then. I believe the elevated Silicon in the 2nd sample was dust in the hose used to drain using the fumoto valve, and I did the sample at the start of the oil drain, so I think dust contaminated that sample.
The first sample was Restore and Protect 0w-20, and the next three have been 5-20. I don't know how to explain some of the differences in the additive pack across the samples.
I'm on the coast in California, so my regular temps are very mild 40-80 typically. I did take a trip to Death Valley before the last sample was taken, and while it wasn't hot it was still 95+ degrees at times, and it's common to drive in 100-degree-plus temps on road trips, which I did several times in these samples.
I also have the Banks iDash and have observed oil pressure dropping with oil temps above 220F, which I don't hit unless in hot temps going up a grade and under boost.
Typically, the pressure is about 60psi on the hwy at ~2,200 rpm, and while at 235f it was down to 50ish PSI.
Long story short, I like having a thicker base weight oil and samples indicate what I'm doing is A-ok.
I've always been in the camp of frequent drain intervals 3k mi or less; full-syn became my norm years ago. In the last 30k or so in my last car (toyota), I used nothing but Valvoline Restore and Protect, and it made a positive difference with oil burning, so I set out to use that from the start with my truck. The thin, low-tension oil rings are actually my primary concern for longevity, along with carbon coking in the turbo, and I plan to put 200k mi on my truck.
I got my truck used with 1,500 on it, so I began sampling at 2,500-5,000 miles and roughly 2,500-mile intervals since then. I believe the elevated Silicon in the 2nd sample was dust in the hose used to drain using the fumoto valve, and I did the sample at the start of the oil drain, so I think dust contaminated that sample.
The first sample was Restore and Protect 0w-20, and the next three have been 5-20. I don't know how to explain some of the differences in the additive pack across the samples.
I'm on the coast in California, so my regular temps are very mild 40-80 typically. I did take a trip to Death Valley before the last sample was taken, and while it wasn't hot it was still 95+ degrees at times, and it's common to drive in 100-degree-plus temps on road trips, which I did several times in these samples.
I also have the Banks iDash and have observed oil pressure dropping with oil temps above 220F, which I don't hit unless in hot temps going up a grade and under boost.
Typically, the pressure is about 60psi on the hwy at ~2,200 rpm, and while at 235f it was down to 50ish PSI.
Long story short, I like having a thicker base weight oil and samples indicate what I'm doing is A-ok.
Changed my oil a week ago, and this time went with M1 EP 5w30 as I had some to use up. Previously was using Pennzoil Ultra Platinum 5w30. I have to say, truck seems to run better and smoother on the M1 !! My fuel mileage has also increased. Placebo effect? Idk! But I’m thinking I might just stick with Mobil 1
Sponsored
- First Name
- Jason
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2024
- Threads
- 0
- Messages
- 288
- Reaction score
- 178
- Location
- Petaluma,CA
- Vehicle(s)
- 2024 Tacoma TRD OR
The empirical data you demand, you fail to present for your own argument, so I don’t give your demand much relevance since it doesn’t apply to oneself..
It is demonstrably proven that thinner viscosity oils are more thermally conductive but fail at a lower temperature/ addressing your wear and durability assertion. The benefit of lower viscosity oil is slightly better fuel economy for stop and go driving/city driving, and NOT highway driving. The engine spec is the same worldwide and oil viscosity option does vary upon climate, when not under United States CAFE rating constraints- hence the Russian oil options for this engine relate to North America= Canada, United States, and Mexico… It is self Evident that CAFE requirements are the primary goal for Toyota in the United States, and not based upon regional weather, but regional political and environmental policy. No one here is insisting a Valvoline straight 60 weight racing oil. The t24a-fts is ok to run 10w30 in hot climates, and 5w30 down to twenty degrees Fahrenheit…. As per Toyota’s suggestions in locations that aren’t concerned about “regional” requirements line CAFE ratings.
I have repeatedly written this to you, and don’t ever expect you to agree. This is for other forum members to glean.
- First Name
- Jason
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2024
- Threads
- 0
- Messages
- 288
- Reaction score
- 178
- Location
- Petaluma,CA
- Vehicle(s)
- 2024 Tacoma TRD OR
The base line of thinner viscosity oils is more thermally conductive but fails at a lower temperature? That baseline? Or the baseline of oil options being different based upon regional climate, that is outside the United States, where CAFE rating policy isn’t what drives oil viscosity recommendations. Those baselines? Are you an attorney by chance?
You’re asking for empirical data while presenting none yourself—that cuts both ways.
Saying thinner oil “fails at a lower temperature” is a claim, not evidence. If that were actually causing durability issues in this engine, we’d see it—failures, TSBs, spec changes. That’s how real problems show up.
The CAFE argument gets repeated a lot, but it doesn’t explain why these engines run long-term without widespread issues on 0W-20. Fuel economy is a factor, but it’s validated alongside durability—not instead of it.
And pointing to alternate viscosity charts in other regions doesn’t prove thicker is better—it just shows there’s an acceptable range depending on conditions. That’s not evidence that deviating improves anything.
You’re dismissing manufacturer-level validation as “policy-driven,” while leaning on assumptions and selective examples. That’s not empirical—that’s speculation.
And if this is for others to “glean,” then it should hold up to scrutiny—repeating it doesn’t make it evidence.
Until there’s clear, repeatable data showing thicker oil improves wear or durability in this engine, I’ll stick with what’s actually been validated.
You have shown none.
You’re still mixing claims with evidence.
“Yes, thinner oil is more thermally conductive” — agreed.
“Fails at a lower temperature” — that’s the part you haven’t demonstrated in any meaningful, real-world way for this engine.
If that were actually impacting wear or durability, we wouldn’t be guessing—we’d see it in failure data, service bulletins, or spec changes. That’s how real issues show up.
And the regional viscosity charts don’t prove thicker is better—they show an acceptable range based on conditions. That’s not the same as proving improvement.
The baseline has been proven: engines running to high mileage on 0W-20 without widespread issues. That’s real-world validation at scale.
If you want to deviate from that, the burden is still the same—show that it improves outcomes, not just that it’s different.
And no—not an attorney. Just applying the same standard of evidence both ways.
Next..........
Sponsored
Seriously, don't bother. It just turns into more rounds of irrelevant, word-salad responses that don’t address the topic. He’s not engaging with what the thread is actually about, so there’s really no point. He’ll just keep defaulting to “trust the manufacturer” while everyone else is actually discussing the topic.
Someone running 5w30 should post their UOA! If the test shows improved wear performance over 0w20 UOA’s taken at the same OCI and under the same driving conditions, then we will have an answer. I’m planning on switching to 5w30 this summer for one change and getting it tested, and testing the 0w20 I drained before putting the 5w30 in. I will post results when I do this. I am having a hard time shipping my oil samples to Blackstone, as I am in Canada and Canada Post considers a tiny bottle of oil a dangerous good so they won’t ship it…
That’s not going to prove what you think it will.
One truck, two oil changes, and a couple UOAs isn’t controlled testing—that’s anecdotal.
UOAs are diagnostic tools, not a way to overturn manufacturer specs. If it were that easy, the industry would’ve done it already.
Labeling it “word salad” doesn’t fix the fact that there’s still no evidence behind your position.
You’re trying to move away from a validated baseline without showing any measurable improvement—just assumptions, selective examples, and repetition.
That’s not “discussion”—it’s avoiding the standard of proof.
If thicker oil actually improved outcomes in this engine, there would be clear, repeatable data. There isn’t.
No—we’re not doing this again. You’ve already made your position clear, and you’re not engaging with the actual topic of the thread.
Sponsored
