New Motor Oil Geek: Transmission and Gear Oil Analysis at 5000 miles on Tacoma

[DENNISD]

Yup, you ain’t wrong!! he came to defend his opinion with an ad hominem

Wanting evidence before declaring something “better” isn’t exactly a controversial standard.

Also, asking people to support their claims with actual data is not an ad hominem. Calling engineers “bean counters,” calling people cognitively dissonant, and turning the discussion into politics probably fits that category a lot better.

At this point, the conversation has basically shifted from:
“Here’s evidence thicker oil improves outcomes”
to:
“You can’t prove it doesn’t.”

Those are very different arguments.

Sponsored

 

[32spoke]

The “horse” is doing just fine—it’s called OEM validation.

The vehicle runs exactly as intended on the recommended oil without guesswork.

If you’ve got something that actually improves on that, show it. Otherwise it’s just opinion.

Until then, I’ll stick with what’s been proven—you can stick with what sounds good.

As mentioned to you before: Toyota OEM validation in Russia for the identical engine is 0w20- for Cold climates, and up to 5w30 for above -17 degrees Fahrenheit.. you dismissed this before. Also, As mentioned to you before: Toyota’s Mexico OEM recommendations allow for up to a 10w30 viscosity for the identical engine. Therefore, unless someone lives in climates that are exceptionally cold, the other Toyota valid OEM oil viscosity options are valid, unless you are gonna only consider the United States/Canada, owners Manual for oem
Validation? And thread isn’t about what Toyota suggests in one’s United States/canadian owner’s manuals but what other options are CONSIDERED and validated by Toyota, in locations that aren’t driven by CAFE standards. “Valid” Toyota OEM recommendations: like El Paso, TX- 0W20 vs Juarez, MX.. with an OEM validation of up to 10W30. That’s an identical climate as the vast distance between those two locations is less than 15 miles from each other, each with their own “valid Toyota OEM spec” for the identical engine.

 

[32spoke]

Wanting evidence before declaring something “better” isn’t exactly a controversial standard.

Also, asking people to support their claims with actual data is not an ad hominem. Calling engineers “bean counters,” calling people cognitively dissonant, and turning the discussion into politics probably fits that category a lot better.

At this point, the conversation has basically shifted from:
“Here’s evidence thicker oil improves outcomes”
to:
“You can’t prove it doesn’t.”

Those are very different arguments.

Feelings.com, right or did you write something similar instead of countering an opinion with an ad hominem reply-

 

[32spoke]

I can't think of anyone, or a company, that would front the bucks to quantify that. So it's an easy position to take because there will never be evidence to "disprove" the logic, but absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.

I remember my high school auto teacher saying Ford would change the tooling on a part if it would save ten cents each. So I asked a GM development engineer if that was true, and he said "idk about 10 cents, but if I could save 25 cents I'd go from being on a team to managing a team"

I asked for an example, and he said they determine how much aluminum is needed in a radiator by loading the vehicle to full gross weight rating and running it under full load up a long grade in the california desert at 105 degrees plus. They go thinner and thinner on the radiator cores. After the engine overheads and blows up, they go back up one size and if it passes the test, boom that was the minimum amount of aluminum they would have to use in the radiator for production.

The idea that the OEM performs exhaustive testing and recommends based on the customer's interest is la la land.

Exactly and the best example is creating direct injection and the majority of “OEM” manufacturers never addressing the carbon buildup on engines for another decade. Oh, then there’s the multiple automotive manufacturers modifying their software to increase mileage at the expense of emissions/diesel gate. Oops

 

[DENNISD]

As mentioned to you before: Toyota OEM validation in Russia for the identical engine is 0w20- for Cold climates, and up to 5w30 for above -17 degrees Fahrenheit.. you dismissed this before. Also, As mentioned to you before: Toyota’s Mexico OEM recommendations allow for up to a 10w30 viscosity for the identical engine. Therefore, unless someone lives in climates that are exceptionally cold, the other Toyota valid OEM oil viscosity options are valid, unless you are gonna only consider the United States/Canada, owners Manual for oem
Validation? And thread isn’t about what Toyota suggests in one’s United States/canadian owner’s manuals but what other options are CONSIDERED and validated by Toyota, in locations that aren’t driven by CAFE standards. “Valid” Toyota OEM recommendations: like El Paso, TX- 0W20 vs Juarez, MX.. with an OEM validation of up to 10W30. That’s an identical climate as the vast distance between those two locations is less than 15 miles from each other, each with their own “valid Toyota OEM spec” for the identical engine.

You’re still arguing “acceptable range,” while I’m addressing claims of superiority.

I’ve never denied Toyota allows different viscosities in different markets. In fact, I’ve acknowledged multiple times that the engine is clearly capable of operating across a viscosity range depending on regional guidance and operating assumptions.

What I’m pushing back on is the leap from:
“Toyota allows 5W-30 in some markets”
to:
“therefore 5W-30 provides meaningfully better protection and owners should move away from the specified viscosity.”

Those are not the same claim.

The El Paso/Juarez example actually reinforces my point. If the same engine can successfully operate on multiple viscosities across nearly identical climates, then that strongly suggests the engine is robust enough that none of these adjacent viscosities are catastrophically inadequate.

That’s flexibility — not proof of superiority.

And the CAFE argument keeps getting overstated. Even if fuel economy regulations influence viscosity recommendations, that still doesn’t establish that the specified oil fails to provide sufficient durability margin in real-world operation.

At the end of the day, the strongest claim supported by the evidence here is:
multiple viscosities are acceptable for this engine under different operating philosophies and regional standards.

That is a much smaller claim than:
“Toyota’s North American recommendation is wrong” or “5W-30 is demonstrably better.”

 

[32spoke]

You’re still arguing “acceptable range,” while I’m addressing claims of superiority.

I’ve never denied Toyota allows different viscosities in different markets. In fact, I’ve acknowledged multiple times that the engine is clearly capable of operating across a viscosity range depending on regional guidance and operating assumptions.

What I’m pushing back on is the leap from:
“Toyota allows 5W-30 in some markets”
to:
“therefore 5W-30 provides meaningfully better protection and owners should move away from the specified viscosity.”

Those are not the same claim.

The El Paso/Juarez example actually reinforces my point. If the same engine can successfully operate on multiple viscosities across nearly identical climates, then that strongly suggests the engine is robust enough that none of these adjacent viscosities are catastrophically inadequate.

That’s flexibility — not proof of superiority.

And the CAFE argument keeps getting overstated. Even if fuel economy regulations influence viscosity recommendations, that still doesn’t establish that the specified oil fails to provide sufficient durability margin in real-world operation.

At the end of the day, the strongest claim supported by the evidence here is:
multiple viscosities are acceptable for this engine under different operating philosophies and regional standards.

That is a much smaller claim than:
“Toyota’s North American recommendation is wrong” or “5W-30 is demonstrably better.”

Has anyone claimed that Toyota is incorrect? Or have they just contented that Toyota is attempting to meet CAFE ratings for their entire platform Of vehicles within the United States, therefore similar climates over various countries allow for something different than 0w20? Mind you, by Toyota’s own advice.

 

[DENNISD]

Has anyone claimed that Toyota is incorrect? Or have they just contented that Toyota is attempting to meet CAFE ratings for their entire platform Of vehicles within the United States, therefore similar climates over various countries allow for something different than 0w20? Mind you, by Toyota’s own advice.

Some posters absolutely have implied that — either directly or indirectly — by repeatedly framing 0W-20 as a CAFE-driven compromise sitting dangerously close to inadequate.

That’s very different from simply saying:
“Toyota allows multiple viscosities globally.”

I’ve already acknowledged the engine can operate across a range of viscosities. The disagreement is over what conclusion should be drawn from that fact.

You seem to interpret the regional differences as evidence that thicker oil is preferable whenever possible. I interpret them as evidence that the engine is tolerant and robust enough to function properly across multiple adjacent viscosities.

Those are not the same conclusion.

And even if CAFE influences North American recommendations to some degree, that still doesn’t establish that the specified oil fails to provide sufficient durability margin in real-world operation. That’s the leap I keep pushing back on.

At this point, I think we’ve actually narrowed the debate considerably:
the engine likely functions well on multiple viscosities, while different owners choose different comfort margins based on climate, usage, and philosophy.

That’s a much more reasonable discussion than “Toyota knowingly recommends inadequate oil.”

 

[32spoke]

Some posters absolutely have implied that — either directly or indirectly — by repeatedly framing 0W-20 as a CAFE-driven compromise sitting dangerously close to inadequate.

That’s very different from simply saying:
“Toyota allows multiple viscosities globally.”

I’ve already acknowledged the engine can operate across a range of viscosities. The disagreement is over what conclusion should be drawn from that fact.

You seem to interpret the regional differences as evidence that thicker oil is preferable whenever possible. I interpret them as evidence that the engine is tolerant and robust enough to function properly across multiple adjacent viscosities.

Those are not the same conclusion.

And even if CAFE influences North American recommendations to some degree, that still doesn’t establish that the specified oil fails to provide sufficient durability margin in real-world operation. That’s the leap I keep pushing back on.

At this point, I think we’ve actually narrowed the debate considerably:
the engine likely functions well on multiple viscosities, while different owners choose different comfort margins based on climate, usage, and philosophy.

That’s a much more reasonable discussion than “Toyota knowingly recommends inadequate oil.”

Then to your point, why has Toyota not published the required use of 0w20 only? I ask you, Because other countries under various climate such as Thailand, UAE, Mexico, Russia, Japan, etc, Toyota has published thicker oil viscosity recommendations based upon the temperature ranges- for example: with 5w30 being recommended for minus 17/ minus 20 degrees Fahrenheit for both the T24A-FTS and the VG34-FTS… in other countries throughout the world, just not the United States/Canadian market.

 

[DENNISD]

Then to your point, why has Toyota not published the required use of 0w20 only? I ask you, Because other countries under various climate such as Thailand, UAE, Mexico, Russia, Japan, etc, Toyota has published thicker oil viscosity recommendations based upon the temperature ranges- for example: with 5w30 being recommended for minus 17/ minus 20 degrees Fahrenheit for both the T24A-FTS and the VG34-FTS… in other countries throughout the world, just not the United States/Canadian market.

Because Toyota clearly believes the engine is capable of operating across a range of adjacent viscosities depending on regional priorities, climate assumptions, fuel economy targets, oil availability, and operating expectations.

I’ve never disputed that.

What I keep disputing is the conclusion being drawn from it.

The existence of alternate approved viscosities does not automatically establish that the North American recommendation is inadequate, unsafe, or materially inferior for durability.

If Toyota truly believed 0W-20 could not provide sufficient protection in hot climates, towing, or real-world North American use, they wouldn’t specify it as the primary viscosity across hundreds of thousands of vehicles operating in places like Arizona, Texas, Nevada, and New Mexico.

That’s the part I think keeps getting glossed over.

The global charts demonstrate flexibility and acceptable operating ranges. They do not demonstrate that moving thicker produces measurably better long-term outcomes in this engine.

Those are two very different claims.

 

[GSPHerder]

Heres the point your missing Dennisd, I'lll be the first to switch back to 0w-20 if data shows its showing better engine wear characteristics.

There's some of us based on gathered wisdom that have chosen to upgrade the viscosity based on the limited data that has been presented.

The difference is we are not telling you what oil to use, use what you want. You're the only one dictating what each owner should use based off some jackass manual, the same manual that dictates 10k mile oil changes.

Furthermore, you will not provide an oil analysis that could help us all, but instead come up with bs stuff like "one oil analysis that shows that my 0w-20 isn't protecting the engine doesn't count".

The difference is I will absolutely post my first 0w-30 oil analysis and let the chips lay where they fall.

 

[DENNISD]

Heres the point your missing Dennisd, I'lll be the first to switch back to 0w-20 if data shows its showing better engine wear characteristics.

There's some of us based on gathered wisdom that have chosen to upgrade the viscosity based on the limited data that has been presented.

The difference is we are not telling you what oil to use, use what you want. You're the only one dictating what each owner should use based off some jackass manual, the same manual that dictates 10k mile oil changes.

Furthermore, you will not provide an oil analysis that could help us all, but instead come up with bs stuff like "one oil analysis that shows that my 0w-20 isn't protecting the engine doesn't count".

The difference is I will absolutely post my first 0w-30 oil analysis and let the chips lay where they fall.

I think we’re actually closer in position than you realize.

I’ve never said people “can’t” run thicker oil. I’ve repeatedly acknowledged the engine is clearly capable of operating across a viscosity range. If someone prefers running 0W-30 or 5W-30 for peace of mind under heavy load or heat, that’s their choice.

What I’ve pushed back on is the repeated implication that moving thicker is objectively better for this engine without meaningful evidence showing improved real-world outcomes.

And regarding UOAs, I’m not saying they’re useless. I’m saying people are trying to use them for conclusions they’re not really capable of proving at small scale. A single good or bad UOA doesn’t suddenly establish one viscosity as universally superior. There are simply too many variables involved.

Ironically, your current position is actually much more reasonable than earlier arguments in this thread:
“You’re choosing a different viscosity based on personal risk tolerance and perceived margin.”

That’s a defensible position.

Where things go sideways is when people start acting like the factory recommendation is reckless, politically driven nonsense, or inherently inadequate despite large-scale real-world success.

And for the record, I’m not “dictating” what owners should use. People can run whatever they want. I’m simply defending the idea that the OEM recommendation deserves more respect than some people in this thread seem willing to give it.

Sponsored