WHATS THE BEST OIL? 0W20? GOOD?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Earthling @ May 25 2007, 10:29 AM) [snapback]449756[/snapback]</div>

They are recommendations not requirements. There is a big difference.

In the event of a failure, the only way that Toyota could deny a warranty claim is if they could prove that not changing the oil is what caused the mechanical failure. The Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act clearly outlines all of this.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Swanny1172 @ May 25 2007, 08:21 AM) [snapback]449803[/snapback]</div>

Out of curiosity, do you have any citation for your assertion? Like a court case where someone filed suit for violation of M-M and the case was decided in favor of the plaintiff?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Swanny1172 @ May 25 2007, 10:21 AM) [snapback]449803[/snapback]</div>

Good gosh! All this talk about oil in great detail to save a couple bucks? Craziness!!

I bought the warranty, am going to follow the maintenance schedule at the dealer, get my oil changed there, and have no worries.

Why take the chance of using non spec products, only to have to duke it out to prove your choices didn't cause future issues with the car?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(thebrattygurl @ Jun 1 2007, 11:21 PM) [snapback]453755[/snapback]</div>

Under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, and the general principles of the Federal Trade Commission Act, a manufacturer/dealer may NOT require you to have routine oil changes or use any particular brand of oil filter (or any other car part) unless the manufacturer provides the item free of charge, during the terms of the warranty.

If your car is still covered under the new car warranty and a dealer is telling you that you have to use their name brand filter or your new car warranty will be voided, for example, then you should thank him, and inform him that under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act he now has to provide that oil change and filter for free. It is not true that you have to use the dealer for oil changes, even on a brand new car. If dealers say you are required to use their products or else have your warranty voided, then the work is considered warranty work and must be provided for free.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(apriusfan @ Jun 1 2007, 10:27 PM) [snapback]453728[/snapback]</div>

http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/buspub...m#Magnuson-Moss

Although the Magnuson-Moss Act was a law designed to protect consumers for any product worth over $25, it has become a large part of the automotive industry. We have all heard of stories in which dealerships have refused to honor a warranty because of modification to the vehicle. Under the Magnusson-Moss Act, a dealership or manufacturer cannot deny warranty coverage solely because the consumer has installed aftermarket parts. The purpose of the act, in regards to automobiles, is so manufacturers cannot require consumers to purchase the OEM parts. If you decide to use a Fram or Mobil 1 oil filter as opposed to the factory oil filter, this is where the act will protect you by not voiding your warranty.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Swanny1172 @ Jun 2 2007, 10:14 AM) [snapback]453945[/snapback]</div>

Still waiting for a citation to a court case. The FTC URL that you provided is nothing more than outreach that the FTC is doing to be able to claim that they are serving the public. Absent litigation by the federal government or other litigation that has been decided in the plaintiff's favor, there is nothing that compels the manufacturer to honor the provisions of M-M in their decision to deny or honor a warranty claim. Even if there was settled litigation on the subject, M-M requires a plaintiff to file suit against the manufacturer (at the plaintiff's expense through appeal) before the plaintiff gets satisfaction.

If you can provide a link to a court case that was filed under the provisions of M-M and was decided in the plaintiff's favor, I will retract everything I have said. Until then, M-M is not worth the paper it was originally printed on, much less all the claims that have been made about the act.

 

apriusfan,

How is the view from the cheap seats?

I am not your personal research service. Instead of sitting on your nice person carping, why don't YOU do a little research? I don't work for a law firm and don't have access to LexisNexis. If you want case law, then find it yourself.

And, I could care less if you "will retract everything I have said." Big deal. You act like you are some kind of an expert and that your opinion matters. Why don't you provide an example of where the Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act has failed to protect a consumer in a case like this? The law is on my side, not yours.

 

If substitution's were not allowed dealers would loose a lot of profit. Most dealers are real scum bags when it comes to the oil they use. They buy it in bulk from the low bidder. It's in barrels. It gets contaminated through poor handling. We have done voa's on barrel oil and I would not put any of it in my car. Dealers treat oil changes as loss leaders and you can bet that high paid mechanic is never going to be reduced to changing oil. So, you should take your Prius to the dealer because how will the lot boy ever lean how to change oil if you don't show up. Oh and what do we find in a voa on barrel oil, paint chips, rust, water, metal filings, rubber, insect parts, mouse droppings and much more. If it does not come out of a sealed bottle it does not go in my car.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Swanny1172 @ Jun 2 2007, 11:52 AM) [snapback]453993[/snapback]</div>

It doesn't exist.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Swanny1172 @ Jun 2 2007, 11:52 AM) [snapback]453993[/snapback]</div>

Well, since you insist, here is a thread from a MINI forum:

http://www.northamericanmotoring.com/forum...ead.php?t=32569

Here is another thread from the same forum, where someone attempted to take on BMW/MINI based on M-M and ultimately was encouraged by their attorney to bag it - the cost to be "right" far exceeded the cost of the warranty repair that was denied by BMW/MINI:

http://www.northamericanmotoring.com/forum...1591&page=3 In particular, check post #55.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Swanny1172 @ Jun 2 2007, 11:52 AM) [snapback]453993[/snapback]</div>

You might think that it is about whose side the law is on, but that would be naive; if the manufacturer denies you warranty coverage, the burden shifts to you to compel the manufacturer to honor their warranty. If you doubt my statement, try to find an attorney who will take a M-M action on contingency. In California, the Lemon Law statute has teeth in it - the manufacturer has to eat the cost of the plaintiff's attorney fees. Needless to say, once a Lemon Law action is filed in California, the manufacturer settles up real fast. Not so with M-M actions. But be secure in your assertion that the M-M law is on your side.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Norman H. Renehan @ Aug 7 2006, 01:28 AM) [snapback]298887[/snapback]</div>

I use only Mobile 1. The "blended" oils seem fishy to me. Unless they state the amount of synthetic they blend, my opinion is they probably use less then 10% just to allow the term "blend". If so, 10% or less would most likely be no better then straight dino oil. If I am going to pay a premium, it needs to be 100%.

 

Just a "reminder"..................... since the ICE (Internal Combustion Engine) runs approx. 68% of the time (a good average, as it's "on state" can range from 50% to 75%) when the odometer reads 1,000 miles on the vehicle it is really around "680 miles" on the ICE, same with 3000 miles on the odometer means about "2040 miles" on the ICE. In actuality, when Toyota recommends first oil/filter change at 5,000 vehicle miles, it is probably about "3,400 miles" on the ICE.............

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(FloridaWen @ Jun 3 2007, 06:13 AM) [snapback]454324[/snapback]</div>

The ICE utilization rate/% really depends on individual driving patterns - spend most of your time at 65-70 mph, and you are probably closer to 80/90% utilization. Conversely, if your drive cycle is a short (~5 mile round-trip stop-and-go commute) hop where you don't exceed 30 mph, and you are probably at 50% (or possibly less) ICE utilization. I am not trying to confuse the subject, but it really depends on the individual driving pattern.

 

I'm a little confused now: Does Toyota say it's ok to use a #w20 in lieu of 5w30 for my '07?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MickeyA @ Jun 3 2007, 02:21 PM) [snapback]454467[/snapback]</div>

My OWNER'S MANUAL states 5W-30 as I am sure most about every other, if not all the '07's do !!
But I could be wrong ?? Maybe some "latest news" through a TSB or something has changed oil viscosity requirements ??

 

By the time these threads get to 5 pages, I know I ought to butt out. But engine oil is one of my favorite topics!

Toyota still only reccommends 5W30 for Prius, unless I've missed something. Thinner oils demonstrably give a little boost in mpg, but it is our resonsibility to confirm that our cars are not harmed by this. Used engine oil analyses are the best way to know for sure.

The known advantage of synthetic engine oil is to be able to extend the oil change intervals. They will also probably reduce the accumulation of 'varnish' on non-contact areas, but this is not known to be of harm. Synthetic engine oils in Prius do well for 12k miles, more or less, but then the remaining 'total base number' gets low. It is our responsibility to confirm that our cars are not harmed by this. Used engine oil analyses is the best way to know for sure.

Personally I consider it unlikely in the extreme that Prius engines will fail in any way related to engine oil, unless sensible precautions are entirely ignored. This is because used engine oil analyses show this engine to be extremely resistant to wear. Would like to know much more about that, but used engine oil analyses are the only way to find out. If a tenth of the enthusiasm in discussing oil were turned to actually getting those analyses done, we'd all know a lot more.

By luck or smart thinking, we are driving one of the best little engines ever. It is entirely up to us to understand how they can be operated most efficiently and without excessive waste.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tochatihu @ Jun 3 2007, 05:42 PM) [snapback]454567[/snapback]</div>

Your reply (post above this one) was very informative, THANKS !!

If you are an "oil buff", as to speak, remember when MOBIL1 (about 5+ years ago) first came out with an oil to meet "HONDA & FORD" requirements ?? It was initially a 0W-20 and they had NO 5W-20 at that early time, even though both Ford & Honda SPECIFIED using 5W-20. It was about a year later they came out with an actual 5W-20 once again "labeled" made especially for Honda and Ford requirements.

Another interesting tidbit......... my 2000 Acura 3.2TL engine specified 5W-30, but the MDX we puchased new in 2003 specifies 5W-20, and so does the 2004 Honda CR-V !! The 5W-20 MOBIL1 oil is so thin when warm............ it drains out of the oil pan faster than warm anti-freeze from a radiator !! Obviously the newer engine's "tighter tolerances" which allow 20 weight to be used, have a result of the crankshaft "turning" through much lighter, thinner oil producing less "drag" and a little more efficient HP and engine Torque output !!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(apriusfan @ Jun 2 2007, 10:53 PM) [snapback]454170[/snapback]</div>

How did you reach that conclusion? Did you do legal research using LexisNexis or did you just do a Google search? You aren't going to find case law using Google.

Also, you are not going to find an attorney to take a M-M case on contingency, just like you won't find a lawyer to take a almost any contract law case on contingency. Contingency feel arrangements are mostly the domain of personal injury and medical malpractice attorneys. Your argument is a non sequitur.

The links you posted were dealing with people that made performance modifications to their Mini Coopers. There is a world of difference between that and using a different viscosity of motor oil. The Magnusson-Moss Act is meant to protect a guy who goes to the Poky Lube down the street and gets a Fram filter instead of a "genuine Dodge filter." In that case, the Dodge dealer can't refuse to fix the engine because the guy used another brand of filter that meets the exact same specifications. But if a guy puts on a free-flow exhaust that lowers the exhaust system's back pressure, and then asks the dealer to fix his burnt valves under warranty, the dealer could certainly point to the modified exhaust system and refuse to cover it. In cases like those, the manufacturer would have every justification for denying warranty coverage on those affected parts.

Finally, filing a lawsuit under Magnusson-Moss is the last step in a rather lengthy process. If your dealer denies your warranty, there are several steps you should take before you even consider filing a lawsuit. Most warranty problems get resolved far before thing get to the point where you need to file a complaint for breach of warranty with the courts.

First, attempt to independently verify the accuracy of the claims made by the dealership. The manufacturer of the aftermarket part may be helpful to you in providing a technical assessment of the problem. Next, present the facts to the dealers service manager and make an effort to resolve the situation. If a dealership denies warranty coverage, they should be willing to do so in writing. Have the dealer describe the failure which is causing your problem and how the dealer believes the aftermarket product installed is responsible for the problem.

If a car manufacturer backs your warranty, and you have a dispute with the dealer about either service or coverage, contact the local manufacturer's representative. The local or zone representative has the authority to adjust and make decisions about warranty service remedies or repairs to satisfy customers. You may find that contact with the zone representative does not achieve resolve of the matter. If you are still not satisfied, the next step is to contact the vehicle manufacturer directly.

Obviously, litigation can involve considerable time and expense on your part. However, if the cost of the warranty claim is high enough, this may be an option to consider. Any such lawsuit or claim would have to be fought on the unique merits of the case and we recommend that you consider finding qualified legal counsel familiar with this area of law. In some cases, the filing of a lawsuit may encourage a settlement of the dispute. You should also be particularly aware of the fact that once you file a lawsuit or claim against the dealer or manufacturer, your vehicle and your documentation may become material evidence and may be subject to inspection and reviews in the lawsuit.

From: http://nycperformancetuning.com/Moss-act.html

 

Oil threads are the life blood of the Internet just behind porn.

For an oil to be called a 5w20 it must fit within a weight range at a certain temperature. A heavy 5w20 and a light 5w30 may be closer than you would think in weight.

The Prius by all accounts is not hard on oil so it probably is not subjected to high temperatures and oil flow should be good.

This easy running engine's only strain on the oil may be from fuel contamination and moisture from a lack of oil temperature, driving habits (longer trips) may cancel both of these out though.

For now I am running 5w30.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Swanny1172 @ Jun 3 2007, 04:28 PM) [snapback]454621[/snapback]</div>

The point of my prior posts was not to get into a debate over legal research skills. The point was to emphasize how little effective protection was available from the M-M act. You were asserting that M-M was there to provide protection in the event that a manufacturer denied warranty coverage. I invited you to provide an example of case law that supported your position. You chose not to.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Swanny1172 @ Jun 3 2007, 04:28 PM) [snapback]454621[/snapback]</div>

Absent legislation prohibiting contingent fee arrangements, any case can be brought on contingency. It just requires the agreement of the attorney and client. There is a saying of sorts that you can receive as much justice as you can afford.... A M-M litigation is going to be an expensive proposition. Don't pick a fight thinking that you can intimidate the dealer and by extension, the manufacturer with claims at how M-M will compel them to honor the warranty unless you are prepared to carry the cost of the litigation.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Swanny1172 @ Jun 3 2007, 04:28 PM) [snapback]454621[/snapback]</div>

Now you are making conclusions based on your interpretation of M-M.... I would ask you to provide citations to support your conclusions, but based on past experience, it would be a waste of time.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Swanny1172 @ Jun 3 2007, 04:28 PM) [snapback]454621[/snapback]</div>

It sounds like they are saying that litigation can be expensive. The cost to be "right" removes M-M from the list of effective remedies in the event of a dispute with the manufacturer. Whether the dispute is over not using oil/filters that the manufacturer prescribes or after market performance parts is really a difference without a distinction - if you are going to use M-M as the basis for seeking resolution on the manufacturer's dime, you had better be prepared to carry the expense of the litigation.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(apriusfan @ Jun 3 2007, 09:50 PM) [snapback]454688[/snapback]</div>

I didn't choose not to provide case law, but merely pointed out why I can't. I don't have access to LexisNexis, which is a database of legal case findings. Evidently, you don't have access either, so we will consider this one a push.

Again, your argument is a non sequitur. A "contingency fee", which is based on a percentage of the monetary recovery the lawyer ultimately obtains as a result of negotiation or trial. Lawyers and clients use this arrangement only in cases where money is being claimed which is why it is the basis on which most accident and personal injury cases are handled.

Correct. If your warranty claim is denied and you exhaust your non-legal options, then you need to take the case to court. Doing so is going to require you to hire an attorney and pay for his/her services. Of course, if you win the case, those legal fees are reimbursed to you.

The bottom line is that this kind of stuff does not happen over oil or filters. As long as parts (including oil, filter, fluids, belts, etc.) meet or exceed the car manufacturer’s specifications, you are not going to have a problem with your warranty coverage being denied. Warranty coverage is denied when you start putting aftermarket modifications on your car, and those modifications can be shown to have caused damage to the car. So, if you install a remote store but some part of the drivetrain goes south or the roof won't work the warranty can't be denied. On the other hand if the remote start system causes the starter to go up in smoke 'then' your dealer wouldn't be responsible for making the repair.