2025 Tundra Engine is down!

but....if you take 457HP/3.445L = 132.7 HP/L so his math is NOT off after all since he did NOT say which V35 application.

 

I did round displacement down to 3.4 - you got me there. I think it gets the point across. The 3UR put out 67hp / liter. 2UZ was 60hp / liter.

 

It actually makes sense the other way since the additional power in the hybrid application comes from the battery supplement.

 

There is that rating as well, but we're on a Tundra forum, not an LX forum.

 

A former member here had an engine seize and according to them, they used 93 octane exclusively.

 

FWIW, many of the current high performance turbo DI motors are using 0W-20 at this point... Sure, in the rest of the world the oil spec is thicker for many of those motors, but if you wanted to use an approved V35A oil (meeting the ILSAC-GF-6A requirement) and stay at 0W-20, there are plenty of options that have been successful in more powerful boosted engines (HP/liter) than the 3.4L. Off the top of my head LiquiMoly TopTec 6600, Motul 8100 Eco-Clean, and Castrol EDGE Professional LL IV FE are some options. Those are all oils that have a good history across other motors, and meets the (more) stringent manufacturer specific oil requirements found on the Euro DI turbo motors

 

Half the equation though, right?

If LSPI (if that is indeed occurring) is taking place, due to oil thinning out, all the octane in the world is not going to prevent the oil from igniting.

 

I've only been in the VW/Audi realm for the past 10 years or so. It was 5w40 or 5w50 in my car.


They may have lowered the oil viscosity specifications but increased the physical performance of the oils.

 

LSPI was something that has been considered since engine failures started.

 

I'm playing catch-up then to the conversation.

Oil and fuel....only two things we can have an option of changing in terms of combustion on these things.

Potentially a colder plug (saw some 40k mileage ones that were ROUGH).

As others have stated elsewhere, I'll trade MPG for reliability

 

The Euros (specifically VW/Audi/BMW/Porsche) were my realm from 2003 to around 2020 professionally, and there have been more oil discussions on those forums than I could ever begin to count. VW Audi switched to 0W-40 (or 5W-40 for some oils) with the VW502 spec about 25 years ago (with oil sludging in the 1.8T), that spec continued through the 2.7t, 2.0T (and the later 1.8T), and the 3.0"T" until the switch to VW508/509. When the switch happened to requiring VW502, you would have thought that the oil requirement document itself had gone and punched people's grandmothers in the face they were so against it and angry with it; but in the end, for the vast majority of vehicles, 0W-40 not only worked fine, but also solved the sludge problems that other non-approved oils (even at the same viscosity) had.

 

There are a few members on Facebook that have switched to 5W-30 for the summer and haven't reported anything abnormal. LX 600 don't seem to have continued down the failure trend and outside the few GX 550s that ate timing chains, failures aren't following a trend there either.

 

Aint that the truth.

I ended up settling on M1 5w50 in my 2012 GTI with a GT3071 on it. That engine ran HOT...figured it needed the oil to match.

 

HP/liter would be relevant if the failed engine were in heavy used conditions - they are not. I suspect many of the fails are on pavement princesses which make the power statement irrelevant.

 

Would that be fixed by an ECU reflash to adjust timing?

 

No it’s a function of oil chemistry and high load and low RPM.

 

more fuel
higher octane rating
less timing
thicker oil
combine at least 3 of those and you likely see the problems subside.
combine all 4 and you probably see the problems eliminated completely

 

Well, I’m sure everyone at a GMC forum would like a lot more of your attention.

 

The casting debris worked as a red herring just long enough but I'd say it's effectiveness is definitely waning at this point.
Even though WE have more data than when this whole debacle started, it is still a drop in the bucket compared to what Toyota has and is willing to share.
Because of this, none of us, or even "good" YouTubers like CCN can come to any solid conclusions about causality.
(His engine teardown video was great for learning about the internals, but not so great for drawing any conclusions based on how little was known about the engine.)
What we need is someone like Gale Banks to dissect and compare two non-blown up engines with similar mileage and use cases, one before the bearing change and one after.
But who would be willing to give up their non-blown up engines?

I think we are finally approaching the point where the root causes are going to be making themselves known, if they haven't already in discussions like these.
At least I hope that's the case, because this shit's getting old.

That's a long way of saying, I agree with you.
For me: 91 octane since new for daily duties and 93 when towing.
Changed over to 5W/30 a couple oil changes ago. Considering 40 weight for Summer.
And maybe less obvious to some, don't hammer on it at low rpm, as much fun as it can be.

 

we’re in the thick of summer now here. 101 on the dash the other day.
I plan on running the 0w-40 year round. Because I’m that guy.

 

If I owned a truck with the defective 6.2 GM motor, you bet your ass I’d be talking about it just like I’m here talking about the defective 3.4TT in the 3G. And I’m aware a few of you guys with regrets and thin skin get annoyed with me or anyone else posting about Toyota inability to design and produce a modern truck motor that doesn’t eat bearings. Sorry if you’re taking it personally.

 

Don't think so the tolerances are so tight on these modern engines that they don't need a heavy weight. Sure 30 weight or even 40 weight is good for older turbo motors but that is not ideal but some non turbo motors are going with 0 or 10 weight motor oils. This is like Canola oil. I run 89 so fuel grade does make a difference but 89 seems to be the soft spot for our trucks. 93 I run in a HP car like a STI. GTR or something making 18-20 lbs of boost. I am not sure 12-14 lbs like in our trucks qualifies.

 

Using your logic there, in order for you to be talking about the 3.4TT, you should own one.

 

Hasn't the "tight tolerances" thing been debunked?
Seem to recall a reference from #NotRyan on the subject.

(And I think you mean clearances, not tolerances.)

 

that’s the temperature rating. Not the weight.
Still a base 0w.

 

Interesting. Don't the GX and LX spec premium fuel? As suggested - premium fuel might not save them all but it seems to save most. I've always thought they're trying to get super car power numbers out of a mass produced small package and they just overshot the limits of reliability.

 

You guys are funny, my STI puts down 121..2358 hp per liter and my old 240sx with its JDM swapped sr20det put down a whop arse 192 plus wheel hp per liter on 20 lbs of boost.

So, it can be done reliably has been done and continues to be done for years.

 

Yeah right, nice try bud.

 

You mention STI and reliability in the same sentence and we're funny? I'll bet you know what this is -

 

GX550, LX600, and LX700h all require 91 octane