ZVW30 transaxle oil series

	Column 1
0	[tr][th]metric[th]0 miles[th]1k miles(*)[th]5k miles(*)[th]30k miles(*)
1	[tr][td2]Fe[td2]0[td2]21[td2]40[td2]49
2	[tr][td2]Cr[td2]0[td2]1[td2]1[td2]1
3	[tr][td2]Mo[td2]1[td2]1[td2]0[td2]0
4	[tr][td2]Al[td2]0[td2]19[td2]11[td2]17
5	[tr][td2]Cu[td2]0[td2]16[td2]11[td2]7
6	[tr][td2]Pb[td2]0[td2]0[td2]0[td2]0
7	[tr][td2]Sn[td2]0[td2]1[td2]0[td2]0
8	[tr][td2]Ag[td2]0[td2]0[td2]0[td2]0
9	[tr][td2]Ni[td2]0[td2]2[td2]2[td2]6
10	[tr][td2]V[td2]0[td2]0[td2]0[td2]0
11	[tr][td2]Ti[td2]0[td2]0[td2]0[td2]0
12	[tr][td2]Mn[td2]0[td2]5[td2]2[td2]1
13	[tr][td2]Cd[td2]0[td2]0[td2]0[td2]0
14	[tr][td2]_ _[td2]_[td2]_[td2]_
15	[tr][td2]Si[td2]2[td2]103[td2]36[td2]22
16	[tr][td2]Na[td2]0[td2]2[td2]0[td2]13
17	[tr][td2]B[td2]59[td2]47[td2]70[td2]79
18	[tr][td2]_ _[td2]_[td2]_[td2]_
19	[tr][td2]Mg[td2]0[td2]0[td2]1[td2]0
20	[tr][td2]Ca[td2]109[td2]120[td2]86[td2]96
21	[tr][td2]Ba[td2]0[td2]3[td2]2[td2]0
22	[tr][td2]P[td2]245[td2]247[td2]233[td2]259
23	[tr][td2]Zn[td2]0[td2]10[td2]13[td2]8
24	[tr][td2]_ _[td2]_[td2]_[td2]_
25	[tr][td2]40C cSt[td2]24.6[td2]23.3[td2]23.7[td2]23.0
26	[tr][td2]100C cSt[td2]5.5[td2]5.3[td2]5.2[td2]5.5

* - service miles

• Si, Fe - not too worried, the transaxle sealant is silicon based with iron oxide pigment. Furthermore, the bulk of the initial, left-over, manufacturing debris and silicon beads were found in the 1k and 5k change. The Si and Fe rate with 6x more miles says this third change was diluting the initial load.
• Na - may be sample contamination, possibly left over from this winter's salted roads. Earlier transaxles had a coolant channel and Na is associated with coolant contamination. But there is no coolant channel in this transaxle.
• 40C/100C viscosity change - the limits, a 15% offset or 20.9/4.7, are so removed from these values it looks like more than 60k to 90k service miles before it needs to be changed and tested again.

I don't have the particle report and the sample was opaque. It may have been soot from micro-dieseling, which would not be a problem. I'll work with the lab to see if we can get a better understanding. But right now, I don't see a problem from the lab results that would cause alarm:

• first engine and transaxle oil change at 1,000 miles - there are initial manufacturing debris and sealant beads that do no good. The 1k service miles removed a large percentage, not all, but enough that subsequent changes showed lower values.
• second engine and transaxle oil change at 5-10k miles - dilutes the residual that was not removed in the first change.
• third oil change sample at 15k miles was too small (and I'm still pissed!) but the tablespoon size sample was clear.
• fourth change at 30k service miles, 49,000 actual miles ends this series. This last one cost ~$150, not including the oil sample test.

In the future, I'll follow the Toyota recommended with possibly one at 50,000 service miles to validate the model. This data suggests going to 100,000 service miles, odometer of 150,0000 miles, would be perfectly fine.

Bob Wilson

 

I got my particle counts:

	Column 1	Column 2
0	[tr][th]size[th]/ml[th]comment
1	[tr][td2]4[td2]99999[td]liquid smoke
2	[tr][td2]6[td2]1291[td]enemy of oil film	friction grit
3	[tr][td2]14[td2]147[td]grit and future sludge at bottom
4	[tr][td2]20[td2]64[td]"
5	[tr][td2]30[td2]20[td]"
6	[tr][td2]40[td2]7[td]"

source: R&G labs report

Conclusions:

• liquid smoke - extremely difficult to remove
• 6/ml - friction's friend, breaks the oil film layer, 5x smaller than typical, first changes
• 14-40/ml - future sludge, would be nice if there were a filter, otherwise, change

This is how I feel about it:


It took 4.5 years to achieve 50,000 total miles on this car. To reach 100,000 service miles, I'm looking at 9 years. Of course one of us is going to be retired by then!

Bob Wilson