Oil Change Interval: 5,000 miles or 10,000 miles?

I have ordered and used the oil drain gaskets, and they have come in the Toyota bag like in the picture. No issues in use.

However, the last time I got them was in 2021, and Amazon is known to substitute shifty goods under the same listing, so if you see something off then maybe it's worth shopping elsewhere.

For the variety pack of gaskets: I have ordered those but haven't used them yet. Looks like they are upfront about being an aftermarket brand.

 

Schlappesepple thanks for the quick reply. Really appreciate it. Have a good day.

 

Okay, I looked at your Blackstone post and I misunderstood. I thought you were saying you routinely ran a 17K OCI. I'm still sticking with 5K, especially considering 1) the piston damage discussed in the YT video I posted, and 2) I'm going to drive my 4R until one of us, it or me, can't get out of the driveway anymore (I'm at 245K now).

Highly recommend ending these kinds of worries forever with a Fumoto valve or something similar by another manufacturer. No more finding gaskets, no more oil all over your hands, no more fishing the plug out of the drain pan, etc. and so on.

 

Added bonus of a Fumoto, ValvoMax and other drain plugs is the simplicity for getting oil samples for the Blackstone reports.
Fleet operators highly value this ability.

 

No thanks on the fumoto and I'll keep my Tacoma for at least 300k miles probably 400k.

I do 10k intervals, some have been more and a few have been less.

 

The Fumoto suggestion was for who made the other quoted post.

I'm sure 10K works for many people. Not worth the gamble IMO when oil changes are so easy and inexpensive as a DIY. I get maybe going longer for people who have no choice but to take it somewhere and pay for the work.

 

I just like to keep it simple and follow the 10k guidelines. My motor will be just fine for 500k with 10k synthetic oci.

 

This statement makes literally no sense. A guy who's a mechanic, says that sales/marketing came up with 10k oil changes, but the engineer said 5k?

I'm pretty sure the marketing department doesn't make the manual that is in the glove box. I'm pretty sure the manual is made by the engineers. They're telling you in the book how to maintain the vehicle.

I'm mad at myself for posting in an oil change interval thread now.

 

Do what you can afford to do. The only downside to changing oil early is wasting money. The oil is not like a switch, where at exactly 5k or 10k it will suddenly degrade to thick syrup. From the time you put new oil, it'll gradually degrade continuously. At what point do you feel like you got your money's worth and change the oil is up to you. Personally I do it 7 to 8 months or around 5k-6k whichever is earlier.
It's around 50 bucks if you do your own changing. I don't think there needs to be a 5 page debate if you wanna spend 50 bucks extra a year or not.

 

I wonder what will be the divisive topic on future auto forums (post internal combustion engines).

 

Battery pack or Charging issues would be a quick knee jerk guess.

 

Why wouldn't they suggest a 100k interval, then? It would cost them nothing, at that point it's on the owner. Why would Toyota want to tank their reputation for reliability by telling you to skip any needed maintenance?

 

They suggest a 60k interval if you tow frequently (and maybe some other reasons). It's in the maintenance guide.

If you just DD it, there will probably be no issues in the expected ownership time (I'm guessing 150k miles, but even that's a lot for some people).

 

I voted 10k and here is why. In 2007 I bought a brand new Infiniti G35x and was on an Infiniti forum where this same question was asked over and over again. Now the US market version of the service manual called for 5k intervals and the European version called for 10k intervals. Hum, I wonder why that is? So I dug into it more and discovered that only the US market version called for 5k intervals, the entire rest of the planet called for 10k. The reason was in the US they want you to waste more oil when they know it's totally unnecessary but people will go along with it. So I would bring in my G every 10k miles and the service manager would constantly say to me "you know the interval is 5k right?" I would just say full synthetic please and you know what his response was on several occasions? Full synthetic is too slippery and can cause long term problems. I put 150k miles on the car over the following 12 years before trading it and never had a single problem that was engine related. I'm not saying anyone on here is wrong for going with 5k intervals, to each his own. This was just my experience and it has served me well and I've been driving since the mid 80's and only had one engine failure and not shockingly it was in a Ford. LOL

 

I agree!

I've heard that said before, as well. I find it hard to believe that Toyota would risk their reputation for longevity just so the marketing team can advertise a slightly lower cost of ownership.

Also, people seem to always forget that the manual actually recommends 5K intervals in many scenarios.

It adds up more when you change it 4-5× every year.

But, I still do 5K on this one, due to the extra stress I put on it.

 

this thread belongs here ↓

https://www.4runners.com/threads/th...-refuse-to-open-the-thread.32248/#post-461615

 

This is nowhere near as bad as some of the other ones listed there.

 

It's a triggering title for sure lol

 

Bingo. This Car Care Nut guy seems like a great mechanic - but statements, like the one referenced above, made by him make zero sense. Forget the whole 5K vs 10K OCI debate (I think 10K OCI with synthetic 0W-20 is fine with how I use my 4Runner - but I am in no way trying to convince anyone what the best way to maintain their vehicle is). I've seen the video mentioned above - and all I'm saying is the guy just doesn't have enough information (at least he doesn't present enough) to say that 10K OCIs are responsible for the damage in that engine. It is one car - that he says was maintained per the recommendations in the manual - does he know for sure the oil was changed every 10K? Does he know how the vehicle was driven? That car could have been driven/abused such that 5K OCIs would not have been enough. There could have been defects within the engine from the factory that caused the damage he showed. My only point is that he tears apart the engine, shows the damage, and says that it is due to 10K OCIs. Does he have other information that he is not sharing that would back up that claim? Why wouldn't he share it? He doesn't show, or say, anything in that video that would conclusively link the damage he shows with 10K OCIs. OK- the guy is an experienced Toyota mechanic - I'll acknowledge that he has probably fixed/taken apart numerous damaged engines - but I'm not sure that makes him an expert on what caused the damage. And the whole thing about Toyota going to recommended 10K OCIs because the Toyota marketing guys overruled the Toyota engineering guys is the biggest load of bullshit I've ever heard. Toyota has built their reputation for quality/reliability over several decades through engineering - not marketing. No way they would risk throwing that away because the Toyota marketing guys are telling the decision makers that they have to recommend a more affordable maintenance program to keep up with their competition. Does anyone not believe that before Toyota would go from recommending changing from 5K to 10K OCIs on a particular engine that they would have a staggering amount of test data on that engine that indicates the change has no significant downside? As soon as this guy started saying shit like this - he lost me. You couldn't convince me that Toyota would make a decision like this - and even if they did, a Toyota mechanic working at a Toyota dealership would know nothing about it. Just sayin' - don't believe everything you see on YT.

 

Some common sense right there.

 

Nobody is saying the marketing department makes the manual, only that maintenance costs are a consideration in how vehicles are marketed. Toyota isn’t risking their reputation b/c it’s probably fine for most owners and in any case, if your engine does develop a problem due to 10K OCI, it’s not their problem after the warranty is up.

Because that would be ludicrous. Again, the difference in how a manufacturer views a vehicle vs. owners has to be considered here. Why did Toyota start sealing transmissions and calling WS a lifetime fluid? "Lifetime" to them means the time during which they are responsible financially - the warranty period. To us owners, it means as many miles as we can get out of the truck - 200K, 300K, whatever. Do you believe transmission fluid will last untouched for 250K? Maybe, who knows? But it makes no sense to me to think any fluid, especially one that's in a hot, metal-grinding environment like a transmission, could possibly last that long. So I change mine. But back to why would they call it lifetime. There's supposedly a hazmat disposal fee per vehicle that manufacturers can avoid with "lifetime" fluids, the logic being they'll never be disposed of if they're not changed. Full transparency - I've seen that in different places but haven't seen a government law saying such but it makes sense.

In the end, we get to rejoice in the beauty of America - you believe what you believe and I do the same, and we both get to change our oil as often or seldom as we please.

 

You really think that was Toyota's thinking when they decided to go to 10K OCIs? You don't think they made a well informed decision based on the analyzation of a lot of test data before making a change that could seriously damage their quality/reliability reputation? They just said "whatever, as long as it makes it past the warranty, we're golden"? And the Care Care Nut guy - yeah, he knows more about the affect of 10K OCIs on Toyota's engines than the engineers that were tasked with testing to see exactly that? Who would buy a 4Runner that really believed that?

I'm not trying to bust anyones balls over whether 5K or 10K OCIs are correct. The debate over that is a fools errand. Toyota says both, or something in the middle, is correct based on how you use your 4Runner. It's not a simple math problem with only one right answer. Whenever variables are involved there are, by definition, multiple right answers. There is no reason to justify one correct answer over another correct answer.

 

None of your first paragraph reflects what I said. I stated a fact - they're not responsible if a 10K OCI causes engine problems outside the warranty period - that's it. Of course they analyze test data; of course they don't make cavalier decisions; and no, the Car Car Nut doesn't know more than Toyota engineers. But he does see these engines day in and day out, and that gives his opinion credibility. Look, I'm not trying to convince anyone they're wrong or tell them the manual is wrong. My goal is just to share information and perspectives to help people make the most informed choice they can.

And if we're going to say the manual is the Bible so to speak, countless studies show there's no benefit in running anything different than the recommended octane, usually 87 - but lots of people disregard the manual and burn 93 thinking there's some advantage. Do they think they know better than "the engineers that were tasked with testing to see exactly that?" Just sayin'...

You didn't answer the question about why Toyota would call transmission fluid "lifetime"? That's not a snarky observation, I'm interested in others' take on that b/c I don't understand it if we're talking sound engineering principles.

Now let's talk dino vs. synthetic.

 

Well - you literally said "Toyota isn’t risking their reputation b/c it’s probably fine for most owners and in any case, if your engine does develop a problem due to 10K OCI, it’s not their problem after the warranty is up." Yeah - you said they're not responsible if a 10K OCI causes engine problems outside the warranty period - but directly before that you said "Toyota isn't risking their reputation". So, I think the first paragraph in my previous post asks some reasonable questions given what you said. I have absolutely no problem with anyone posting anything - and it is not my intent to attack you - or say that anything you are doing is wrong. I'm simply pointing out that the Car Care Nut guy does not provide any information, at all, that would indicate the damage he is pointing out in that engine is related to 10K OCIs - and his theory about how/why Toyota decided to go to 10K OCIs is laughable. Who said anything about the operators manual being a bible? What does my statement about the Toyota engineers, tasked with testing if 10K OCIs are acceptable, knowing more about it than the Car Care Nut guy have anything to do with 4Runner owners who decide to use fuel with higher than 87 octane? I'd say that the Toyota engineers that designed/tested/improved the 1GR-FE engine know more about the engine than virtually all 4Runner owners. The manual says to use 87 octane, or higher. I think you are probably correct that using higher than 87 octane has no significant benefit - but do I think a 4Runner owner who chooses to use 89 or 91 octane is doing something wrong? - no. 4Runner owner who decides to use 89 octane fuel to make sure he is always using 87 octane, or higher = 100% no problem and doesn't go against any Toyota recommendation. 4Runner owner who decided to go with 5K OCIs even though he does not drive primarily under the special operating conditions listed in the manual = 100% no problem, totally legit decision that does not go against any Toyota recommendations. 4Runner owner who decides to go with 10K OCIs because the special operating conditions apply to less than 1% of his driving = 100% no problem, totally legit decision that does not go against any Toyota recommendations. And to top all that off - there is nothing wrong with a 4Runner owner going against Toyota recommendations - his vehicle, his money, he can do what he wants. Now, when that guy posts stuff to validate his decision to do that - there is nothing wrong with others questioning, challenging, or even providing info to debunk it.

You make a valid point about the transmission fluid. I don't see where they call it "lifetime" transmission fluid - but they also don't specify an interval when it should be changed. They have intervals where all fluid levels are inspected/adjusted and they state that the sealed transmission should be checked for leakage at these intervals - but they don't specify a mileage where the transmission fluid should be changed. So, I see your point about not taking the information in the manual as all knowing/all correct. I would surmise, as you probably do, that the transmission fluid would not last forever - and for high mileage vehicles it should be changed at some point. The maintenance manual only goes up to 120k miles - so I assume that they are saying it can go to there without being replaced. There is also a footnote in the maintenance log that says the dealer may recommend services based on inspection results - but if the transmission never leaks - would they never recommend replacing the transmission fluid? That doesn't seem right. I would bet that if you keep your vehicle long enough they will eventually recommend changing the tranny fluid. If you do your own maintenance - I guess this is up to you.

 

Whether Toyota is risking their reputation is subjective. I don't think they are b/c I think the average person on the street likely thinks 150K miles is a reasonable expectation for reliability. There's no way to know one way or the other. I wasn't saying owners who choose a different octane are doing anything wrong, it's their money to waste as you point out, I was trying, pretty awkwardly as I reread it now, to tie that and the transmission thing together as a counterpoint. Your take is that the engineers drive the manual content so if they say 10K OCI is okay, it must be okay. I'm saying that 1) the no-change transmission fluid shows that the manual may give advice that's not necessarily in the owner's best interest, and 2) that people routinely disregard the manual content based on their own feelings, intuition, anecdotal evidence, and so on. The reality is that none of us know for certain that longer OCIs are okay or not. We all decide and do our own thing.

I agree that the Car Care Nut's video isn't standalone evidence against 10K OCIs. As I said in posting it, "Your truck, your call, but at least see what a Toyota Master Tech has to say about 10k changes in this video where he's tearing down a damaged Toyota engine at 150K." My intent was only to cook up some food for thought.

I appreciate this being a rational and reasoned discussion. Not the norm on the web much anymore.

 

Bluesky 07 - I appreciate your response - and I totally take it with respect to this being a rational and reasoned discussion.

I don't think Toyota is just saying 10K OCI is OK - so I accept that it is OK. Toyota is saying, under certain driving conditions, that 10K OCI is OK. They also say under other, more demanding driving conditions, 5K OCIs would be better and recommended. What I am saying about both of those statements is that I don't just think it is OK - because the Toyota engineers say so. It is my opinion that the Toyota engineers say that because they have a lot of test data that would back up those statements. I have not seen Toyota's test data - anyone could argue that they don't have said test data - I couldn't necessarily refute that with facts and would not take the time to do so - but knowing how Toyota has done business over the past several decades I am convinced that they have test data relative to OCIs and engine wear inside the 1GR-FE engine - and that test data drives Toyota's OCI recommendations in the owners manual. There is a big difference between that and "if the engineers say it is OK, then it must be OK". I would also agree that what a Toyota Master Tech has to say about 10K OCIs and engine damage he has seen is worth taking a look at. I looked at it. I concluded that the Car Care Nut does not have the test data, or the specific knowledge about OCIs vs engine wear that the Toyota engineers have, such that he could make a determination that the engine damage he was showing was due to 10K OCIs. Someone else could have certainly concluded otherwise.

I'm not sure I would say that since the manual doesn't say when you should change the transmission fluid - that Toyota doesn't have test data that would indicate what the life of the tranny fluid is. I'm thinking they do - and they didn't put it in the manual because it is a pretty long interval - and if the tranny fluid is not leaking they are not going to recommend changing it for 150-200K+ miles (something like that). I would prefer that they state what the interval is though. Then as you state above - our truck, our call - and we could maybe make a more informed decision on when it needed to be changed. I always would prefer more info/data - and I tend to give more credence to those who speak with data rather than personal/anecdotal experience.

 

This.

it’s like watching monkeys at the zoo throw poop at each other.

 

Fair points. I'm actually a fan of following the manual under the same rationale as you stated, and the advances in engine oil technology and quality are such that a 10K interval is likely fine. The 1GR V6 was used in the 4th and 5th Gen 4Runners; are the OCIs different? They're 5K in the 4th Gen.

I'll just end with that I'd rather err by changing the oil too often than not often enough.

It's not an argument, it's a discussion over differing points of view. But if you find that entertaining, works for me.

 

The concept of deciding to err on the side of changing the oil too often rather than not often enough is perfectly understandable. I had a 2010 Tacoma TRD Sport that also had the 1GR-FE engine (single vvt version). It's manual called for 5K OCIs and that is what I did - but it also recommended 5W-30 oil that was not synthetic. I don't think 4Runners, or any other Toyota vehicle with the 1GR-FE engine, went to 10K OCIs until they changed to 0W-20 synthetic oil.

It is certainly not an argument - I'm not even sure it is really a discussion over differing points of view. I would be the first to agree that 5K OCIs would offer better protection to the engine than 10K OCIs. But "better" is subjective. Insignificantly better is better - but that better might not be worth the extra effort/cost. For some, the effort/cost is insignificant enough that they would rather follow the OCI recommendations for special operating conditions and not worry about it. Nothing wrong with that. To me the debate between 5K and 10K is not really a debate - its a choice - and the choice of either can be correct. I just tend to push back some when I see something that infers that 10K is not acceptable under any circumstances - or that Toyota knows 10K is no good but they push it because it reduces cost of ownership.