MrQuackers
Site Donor 2025
They want you to buy more! And the 5 year shelf life is a CYA
Another M1 noise story
- Thread starter RF Overlord
- Start date
- Status
Shake the bottles real good before pouring.
There's been a lot of posts over the years by users suspecting Mobil 1 5W-30 and 10W-30 causing noise. Often times it's right after an oil change. It may be purely circumstantial, but it's enough for me to stay away from those two Mobil 1 grades.
Originally Posted By: Merkava_4
There's been a lot of posts over the years by users suspecting Mobil 1 5W-30 and 10W-30 causing noise. Often times it's right after an oil change. It may be purely circumstantial, but it's enough for me to stay away from those two Mobil 1 grades.
A few years ago I really noticed an increase in acoustics with M1 however after giving the AFE a shot last winter I found that in my hemi both the M1 and PP had the same acoustics. It wasn't until spring and a jug of defy that made the engine quiet again.
I've read a few posts that once Mobil made the switch to SN the noise issues were less prevalent.
Noise or no noise I doubt very much wear increases,and considering we spend most of the time in the car while its running I for one am not going to put much effort into trashing Mobil for increased acoustics. Of every oil I ever tried in anything I used it in I found PYB was the oil that led to the least amount of acoustics in engines that I tried it in vs just about everything else. And that oil in particular would tell me when it was the to change it based on acoustics. Once the engine got loud and I could hear certain taps and clicks,it was time to drain it. Rotella is like that in my bikes.
That's just me though.
There's been a lot of posts over the years by users suspecting Mobil 1 5W-30 and 10W-30 causing noise. Often times it's right after an oil change. It may be purely circumstantial, but it's enough for me to stay away from those two Mobil 1 grades.
A few years ago I really noticed an increase in acoustics with M1 however after giving the AFE a shot last winter I found that in my hemi both the M1 and PP had the same acoustics. It wasn't until spring and a jug of defy that made the engine quiet again.
I've read a few posts that once Mobil made the switch to SN the noise issues were less prevalent.
Noise or no noise I doubt very much wear increases,and considering we spend most of the time in the car while its running I for one am not going to put much effort into trashing Mobil for increased acoustics. Of every oil I ever tried in anything I used it in I found PYB was the oil that led to the least amount of acoustics in engines that I tried it in vs just about everything else. And that oil in particular would tell me when it was the to change it based on acoustics. Once the engine got loud and I could hear certain taps and clicks,it was time to drain it. Rotella is like that in my bikes.
That's just me though.
Originally Posted By: Clevy
Noise or no noise I doubt very much wear increases,and considering we spend most of the time in the car while its running I for one am not going to put much effort into trashing Mobil for increased acoustics.
Quiet to me means better lubrication. Noise means the opposite. All I want to hear when my engine is running is the air rushing into the intake - the serpentine belt going around - and the fuel injectors opening and closing - that's it. If I hear the slightest mechanical noise that's usually not there, I'm gonna drain the oil out and switch to something else. There's too many choices of oil on the market to have to endure any unnecessary noise.
Noise or no noise I doubt very much wear increases,and considering we spend most of the time in the car while its running I for one am not going to put much effort into trashing Mobil for increased acoustics.
Quiet to me means better lubrication. Noise means the opposite. All I want to hear when my engine is running is the air rushing into the intake - the serpentine belt going around - and the fuel injectors opening and closing - that's it. If I hear the slightest mechanical noise that's usually not there, I'm gonna drain the oil out and switch to something else. There's too many choices of oil on the market to have to endure any unnecessary noise.
Could there be a correlation between more noise and higher iron levels?
Originally Posted By: SlipperyPete
Could there be a correlation between more noise and higher iron levels?
Yes. Higher iron levels equal more wear in the piston rings and cylinder walls
caused by bad lubrication. Noise is usually an indication of bad lubrication.
Could there be a correlation between more noise and higher iron levels?
Yes. Higher iron levels equal more wear in the piston rings and cylinder walls
caused by bad lubrication. Noise is usually an indication of bad lubrication.
Hi,
Merkava_4 = You said this:
Originally Posted By: Merkava_4
Originally Posted By: SlipperyPete
Could there be a correlation between more noise and higher iron levels?
Yes. Higher iron levels equal more wear in the piston rings and cylinder walls
caused by bad lubrication. Noise is usually an indication of bad lubrication.
To have any credibility you must surely be able to substantiate your comments. We await this!
Merkava_4 = You said this:
Originally Posted By: Merkava_4
Originally Posted By: SlipperyPete
Could there be a correlation between more noise and higher iron levels?
Yes. Higher iron levels equal more wear in the piston rings and cylinder walls
caused by bad lubrication. Noise is usually an indication of bad lubrication.
To have any credibility you must surely be able to substantiate your comments. We await this!
I would rather not go up against Doug Hillary.
I will now retreat back into my spider hole.
Goodbye.
I will now retreat back into my spider hole.
Goodbye.
Originally Posted By: Merkava_4
Originally Posted By: SlipperyPete
Could there be a correlation between more noise and higher iron levels?
Yes. Higher iron levels equal more wear in the piston rings and cylinder walls
caused by bad lubrication. Noise is usually an indication of bad lubrication.
Now that's one of the reasons why internet forums have little creditability. No facts, just throwing stuff against the wall and see what sticks.
Originally Posted By: SlipperyPete
Could there be a correlation between more noise and higher iron levels?
Yes. Higher iron levels equal more wear in the piston rings and cylinder walls
caused by bad lubrication. Noise is usually an indication of bad lubrication.
Now that's one of the reasons why internet forums have little creditability. No facts, just throwing stuff against the wall and see what sticks.
Originally Posted By: tig1
Originally Posted By: Merkava_4
Originally Posted By: SlipperyPete
Could there be a correlation between more noise and higher iron levels?
Yes. Higher iron levels equal more wear in the piston rings and cylinder walls
caused by bad lubrication. Noise is usually an indication of bad lubrication.
Now that's one of the reasons why internet forums have little creditability. No facts, just throwing stuff against the wall and see what sticks.
Absolutely agreed. This is pure baloney at its finest.
Noise is highly subjective and often misinterpreted.
Originally Posted By: Merkava_4
Originally Posted By: SlipperyPete
Could there be a correlation between more noise and higher iron levels?
Yes. Higher iron levels equal more wear in the piston rings and cylinder walls
caused by bad lubrication. Noise is usually an indication of bad lubrication.
Now that's one of the reasons why internet forums have little creditability. No facts, just throwing stuff against the wall and see what sticks.
Absolutely agreed. This is pure baloney at its finest.
Noise is highly subjective and often misinterpreted.
I have a very fine ear for my engines, but UOA's have clearly indicated oil noise characteristics have nothing to do with resulting "wear numbers".
I will still opt for a quiet running oil though, simply because I like it.
Like someone posted above, PYB has done the best job of quieting down my noisy 4.0, but reviews of many UOA's show both Rotella and Valvoline will produce slightly lower "wear" numbers in the 4.0 than PYB, yet both are very loud in my engine when PYB is not.
So I equate noise with personal satisfaction, not wear as long as the oil is of the correct grade and quality.
JMO.
I will still opt for a quiet running oil though, simply because I like it.
Like someone posted above, PYB has done the best job of quieting down my noisy 4.0, but reviews of many UOA's show both Rotella and Valvoline will produce slightly lower "wear" numbers in the 4.0 than PYB, yet both are very loud in my engine when PYB is not.
So I equate noise with personal satisfaction, not wear as long as the oil is of the correct grade and quality.
JMO.
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2006
- Messages
- 29,558
M1 does the exact opposite in my Z`s engine. I`ve alternated between the 15W50 and 10W40HM and it purrs like a kitten with them.
Another thing I love about M1 oils is that I`ve never not even once had those deposits on the bottom of the jugs/bottles.
Another thing I love about M1 oils is that I`ve never not even once had those deposits on the bottom of the jugs/bottles.
Originally Posted By: RF Overlord
As for the oil being "old", I even asked here before using it and everyone said "go ahead". When I finished pouring it into the motor, I looked in the jug and saw nothing at all...no sediment, no left-over glop...nothing.
I fail to see how oil can deteriorate sitting in a sealed container.
Then it probably didn't need shaking...
I have a case of 0W-40 that's a couple years old I'll flip over maybe every 6mo, plan is to eventually use it in a 331 Windsor I'm building...
Interestingly my two Grand Marquis run quiet on M1, or at least no noisier than on anything else I've used over the last three to five years(how long I've owned each)... My '07 just had a change last month and the '98 is due at the 1st of July... I change once a year with mileage usually around 5000-7500, though the '98 went 9500 on one OCI...
As for the oil being "old", I even asked here before using it and everyone said "go ahead". When I finished pouring it into the motor, I looked in the jug and saw nothing at all...no sediment, no left-over glop...nothing.
I fail to see how oil can deteriorate sitting in a sealed container.
Then it probably didn't need shaking...
I have a case of 0W-40 that's a couple years old I'll flip over maybe every 6mo, plan is to eventually use it in a 331 Windsor I'm building...
Interestingly my two Grand Marquis run quiet on M1, or at least no noisier than on anything else I've used over the last three to five years(how long I've owned each)... My '07 just had a change last month and the '98 is due at the 1st of July... I change once a year with mileage usually around 5000-7500, though the '98 went 9500 on one OCI...
Originally Posted By: Doug Hillary
Hi,
Merkava_4 = You said this:
Originally Posted By: Merkava_4
Originally Posted By: SlipperyPete
Could there be a correlation between more noise and higher iron levels?
Yes. Higher iron levels equal more wear in the piston rings and cylinder walls
caused by bad lubrication. Noise is usually an indication of bad lubrication.
To have any credibility you must surely be able to substantiate your comments. We await this!
It seems he has offered the same amount of proof as those who say the higher noise levels are due to the acoustics (
) of the oil.
I think it is safe to say with the wide use of M1 for decades that it does not allow excessive wear, but the increased engine noise coupled with higher iron certainly seems to indicate more wear.
I'd say the burden of proof is on Mobil under the time tested theory that "if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it is most likely a duck."
I don't have a dog in this fight since when I finish my current run of closeout PU I'm going back to MS5K by way of a few $3 jugs of Peak conventional.
Hi,
Merkava_4 = You said this:
Originally Posted By: Merkava_4
Originally Posted By: SlipperyPete
Could there be a correlation between more noise and higher iron levels?
Yes. Higher iron levels equal more wear in the piston rings and cylinder walls
caused by bad lubrication. Noise is usually an indication of bad lubrication.
To have any credibility you must surely be able to substantiate your comments. We await this!
It seems he has offered the same amount of proof as those who say the higher noise levels are due to the acoustics (
I think it is safe to say with the wide use of M1 for decades that it does not allow excessive wear, but the increased engine noise coupled with higher iron certainly seems to indicate more wear.
I'd say the burden of proof is on Mobil under the time tested theory that "if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it is most likely a duck."
I don't have a dog in this fight since when I finish my current run of closeout PU I'm going back to MS5K by way of a few $3 jugs of Peak conventional.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: SlipperyPete
Originally Posted By: Doug Hillary
Hi,
Merkava_4 = You said this:
Originally Posted By: Merkava_4
Originally Posted By: SlipperyPete
Could there be a correlation between more noise and higher iron levels?
Yes. Higher iron levels equal more wear in the piston rings and cylinder walls
caused by bad lubrication. Noise is usually an indication of bad lubrication.
To have any credibility you must surely be able to substantiate your comments. We await this!
It seems he has offered the same amount of proof as those who say the higher noise levels are due to the acoustics (
) of the oil.
I think it is safe to say with the wide use of M1 for decades that it does not allow excessive wear, but the increased engine noise coupled with higher iron certainly seems to indicate more wear.
I'd say the burden of proof is on Mobil under the time tested theory that "if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it is most likely a duck."
I don't have a dog in this fight since when I finish my current run of closeout PU I'm going back to MS5K by way of a few $3 jugs of Peak conventional.
Originally Posted By: Doug Hillary
Hi,
for those that have been involved in this Thread you may have thought my challenging Pablo about his statement was unfair - only you can judge that
The problem is that such statements concerning wear rates are often made as "absolute" and in many cases by primarily using singular or groups of single pass (SP) UOAs as the sole parameter for judging the wear rates - and in Pablo's case this has mostly been confirmed by his last post here
UOAs are a great way to evaluate a lubricant's condition - but SP UOAs are virtually useless in determining wear rates. Trending the UOA wear rates within an engine family when using a similar lubricant is helpful but they will still not be a predictor for a sudden failure. The tabulated results from such trended UOAs can be a helpful tool in isolating excessive wear in certain components or groups of components - I have hundreds on my database
However they will not pick up camshaft corrosion or indeed some other elements of rapid component failure or engine deterioration
In comparing engine lubricants against wear rates a trended UOA base is helpful but a teardown inspection and measure up or weighing is the practical way for accuracy. As well RATT (and other) processes can now measure wear rates in real time and are used by many engine and engine component manufacturers and Oil Companies. Some Oil Companies use these processes in consort with the engine manufacturer to brew a suitably optimised formulation
The API, ACEA and the engine manufactuers do allow some formulation variances within very strict and published guidelines during the currency of the Certification or Approval
Cummins for example believes that UOAs would need to be trended for nearly 1m miles before a reasonable picture emerges - and then it would need to be accurately replicated again for even a very basic comparison to be made. And there would still be question marks over many aspects of it all!!
The other factor concerns the condemnation levels set by engine/component manufacturers. A common one is Iron @ 150ppm! Many on BITOG believe that they can evaluate engine lubricants by making judgements (and statements) based on variances of relatively small ppm numbers over an OCI or two. The bottom line is that they can't!
This is why the fleet testing of formulations is part of the API Certification process and why engine manufacturers and their component suppliers conduct extensive tests (many tests are engine family specific) before they Approve and List the lubricants that they do. Engine wear rates are a vital part of this and engine tear down inspection is the usually the final task in the process. And with all due respect for Mr Haas and his opinions I have not seen any confirming evidence of engine tear down inspections at all
As stated earlier I would only use the viscosity prescribed by the engine's manufacturer for the prevailing ambient range of temperature
To simply say that one viscosity lubricant will lead to more wear than another is incorrect unless the required indepth research and testing confirms it! There is no doubt that the optimal performance from a modern engine will only be attained when using the correct viscosity lubricant as prescribed for the task and temperature range
Over the years that I have been invloved in BITOG many incorrect claims have been made by some purveyors of lubricants. A reality check debate is then IMO always helpful!
Originally Posted By: Doug Hillary
I only posted on the subject because we now have a large "audience" - it has grown amazingly so over the last several years, and the subject of wear rates is treated emotively/subjectively by some people without supporting backup data. Many BITOG people are lubricant "friends" but many may not have had the experiences of the past debates on here to refer to
In one engine family I allowed a maximum of 221ppm Iron to occur on a number of occasions. The average at OCI was 130ppm - at teardown after 1m kms all parts were within factory dimensions - the engine now has over 2.5m kms on it - untouched
Yet on here we see people "scrambled" over a hike of 8ppm or 10ppm over one lubricant or another. The real World is a little different
UOAs can be a great tool for the Engineer (in any field where lubricants are used) - they are simply a good source of entertainment for many BITOG supporters and we should perhaps see them as such
IMHO we should not see them as the great predictor of engine life - one lubricant against another - because in direct terms they are NOT!
And as you indirectly mention - where are all the engines with so much Iron wear they have failed?? - in or out of Warranty??
It was the same with M1 0W-40 some years ago where a certain Oil Company's marketers on here predicted excessive wear (cams etc) and rapid engine failures due to "shearing". Well back then I indicated to them that it will never happen and it has not happened! The same "drama" was on many Porsche Boards too and about ZDDP levels in Approved lubricants as well. Well they were wrong - the World did not collapse and engines did not disintergrate - we move on!
All from this thread:
https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/posts/1323480/
And a picture from that thread of a 1.2 million Km liner run on Mobil Delvac 1:
Quote:
Information:
Operation = Interstate, Linehaul,Reefer - one Driver for life,
Typical use per annum = 225kkms
Detroit Diesel 12.7ltr Series 60 @ 500hp, 1650lb/ft @1200-1525rpm
Cruise revs 1650rpm, Max revs 1800
Donaldson ELF Filters + MannHummel Centrifuge
Lubricant = Delvac 1 5W-40 (from 60kkms)
OCIs
Average = 99711kms
Longest = 116227kms
Data
Soot
Average @ OCI = 3.2%
Highest @ OCI = 7.8%
Iron
Average @ OCI = 134ppm
Highest @ OCI 221ppm
Highest TAN @ OCI = 6.13
Lowest TBN @ OCI = 2.26
Centrifuge uptake rate = 0.0029g/km
Oil consumption averaged almost exactly 6kkms/ltr
The two major condemnation points were soot (3.5%) @ iron (150ppm) - viscosity was always near new
I hope this is of interest
Care to tell me again about the value of UOA's showing "higher" iron?
Originally Posted By: Doug Hillary
Hi,
Merkava_4 = You said this:
Originally Posted By: Merkava_4
Originally Posted By: SlipperyPete
Could there be a correlation between more noise and higher iron levels?
Yes. Higher iron levels equal more wear in the piston rings and cylinder walls
caused by bad lubrication. Noise is usually an indication of bad lubrication.
To have any credibility you must surely be able to substantiate your comments. We await this!
It seems he has offered the same amount of proof as those who say the higher noise levels are due to the acoustics (
I think it is safe to say with the wide use of M1 for decades that it does not allow excessive wear, but the increased engine noise coupled with higher iron certainly seems to indicate more wear.
I'd say the burden of proof is on Mobil under the time tested theory that "if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it is most likely a duck."
I don't have a dog in this fight since when I finish my current run of closeout PU I'm going back to MS5K by way of a few $3 jugs of Peak conventional.
Originally Posted By: Doug Hillary
Hi,
for those that have been involved in this Thread you may have thought my challenging Pablo about his statement was unfair - only you can judge that
The problem is that such statements concerning wear rates are often made as "absolute" and in many cases by primarily using singular or groups of single pass (SP) UOAs as the sole parameter for judging the wear rates - and in Pablo's case this has mostly been confirmed by his last post here
UOAs are a great way to evaluate a lubricant's condition - but SP UOAs are virtually useless in determining wear rates. Trending the UOA wear rates within an engine family when using a similar lubricant is helpful but they will still not be a predictor for a sudden failure. The tabulated results from such trended UOAs can be a helpful tool in isolating excessive wear in certain components or groups of components - I have hundreds on my database
However they will not pick up camshaft corrosion or indeed some other elements of rapid component failure or engine deterioration
In comparing engine lubricants against wear rates a trended UOA base is helpful but a teardown inspection and measure up or weighing is the practical way for accuracy. As well RATT (and other) processes can now measure wear rates in real time and are used by many engine and engine component manufacturers and Oil Companies. Some Oil Companies use these processes in consort with the engine manufacturer to brew a suitably optimised formulation
The API, ACEA and the engine manufactuers do allow some formulation variances within very strict and published guidelines during the currency of the Certification or Approval
Cummins for example believes that UOAs would need to be trended for nearly 1m miles before a reasonable picture emerges - and then it would need to be accurately replicated again for even a very basic comparison to be made. And there would still be question marks over many aspects of it all!!
The other factor concerns the condemnation levels set by engine/component manufacturers. A common one is Iron @ 150ppm! Many on BITOG believe that they can evaluate engine lubricants by making judgements (and statements) based on variances of relatively small ppm numbers over an OCI or two. The bottom line is that they can't!
This is why the fleet testing of formulations is part of the API Certification process and why engine manufacturers and their component suppliers conduct extensive tests (many tests are engine family specific) before they Approve and List the lubricants that they do. Engine wear rates are a vital part of this and engine tear down inspection is the usually the final task in the process. And with all due respect for Mr Haas and his opinions I have not seen any confirming evidence of engine tear down inspections at all
As stated earlier I would only use the viscosity prescribed by the engine's manufacturer for the prevailing ambient range of temperature
To simply say that one viscosity lubricant will lead to more wear than another is incorrect unless the required indepth research and testing confirms it! There is no doubt that the optimal performance from a modern engine will only be attained when using the correct viscosity lubricant as prescribed for the task and temperature range
Over the years that I have been invloved in BITOG many incorrect claims have been made by some purveyors of lubricants. A reality check debate is then IMO always helpful!
Originally Posted By: Doug Hillary
I only posted on the subject because we now have a large "audience" - it has grown amazingly so over the last several years, and the subject of wear rates is treated emotively/subjectively by some people without supporting backup data. Many BITOG people are lubricant "friends" but many may not have had the experiences of the past debates on here to refer to
In one engine family I allowed a maximum of 221ppm Iron to occur on a number of occasions. The average at OCI was 130ppm - at teardown after 1m kms all parts were within factory dimensions - the engine now has over 2.5m kms on it - untouched
Yet on here we see people "scrambled" over a hike of 8ppm or 10ppm over one lubricant or another. The real World is a little different
UOAs can be a great tool for the Engineer (in any field where lubricants are used) - they are simply a good source of entertainment for many BITOG supporters and we should perhaps see them as such
IMHO we should not see them as the great predictor of engine life - one lubricant against another - because in direct terms they are NOT!
And as you indirectly mention - where are all the engines with so much Iron wear they have failed?? - in or out of Warranty??
It was the same with M1 0W-40 some years ago where a certain Oil Company's marketers on here predicted excessive wear (cams etc) and rapid engine failures due to "shearing". Well back then I indicated to them that it will never happen and it has not happened! The same "drama" was on many Porsche Boards too and about ZDDP levels in Approved lubricants as well. Well they were wrong - the World did not collapse and engines did not disintergrate - we move on!
All from this thread:
https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/posts/1323480/
And a picture from that thread of a 1.2 million Km liner run on Mobil Delvac 1:
Quote:
Information:
Operation = Interstate, Linehaul,Reefer - one Driver for life,
Typical use per annum = 225kkms
Detroit Diesel 12.7ltr Series 60 @ 500hp, 1650lb/ft @1200-1525rpm
Cruise revs 1650rpm, Max revs 1800
Donaldson ELF Filters + MannHummel Centrifuge
Lubricant = Delvac 1 5W-40 (from 60kkms)
OCIs
Average = 99711kms
Longest = 116227kms
Data
Soot
Average @ OCI = 3.2%
Highest @ OCI = 7.8%
Iron
Average @ OCI = 134ppm
Highest @ OCI 221ppm
Highest TAN @ OCI = 6.13
Lowest TBN @ OCI = 2.26
Centrifuge uptake rate = 0.0029g/km
Oil consumption averaged almost exactly 6kkms/ltr
The two major condemnation points were soot (3.5%) @ iron (150ppm) - viscosity was always near new
I hope this is of interest
Care to tell me again about the value of UOA's showing "higher" iron?
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Care to tell me again about the value of UOA's showing "higher" iron?
Care to show any actual proof higher iron levels aren't an indication of greater wear, even if it isn't excessive and the motor is still in spec?
Iron particles in the oil had to have come from engine internals. Whether or not the amount of iron indicates a problem, more iron in the oil means more wear in the motor.
Care to tell me again about the value of UOA's showing "higher" iron?
Care to show any actual proof higher iron levels aren't an indication of greater wear, even if it isn't excessive and the motor is still in spec?
Iron particles in the oil had to have come from engine internals. Whether or not the amount of iron indicates a problem, more iron in the oil means more wear in the motor.
Originally Posted By: Merkava_4
Originally Posted By: Clevy
Noise or no noise I doubt very much wear increases,and considering we spend most of the time in the car while its running I for one am not going to put much effort into trashing Mobil for increased acoustics.
Quiet to me means better lubrication. Noise means the opposite. All I want to hear when my engine is running is the air rushing into the intake - the serpentine belt going around - and the fuel injectors opening and closing - that's it. If I hear the slightest mechanical noise that's usually not there, I'm gonna drain the oil out and switch to something else. There's too many choices of oil on the market to have to endure any unnecessary noise.
I will agree that with so many options a consumer doesn't have to accept more noise from an engine however I will bet a roll that more noise doesn't necessarily indicate more wear.
Originally Posted By: Clevy
Noise or no noise I doubt very much wear increases,and considering we spend most of the time in the car while its running I for one am not going to put much effort into trashing Mobil for increased acoustics.
Quiet to me means better lubrication. Noise means the opposite. All I want to hear when my engine is running is the air rushing into the intake - the serpentine belt going around - and the fuel injectors opening and closing - that's it. If I hear the slightest mechanical noise that's usually not there, I'm gonna drain the oil out and switch to something else. There's too many choices of oil on the market to have to endure any unnecessary noise.
I will agree that with so many options a consumer doesn't have to accept more noise from an engine however I will bet a roll that more noise doesn't necessarily indicate more wear.
- Status