catastrophic lubrication failure, mobil 1
- Thread starter friendly_jacek
- Start date
- Status
Not that this means a whole lot but... this engine (the 1ZZ) seems to have some oil starvation issues. This boosted engine refered to in the link is now the 5th or 6th 1ZZ that I know of that has been toasted due to oil issues. I recall that this is the 3rd boosted (turbo'd or supercharged). The rest were not modded. And BTW, TRD USA makes a supercharger for these engines so they are designed for a "little" aftermarket power add on. Toyota does need to look into this, IMO. No telling how many more are out there. There is currently a Turbo'd 2ZZ Matrix running 342 hp at the crank and 300 at the wheels on stock internals. No issues so far.
Now, you wouldn't be a lawer by a chance, would you?
As for my agenda, I'm a foreign agent orchestrating a demise of Mobil-Exxon and eventually a collapse of North America. Please, get real.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
"It's a miracle this woman's alive."
"It's a miracle! This woman's alive!"
I think that the engine damage was probably caused by the fact that, as he admitted, he ran the car real hard. He probably exceeded the redline a lot. Use of a turbo not engineered for his particular engine may have added to the damage. However, a turbo (or supercharger) does not necessarily cause engine damage in an engine the internals of which have not been beefed up. It depends on whether the turbo or supercharger is well-matched to the engine in terms of how much power the turbo adds. You especially need to be sure that the boost supplied by the turbo or supercharger can be handled by the engine without modifying the engine's internal parts. Many vehicles can be purchased from the factory with or without a turbo or supercharger, but the internals of the engines are the same either way. For example, the venerable Subaru 4 cyl., 2.5 liter, engine comes with or without a turbo in the Forester, but the engine internals are the same in each case, and the engine can handle the added power created by the turbo. The 3.0 liter V6 Vulcan in the Ford Ranger has had no problems with the supercharger for it that you can buy from Whipple. But Whipple worked directly with Ford Motor Co. engineers to ensure that the supercharger was compatible with the engine without modification of the engine's internals. You can even buy the Whipple supercharger from a Ford dealer and have it installed by the dealer. When installing the supercharger, no modifications are done to the engine internals. And remember, the way a turbo or supercharger works is to increase hp and torque while the rpm's stay the same. In other words, at a given rpm you get more hp and torque. A turbo or supercharger does not give you more hp and torque by allowing you to run at greater rpm's. It doesn't even kick in unless you accelerate quickly, at which time, no matter what rpm's you're at, the turbo or supercharger adds power.
Man, that is some serious varnish and crud on those rods. And those bearing surfaces look like classic oil starvation.
I have an 88 IROC Camaro with stock internals. I've been using M1 for years. If M1 wasn't a good oil, my engine would not still be running today.
His poroblem is not with M1, it's elsewhere.
I have an 88 IROC Camaro with stock internals. I've been using M1 for years. If M1 wasn't a good oil, my engine would not still be running today.
His poroblem is not with M1, it's elsewhere.
And it another point for Mobil One. Looks like Amsoil and Redline are falling behind.
Hey, you started, and titled, the thread, not me. Spend a bit more time around here, and you'll see that there's a fairly vocal, though not sizeable, group of "Mobil 1 haters" who are members. I don't agree with them, having had great success while using the stuff myself, but everyone's entitled to an opinion. IMO, the "fair and balanced" title for this thread would have been "Catastrophic Lubrication Failure, Fatal Oil Starvation". Why add "Mobil 1" to the title when this result would likely have happened on any brand of motor oil???
And what does what I do for a living have to do with your oddly-titled thread??? For the record, I'm a Colonel in the Marines (who happens to have a law license too).
It doesn't need more cylinders, just a bigger turbo.quote:
Originally posted by stingray427:
Looks like motor needs at least 4 more cylinders and perhaps a switch to Amsoil or Redline..... Synthetics.
Kestas
Staff member
My point exactly. We don't know if the engine was built for turbo. Nobody knows. You just don't reengineer an engine unless you know what you're doing. Even the manufacturer's engine design engineers can't be sure of what they've done until the engine has gone through extensive dyno testing.
BTW, Which 3.0L Vulcan engine are you talking about? Our lab worked on the 3.0L supercharged engine that went into the Thunderbird back in 95. It was a low volume production engine which did not have the same internals as the regular 3.0L engine. We firmly believe that if it wasn't for our low cost lab, the supercharged engine would not have gone into production. They gave us 32 iterations of the heads to look at until they were satisfied with the design! We made good money off that project!!
Bright bunch over there - "Don't use a 30-weight Mobil 1 for anything, it's really a 20-weight."quote:
Originally posted by friendly_jacek:
No proof but interesting reading.quote:
Originally posted by Raven18940:
You guys wanna talk about someone blaming Mobil 1 take a look at this.
http://www.saabnet.com/tsn/bb/performance/index.html?bID=107017
Where's the proof that M1 to blame? Is there even a UOA? No, but it couldn't be anything else.
If you read some of the discussion at the bottom it appears that SAAB tuners insist on not using M1 due to numerous failures.
Again, no proof but some food for thoughts.
He must have meant most dino 30 weights. M1 actually starts out in grade and stays there.
There have been quite a few reports of the 2AZFE spinning rod bearings in non-FI, essentially stock Scion tCs, possibly due to oil starvation. It's the same 2.3L 4cyl motor used in the Camry.
Were the motors probably beat on? Sure. However no more beat on than a Civic would have been, and bearing failures in the Civics are *extremely* rare.
I think Toyota motors have some issues that surface when driven hard, that they still havn't yet been able to weed out, and probably never knew existed when most of the drivers of their cars were late middle aged women.
I'm a Toyota fan BTW, and own one.
I think a better oil (like a good dino or PP) probably would have staved off the failure a while longer.
Were the motors probably beat on? Sure. However no more beat on than a Civic would have been, and bearing failures in the Civics are *extremely* rare.
I think Toyota motors have some issues that surface when driven hard, that they still havn't yet been able to weed out, and probably never knew existed when most of the drivers of their cars were late middle aged women.
I'm a Toyota fan BTW, and own one.
I think a better oil (like a good dino or PP) probably would have staved off the failure a while longer.
Well, this is definetally a case of turbocharging a COROLLA engine! It can be done (boosting a naturally aspirated engine); in fact, it's done all the time. But, you have to take care of stuff and be REALLY conservative. This guy obviously wasn't. There is clearly varnish. I bet the dude recently put a boost controller on and wanted to see what 10 psi felt like (not knowing the consequences of only having a rising rate fuel pressure regulator as the only fuel system enhancement.) Look at how tiny those rods and bearings are??? Ever seen a factory turbocharged engine's rods and rod bearings??? BEEFY. Not tooth picks. What did the moron expect???
He's gonna call Toyota and complain
Uh oh...
New Recall
New Recall
An internal oil leak would certainly explain oil pressure/starvation related problems.
"BTW, Which 3.0L Vulcan engine are you talking about?"
There's only one Ford 3.0 liter V6 that's called the Vulcan. Its been produced since 1986 at Ford's Lima Engine Plant in Lima, Ohio, and has been put in a number of Ford vehicles, such as the Ranger pickup and the Taurus, Probe, Aerostar, and Windstar, so obviously, a LOT of them have been made. Its still being put in the Ranger. Its a pushrod engine that produces, depending on the year in which it was made, around 143-155 hp at the flywheel. Its known to be a bulletproof, long-lasting, dependable engine. I've heard of a lot of Rangers with this engine that have over 300,000 miles on the engine. Its sturdiness is probably one of the main reasons that the Whipple supercharger is a good fit with the engine. None of the engine's internals are changed when the supercharger is installed. A 154 flywheel hp Vulcan produces 230 hp at the flywheel with the Whipple. The following page from the Whipple website gives the specs of a durability test of the engine and supercharger, with pics of the engine parts after the test. It makes for an interesting comparison to the pics of the Toyota engine discussed in this thread.
http://www.whipplesuperchargers.com/ranger/durability.asp
There's only one Ford 3.0 liter V6 that's called the Vulcan. Its been produced since 1986 at Ford's Lima Engine Plant in Lima, Ohio, and has been put in a number of Ford vehicles, such as the Ranger pickup and the Taurus, Probe, Aerostar, and Windstar, so obviously, a LOT of them have been made. Its still being put in the Ranger. Its a pushrod engine that produces, depending on the year in which it was made, around 143-155 hp at the flywheel. Its known to be a bulletproof, long-lasting, dependable engine. I've heard of a lot of Rangers with this engine that have over 300,000 miles on the engine. Its sturdiness is probably one of the main reasons that the Whipple supercharger is a good fit with the engine. None of the engine's internals are changed when the supercharger is installed. A 154 flywheel hp Vulcan produces 230 hp at the flywheel with the Whipple. The following page from the Whipple website gives the specs of a durability test of the engine and supercharger, with pics of the engine parts after the test. It makes for an interesting comparison to the pics of the Toyota engine discussed in this thread.
http://www.whipplesuperchargers.com/ranger/durability.asp
Kestas
Staff member
Ford tests their engines using a 300-hr FIE test. I see Whipple tests their engines for 80 hours. Though it's commendable that they test their engines, it's still not as rigorous as Ford's testing. But still better than the backyard mechanic who slaps things together and hopes it holds.
Putting together your information and my experience, it seems that the engine was beefed up, then the modifications were placed into production for all 3.0L Vulcan engines. I like to think I had a hand in it, helping the Ford engineers make the engine a supercharged possibility.
BTW, I've visited the Lime Engine Plant some 10 years ago, working on other issues.
Putting together your information and my experience, it seems that the engine was beefed up, then the modifications were placed into production for all 3.0L Vulcan engines. I like to think I had a hand in it, helping the Ford engineers make the engine a supercharged possibility.
BTW, I've visited the Lime Engine Plant some 10 years ago, working on other issues.
Sounds like what happens when detonation is out of control with an aftermarket turbo system.
Turbo miata's also destroy engines in a similar manner when operated with detonation.
Chris
Turbo miata's also destroy engines in a similar manner when operated with detonation.
Chris
And about three more quarts of oil...quote:
Originally posted by Raven18940:
It doesn't need more cylinders, just a bigger turbo.quote:
Originally posted by stingray427:
Looks like motor needs at least 4 more cylinders and perhaps a switch to Amsoil or Redline..... Synthetics.
I admittedly didn't read much of that thread, but from what I did see, it almost has the trademarks of a classic troll™, or a guy doing a CYA.
And if the later's the case, he almost seems like a guy that may have used Mobil5000, and called it Mobil1...
And if the later's the case, he almost seems like a guy that may have used Mobil5000, and called it Mobil1...
- Status
