Does all the Fe in M1 mean to stay away?

[moving2]

Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: moving2
If you're looking for the best protection for your car, I think the question to ask is not "is there any evidence the higher Fe is causing harm?" but rather "What oil returns the best UOAs for my engine?" and Fe is one of the factors to look at.

This sounds 100% reasonable, especially as you've explained it.


Originally Posted By: d00df00d
However, think about what it means in practice. [...] That obviously doesn't make sense because IF the test turns out to be meaningless, the results are meaningless whether they're good or bad. That's why you have to know WHAT the numbers on the UOA means BEFORE you make your decision. Otherwise, you might as well be reading tea leaves and sacrificing goats.


d00df00d-

1. From the BITOG Oil Analysis Article:

"Iron (Fe): This can come from many places in the engine such as liners, camshafts, crankshaft, valve train, timing gears, etc. "

Would you care to provide us with a more accurate/complete explanation of what the UOA test, and the Fe reading in particular, means?


2. You seem to imply that the Fe measurement used may be invalid, and the test may be meaningless. May I ask upon what this is based? I was under the impression that Fe was being sampled and compared by Blackstone over several UOAs for a reason.

3. If my engine shows consistently higher Fe readings on UOAs with M1 vs. PU, why do you suppose that might be? Are you implying that the higher Fe might NOT be from "liners, camshafts, crankshaft, valve train, timing gears, etc."? If not, where do you suppose it is coming from?


4.
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
The question of this thread is this: "Does all the Fe in M1 mean to stay away?" The answer is no. Why? Because there is no reason to think that the higher iron counts mean anything bad. At all. Period.


a) If I plan to run my engine until it needs a rebuild, if the UOA Fe readings are one indicator of engine wear, would you guess that it's more likely that using an oil with lower UOA Fe readings may make my engine last longer? Or would you guess that it's more likely that the oil with the higher UOA Fe readings might make my engine last longer? Where is the evidence that it will make a difference one way or the other? You seem to state it make no difference with certainty. I am stating it may make a difference with no real certainty. Neither of us have data to back up our assertions. May I ask where your certainty comes from? And if this is an unknown, how would you justify using the oil with the higher UOA Fe readings when an otherwise-comparable oil has lower Fe readings.

b) When you say there is "no reason to think that the higher iron counts mean anything bad"- how do you know that the higher Fe counts might mean something more significant over 300-400k mi? In other words, that it might make a difference in the mileage I'm able to get out of my engine before rebuild?

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
I'm bookmarking this for later reference if you don't mind. I'll remind you of it when the slant is running against another oil in the UOA section due to numbers ..and ask you to use the same effort at thwarting it in a non-M1 thread ....since you really have no dog in the fight one way or the other...

Please do. If you can find another oil that is being bashed as widely and doggedly on similarly tenuous grounds, I will jump in eagerly and be grateful to you for the referral.

 

[HangerHarley]

Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
Quote:
You also seem to think that the only reason to talk like this is to defend Mobil 1. That is blatantly false. Very few people here are brand loyal to Mobil 1, let alone do they care enough to defend it. What we care about are this forum's standards of evidence and what passes for good advice. If BITOGers are bagging on ANY product for bad reasons, it hurts our credibility as a forum.

Relying on test results to make decisions without knowing what the results mean is silly. Telling people not to care about the validity of the tests they're using is worse. Junk info is NOT better than nothing. Please don't tell people not to worry about the difference.


I'm bookmarking this for later reference if you don't mind. I'll remind you of it when the slant is running against another oil in the UOA section due to numbers ..and ask you to use the same effort at thwarting it in a non-M1 thread ....since you really have no dog in the fight one way or the other...


Please bookmark that I was told i could not discuss Oil from Renewable Lubricants, Inc. Why? Seems to make BITOG look slanted, especially the way my whole thread was removed about that particular Oil manufacturer. (d00df00d where are you?)

I have the PM if people are interested. I would like to see us BITOG RLI Oil. Hopefully, that will happen.

M1 is take it or leave it, but watch the fervor when something bad is passed in M1's direction. Makes me wonder!

EDIT: Syntec and RP gets bashed pretty well. Excellent :cheers2: with you and Doug

 

[buster]

Engine testing and specifications are really the only way to determine oil quality.

Mobil 1's UOA's have looked about the same for the past 8 years?? Fe is bit higher, but that doesn't mean anything other than it's higher.

Quote:
Unfortunately, oil analysis is not very good at distinguishing wear between different formulations. Emission spectroscopy has a particle size limit of 3 to 5 microns, which means that particles larger will not be detected. Unfortunately, most serious wear issues generate wear particles in the range of 5 - 15 microns. Oil analysis only measures about 15-20% of the particles in the oil, and changing form one formulation to another is likely to change the particle size profile. Usually formulations with more antiwear additive will more aggressively react with the metal surface and when rubbing occurs will produce smaller particles. Generally, more antiwear additives will give greater iron spectrochemical numbers, even though the total iron can be lower. There are other techniques such as ferrography, which looks at the wear particles under a microscope, but now we are talking about analysis many times more expensive than spectrochemical analysis. The oils with the better spectrochemical numbers will be much less chemically active on the metal surface, so they will be less able to handle more severe loads. There is always a trade-off between chemical wear and adhesive wear. Chemical wear is the very small particles and soluble metals which is identified in the spectrochemical analysis, while adhesive wear is many orders of magnitude greater than the chemical wear, but much is not identified in spectrochemical analysis. But if you were using spectrochemical analysis as a maintenance tool and started seeing a deviation over the baseline, then you would know something was wrong.

It is very difficult for an individual to be able to look at numbers which will conclusively determine the best formulation, you simply have to rely on the reputation of the marketer and whether you trust the marketer's technical expertise. With most of our formulations, we rely on major additive manufacturers to do the basic API sequence testing to determine criteria such as antiwear, dispersancy, cleanliness, etc. All the oil companies rely on the additive manufacturers to do the engine test work. We will take their basic package and add additional antiwear, friction modifiers, oxidation inhibitors or whatever can be safely modified to provide superior performance. Some of the bench tests such as 4-Ball can be useful, but a blind adherance to optimize with one single test will result a less-than-optimum performing lubricant. There are always trade-offs in engine oils, and we try to enhance antiwear and friction reduction at higher temperatures and loads, while trying to maintain performance at lower and normal loads and temperatures.

Regards,

Roy


http://www.mobil1.com.au/why/outstanding.aspx

Notice all the newer tests are concerned with better deposit protection and overall engine cleanliness. It's obviously very important.

 

[JOD]

Since everyone seems to have an opinion, about Mobil 1, the death of freedom, being subjugated to using government-sponsored oil filters, RLI and lot of other things....here's another guy's complete random speculation:

-long term Mobil 1 use shows historically very clean engines, with very low varnish of any kind


-Mobil 1 UOA's consistently show slightly higher FE levels.

(these are facts, not random speculation--here's the speculation part...)


There's certainly zero evidence that there's a causal relationship between the above, but it's not a stretch either. Maybe the oil uses a fairly aggressive additive pack (including formulations which may not even be readily-apparent in VOA's). The detergents in the oil are aggressive enough that they cause slightly elevated wear levels of FE. Before anyone completely dismisses this theory, keep in mind the complexities of detergents, i.e. it's not just about "keeping particles in suspension".

If that's the case, then question then becomes "is the trade-off worth it". I think it's next to impossible to suggest that the increased FE levels aren't "increased wear", but are the levels high enough to merit concern? I certainly haven't seen any evidence to suggest that's the case, and I have seen a lot of anecdotes of high mileage vehicles with clean engines performing well after a lifetime of Mobil 1. So, if I chose to use M1, the higher FE levels wouldn't concern me at all.

 

[Drew99GT]

Originally Posted By: d00df00d
If you can find another oil that is being bashed as widely and doggedly on similarly tenuous grounds


There isn't one, because most all other oils do not show higher iron wear, on average.

 

[d00df00d]

moving2, I was going to write a detailed reply to you but I think buster's post answers all your points. The quote is from someone at Red Line and it is about as well written as anything you'll find. I would strongly recommend reading and understanding it.

 

[AzFireGuy79]

The person who wrote that article is Roy Howell of Redline oil. He use to work for Lubrizol back in the day. Very smart fellow for sure. I believe he is now the VP of Redline.

 

[HangerHarley]

Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
If you can find another oil that is being bashed as widely and doggedly on similarly tenuous grounds


There isn't one, because most all other oils do not show higher iron wear, on average.

Its funny because its true.

Game on....

 

[Brett Miller]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with Mobil 1.

 

[HangerHarley]

This is worth quoting.

Originally Posted By: JOD
-long term Mobil 1 use shows historically very clean engines, with very low varnish of any kind


-Mobil 1 UOA's consistently show slightly higher FE levels.

(these are facts, not random speculation--here's the speculation part...)


There's certainly zero evidence that there's a causal relationship between the above, but it's not a stretch either. Maybe the oil uses a fairly aggressive additive pack (including formulations which may not even be readily-apparent in VOA's). The detergents in the oil are aggressive enough that they cause slightly elevated wear levels of FE. Before anyone completely dismisses this theory, keep in mind the complexities of detergents, i.e. it's not just about "keeping particles in suspension".

If that's the case, then question then becomes "is the trade-off worth it". I think it's next to impossible to suggest that the increased FE levels aren't "increased wear", but are the levels high enough to merit concern? I certainly haven't seen any evidence to suggest that's the case, and I have seen a lot of anecdotes of high mileage vehicles with clean engines performing well after a lifetime of Mobil 1. So, if I chose to use M1, the higher FE levels wouldn't concern me at all.

 

[yeti]

in an earlier post, gary asked for the WHOLE TRUTH. here it is -- M1 will turn out Fe numbers, in a uoa, of about 7,000 ppm, and pyb is high in wax, and both will cause most motors to grenade.there you have it.
it "appears" that gary is spoiling for debate tonight -- judging by his posts.have at it, guys, and have a good night.

 

[Doug Hillary]

Hi,
I realise in Posting here that my "reputation" for being "XoM friendly" and a "defender" of their products will overwhelm the following facts - at least for some on here!

These facts are taken from my historical UOA database and apply to three vehicles ex my now sold Fleet of Class 8 trucks powered by 500hp Series 60 Detroits costing around $A50000 each. They were all on a synthetic 5W-40 HDEO that had at least two API formulation changes in the period of use

Maximum Fe ever recorded - 221ppm at 89kkms (55kmls)

Engine A = Avg OCI 91kkms (56kmls) avg Fe at OCI = 134ppm

Engine B = Avg OCI 86kkms (54kmls) avg Fe at OCI = 139ppm

Engine C = Avg OCI 89kkms (56kmls) avg Fe at OCI = 118ppm

Engine B was stripped down at 1.2m kms (745kmls) by Detroit, inspected, measured and reassembled. It has now covered in excess of 2.5m kms (1.55m mls) without a major overhaul

I have published the liner pictures on BITOG before and these show hone marks "almost "as new"

Averaged oil consumption over all engines was 1 litre per 6kkms (3.7kmls)

One should be very careful about small incremental Fe measurements in "simple" single pass "Blackstone" type UOAs

Those barking up the "wear" argument should be mindful of which tree they are at. It just may be the wrong one!!!!

buster - Thanks for Posting Roy's comments!

 

[d00df00d]

Cheers, Doug.

 

[tig1]

Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
Quote:
I have used M1 oils for 32 years now in many differant engines and every one of them stayed very clean and never showed any kind of wear.


So you tore them all down and mic'd them?


Now don't you REALLY mean.

"If any wear occurred, I was TOTALLY IGNORANT of it" ????? Let's be fully forthcoming in truth in posting, Tig

This doesn't say one way or another ..it could have had some Rockwell spec'd 409-AB3 finish inside for all I know.

..but neither of us know what was inside beyond you peaking in the fill hole (on ALL OF THEM OVER 32 years), right Tig?

Let's tell the WHOLE TRUTH ..and nothing but it, pal.


Another attack from the oil saleman that has reason to discredit me and the many years of experience I have had with M1 oils. I said "showed" as in no valve train noise, timing chain noise or replacement, no loss of compression, or any other sign of engine wear. No internal engine measurements were ever taken or needed because the valve covers or heads were never removed, as there was no need to.

 

[JOD]

Originally Posted By: Doug Hillary


These facts are taken from my historical UOA database


How did the control group fare?

Originally Posted By: Doug Hillary
One should be very careful about small incremental Fe measurements in "simple" single pass "Blackstone" type UOAs

Those barking up the "wear" argument should be mindful of which tree they are at. It just may be the wrong one!!!!



I agree completely, particularly when you're talking about engine service life and wear of the total system. However...I think there's a bit of a straw-man argument going on here.

While some may claim "M1 is no good, it'll eat your engine!", I don't see that claim being made very often. What I do see are questions such as the original one in this thread, which in a nutshell are as follows: "is the increased FE consistently shown in M1 UOA's something which should be of concern?".

There's no question there are limitations of single pass UOA's, but when looking at the totality of UOA's M1 shows higher slightly higher levels of FE. This is unequivocal. I think it's then legitimate to question if the oil will contribute to greater system wear (and I already gave my own speculation, the Cliff's Notes of which are "no"). I also think that XOM's failure to actually even attempt to answer this question in the Q&A doesn't really do much to give people the warm fuzzies....

 

[HangerHarley]

The Oil expert (not salesman) indicated that long-term M1 use lead to NO varnish, or anything. If thats true, i WILL give M1 15W-50 a shot, and keep using it. Its easy to get, priced right, and if it does all that and doesnt leak and my engine likes it, hey, ill leave it alone! All un-fooled around with.

My question is, how long is "long-term."

High Fe would SURELY scare someone that doesnt know - or hasnt read - ALL the pages and pages and pages and pages of scientific rationale for High Fe on the subject, whereas other Oils dont have it. BUT, i liked that synopsis.

The idea that it means nothing and is good? Im not a scientist.. But, cool beans!

 

[Gary Allan]

Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
I'm bookmarking this for later reference if you don't mind. I'll remind you of it when the slant is running against another oil in the UOA section due to numbers ..and ask you to use the same effort at thwarting it in a non-M1 thread ....since you really have no dog in the fight one way or the other...

Please do. If you can find another oil that is being bashed as widely and doggedly on similarly tenuous grounds, I will jump in eagerly and be grateful to you for the referral.


well, I'd say that there is no other oil so blindly defended ...and even when it's not being attacked ..just remarked upon ..

you, yourself, seem to be blind to that aspect of this melodramatic "in the round" performance.

 

[moving2]

Originally Posted By: d00df00d
moving2, I was going to write a detailed reply to you but I think buster's post answers all your points. The quote is from someone at Red Line and it is about as well written as anything you'll find. I would strongly recommend reading and understanding it.


d00df00d- buster has a good reference there. I will, of course, look at others. Roy states that emission spectroscopy in UOA is not a good test to measure wear between different formulations and provides a good explanation of why.

However, I think the most you can take from his statement is that a comparison of Fe in UOAs between different oils is not a good comparison of wear between the oils.

This does not support your argument that one should not be concerned with the higher Fe numbers in M1 (or that they do not indicate increased wear), nor does it support the argument that one should be concerned with the higher Fe numbers in M1 (or that they do indicate increased wear). He did state that more anti-wear additives may produce higher Fe readings, but once again, as far as I've seen, nobody has drawn a correlation between the percent of anti-wear additives in different oils and their Fe readings in UOA results to see if this explains the M1 UOA results we're seeing.

Given that, I have some more questions given your statement below:

Originally Posted By: d00df00d
The question of this thread is this: "Does all the Fe in M1 mean to stay away?" The answer is no. Why? Because there is no reason to think that the higher iron counts mean anything bad. At all. Period.


Here's where I think we differ- based on Roy's statements, you're saying there's no reason to think M1's higher Fe readings mean anything bad, and you're saying that with certainty (see bolded parts of your statement above).

I am stating that the higher Fe readings may make a difference with no real certainty.

1. Now, neither of us have data to back up our assertions, and Roy's statement supports neither your position nor mine directly. So may I ask where your certainty comes from?

2. And if the relation between higher M1 UOA Fe readings and increased wear is unknown/inconclusive, as suggested by Roy, then how would you justify using the oil with the higher UOA Fe readings when an otherwise-comparable oil has lower Fe readings? Again, inconclusive does not necessarily mean the readings are not indicative of wear.

3. I think the most an objective person can say based on Roy's statement is that it is inconclusive whether or not the higher Fe readings mean something. You seem to be taking a hard stance in saying the higher Fe readings are meaningless. I am taking a soft stance in saying the higher Fe readings may or may not mean something. So again, upon what is your hard stance based? Roy's statement certainly doesn't support this:

Originally Posted By: d00df00d
The question of this thread is this: "Does all the Fe in M1 mean to stay away?" The answer is no. Why? Because there is no reason to think that the higher iron counts mean anything bad. At all. Period.


So maybe you can enlighten us as to what does support such a confident assertion, other than anecdotal evidence.

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: HangerHarley
High Fe would SURELY scare someone that doesnt know - or hasnt read - ALL the pages and pages and pages and pages of scientific rationale for High Fe on the subject, whereas other Oils dont have it.

Agreed. That's why it's important to have all the facts, and to be open to alternative explanations.