Does all the Fe in M1 mean to stay away?
- Thread starter tpattgeek
- Start date
- Status
Gary..can the fe numbers be some sort of a leeching result of some sort of chemistry makeup? Where we just don't understand the dynamics behind what we are seeing in analysis? Regardless of company i cannot see any of them to put out a product that will actually show more wear. The chemists and testers should be flogged if that's the case. I had a cold start issue with M1 5w20 in 2005. Yup it's that simpl for me. They could make the best stuff out there now but because of my experience i can't get myself to buy it.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,798
Quote:
Gary..can the fe numbers be some sort of a leeching result of some sort of chemistry makeup?
I am of the belief (an opinion) that this is a chemical reaction that's a side effect of their unique AW package. That while it evidences Fe on the detectable level, that it would in no way constitute "added wear".
When Bruce made his first batch of 0w-10 for me, it has Joe Gibbs levels of moly and whatnot. I had 3 brand new heat exchangers installed ..and the Cu readings were off the charts. We've seen much more radical reactions with Redline of a decade ago.
What I'm trying to say is that I would not "worry" about it. I don't think it's any more harmful (poor term) than normal background radiation is in terms of free radicals.
BUT ...it is an oddity that will seek definition.
What's the oddest reaction about this issue ..especially in this collection of people, is that we often see people commenting on the average boob lacking in critical thinking. Not being critical of their environment ...not questioning when something doesn't add up ..or is otherwise "unright".
This has a bunch of people asking "why?".
Gary..can the fe numbers be some sort of a leeching result of some sort of chemistry makeup?
I am of the belief (an opinion) that this is a chemical reaction that's a side effect of their unique AW package. That while it evidences Fe on the detectable level, that it would in no way constitute "added wear".
When Bruce made his first batch of 0w-10 for me, it has Joe Gibbs levels of moly and whatnot. I had 3 brand new heat exchangers installed ..and the Cu readings were off the charts. We've seen much more radical reactions with Redline of a decade ago.
What I'm trying to say is that I would not "worry" about it. I don't think it's any more harmful (poor term) than normal background radiation is in terms of free radicals.
BUT ...it is an oddity that will seek definition.
What's the oddest reaction about this issue ..especially in this collection of people, is that we often see people commenting on the average boob lacking in critical thinking. Not being critical of their environment ...not questioning when something doesn't add up ..or is otherwise "unright".
This has a bunch of people asking "why?".
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
I am of the belief (an opinion) that this is a chemical reaction that's a side effect of their unique AW package. That while it evidences Fe on the detectable level, that it would in no way constitute "added wear".
This is the only intelligent reasoning that I've seen for the iron seen in M1 UOAs. It's unfortunate that this board can't seem to tolerate a technical discussion on this topic without it turning into a flame war. One can completely support the product (Mobil 1), use the product, while at the same time, be truly and intellectually curious about the trend. No, it doesn't mean that the engine is blowing up. No, it doesn't mean that it's an inferior oil. But there has to be a technical reason behind it. Chemical leeching is the only reasonable logic that I've seen that explains the trend. I wish we could find out more about it, talk more about it.
Pardon the brevity, but people flatulate when they eat beans. Does it make beans any less desireable? No. But there's still a reason behind the farts.
I am of the belief (an opinion) that this is a chemical reaction that's a side effect of their unique AW package. That while it evidences Fe on the detectable level, that it would in no way constitute "added wear".
This is the only intelligent reasoning that I've seen for the iron seen in M1 UOAs. It's unfortunate that this board can't seem to tolerate a technical discussion on this topic without it turning into a flame war. One can completely support the product (Mobil 1), use the product, while at the same time, be truly and intellectually curious about the trend. No, it doesn't mean that the engine is blowing up. No, it doesn't mean that it's an inferior oil. But there has to be a technical reason behind it. Chemical leeching is the only reasonable logic that I've seen that explains the trend. I wish we could find out more about it, talk more about it.
Pardon the brevity, but people flatulate when they eat beans. Does it make beans any less desireable? No. But there's still a reason behind the farts.
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
Quote:
Gary..can the fe numbers be some sort of a leeching result of some sort of chemistry makeup?
I am of the belief (an opinion) that this is a chemical reaction that's a side effect of their unique AW package. That while it evidences Fe on the detectable level, that it would in no way constitute "added wear".
All Mobil had to do was use an answer similar to this in their Q&A session and dodged a lot of bullets. I had suggested an answer very similar in a thread that was locked IIRC. At least an answer like this is something people might buy into!
Quote:
Gary..can the fe numbers be some sort of a leeching result of some sort of chemistry makeup?
I am of the belief (an opinion) that this is a chemical reaction that's a side effect of their unique AW package. That while it evidences Fe on the detectable level, that it would in no way constitute "added wear".
All Mobil had to do was use an answer similar to this in their Q&A session and dodged a lot of bullets. I had suggested an answer very similar in a thread that was locked IIRC. At least an answer like this is something people might buy into!
Why would that answer be acceptable? It's not a known fact.
Why is it illogical to draw the conclusion that the demonstrated poor performance of their 5W-30 for a period of time on the Sequence IVa might not result in higher Fe numbers? It sure seems the the time frames for the higher Fe numbers in UOAs seen here and Ashland/SWRI's testing showing the failure on the Sequence IVa test overlap nicely.
Ed
Why is it illogical to draw the conclusion that the demonstrated poor performance of their 5W-30 for a period of time on the Sequence IVa might not result in higher Fe numbers? It sure seems the the time frames for the higher Fe numbers in UOAs seen here and Ashland/SWRI's testing showing the failure on the Sequence IVa test overlap nicely.
Ed
It sounded like a good [censored] answer, better than the explaination they gave, that's all. Seems in this industry the truth is very hard to find.
"The way to choose an oil is pretty simple. First, go to your owner's manual to find out which oil specification (API, ILSAC or others) is required and what is the viscosity recommendation.
Next, you choose between conventional, semi-synthetic and full synthetic. The last step is choosing which brand you trust to deliver those three items - proper spec, proper visc, and base oil quality. Since ExxonMobil makes the base oils and additives (ExMo is co-owner of Infineum Additives), I trust them to deliver the right spec, the right visc and the right base oils."
+1
It is just that simple. Other brands can do the same. This is just the brand I trust based on my knowledge of their capabilities and a good track record in my cars.
Next, you choose between conventional, semi-synthetic and full synthetic. The last step is choosing which brand you trust to deliver those three items - proper spec, proper visc, and base oil quality. Since ExxonMobil makes the base oils and additives (ExMo is co-owner of Infineum Additives), I trust them to deliver the right spec, the right visc and the right base oils."
+1
It is just that simple. Other brands can do the same. This is just the brand I trust based on my knowledge of their capabilities and a good track record in my cars.
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
Quote:
Gary..can the fe numbers be some sort of a leeching result of some sort of chemistry makeup?
I am of the belief (an opinion) that this is a chemical reaction that's a side effect of their unique AW package. That while it evidences Fe on the detectable level, that it would in no way constitute "added wear".
All Mobil had to do was use an answer similar to this in their Q&A session and dodged a lot of bullets. I had suggested an answer very similar in a thread that was locked IIRC. At least an answer like this is something people might buy into!
I gave a very similar possible explanation earlier this very thread.
The only thing with which I disagree is the comment that it "in no way constitutes added wear". Saying that is to suggest that there's a chemical reaction which is creating a basic element? Ummm......huh?????
It's certainly "wear" (the XOM guys defined this in the Q&A!). The iron is coming from the engine, and by definition that's "wear". Yes, I know this is semantics, but let's not pretend the iron is being created out of thin air! The real question though should be "is this significant in the overall system wear", and the answer appears to be a resounding "no, it's not significant".
If the XOM guys crafted a response to say basically just say "we're willing to trade a small, inconsequential increase in elemental iron abrasion to facilitate deposit control and increase overall engine life" (and I typed this without using the word "wear"!), then we wouldn't even be having this discussion.
As has already been said though, they were completely obtuse on addressing the issue, so it lives on...
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
Quote:
Gary..can the fe numbers be some sort of a leeching result of some sort of chemistry makeup?
I am of the belief (an opinion) that this is a chemical reaction that's a side effect of their unique AW package. That while it evidences Fe on the detectable level, that it would in no way constitute "added wear".
All Mobil had to do was use an answer similar to this in their Q&A session and dodged a lot of bullets. I had suggested an answer very similar in a thread that was locked IIRC. At least an answer like this is something people might buy into!
I gave a very similar possible explanation earlier this very thread.
The only thing with which I disagree is the comment that it "in no way constitutes added wear". Saying that is to suggest that there's a chemical reaction which is creating a basic element? Ummm......huh?????
It's certainly "wear" (the XOM guys defined this in the Q&A!). The iron is coming from the engine, and by definition that's "wear". Yes, I know this is semantics, but let's not pretend the iron is being created out of thin air! The real question though should be "is this significant in the overall system wear", and the answer appears to be a resounding "no, it's not significant".
If the XOM guys crafted a response to say basically just say "we're willing to trade a small, inconsequential increase in elemental iron abrasion to facilitate deposit control and increase overall engine life" (and I typed this without using the word "wear"!), then we wouldn't even be having this discussion.
As has already been said though, they were completely obtuse on addressing the issue, so it lives on...
Correct, the Fe cannot be produced out of thin air, but, has anyone done a UOA on a newly opened bottle of M1 and compared it to another after 5-10K miles were put on it? How does that compare to other newly opened bottles of a different brand and that same oil used after 5-10K miles on the same vehicle?
My point is, and I'm not defending M1 because not only am I not smart enough, but I have seen several UOA's of M1 over a period of time on the same vehicle, and the amount of Fe for each change varied greatly. That doesn't even bring up the fact that UOA's alone shouldn't even be considered to measure engine wear, but what condition your oil is in to give you an idea of the condition of your engine.
All I can say is, when XOM says it could be "wear" but it's not significant enough to justify modifying the amazing, fantabulous, ultra-unique AW formula, I believe them.
My point is, and I'm not defending M1 because not only am I not smart enough, but I have seen several UOA's of M1 over a period of time on the same vehicle, and the amount of Fe for each change varied greatly. That doesn't even bring up the fact that UOA's alone shouldn't even be considered to measure engine wear, but what condition your oil is in to give you an idea of the condition of your engine.
All I can say is, when XOM says it could be "wear" but it's not significant enough to justify modifying the amazing, fantabulous, ultra-unique AW formula, I believe them.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,798
Quote:
Saying that is to suggest that there's a chemical reaction which is creating a basic element? Ummm......huh?????
Not at all.
Quote:
It's certainly "wear" (the XOM guys defined this in the Q&A!). The iron is coming from the engine, and by definition that's "wear".
Not wear in any common sense of the term. Wear would be from a lubrication failure to keep parts separated ..having films breached ..or when breached having AW packages fail.
None of that has to go on with a chemical bonding process that knocks off some free Fe.
Again, that's just my opinion and more or less for a suggested response.
Saying that is to suggest that there's a chemical reaction which is creating a basic element? Ummm......huh?????
Not at all.
Quote:
It's certainly "wear" (the XOM guys defined this in the Q&A!). The iron is coming from the engine, and by definition that's "wear".
Not wear in any common sense of the term. Wear would be from a lubrication failure to keep parts separated ..having films breached ..or when breached having AW packages fail.
None of that has to go on with a chemical bonding process that knocks off some free Fe.
Again, that's just my opinion and more or less for a suggested response.
I think we agree more than we disagree--but I think we have different definitions of "wear". You aren't describing "wear", you're describing atypical wear as a result of a failure of the lubrication. I'm describing "wear" as the process of metals being removed from the engine over the normal course of its use.
This is a pretty standard definition of "wear", in any sense. While it seems like parsing words, using imprecise language to explain any concept just results in confusion.
To imply wear isn't a negative thing. An engine will eventually "wear out" (to throw around big scientific jargon) , no matter how ideal the lubrication. This is a fact. It's also a fact that engine longevity has gotten to a point that the metal components are almost certain to outlast the useful service life of it's surrounding components, as long as it's properly maintained.
But that doesn't change the fact that iron sloughing off of an engine's metal components is "wear". If it's not, you've invented a whole new meaning for the word.
EDIT: For instance, this is quote right from the Q@A: "Iron particles in used oil are to be expected, as the iron in engine components, such as cam shafts, timing chains and gears, piston pins and rings and cylinder liner, wears down during normal operation."
This is a pretty standard definition of "wear", in any sense. While it seems like parsing words, using imprecise language to explain any concept just results in confusion.
To imply wear isn't a negative thing. An engine will eventually "wear out" (to throw around big scientific jargon) , no matter how ideal the lubrication. This is a fact. It's also a fact that engine longevity has gotten to a point that the metal components are almost certain to outlast the useful service life of it's surrounding components, as long as it's properly maintained.
But that doesn't change the fact that iron sloughing off of an engine's metal components is "wear". If it's not, you've invented a whole new meaning for the word.
EDIT: For instance, this is quote right from the Q@A: "Iron particles in used oil are to be expected, as the iron in engine components, such as cam shafts, timing chains and gears, piston pins and rings and cylinder liner, wears down during normal operation."
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: tpattgeek
All I can say is, when XOM says it could be "wear" but it's not significant enough to justify modifying the amazing, fantabulous, ultra-unique AW formula, I believe them.
They never said anything about their AW formula.
We just rescued ourselves from an unsupportable conclusion. Let's not jump to another one. This is a plausible and fairly probable hypothesis, but that doesn't make it true. The whole point of this thread has been that we don't know what's going on. That applies here as well.
All I can say is, when XOM says it could be "wear" but it's not significant enough to justify modifying the amazing, fantabulous, ultra-unique AW formula, I believe them.
They never said anything about their AW formula.
We just rescued ourselves from an unsupportable conclusion. Let's not jump to another one. This is a plausible and fairly probable hypothesis, but that doesn't make it true. The whole point of this thread has been that we don't know what's going on. That applies here as well.
Originally Posted By: tpattgeek
Agreed. Case closed.
I gave you that answer 6 minutes after you created this thread.
Agreed. Case closed.
I gave you that answer 6 minutes after you created this thread.
Yes, and I appreciate the reminder that I was beating the horse to death
, but I was really looking to see if anyone knew anything beyond the scope of this site and the Q&A that provided any more evidence for or against. I now have that answer as well. This is an entertaining site, that's for sure, and thanks for all the opinions. Sorry if I ended some friendships with it.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: tpattgeek
Yes, and I appreciate the reminder that I was beating the horse to death
,
Just teasing. Meant no harm.
Yes, and I appreciate the reminder that I was beating the horse to death
Just teasing. Meant no harm.
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Originally Posted By: tpattgeek
Yes, and I appreciate the reminder that I was beating the horse to death
,
Just teasing. Meant no harm.
Same here. Thanks for the quick responses.
BTW, I've just discovered RLI... it seems well respected.. where can you purchase it?
Originally Posted By: tpattgeek
Yes, and I appreciate the reminder that I was beating the horse to death
Just teasing. Meant no harm.
Same here. Thanks for the quick responses.
BTW, I've just discovered RLI... it seems well respected.. where can you purchase it?
Originally Posted By: tpattgeek
BTW, I've just discovered RLI... it seems well respected.. where can you purchase it?
From their website. Google renewable lubricants.
BTW, I've just discovered RLI... it seems well respected.. where can you purchase it?
From their website. Google renewable lubricants.
- Status
Similar threads
- Question
