Does all the Fe in M1 mean to stay away?

[webfors]

Originally Posted By: Johnny
Absolutely nothing wrong with Mobil 1 and there is absolutely nothing wrong with the Honda filters made by Honeywell. I happen to use Pennzoil synthetics in my two Elements, but I have used the Honda/Honeywell filters since both cars were new.


+1 bang on.

 

[buster]

Quote:
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.

 

[webfors]

My gripe with M1 is more about cost than performance. When there are alternatives that have proven to perform as well, or better, for less dollars I would be a fool to pay more. In Canada M1 is ridiculously priced.

 

[Doug Hillary]

Hi,
JOD Perhaps you directed this to me:
""is the increased FE consistently shown in M1 UOA's something which should be of concern?"."

No!

 

[webfors]

Originally Posted By: d00df00d
...You think that's air you're breathing now?

Quote from my favorite movie series...

This debate will rage forever and make or destroy friendships... not worth it!!

 

[d00df00d]

moving2, before I respond: You know the difference between "meaningless" and "false," right? Something about your reaction to what I'm saying makes me suspect that you are equating those terms, and since we seem to agree more than we disagree, I wanted to make sure that's not a source of confusion from here on.

 

[moving2]

Originally Posted By: d00df00d
moving2, before I respond: You know the difference between "meaningless" and "false," right? Something about your reaction to what I'm saying makes me suspect that you are equating those terms, and since we seem to agree more than we disagree, I wanted to make sure that's not a source of confusion from here on.


d00df00d- you do understand the difference between "true", "inconclusive" and "false", right? Because, if you read my post above, I am trying to make that distinction clear when it comes to Roy's statement and yours regarding high Fe numbers in M1 UOAs. That is, you seem to be taking an "inconclusive" from Roy and transforming it into an "assertion" about the M1 Fe numbers, and I just don't see how that follows.

In any case, I'd be interested to hear your response to the enumerated points in my post above.

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: moving2
you seem to be taking an "inconclusive" from Roy and transforming it into an "assertion" about the M1 Fe numbers

No, I'm not. I'm using it to say that an assertion -- namely, that Mobil 1's "higher Fe numbers" indicate wear in the relevant sense -- cannot be made on the basis of simple Blackstone UOAs alone.

 

[moving2]

Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: moving2
you seem to be taking an "inconclusive" from Roy and transforming it into an "assertion" about the M1 Fe numbers

No, I'm not. I'm using it to say that an assertion -- namely, that Mobil 1's "higher Fe numbers" indicate wear in the relevant sense -- cannot be made on the basis of simple Blackstone UOAs alone.


d00df00d- if you wouldn't mind, please go ahead and respond to my post above, as I think I might understand your point better if you respond to my post directly.

 

[cjhepburn]

Round and round and round it goes...
Much to say about nothing.

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: moving2
d00df00d- if you wouldn't mind, please go ahead and respond to my post above, as I think I might understand your point better if you respond to my post directly.

I suspect people are getting tired of this exchange. I'll send you a PM if you don't mind; if you find anything of value, feel free to post it here.

 

[synthetic_crazy]

Why run the potential of high lead with Mobil 1 products. Switch to Pennzoil Platinum or Ultra; better oil with better add-packs! Just my $0.02

 

[moving2]

Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: moving2
d00df00d- if you wouldn't mind, please go ahead and respond to my post above, as I think I might understand your point better if you respond to my post directly.

I suspect people are getting tired of this exchange. I'll send you a PM if you don't mind; if you find anything of value, feel free to post it here.


d00df00d- this incredibly boring exchange could've been avoided had you chosen to simply answer the questions posed in my post instead of preempting them with questions of your own. This is not the first time you've responded to my questions in this way (IIRC, in the past you've not directly answered my questions for reasons ranging from: you "didn't like my tone", to you wanted me to start a new thread, to you wanted me to answer your questions first (though mine were posed first)) and I must say, no offense, but it's getting a little annoying.

In any case, looking forward to the PM.

 

[Doug Hillary]

Hi,
During 2005 or so a certain Porsche Forum was "hit" by one or two people promoting the "M1 0W-40 lubricant will destroy your engine" line. In particular "it will destroy cam lobes". "it's too thin", "it has too many additives", etc and etc. This had happened earlier here on BITOG - with a little help from some Amsoil people!!

The hit came from one person and then others promoting Brad Penn lubricants (regardless of correct viscosity and etc). One had ??Engineering as his organisation and was the "new" expert on lubricants because of his UOA studies etc. and "end on end" lubricant comparison's of various Brands! Really!!!

The Brand bashing was continued by others as a frenzy - some Indepenedent repair shops (who always know best???) promoting "their favourite Brand" and others spoiling for their answer to an age old argument - the search for the non existant "Magic" lubricant - that doesn't exist of course

Rubbishing of the specific M1 lubricant raised questions for me - other than their "Brad Penn is best" motives of course was there any truth out there? I decided to carry out as much reasearch as I could. In Australia and elsewhere and dealing at levels I am familiar with in two Euro manufacturers and some Oil Companies I was able to conclude with confidence the following information

1 - No evidence of excessive cam (or any other component) wear was evident when using any Brand of Approved oil
(This was confrimed by a variaty of data - Warranty Claim history, Parts sales, Service Information Bulletins and etc!)

2 - UOAs taken by one engine maker was inconclusive in certain engine issues that were technology based. No changes were made to the 100 or so Approved oils - no brands were deleted as a consequence

3 - One Euro engine maker's Technical epresentivive and his Technical team could "...not remember ever having a lubricant related (caused) failure". One guy had been in his role for 25 years!!!

4 - Engine durability was found to be quite amazing with some engines going to 600kkms (375kmle) without any hardware replacements. They are still going!!!

5 - Many Taxi Owners I communicated with confirmed the engine Company data. This confirmed by one major Taxi service centre especially in one Euro city. I know this site very well indeed having once managed it for Chevron-Caltex

6 - The specific lubricant mentioned is extensively used by Factory race teams, Private race Teams, race car Owners and in engine development by choice. This was so when any Brand or viscosity was at the Engineering Teams disposal

7 - Many Owners of very expensive Classic vehicles and/or the lastest in sophisticated vehicles chose the lubricant. This was the case over and over again - no pressure was applied to them to buy a specific oil - some Factory service outlets allowing the use of Customer supplied lubricants as long as they are on the Approvals List

So the "rumour mill" had no substance. No credible and quantifiable pictures of destroyed cams or any other evidence was ever made available! That tells a story don't you think?

A study I have made of single pass UOAs of Porsche 911 (aircooled) engines (difficult to compare because of the level of "modification") show slightly less Fe ppm (1 to 10) with mineral oils. No lubricant stood out as better or worse than another in the end results. Could you draw any conclusions from this? IMO,no! - the variables are simply to prolific

IMO single pass "simple" UOAs should be used primarily to monitor lubricant condition and to assist in setting a OCI. More than that requires trending on an engine or an engine family for extensive periods along with more comprehensive data that is well documented

Please note that I recently "stood by" a Castrol product on here.

Sadly I believe BITOG is being degraded by antagonism and aggressiveness - and very little data to back up "cemented in" positions!

 

[d00df00d]

I would caution against being hooked on any product unless you have a darn good reason. But in general, and aside from the fact that I don't use Mobil 1, I tend to agree with your assessment (for what that's worth).

 

[tpattgeek]

Originally Posted By: d00df00d
I would caution against being hooked on any product unless you have a darn good reason. But in general, and aside from the fact that I don't use Mobil 1, I tend to agree with your assessment (for what that's worth).


I'm actually looking to find a darn good reason to become unhooked, but have failed to find it after 6 pages

 

[JOD]

Originally Posted By: Doug Hillary
Hi,
JOD Perhaps you directed this to me:
""is the increased FE consistently shown in M1 UOA's something which should be of concern?"."

No!



No, I was suggesting that's the question that is typically asked when people bring up the "M1 FE issue".

I also completely agree with your answer! I just think it's a legitimate question to ask, that's all.

 

[jaj]

This is an interesting case of a comparison of data with information.

The data is that M1 produces higher iron measurements in a specific and relatively narrow range of particle sizes detected by UOA spectroscopy.

The information we need is "what does this mean?"

If M1 produces less iron wear than other oils, but more of the the wear particles are in the detectable size range, then there'll be a "high" iron UOA reading while there's actually low iron "wear".

I'm sure someone has said this before.

In the end, UOA's are NOT an indicator of engine condition or wear rates. They only provide a meaningful indication of the condition of the oil itself.

 

[Doug Hillary]

Hi,
jaj - Thank you for chipping in. I agree with you wholly and if a PQ Index reading is also used with a basic UOA - especially at the OC point - the data becomes a little more meaningful

People forget it's only ppm we are discussing. My earlier Post about the average Fe reading at OCI did not even raise a comment. People here are more concerned about 5 or 10ppm in engines that typically last beyond the bodywork! This is not the case with Class 8 trucks where the on-going "heart" is the engine. It may be rebuilt many times in a life of perhaps 30 years or so

We have a greater average engine life now than ever before! And at a higher avaerage power output per litre too

 

[Gary Allan]

Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: moving2
d00df00d- if you wouldn't mind, please go ahead and respond to my post above, as I think I might understand your point better if you respond to my post directly.

I suspect people are getting tired of this exchange.


Oh ..not at all. Please don't deny us the privilege of viewing the grandeur of your most well planned and executed posts.