Does Mobil 1 Still Produce High Iron Levels ?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted by ChrisD46
OK - let's rephrase this to appease the "Get Off My Lawn" crowd gathered here today : *At what point does the ppm level of Iron /Wear Metals become a concern in an OCI ?
Then it would be interesting to see how the M1 , PPPP , Castrol Edge , QSUD and Valvoline Advanced 5W30 synthetic oils compare in Iron / Wear Metals ppm with their D1 / Gen 2 formulations ? ... If the thresh hold for Iron / Wear Metals ppm levels are so high as to make the topic a moot point in comparing these synthetic oils then so be it ... I will just mosey on over to the : ""Lawn / Small Engine" forum .

It has been stated over and over and backed up from data from oil analysis companies that a properly rated oil has no statistically significant effect on a UOA result. The way you test an oil for differences in wear is through the Sequence IVA and IVB tests.

From my days of running elemental analysis on oil (admittedly a while ago) high levels of metals in a sample are indicative of equipment failure, not oil failure. Even then however, you had to pre-treat the oil via acid digestion since the larger particles do not show up on the analysis unless they are dissolved.
 
Originally Posted by kschachn
Here we go. Let's start a useless thread that evolves into multiple pages of nonsense replies.


35.gif
 
To answer OP's original question: Sometimes. Through looking at numerous UOAs with M1, it seems that in some engines it does produce more iron. Others, especially when fed a diet of mostlyM1, don't show any more iron than others. Plus, it seems that vehicles run on M1 exclusively stay clean and last.

I'm one of the people that's seen higher iron with M1. Granted this is old data (~2007) so things may have changed. Results were for the Jeep 4.0. Note that M1 (third column from the right, 4700 mile OCI) produced more than twice as much iron as any other brand at the same mileage. Other brands tested at around 5k were ST Syn, VWB, and Amsoil SS.

[Linked Image]
 
Originally Posted by ChrisD46
OP Here : Like the scene from "Kelly's Heroes" when the paint round was used for the German tank instead of a live round and the US platoon complained ... "Such negative Energy" says Donald Sutherland !
OK - let's rephrase this to appease the "Get Off My Lawn" crowd gathered here today : *At what point does the ppm level of Iron /Wear Metals become a concern in an OCI ?
Then it would be interesting to see how the M1 , PPPP , Castrol Edge , QSUD and Valvoline Advanced 5W30 synthetic oils compare in Iron / Wear Metals ppm with their D1 / Gen 2 formulations ? ... If the thresh hold for Iron / Wear Metals ppm levels are so high as to make the topic a moot point in comparing these synthetic oils then so be it ... I will just mosey on over to the : ""Lawn / Small Engine" forum .


You totally nailed the happy atmosphere here with your analogy "Negative Waves, Moriarity" indeed!

A big part of having high iron is the perception of the user, but commercial operators do have a condemnation level for iron and other contaminants. I have seen them mentioned but could not tell you what the number is.
 
Stupid short edit time... in the same time frame as the UOAs I posted earlier, the same oils were tested in a different engine....M1 carried the same iron levels as the other oils, which is why it seems to me to be engine specific.
 
Originally Posted by JLTD
To answer OP's original question: Sometimes. Through looking at numerous UOAs with M1, it seems that in some engines it does produce more iron. Others, especially when fed a diet of mostlyM1, don't show any more iron than others. Plus, it seems that vehicles run on M1 exclusively stay clean and last.

I'm one of the people that's seen higher iron with M1. Granted this is old data (~2007) so things may have changed. Results were for the Jeep 4.0. Note that M1 (third column from the right, 4700 mile OCI) produced more than twice as much iron as any other brand at the same mileage. Other brands tested at around 5k were ST Syn, VWB, and Amsoil SS.

[Linked Image]


*This is more on point - so if universal averages are 25 and your 4,700 mile run came in at 49 ppm (almost twice as high) then why ?
* I'm curious if M1 needs to be run for more than one OCI to "lay down it's additives" so to speak to start showing lower iron numbers ?
* As JLTD noted - his sample was M1 OCI test was from 2007 ... Just for grins I will spot check recent M1 OCI's to see what iron looks like against universal averages (I have 15 qrts. of M1 5W30 in my stash and it all will get used with no reservations !)
 
Originally Posted by ChrisD46
OP Here : Like the scene from "Kelly's Heroes" when the paint round was used for the German tank instead of a live round and the US platoon complained ... "Such negative Energy" says Donald Sutherland !
OK - let's rephrase this to appease the "Get Off My Lawn" crowd gathered here today : *At what point does the ppm level of Iron /Wear Metals become a concern in an OCI ?
Then it would be interesting to see how the M1 , PPPP , Castrol Edge , QSUD and Valvoline Advanced 5W30 synthetic oils compare in Iron / Wear Metals ppm with their D1 / Gen 2 formulations ? ... If the thresh hold for Iron / Wear Metals ppm levels are so high as to make the topic a moot point in comparing these synthetic oils then so be it ... I will just mosey on over to the : ""Lawn / Small Engine" forum .

Wear is nearly impossible to determine via UOA especially using the value from one or two UOA's. Without actual tear downs with identical maintenance regimes over mutiple vehicles all we can do is speculate with incomplete data.
 
Originally Posted by ChrisD46
Originally Posted by JLTD
To answer OP's original question: Sometimes. Through looking at numerous UOAs with M1, it seems that in some engines it does produce more iron. Others, especially when fed a diet of mostlyM1, don't show any more iron than others. Plus, it seems that vehicles run on M1 exclusively stay clean and last.

I'm one of the people that's seen higher iron with M1. Granted this is old data (~2007) so things may have changed. Results were for the Jeep 4.0. Note that M1 (third column from the right, 4700 mile OCI) produced more than twice as much iron as any other brand at the same mileage. Other brands tested at around 5k were ST Syn, VWB, and Amsoil SS.

[Linked Image]


*This is more on point - so if universal averages are 25 and your 4,700 mile run came in at 49 ppm (almost twice as high) then why ?
* I'm curious if M1 needs to be run for more than one OCI to "lay down it's additives" so to speak to start showing lower iron numbers ?
* As JLTD noted - his sample was M1 OCI test was from 2007 ... Just for grins I will spot check recent M1 OCI's to see what iron looks like against universal averages (I have 15 qrts. of M1 5W30 in my stash and it all will get used with no reservations !)


What was the oil for the first 3 runs because none are really spectacular regarding iron.
 
Originally Posted by ChrisD46

* I'm curious if M1 needs to be run for more than one OCI to "lay down it's additives" so to speak to start showing lower iron numbers ?


If that were true we might see elevated numbers for the other oils....tests were run back to back...there may be some sort of chemical interaction with M1 but the chemistry is not known.

Originally Posted by dave1251

What was the oil for the first 3 runs because none are really spectacular regarding iron.


The Jeep 4.0 is well known for throwing a lot of iron, which is why those numbers are higher than you're used to seeing in other engines.

Runs from L-R: Amsoil SS, ST Syn, and VWB; note how all the wear metals are nearly identical. The runs to the right of the M1 run were Amsoil SS 10w-30 on extended intervals.
 
Originally Posted by Astro_Guy
Excuse me while I head out to the garage to find a can of Troll be Gone!


Please explain. Are you simply saying it can't be true, do you need more evidence, do you work for XOM or is there some other motivation for your reaction to what's trying to be a civil discussion? Or perhaps I'm wrong and you weren't calling me a troll, but rather someone else?

Originally Posted by demarpaint
Originally Posted by kschachn
Here we go. Let's start a useless thread that evolves into multiple pages of nonsense replies.

It has everything it needs to evolve into multiple pages of nonsense, name calling, and flame wars.


43.gif
Then don't read it....
 
Originally Posted by JLTD
Originally Posted by Astro_Guy
Excuse me while I head out to the garage to find a can of Troll be Gone!
Please explain. Are you simply saying it can't be true, do you need more evidence, do you work for XOM or is there some other motivation for your reaction to what's trying to be a civil discussion?
Oh please, let's not go there. I DO NOT work for XOM or any other oil company. I DO HAVE a degree in Chemical Engineering. I HAVE posted a number of UOAs here that counter this nonsense. Enough said.
 
Originally Posted by Astro_Guy
Originally Posted by JLTD
Originally Posted by Astro_Guy
Excuse me while I head out to the garage to find a can of Troll be Gone!
Please explain. Are you simply saying it can't be true, do you need more evidence, do you work for XOM or is there some other motivation for your reaction to what's trying to be a civil discussion?
Oh please, let's not go there. I DO NOT work for XOM or any other oil company. I DO HAVE a degree in Chemical Engineering. I HAVE posted a number of UOAs here that counter this nonsense. Enough said.


Ok cool, I accept your credentials. Two questions, and a statement:

1- COULD the chemistry of M1 require 1 OCI to lay down its own additives, thereby showing my data sample of 1 to be invalid?

and

2- why am I being accused of trolling when I am simply presenting data, and commenting on it while having a discussion? I could understand the label if I was simply coming out and saying "Mobil 1 sux" or "don't use M1" or something like that.

I DID say earlier that M1 gives good results most of the time and that elevated iron is only seen in some, not all, engines.
 
Remember that PPM variations in UOAs from oil to oil where both are suitable viscosities and specifications for the application cannot be used to determine which oil is doing a "better" job at protecting the engine. Different oil chemistries can result in different UOA patterns, which do not correspond to wear all on their own.
 
The irons levels might be higher if it's trying clean out a lower quality oil. I am a redline oil aficionado and uoa on redline will show iron wear as it's cleaning the previous fill. I'm no big m1fan but it's still a great oil for general use with reasonable prices until you get to AP line. M1 over Valvoline any day
 
At one time that was nonsense - and still is. The blue parrot told the green parrot and the trees are alive with the sound of repeat, repeat, until it's gospel. Not.
Even if you want to engage in the standard blah, blah, away like this website always does - I'll refer you to Mr Newton who buys some store brand API lubes and gets great results. So the only thing to question M1 or other synthetics about is cost/value - It's not worse oil than a store brand dino, period.
It also has to earn the OEM approvals that it seeks - not what clueless people refer to as "does not meet the standards" … well, if it did not seek them just say it does not have approval - that's all you really know.

And it bugs me to see folks poke fun at Tig here - please name me a brand of oil that could have spanned 4 decades of 10k OCI's - and when you do it will not be the cheap stuff during that same time period.
 
Originally Posted by 4WD
At one time that was nonsense - and still is. The blue parrot told the green parrot and the trees are alive with the sound of repeat, repeat, until it's gospel. Not.
Even if you want to engage in the standard blah, blah, away like this website always does - I'll refer you to Mr Newton who buys some store brand API lubes and gets great results. So the only thing to question M1 or other synthetics about is cost/value - It's not worse oil than a store brand dino, period.
It also has to earn the OEM approvals that it seeks - not what clueless people refer to as "does not meet the standards" … well, if it did not seek them just say it does not have approval - that's all you really know.

And it bugs me to see folks poke fun at Tig here - please name me a brand of oil that could have spanned 4 decades of 10k OCI's - and when you do it will not be the cheap stuff during that same time period.


Are you implying that only expensive Mobil oil could have done that job that Tig likes to tout about at any given chance?
Give your head a shake. Many vehicles have survived numerous miles and decades on dino oil alone. To suggest only Mobil oil is capable of that is asinine.
 
I worry about your analytical skills considering where you work. Read slower next time.
 
Originally Posted by 4WD
I worry about your analytical skills considering where you work. Read slower next time.


I read just fine and know that Tig is all about Mobil oil and nothing else, so it's clear to see that is what you're impying.

Maybe try being a little more clear with your posts if that is not what you were implying.
 
This was clear - your reply was oblique.

"please name me a brand of oil that could have spanned 4 decades of 10k OCI's - and when you do it will not be the cheap stuff during that same time period"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top