Interesting

Messages
33,974
Location
Southern NJ
gfcrane in one of the other threads ran a spread sheet of 110 samples. If you look at the results, they paint an interesting picture. Obviously you can't draw too much from it but it does show that Mobil 1's Fe wear is no higher then any other oil. Mobil 1 had 32 samples. AVG Fe was 2.6 Amsoil had 21 samples. AVG Fe was 2.8 [ January 13, 2004, 05:55 PM: Message edited by: buster ]
 
Messages
47,642
Location
Duvall WA - Pacific NW USA
statistically they are equal (I'm betting without seeing the s.d. and doing a fews stat tests) But the the MORE interesting thing is the amount of total miles on each of the samples.
 
Messages
690
Location
Fort Smith, AR
I did the same and found that the Fe varied by viscosity, and that the ppm/1000 mile wear rates were lower for the same synthetic oils that were in use for extended periods of miles
 

Patman

Staff member
Messages
21,989
Location
Oakville, Ontario
I mentioned this in the UOA section in a recent M1 report, but thought I'd repeat it here too. What I wonder about Mobil 1 is how it can provide such excellent bearing protection in some engines, showing 0ppm of lead, but then at the same time will show 11ppm of iron. So it's not so much that the iron itself is really high, but that it's ratio to the lead wear is so drastic. I'm wondering what could be changed in the formulation of Mobil 1 in order to cut the iron level down there? There is obviously something good about the oil if it can protect the bearings so incredibly well, but I'm just wondering what it is about the oil which is not protecting the valvetrain as much (if that is where the iron is all coming from that is) If Mobil 1 added more moly and/or boron, would it help the valvetrain wear be reduced? Thoughts?
 
Messages
18,449
Location
East of IGO
I wonder about wear alot in that for example Redline oil or Schaeffer oil has alot of everything ,additive wise and the wear numbers don't seem much different than other oils. It may be to complicated of a subject for me to figure out.
 

Patman

Staff member
Messages
21,989
Location
Oakville, Ontario
One very important thing to remember here when you're comparing the average iron in one oil to another on here, is the simple fact that each engine is going to have a different level of iron which is normal for it. So for example, if everyone who runs Mobil 1 on here also just so happens to have an engine which puts out less iron than others, it could skew the results. The only true way to honestly compare the levels of iron generated in UOA between two different oils is to run both of those oils for a few intervals in the exact same engine. This is why 3MPs testing is going to be so interesting, because we'll get to compare 4 different oils (and possibly 5 if he isn't tired of it by the end of the first 4) in the same engine. It's not a perfectly controlled test since his driving patterns and climate could change, and as his engine ages it might just put out a different amount of wear metals too, but it's going to give us a pretty decent idea of which oils are better, at least for a pushrod V8 engine anyhow. I would love it if more people out there would do a test like his, it would be especially nice to see someone doing it with a turbo 4 cylinder engine, a normally aspirated 4 cylinder engine, and it would be interesting to see someone try this test using conventional oil too.
 
Messages
541
Location
Virginia
Is it possible that the iron is from oxidation of the block that isn't necessarily affecting wear rates because 'pieces' of iron aren't coming off from wear? Maybe the additives that protect from corrosion aren't as good as they should/could be? Just my un-informed guess. [Cheers!]
 
Messages
555
Location
south texas border
crashz, for some inexplicable reason I have always had an aversion to synthetic blends, but what you just wrote might make me want to rethink that a bit. Anyone use mobil blend in their vehicle and have done a uoa? hmmmm....
 
Messages
555
Location
south texas border
this is interesting. Unless I read it wrong looks like mobil drive clean blend has some group V in it (esters is group 5 right). From mobil's site msds: CHEMICAL NAMES AND SYNONYMS: BASE OIL AND ADDITIVES GLOBALLY REPORTABLE MSDS INGREDIENTS: Substance Name Approx. Wt% -------------- ----------- PHOSPHORODITHIOIC ACID, 1-5 O,O-DI-C1-14-ALKYL ESTERS, ZINC SALT (2:1) ZDDP (68649-42-3) OTHER INGREDIENTS: Substance Name Approx. Wt% -------------- ----------- ALKYLATED PHENOL 1-5
 

buster

Thread starter
Messages
33,974
Location
Southern NJ
quote:
So for example, if everyone who runs Mobil 1 on here also just so happens to have an engine which puts out less iron than others, it could skew the results.
Patman, thats obvious, but the same can be said with any engine/oil combo. IMO, I think if we took a spread sheet of all the oils, miles and conditions, we'd find very little difference among the Fe wear. It's rarely ever pointed out with other oils but if you go back and look, like I did with S2k, you'll find high iron with that as well in some cases.
 
Messages
5,785
Location
Dixie
Wear rates are totally meaningless, unless you compare the exact same engines. Even then, variations in the severity of service and individual driving styles can mask differences in lube performance. In order to run a statistically valid test, you'd need 10-12 vehicles running each of the oils being tested. About the most data I've seen for the same engine is on the Maxima.org site. It actually includes several variations of that Nissan V-6, but the design and metallurgy is pretty close.... If you only look at large displacement, V-8 engines that show relatively high amounts of iron (except Toyotas), it is easier to see differences in valvetrain and piston ring/cylinder wear. Something like a 1.6L toyota engine generates so little metal, that a difference of 1-2 ppm of iron could be significant - but that would hardly stand out ....
 
Messages
690
Location
Fort Smith, AR
I suspect TooSlick nailed it on this one. Looking at wear data ALONE from the Maxima site, those Maxima engines sampled (I compared 36 of them) clearly do better with Amsoil synthetic or Castrol conventional versus other brands. Now when you add human judgement (ie: "professor" Bill Miles) to interpret what the raw data alone tells you, & consider that Bill looks at driving patterns, among tons of other things, one can generally sort oil into a bigger list of acceptable oils from which to choose for a Maxima, and ones to avoid. And the "avoid" oil for a Maxima can easily be on the "acceptable" list for a different vehicle. [Eek!] Castrol Syn Blend is a perfect example. Bill will tell you, and his uoa data backs him up on this, that Castrol SB aint the best oil to use in a Maxima. But yet Russ Kinze contributed one the very best uoa reports on this site not to long ago for Castrol SB that he used in his Dakota truck. gfcrane did essentially the same thing with his earlier post comparing wear rates by manufacturer. The only other approach I'd suggest as a good one is to collect a large enough sample of wear reports which include enough of "the good, bad and ugly" of the uoa world, that the only variable left to explain the differences is the oil itself. Over time, the BIOG site will probably show that very thing as people continue to submit uoa reports. And then of course there are the priceless contributions from the other "professors" who frequent this web site. [Big Grin]
 
Messages
2,794
Location
NM
quote:
Originally posted by TooSlick: Wear rates are totally meaningless, unless you compare the exact same engines. Even then, variations in the severity of service and individual driving styles can mask differences in lube performance.
TS, How dare you say that??? [freaknout] You said on December 30th:
quote:
The rate of Fe wear is only 1 ppm/1000 miles and Pb is 0.2 ppm/1000 miles, but hey it's a Toyota! So I won't take credit for that .... Show me a 3.4L, V-6 GM motor that wears like this? We make far and away the worlds best weapons platforms, but second rate consumer products in many cases. A matter of national priorities, perhaps?
Patman, buster and myself among others argued that you shouldn't compared different engines based on wear metals. You disagreed with us then and now you actually state exactly what we told you. There has been many times when we have compared big American V8s against 1.8L Toyotas and slammed GM. [Confused] I'm not following you Sir. I think you just pulled a "Howard Dean" on me! [Sleeping] Rick
 
Messages
2,794
Location
NM
I should add that many GMs show high wear metals in the first 20-30k miles and then stabilize and are as low as those of Toyotas engines. Let's not forget one of the best, if not the best UOA in this site came from a Neon and an OCI of 12k miles, which showed virtually no wear at all. So, assuming TS's ecuation, this engine should last upwards of a million miles. Honda engines show wear metals (specifically copper) EQUAL to GM engines despite being MUCH SMALLER! I don't see a lot of people bashing Honda though. Patman started a thread for vehicles with more than 150k miles without rebuilds and lots and lots of people posted about their Detroit cars in excess of 200k miles and still running strong. There was even a mention about a Corvette with 317k miles, but you and John Browning choose to ignore the facts. JB even suggested that the mileage on that Corvette is a FLUKE! He still has not answered my reply to such irresponsible statement. I believe Toyota and Honda engines are generally better quality....but to ignore the fact that the big three have mass produced engines such as the Chrysler slant 6, the Ford 5.0, the Chevy 350 and 3.8L is outright and flat out injustice! You pulled a "Howard Dean" on me.....I pulled an "O'Reilly" on you! [Wink] Rick PS: Looking forward to your comments as well as JB's!
 
Messages
699
Location
Texas
Kind back on topic here...but wasn't there a VOA on Mobil1 which had like 3or4 Fe (ppm) and someone commented something about rusty pipes? This kinda goes hand in hand with some Si in Schaeffers... [Confused]
 
Messages
555
Location
south texas border
Let me ask a silly question. So If m1 does great on bearings and not so great on valvetrain (stipulating its a guess), Then would increasing the oil film thickness Improve the situation? Example going from m1 0w20 to 5w30. I'm not so good at interpreting uoa's so m1 fans how about a little help. thanks.
 

Kestas

Staff member
Messages
13,876
Location
The Motor City
I'd like to point out that a lot of iron particles comes from wear of the cylinder walls, especially where the rings stop and reverse direction. It's easiest to lubricate components in constant motion, yet very difficult to prevent wear in components that move in a stop/go fashion.
 
Top