This is my first week in the forum and I have noticed quite a few comments regarding the Iron in M1 UAO's. Could someone elaborate on this. I take it higher is worse and I have also noticed that M1 5w-30 gets singled out. Does M1 have an issue with Iron?
Iron in M1 UOA's?
- Thread starter rewote500
- Start date
- Status
Dunno. I don't think anyone outside of XOM can say for certain. Opinions on elevated Fe in M1 UOAs range from a harmless symptom of the oil's additive pack to pieces of your valvetrain wearing away. I've never seen a car that died because M1 was used; I've never even seen a credible post to that effect. Friends and family have driven M1 past 300,000 miles on their original engines, just like anyone who drives reasonably and changes their oil out before it's spent. Usefulness of UOAs aside, I don't like seeing elevated Fe numbers.
Enjoy your stay, and let us know if you ever solve the mystery.
Enjoy your stay, and let us know if you ever solve the mystery.
Some people use the Fe level in UOA to determine the amount of engine wear that has occurred. There are many flaws to making a direct association between Fe in the UOA and engine wear, which has been discussed in other threads.
There will even be people who claim that conventional oils with apparently lower levels of lead in the UOA suspension will cause less engine wear than full synthetic like M1, which is preposterous.
There will even be people who claim that conventional oils with apparently lower levels of lead in the UOA suspension will cause less engine wear than full synthetic like M1, which is preposterous.
Anyone concerned about M1 5W-30 should read this thread in its entirety about race cars that use that oil:
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1353523&nt=5&fpart=4
I like to keep an open mind, and I am open to new ideas and new products, but it is hard to reconcile the information in the above thread link with what we hearing from the M1 bashers.
There are frequently all kinds of false rumors about Mobil 1 on this forum. Not too long ago it was reported that Mobil 1 had been recalled (false), that Walmart was no longer selling it (false), and many other such false rumors.
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1353523&nt=5&fpart=4
I like to keep an open mind, and I am open to new ideas and new products, but it is hard to reconcile the information in the above thread link with what we hearing from the M1 bashers.
There are frequently all kinds of false rumors about Mobil 1 on this forum. Not too long ago it was reported that Mobil 1 had been recalled (false), that Walmart was no longer selling it (false), and many other such false rumors.
Thanks for the Link Mark888. Makes me feel confident about my choice to use M1. Seems like all the competitors try to measure up to M1 so it must be the standard by which other oils are measured. If it wasn't good oil why would everybody be gunning to try and beat it, right?
Originally Posted By: Mark888
Anyone concerned about M1 5W-30 should read this thread in its entirety about race cars that use that oil:
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1353523&nt=5&fpart=4
I like to keep an open mind, and I am open to new ideas and new products, but it is hard to reconcile the information in the above thread link with what we hearing from the M1 bashers.
There are frequently all kinds of false rumors about Mobil 1 on this forum. Not too long ago it was reported that Mobil 1 had been recalled (false), that Walmart was no longer selling it (false), and many other such false rumors.
Your link didn't work but read my comment in the thread you reference.
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1413464#Post1413464
This year's race winner covered almost 2632 miles. Wasn't the original Cannonball Run a longer race?
I doubt endurance racing teams make a habit of reusing engines. Wear over 3k miles (figure lotsa break-in/practice/qualifying) might not be that bad, but multiply that by 50 or 100...
Plus, I'm pretty sure they can change the oil midrace if the oil pressure starts going south.
Anyone concerned about M1 5W-30 should read this thread in its entirety about race cars that use that oil:
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1353523&nt=5&fpart=4
I like to keep an open mind, and I am open to new ideas and new products, but it is hard to reconcile the information in the above thread link with what we hearing from the M1 bashers.
There are frequently all kinds of false rumors about Mobil 1 on this forum. Not too long ago it was reported that Mobil 1 had been recalled (false), that Walmart was no longer selling it (false), and many other such false rumors.
Your link didn't work but read my comment in the thread you reference.
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1413464#Post1413464
This year's race winner covered almost 2632 miles. Wasn't the original Cannonball Run a longer race?
I doubt endurance racing teams make a habit of reusing engines. Wear over 3k miles (figure lotsa break-in/practice/qualifying) might not be that bad, but multiply that by 50 or 100...
Plus, I'm pretty sure they can change the oil midrace if the oil pressure starts going south.
Mobil 1 has been accused of everything from causing high iron in Corn Flakes to identity theft of the elderly. Important note: Don't believe everything you read.
My 1998 Corvette has used Mobil 1 all its 118,000 mile life. Recently ( last 3 years) my random UOAs have been showing more lead (wear of camshaft). Fe has been okay, but the Corvette uses an aluminum block and heads.
I am going to change to Castrol Edge next OCI and see if "wear" (lead numbers) come down, they advertise 8 times less wear than Mobil 1, I will see if that is true. Or as said, maybe UOAs mean nothing for wear?
I am going to change to Castrol Edge next OCI and see if "wear" (lead numbers) come down, they advertise 8 times less wear than Mobil 1, I will see if that is true. Or as said, maybe UOAs mean nothing for wear?
I used Mobil 1 and stopped using this past December I was due for an OC. I had discovered they were accused of not meeting spec's with their 5W30 grade synthetic oil by Ashland. To me there was no point in being loyal until they proved otherwise. Why continue using a product that is not up to par, and pay top dollar, when there are better choices, and for less $$. To this point they haven't proven anything to me, and my vehicle that I was using it in means more to me than trying to be loyal to a company that "might" have dropped the ball.
That and their poor attitude in answering questions with their callous gigantic bully attitude was why I changed.
Then the jury is out on just what factually the higher iron #'s mean, some say more is better, less is better, bigger iron is better, smaller iron is better, etc, etc, etc. I say less is better, and will stick with that belief until it is proven otherwise. If Mobil can show stellar reports maybe I'll change back.
JMO
That and their poor attitude in answering questions with their callous gigantic bully attitude was why I changed.
Then the jury is out on just what factually the higher iron #'s mean, some say more is better, less is better, bigger iron is better, smaller iron is better, etc, etc, etc. I say less is better, and will stick with that belief until it is proven otherwise. If Mobil can show stellar reports maybe I'll change back.
JMO
Last edited:
I personally used to be a strict M1 user. After reading countless UOAs with 3x the iron wear as most other oil, I switched to PP. There is no way im going to buy one of the most expensive oils and see results like that. Most all other synthetics get great UOA results. I feel like if that high iron was actually a benefit to us some how, meaning maybe particles are suspended better or something, than mobil owes us an explanation. I am an engineer and make decisions based on data all the time. I dont understand why more people arent upset up this high iron issue. It seems to me that people are in love with there oil and if you question it, it is like questioning there religion. This is simple to me. If they have more iron in the UOA, then there is a chance it wearing the valve train ect a little more than the others. Why take the chance when there nothing, i repeat nothing showing M1 better than the rest. There is tons of data that shows it is awesome, but better? M1 i feel is a perfect example of good product that has been marketed well. unfortunately for us consumers the only data we have for comparison is UOA and VOAs. Let me as this. If Super Tech came back with iron levels that were higher than the rest, would we make excuses for them or use something else?
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: rewote500
This is my first week in the forum and I have noticed quite a few comments regarding the Iron in M1 UAO's. Could someone elaborate on this. I take it higher is worse and I have also noticed that M1 5w-30 gets singled out. Does M1 have an issue with Iron?
I used M1 for the first 80K KM (50K Miles) while my truck was under warranty and changed it every 6K KM (3750 Miles) as per the warranty. It served me well and showed very low metals in the UOA with the exception of Iron.
I switched to Amsoil because I thought this was a bad thing... I never switched back because my engine seems to feel better with Amsoil, and the cold-start up in the winter is much easier and without lifter ticking, however I would use M1 again because I think it's a great oil.
It's only now that I have been on BITOG and talked to some knowledgeable people and read posts from people like Doug Hilary that I understand that UOA's aren't everything...
I believe Doug said the only way to determine actual wear is with an engine tear down. He had torn down an engine that used M1 for it's whole life and showed something like 150PPM of Iron in the UOA's but all parts were all within factory specs after some crazy amount of miles...
It's posted here on the board somewhere... Doug ????
This is my first week in the forum and I have noticed quite a few comments regarding the Iron in M1 UAO's. Could someone elaborate on this. I take it higher is worse and I have also noticed that M1 5w-30 gets singled out. Does M1 have an issue with Iron?
I used M1 for the first 80K KM (50K Miles) while my truck was under warranty and changed it every 6K KM (3750 Miles) as per the warranty. It served me well and showed very low metals in the UOA with the exception of Iron.
I switched to Amsoil because I thought this was a bad thing... I never switched back because my engine seems to feel better with Amsoil, and the cold-start up in the winter is much easier and without lifter ticking, however I would use M1 again because I think it's a great oil.
It's only now that I have been on BITOG and talked to some knowledgeable people and read posts from people like Doug Hilary that I understand that UOA's aren't everything...
I believe Doug said the only way to determine actual wear is with an engine tear down. He had torn down an engine that used M1 for it's whole life and showed something like 150PPM of Iron in the UOA's but all parts were all within factory specs after some crazy amount of miles...
It's posted here on the board somewhere... Doug ????
I have also used M1 for alot of miles until recently, but i think the above is a testament to the fact that all major brand oils today appear to be very good. I guess the controversy is just that if you tore the same engine down after using something else, would the wear have been less? I just dont understand why people would spend more based on nothing but marketing and race car sponsorships. I would really like it is somebody could prove that the high Fe content was a good thing somehow because there 0w40 oil looks awesome to me and i would probably run it in everything i have.
Originally Posted By: tropic
Dunno. I don't think anyone outside of XOM can say for certain. Opinions on elevated Fe in M1 UOAs range from a harmless symptom of the oil's additive pack to pieces of your valvetrain wearing away. I've never seen a car that died because M1 was used; I've never even seen a credible post to that effect. Friends and family have driven M1 past 300,000 miles on their original engines, just like anyone who drives reasonably and changes their oil out before it's spent. Usefulness of UOAs aside, I don't like seeing elevated Fe numbers.
Enjoy your stay, and let us know if you ever solve the mystery.
I think there seems to be a distinct lack of evidence that Mobil1 actually causes said valvetrain wear in actual engine tear-downs...
Dunno. I don't think anyone outside of XOM can say for certain. Opinions on elevated Fe in M1 UOAs range from a harmless symptom of the oil's additive pack to pieces of your valvetrain wearing away. I've never seen a car that died because M1 was used; I've never even seen a credible post to that effect. Friends and family have driven M1 past 300,000 miles on their original engines, just like anyone who drives reasonably and changes their oil out before it's spent. Usefulness of UOAs aside, I don't like seeing elevated Fe numbers.
Enjoy your stay, and let us know if you ever solve the mystery.
I think there seems to be a distinct lack of evidence that Mobil1 actually causes said valvetrain wear in actual engine tear-downs...
Originally Posted By: rewote500
Thanks for the Link Mark888. Makes me feel confident about my choice to use M1. Seems like all the competitors try to measure up to M1 so it must be the standard by which other oils are measured. If it wasn't good oil why would everybody be gunning to try and beat it, right?
Competitors compare themselves to Mobil-1 because Mobil sells more synthetic oil than anyone else. Whether being the market share leader automatically means the product is superior to others is open to debate. I prefer Firefox over Internet Explorer for my web browser, but IE is the market share leader.
Thanks for the Link Mark888. Makes me feel confident about my choice to use M1. Seems like all the competitors try to measure up to M1 so it must be the standard by which other oils are measured. If it wasn't good oil why would everybody be gunning to try and beat it, right?
Competitors compare themselves to Mobil-1 because Mobil sells more synthetic oil than anyone else. Whether being the market share leader automatically means the product is superior to others is open to debate. I prefer Firefox over Internet Explorer for my web browser, but IE is the market share leader.
Mobil 1 made my Jeep engines run noisy and a Colorado's engine run noisy also.We both went to another oil and they were quiet again.This is not a scientific test by any means but sometimes if it doesn't feel right...I also like low numbers ,on all my wear metals, with UOA's with high additive numbers left after use
You can tell by the recent advertising blitz, survey's and commercials they are feeling the competition. While still a good oil, as it always will be being XOM's flagship product, the competition has become much better.
Back in 2002 when I first joined, the issue at the time was whether SuperSyn was better than Tri-Synthetic. It was proven to be that it was better. Then, with the internet and oil/auto forums growing in numbers, people started posting their UOA reports of various oils. It started as a small group of hardcore auto enthusiasts, then spread and became much more popular.
As time went on, people started noticing higher Fe in Mobil 1 reports. This then led to other complaints about higher noise and oil consumption. Some have attributed it to the alkylated napthalenes they now use in place of esters, among other things.
Mobil then stopped reporting NOACK volatility & pour point on their product data sheets, and commenting on whether Mobil 1 was truly a PAO/Ester based oil. This led to further rumors that Mobil 1 was no longer a full PAO based oil, disappointing the hardcore synthetic users. It was then proven that they were using a large slug of Grp III in their EP line, along with PAO/V base oils.
Ashland, a company that can run all ASTM tests and certify PCMO's, found Mobil 1 was NOT meeting the SEQ IVA wear test for a period of 2 years. A legitimate ASTM test based on tear down measurements and oil analysis that tracked Fe. This then followed a strong marketing blitz that further tarnished M1's reputation. These "series" of events have really led to the strong anti-M1 sentiment we see today. It's not as if people just randomly hate XOM because they are large.
Whether these issues are a problem are not is questionable. The only true indicator to judge quality by is specifications an oil meets. Noise, oil analysis and oil consumption are dependent upon a lot of variables. Mobil 1 has represented about 60% of the synthetic market, which is huge. So without any firm statistics, it could just be that due to there being more Mobil 1 users, we hear about these things more often.
My opinion is that M1 is still a great oil, but no longer the only great oil readily available. Shell, Ashland and Castrol all have great oils now.
Back in 2002 when I first joined, the issue at the time was whether SuperSyn was better than Tri-Synthetic. It was proven to be that it was better. Then, with the internet and oil/auto forums growing in numbers, people started posting their UOA reports of various oils. It started as a small group of hardcore auto enthusiasts, then spread and became much more popular.
As time went on, people started noticing higher Fe in Mobil 1 reports. This then led to other complaints about higher noise and oil consumption. Some have attributed it to the alkylated napthalenes they now use in place of esters, among other things.
Mobil then stopped reporting NOACK volatility & pour point on their product data sheets, and commenting on whether Mobil 1 was truly a PAO/Ester based oil. This led to further rumors that Mobil 1 was no longer a full PAO based oil, disappointing the hardcore synthetic users. It was then proven that they were using a large slug of Grp III in their EP line, along with PAO/V base oils.
Ashland, a company that can run all ASTM tests and certify PCMO's, found Mobil 1 was NOT meeting the SEQ IVA wear test for a period of 2 years. A legitimate ASTM test based on tear down measurements and oil analysis that tracked Fe. This then followed a strong marketing blitz that further tarnished M1's reputation. These "series" of events have really led to the strong anti-M1 sentiment we see today. It's not as if people just randomly hate XOM because they are large.
Whether these issues are a problem are not is questionable. The only true indicator to judge quality by is specifications an oil meets. Noise, oil analysis and oil consumption are dependent upon a lot of variables. Mobil 1 has represented about 60% of the synthetic market, which is huge. So without any firm statistics, it could just be that due to there being more Mobil 1 users, we hear about these things more often.
My opinion is that M1 is still a great oil, but no longer the only great oil readily available. Shell, Ashland and Castrol all have great oils now.
Originally Posted By: buster
This led to further rumors that Mobil 1 was no longer a full PAO based oil, disappointing the hardcore synthetic users. It was then proven that they were using a large slug of Grp III in their EP line, along with PAO/V base oils.
It is obvious from the M1 FAQ that they no longer are 100% PAO/ester stock (they claim it does have PAO, but duck the 100% question), but there are a couple of things to keep in mind:
1. M1 still has substantial amounts of PAO. This can be proven by the recent shortage of M1 due to damage of ExxonMobil PAO plant during Hurricane Ike.
2. There are not any 100% PAO/Ester base stock oils that I know of that are API certified as an Energy Saving Formula as required by most auto manufacturers.
3. Many of their competitors (such as PP, Syntec) are basically Group III oils (but may contain some small amounts of Group IV/V in their additive packages).
Whether there are any other issues with M1 is open to debate, but the PAO issue is a red herring.
From what I can see, M1 does report pour point on the specs, so not sure what that comment was about. Some companies don't even publish specs (couldn't find them for new QS oils on website).
This led to further rumors that Mobil 1 was no longer a full PAO based oil, disappointing the hardcore synthetic users. It was then proven that they were using a large slug of Grp III in their EP line, along with PAO/V base oils.
It is obvious from the M1 FAQ that they no longer are 100% PAO/ester stock (they claim it does have PAO, but duck the 100% question), but there are a couple of things to keep in mind:
1. M1 still has substantial amounts of PAO. This can be proven by the recent shortage of M1 due to damage of ExxonMobil PAO plant during Hurricane Ike.
2. There are not any 100% PAO/Ester base stock oils that I know of that are API certified as an Energy Saving Formula as required by most auto manufacturers.
3. Many of their competitors (such as PP, Syntec) are basically Group III oils (but may contain some small amounts of Group IV/V in their additive packages).
Whether there are any other issues with M1 is open to debate, but the PAO issue is a red herring.
From what I can see, M1 does report pour point on the specs, so not sure what that comment was about. Some companies don't even publish specs (couldn't find them for new QS oils on website).
Originally Posted By: gtx510
Your link didn't work but read my comment in the thread you reference.
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1413464#Post1413464
This year's race winner covered almost 2632 miles. Wasn't the original Cannonball Run a longer race?
I doubt endurance racing teams make a habit of reusing engines. Wear over 3k miles (figure lotsa break-in/practice/qualifying) might not be that bad, but multiply that by 50 or 100...
Plus, I'm pretty sure they can change the oil midrace if the oil pressure starts going south.
1. The link I posted does work.
2. If you read all the posts from Johnny it is clear that the vast majority in that race are not paid to use Mobil 1 and there is no sponsor relationship. The few that did not use Mobil 1 are the ones who had oil sponsors.
3. Grand-Am racing is not a big budget type of thing compared to some other racing circuits, so I don't think engines are replaced as often as you think, especially with the lower ranked teams without oil sponsorships. If engines are rebuilt, then the teams can get a first hand look at the engine wear.
Your link didn't work but read my comment in the thread you reference.
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1413464#Post1413464
This year's race winner covered almost 2632 miles. Wasn't the original Cannonball Run a longer race?
I doubt endurance racing teams make a habit of reusing engines. Wear over 3k miles (figure lotsa break-in/practice/qualifying) might not be that bad, but multiply that by 50 or 100...
Plus, I'm pretty sure they can change the oil midrace if the oil pressure starts going south.
1. The link I posted does work.
2. If you read all the posts from Johnny it is clear that the vast majority in that race are not paid to use Mobil 1 and there is no sponsor relationship. The few that did not use Mobil 1 are the ones who had oil sponsors.
3. Grand-Am racing is not a big budget type of thing compared to some other racing circuits, so I don't think engines are replaced as often as you think, especially with the lower ranked teams without oil sponsorships. If engines are rebuilt, then the teams can get a first hand look at the engine wear.
Originally Posted By: Mark888
From what I can see, M1 does report pour point on the specs, so not sure what that comment was about.
I don't see a pour point here: http://www.mobil.com/USA-English/Lubes/PDS/GLXXENPVLMOMobil_1_0W-30_Advanced_Fuel_Economy.asp
From what I can see, M1 does report pour point on the specs, so not sure what that comment was about.
I don't see a pour point here: http://www.mobil.com/USA-English/Lubes/PDS/GLXXENPVLMOMobil_1_0W-30_Advanced_Fuel_Economy.asp
- Status