Iron in M1 UOA's?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: tig1
96 Mercury GM 209,000 miles
My sons 91 Ford Ranger 330,000 Miles
My old 85 Escort diesel 300,000 miles
My old 1990 Ford Tempo 240,000 miles
All on M1 oils


While that is most certainly impressive, you have to also remember that for most of those vehicles miles, it would've been a completely different formula of Mobil 1 than what is available right now.

So just like a lot of mutual fund managers would say about their funds: "past performance is not necessarily an indicator of future performance"
 
Originally Posted By: Patman
While that is most certainly impressive, you have to also remember that for most of those vehicles miles, it would've been a completely different formula of Mobil 1 than what is available right now.

So just like a lot of mutual fund managers would say about their funds: "past performance is not necessarily an indicator of future performance"

That is a valid point, however, doesn't that apply to all oils? And if M1 did have a problem, do they still have it now?

I noticed that the Amsoil tests rate M1 EP fairly high, and the fact that many race teams without oil endorsements use M1 right out the bottle still perplexes me if there was really a problem with the oil.

I noticed that the latest Castro Edge marketing claims (FAQ) that Edge is "unsurpassed" by M1 EP in wear protection, but they don't claim it is better. They do claim it is 8X better than regular M1 though.
http://www.castroledgeusa.com/?utm_sourc...strol_EDGE#/faq
 
For me it boils down to this, I lost faith in XOM, there are better products. I was a loyal customer, it's over, and since they don't sign my paycheck I won't defend them. They still haven't cleared the Ashland claims, nor tried to defend themselves against anyone else who jumped on that flunked test bandwagon,. Instead they offered a $10 rebate to their loyal customers. I think they cut the quality of the product a few years back, and now got called out on it. Sorry if I'm offending any loyal Mobil 1 customers, but this is how I feel.

I think Patman summed it up pretty well. I'll spend my money elsewhere until they prove themselves to me again.
 
Originally Posted By: jstutz
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?


+1 Well put, I agree 100%.

UOA's is one of the few tools an average person can use to objectively judge how the oil is performing. Why pay top dollar for Mobil 1 5W30 when it has been shown to result in high iron ppm in many UOA's.

Combined with the high iron results there is significant evidence that M1 5W30 has high camshaft wear in the Seq IVA test and it does not meet SM certification. This has been rehashed quite a bit in the last few months but here it is again for those that missed it:

According to Ashland/Valvoline, Mobil 1 5W30 wear was 180 microns on the seq IVA test.

A pass requires wear less than 90 microns.

http://jobbersworld.com/valvolineq&Apage1.htm

http://jobbersworld.com/valvolinesletter.htm
 
Since M1 has been found to not be substantially better I have used whatever "Full Synthetic" has the best price. I also recently bought a stash of German Castrol 0W-30 that has been found to still be a real "Full Synthetic" PAO based motor oil. I am planning on using that in my 2000 GMC Sierra 4.8L that has 254,000 miles on it mostly all on synthetics.

The American synthetics I used most are Valvoline Synpower and Quaker State Q-Horsepower. I have used Phillips SynBlend and SuperTech Syn also.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Patman
Originally Posted By: tig1
96 Mercury GM 209,000 miles
My sons 91 Ford Ranger 330,000 Miles
My old 85 Escort diesel 300,000 miles
My old 1990 Ford Tempo 240,000 miles
All on M1 oils


While that is most certainly impressive, you have to also remember that for most of those vehicles miles, it would've been a completely different formula of Mobil 1 than what is available right now.

So just like a lot of mutual fund managers would say about their funds: "past performance is not necessarily an indicator of future performance"


Yes it is impressive, but the Merc has had most of those miles put on since 2000. My sons Ranger has had 175,000 miles put on since 2000. A friend has 290,000 miles on his 2000 Taurus 3.0 Duratech all with M1 5-30.
 
Originally Posted By: rewote500
So for those of you who are not using M1, what are you using?


When I stopped using Mobil 1 I switched to Pennzoil Platinum in one vehicle and plan on using Amsoil in another. The beater gets Dino oil.
 
Originally Posted By: rewote500
So for those of you who are not using M1, what are you using?


Pennzoil Platinum.
01.gif
 
Originally Posted By: StevieC

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 believe that Doug's experience is based on long-haul Freightliner truck engines. His experience there may not apply to your engine.
 
Originally Posted By: Nickdfresh


I think there seems to be a distinct lack of evidence that Mobil1 actually causes said valvetrain wear in actual engine tear-downs...


That is just not true. The Sequence IVA test is a valvetrain test on a Nissan engine (I believe), which simulates a lifetime worth of cold starts. It is judged by teardown and measurement of cam lobe wear.
 
Originally Posted By: RI_RS4
I believe that Doug's experience is based on long-haul Freightliner truck engines. His experience there may not apply to your engine.

That's complete [censored].
 
I believe his experience covers many years and various types of engines. From large diesels to modern gas engines.
 
Originally Posted By: Mark888
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.


Mark, what is preposterous would be you scoffing at actual science.Many reputable manufacturers and research organizations utilize oil analysis as one method of determining engine wear. The following paper defines a method for developing a scientifically accurate compensated wear rate for the evaluation of engine wear in real situations.

Analytical approach to wear rate determination for internal combustion engine condition monitoring based on oil analysis
 
Yes, but the specific mentions Doug has made about oil analysis and engine wear were based on his diesel truck fleet. I do not recall him speaking of studies where he has done gasoline engine tear down. But I could be wrong.

However, both Castrol and Ashland have presented documented evidence of increased wear with M1, in the Sequence IVA test, which is a real engine test with tear down and measurements. To my knowledge Exxon/Mobil has not repudiated their results.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Mark888
Originally Posted By: RI_RS4
I believe that Doug's experience is based on long-haul Freightliner truck engines. His experience there may not apply to your engine.

That's complete [censored].


What exactly would be $$? I'm pretty sure that when Doug discussed 150 ppm Fe in UOA and engine teardown, it was with respect to his diesel fleet. You cannot generalize from fleet diesels to automotive gasoline engines. The mechanics, metalurgy, design life, are significantly different.


Quote:
Hi,
chevrofreak - I have rum many engines up to 150ppm Iron. This is an engine makers limit!

I have "Trended" many heavy high speed diesel engines this way over millions of kms and over many years. This involved some hundreds of UOAs on one engine family! Average OCI was 90kkms and average Iron at this point was 97ppm. Highest recorded was

At teardown-measure up point at 1.2m kms, the hatch marks were still visible on all liners - all shafts were within tolerances
Bearing were all suitable for re-use

As a precaution the ring packs were replaced and the engine bedded in via dyno under heavy load plus some initial road use!

The teardown inspection was done by the engine Manufacturer!

IMO agonising over small ppm levels of Iron is counterproductive
 
Last edited:
If Mobil 1 does not meet the published specs required by the manufacturers, wouldn't they say something about that? Especially the ones who use it as factory fill?
 
I have been using PP 5w30 and 10w30. Lately i have been buying up QS torque full syn because it has been on clearance lately at local walmarts. My brother uses the super tech 10w30 synthetic. It appears to be a pretty good synthetic with a slightly weaker add pakg than the major name brands. If you look over at the VOA section there is a post named " a few 5w30" the guy put 5 different oils there with there VOA results. It looks like most of the current synthetics are pretty close the only ones that stand out to me is the PP because of the higher calcium, and the syntec due to the increased level of moly. Really they all look good even M1. No idea why iron is high but it wont be in any of my engines until i understand that.
 
Originally Posted By: Mark888
If Mobil 1 does not meet the published specs required by the manufacturers, wouldn't they say something about that? Especially the ones who use it as factory fill?


And admit liability? That is hardly in the XOM legal repertoire. It is highly doubtful that Ashland and Castrol would make the claims that they do without being on firm legal ground. XOM has two possible courses of action.

1) Bring forward evidence counter to the claims of their competitors, and sue them for knowingly making them.

2) Keep quiet, hope it blows over, and is covered by their large marketing budget. I'm sure they already have an indemnity clause in their contracts with manufacturers who use there product for factory fill.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

P
M1 0w-20 EP or a better value 0w-20?
2
Replies
31
Views
2K
02zx9r rev2
J
Oil (re)selection for GDI
2
Replies
35
Views
3K
burbguy82
C
M1 5W30 EP D1 / Gen 3 Users ?
2
Replies
31
Views
4K
Triple_Se7en
J
A3/B4 in 2GR-FE
Replies
14
Views
1K
Georgiey22
Y
ACEA A3/B4 oils still relevant in 2024 for Turbo GDI 'High performance' Engines? - Hyundai ElantraN
2
Replies
32
Views
4K
edyvw
Back
Top