Iron in M1 UOA's?

[RI_RS4]

Originally Posted By: jstutz
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.


with modern lubricants, there are many additives that you cannot see with just a VOA. As such, it's hard to make an informed comparison without performance testing.

 

[Mark888]

Originally Posted By: RI_RS4
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.

I am talking about the why wouldn't the auto manufacturers say something about that. For any motor oil that does not meet the manufacturer specs, they have the right to ask for proof if they suspect a problem. For all we know, they did ask for proof, and Mobil supplied it to them.

In the link above about Ashland, it was stated that ExxonMobil did deny the claims that Ashland made about Mobil 1 not meeting the specs, but it is hard to prove a negative since they obviously were there when the tests were conducted.

 

[1sttruck]

"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...."

A $20 used oil analysis doesn't mean that any desired conclusion made will be 'science'.

The reason that a wear rate is being determined is because there is enough variation between thge different engine groups, enough variation within each engine group, and the sample is small enough, that one cannot distinguish between engines, something that a simple ANOVA will make apaprent. The wear rate needs to be determined for each engine and comparisons made with respect to each engine. One then would need to reverify that the wear rates have not changed over the course of other experiments, or if it has attempt to account for the change.

The paper also acknowledges shortcomings of oil analysis, and provides some assumptions invoked when using oil analysis.

The types of general errors when drawing conclusions will tend to be false positives and false negatives. There are a number of papers reporting on false negatives associated with oil analysis, where catastrophic failure has gone undetected.

As Doug has pointed the typical UOA used in this forum does not allow one make the comparisons that people seem to want to so badly make. Well, I take that back, they can make all that they want, they just won't be credible.

 

[RI_RS4]

Originally Posted By: Mark888
I am talking about the why wouldn't the auto manufacturers say something about that. For any motor oil that does not meet the manufacturer specs, they have the right to ask for proof if they suspect a problem. For all we know, they did ask for proof, and Mobil supplied it to them.


And risk liability? Both the auto manufacturers and XOM are most certainly covered by non-disclosure clauses in their contracts.

It now looks like Quaker State wants in on the fun:

quaker-state-challenges-castrol-valvoline-mobil-to-motor-oil-duel
Quote:
ExxonMobil responded to the claim by saying it was "not aware of any accurate technical data to support the claim" and they requested Valvoline provide the "substantiating data to support this claim immediately."

 

[Max_Wander]

Who cares to debate when there are better priced oils in the same category that are easily available and do not show consistently higher on average Fe readings. I guess if you've beleived in Mobil 1 and have bought much of it, then you would need and want to justify why you use it. My problem with this is that a) you're already biased towards wanting to justify using it b) much of this justification is based on logical fallacy ie. "well race teams use M1 branded products, the commercials tell me so" and "well, it's popular" or "OEMs have signed agreements to use it as factory fill" or "it's really expensive so it can't be bad" or "Exxon Mobil is the best seller, so it must have great performance" or "my car hasn't exploded yet". You'll notice that NONE of those reasons objectively pertain to wear protection in any way. All of those reasons combined, in fact, are less "useful" of data (assuming theyre all even true) than a few UOAs. .. and that's not saying much.

 

[Mark888]

Originally Posted By: Mark888
... but it is hard to prove a negative since they obviously were there when the tests were conducted.

Meant to say "they (ExxonMobil) obviously were not there when the tests were conducted."

 

[RI_RS4]

1sttruck,

Actually, a $20 blackstone analysis is perfectly capable of being used in decent statistical studies. And, if you read the paper I reference, if the majority of oil loss is through pvc blow by, the wear curve is linear, making correction using their method quite easy. (In fact, correction is a simple normalization with an offset.) The paper does talk about potential sources of error, however, most sources of error are under our control.

The problem is not in the use of UOA, but rather in the sampling methodology used. However, with enough data on individual engine types, even these issues can be overcome, and used to perform interpretation that is well beyond the margins of error and quite valid. We've done that fairly successfully with the Audi RS4 engine, and gleaned important data about the engine before it was revealed later on in life.

 

[rewote500]

Max_Wander, what oil do you fill your auto with and why?

 

[RI_RS4]

Ergo quid?

 

[Max_Wander]

Originally Posted By: rewote500
Max_Wander, what oil do you fill your auto with and why?


I like ester oils like Redline and re-refined oils like Safety-Kleen. I've got my reasons.

 

[Mark888]

Originally Posted By: Max_Wander


Who cares to debate when there are better priced oils in the same category that are easily available and do not show consistently higher on average Fe readings. I guess if you've beleived in Mobil 1 and have bought much of it, then you would need and want to justify why you use it. My problem with this is that a) you're already biased towards wanting to justify using it b) much of this justification is based on logical fallacy ie. "well race teams use M1 branded products, the commercials tell me so" and "well, it's popular" or "OEMs have signed agreements to use it as factory fill" or "it's really expensive so it can't be bad" or "Exxon Mobil is the best seller, so it must have great performance" or "my car hasn't exploded yet". You'll notice that NONE of those reasons objectively pertain to wear protection in any way. All of those reasons combined, in fact, are less "useful" of data (assuming theyre all even true) than a few UOAs. .. and that's not saying much.

I did use Mobil 1 in my last car that I owned for 11 years. I got excellent results using it. Although that is anecdotal evidence, it is at least as scientific as 99% of the stuff I read on this forum.

But just because I used M1 previously (mostly at oil changes places where that was the only synthetic available) I have absolutely no emotional or financial attachment to M1 or ExxonMobil. Personaly, I am not really "into" oil like most people in this forum, and I only came here to find out if I should use 5W-20 or 5W-30 in my new car.

At the moment, I am using M1 EP in my new car, which Castrol says is just as good as Edge in terms of wear protection. M1 EP also does fairly well in terms of tests published by Amsoil. So if people want to trash regular M1, it makes no difference to me, but I have not seen any real evidence to support it.

The problem with the UOA is that there is no established relationship between very slight increases in Fe (as reported by most UOA on this forum) and actual engine wear that can be measured after engine tear-down. That is just an assumption that has not been proven. There could be other explanations such as the ability of an oil to suspend certain substances.

The charges by Ashland (that M1 does not meet specs) are more serious, but why wouldn't an auto manufacturer raise a concern about this? Why doesn't Ashland file a lawsuit against ExxonMoibil for false advertising? How come so many race teams at the 24 Hours of Daytona use Mobil 1 5W-30 straight from the retail bottle?

Ashland says the tests were conducted by an independent lab. Who paid the lab to conduct the tests? Where did they get the M1 oil?

There are a lot of unanswered questions here, and I don't claim to know the answer.

 

[Max_Wander]

Mark, I'm not trashing M1. In my personal experience, it has shown some great benefits in the past formulas like excellent cleanliness and resistance to thermal breakdown. Of course the formula has allegedly changed since then (how many times is up for debate), and specs took a hit, but I'm sure it's still a fine oil. Mobil wasnt born yesterday and they certainly have a wealth of expertise. Unfortunately the marketing department and bean counters might be just as 'expert' in their field as the tribologists and chem engineers. In that age old battle, we know who's decisions overrule who's.

 

[Mark888]

Originally Posted By: Max_Wander
b) much of this justification is based on logical fallacy ie. "well race teams use M1 branded products, the commercials tell me so"...

No, I specifically mentioned the recent 24 Hours of Daytona where virtually all of teams that did not have an oil sponsor used Mobil 1. There were no commercials that told me this, I found out from Johnny, who is a loyal Pennzoil retiree, in his thread on this forum. Did you even bother to read it? Now, I don't claim that it is scientific proof of anything, but I find it curious that the oil would not even meet specs (according to Ashland) if it is so widely used in Grand Am racing.
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1353523#Post1353523

The other things that I find curious, is that we are reasonably sure that Mobil 1 has more PAO than Castrol Syntec, PP, and even SynPower. So what is it that Mobil 1 is missing that produces more Fe ppm in samples? Is there some additive missing? Is there some legitimate reason for not including such an additive that might cause other problems?

I would be more than willing to throw in the towel on this, but it just does not quite make sense yet.

 

[wgtoys]

"No, I specifically mentioned the recent 24 Hours of Daytona where virtually all of teams that did not have an oil sponsor used Mobil 1."

I doubt they were using standard Mobil-1 5W-30 oil which is at the center of the Camshaft wear test debate.

 

[Mark888]

Originally Posted By: wgtoys
I doubt they were using standard Mobil-1 5W-30 oil which is at the center of the Camshaft wear test debate.

I made that same mistake myself, but Johnny corrected me. They use standard M1 5W-30 (not EP) right out of the retail containers. Read the entire thread carefully.

 

[Max_Wander]

Originally Posted By: Mark888
Originally Posted By: Max_Wander
b) much of this justification is based on logical fallacy ie. "well race teams use M1 branded products, the commercials tell me so"...

No, I specifically mentioned the recent 24 Hours of Daytona where virtually all of teams that did not have an oil sponsor used Mobil 1. There were no commercials that told me this, I found out from Johnny, who is a loyal Pennzoil retiree, in his thread on this forum. Did you even bother to read it? Now, I don't claim that it is scientific proof of anything, but I find it curious that the oil would not even meet specs (according to Ashland) if it is so widely used in Grand Am racing.
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1353523#Post1353523

The other things that I find curious, is that we are reasonably sure that Mobil 1 has more PAO than Castrol Syntec, PP, and even SynPower. So what is it that Mobil 1 is missing that produces more Fe ppm in samples? Is there some additive missing? Is there some legitimate reason for not including such an additive that might cause other problems?

I would be more than willing to throw in the towel on this, but it just does not quite make sense yet.



Yes, I read that. Do I find it hard to believe? Ab so lutely! It baffles me why an professional endurance race team would trust ANY consumer-grade off-the-shelf motor oil to protect their stakes, (even Redline) no matter how class leading it might be. Maybe it is true, who knows?



Maybe the race teams choose regular Mobil 1 Full Synthetic*


* for their own personal vehicles.

 

[1sttruck]

"The problem is not in the use of UOA, but rather in the sampling methodology used. However, with enough data on individual engine types, even these issues can be overcome, and used to perform interpretation that is well beyond the margins of error and quite valid. We've done that fairly successfully with the Audi RS4 engine, and gleaned important data about the engine before it was revealed later on in life."

The paper you provided indicates that the variation among individual engines is to large to allow conclusions to be made between makes of engines using a single oil. If that is the case how will you attempt to distinguish between oils as is typically done here ?

This still does not address the problem of false positives or false negatives, but I don't expect it to. As others have mentioned this is just a hobby.

 

[buster]

Originally Posted By: Max_Wander
Mark, I'm not trashing M1. In my personal experience, it has shown some great benefits in the past formulas like excellent cleanliness and resistance to thermal breakdown. Of course the formula has allegedly changed since then (how many times is up for debate), and specs took a hit, but I'm sure it's still a fine oil. Mobil wasnt born yesterday and they certainly have a wealth of expertise. Unfortunately the marketing department and bean counters might be just as 'expert' in their field as the tribologists and chem engineers. In that age old battle, we know who's decisions overrule who's.


Yup. +1.

There is no "best" lubricant. Some excel/fail in certain areas.

Mobil 1 does some things well, and some things not so well. I would not want to use Mobil 1 in a low temp/load, taxi cab type of driving. It's poor score in the Seq IVA, which I believe to be true due to XOM's silence on the claim made, suggests it's deficient in that area.

There are also some volatility issues with some grades and poor shear stability. A lot of that is due to some of the fuel economy tests, which oils like Amsoil & Redline don't have to pass.

Some have also pointed out that M1 does not control wear when fuel dilution occurs. A possible reason why Fe is higher in some engines.

UOA's are obviously limited, but you can control enough variables to get a good idea of what oil is working better than another. Formula 1 uses oil analysis to monitor wear. Some of the things you can't see are high temperature deposits and how clean the engine is.

 

[Mark888]

Originally Posted By: buster
Yup. +1.

It's always an ongoing, evolving process.

The bottom line is, there is no "best" lubricant. Some excel/fail in certain areas.

Mobil 1 does some things well, and some things not so well. I would not want to use Mobil 1 in a low temp/load, taxi cab type of driving. It's poor score in the Seq IVA, which I believe to be true due to XOM's silence on the claim made, suggests it's deficient in that area.

There are also some volatility issues with some grades and poor shear stability. A lot of that is due to some of the fuel economy tests, which oils like Amsoil & Redline don't have to meet.

Some have also pointed out that M1 does not control wear when fuel dilution occurs. A possible reason why Fe is higher in some engines.

UOA's are obviously limited, but you can control enough variables to get a good idea of what oil is working better than another. Formula 1 uses oil analysis to monitor wear. Some of the things you can't see are high temperature deposits and how clean the engine is.

I guess you don't believe in the 5th amendment? But anyway, according to the story about Ashland posted above, ExxonMobil did publicly deny the claim. So your statement about them being silent is incorrect.

I certainly never claimed that M1 is a perfect oil, or even that it is the best oil (I really don't know), but the claims that it does not meet manufacturer specs are a lot more serious than that, and I would think the manufacturers would ask Mobil 1 to drop their certification claims, and that Ashland would file a lawsuit against ExxonMobil for fraud.

 

[Max_Wander]

If EM were sued by Ashland, you'd better believe the issue would be 'settled'. There is no way in [censored] EM would let something like this get out to the public, even if it were more than a few affected batches. Not when there are payoffs and gag orders. Any OEM that contracted M1 for specialty factory fills and didn't honour any warranty claims directly related to it would be bound to the contract terms no less than the manufacturer of the corrosion-prone GM fuel level sensors who's contract had to expire before GM could resource the part!