If you look at a large number of Uoa's the iron wear rates seems to be lower with mineral oil when compared to synthetic oil. Granted most mineral oil oci's are shorter than synthetic oci's but is there something in a good dino oil that offers at least as good or better valve train wear?
Iron wear patterns
- Thread starter like a rock
- Start date
- Status
A lot of the Mobil 1 syn oils(SM) show high iron numbers thats probably why. If you look at GC or PP uoa's the iron numbers are really similar to the dino oils. The only Mobil 1 that shows normal iron wear consistently is probably the 0w20's
Leave out the the xw-30 Mobil 1 data which compromises about 80% of the UOA's and the top tier synthetics look a lot better. If you concentrate on Amsoil, Redline, GC/0w-30 and Royal Purple, you'll see very low rates of iron wear.
I should add that the Mobil 1, 5w-40 and 15w-50 also show very low rates of Fe wear....
TS
Where does the iron come from, piston rings?
Wear metals should always be compared and analyzed as parts per million per 1000 miles. Wear metals (PPM wil increase over miles so a higher count is meaningless if the number of miles is higher as well. Some items, like silicon are sort of constants and should not increase 9well theyu will to some degree0 but nothing like wear metals.
10 PPM of iron in 2000 miles is basically the same as 20 ppm AT 4000 miles. in terms of PPM/1000 miles. Wear has not increased, just the number has
quote:I hate to be the rude b@st@rd, but nothing like starting a thread or thought on false ground. Statistically collect the data, run some real calculations, and then post the statement. Not only will it make for a better thread of discussion, the truth usually results in better results.
If you look at a large number of Uoa's the iron wear rates seems to be lower with mineral oil when compared to synthetic oil.
Well Pablo I said it could or could not be the case. I was not picking on synthetic oil or dino oil. The post was not on false ground just on some thoughts. Maybe you should start a section based only on statistical data and real calculations. If you want this site to that complicated then go for it. What is wrong with a general statement? It is better than what is the best oil post. You come across just as you stated in your post. Have a nice day. ![[Wink]](images/icons/wink.gif)
Once again I have to ask "do wear metal particle counts from different engines using different oils mean anything?" The answer I get seems to be "no, UOA measurements are most useful comparing the same engine using the same oil".We know that UOA wear metal particle are not proportional to measured wear in engines. I think we place too much emphasis on UOA particle counts that meant to be used as a trend analysis, not a comparison of wear. I could easily be wrong, please point me in the right direction.
If you want me to get to the meat of it I will. The real problem with your post is not the core of your question, these kinds of questions are great. I didn't consider your post picking on synthetic oil, but you have several sentences that come across as factually and intellectually wrong. And I am assuming you want a correct answer!
I doubt anyone will convert BiTOG to a data driven website, but we need to remain somewhat logical. There is absolutely no data that says Fe wear is better in Group I and II base oils vs. Group IV and V base oils. So, to say "...is there something in a good dino oil that offers at least as good or better valve train wear?" Is akin to asking an innocent man; "When did you stop beating your wife?"
It just makes for a chrappy conversation or thread to lay down a weak logic foundation.
Is there evidence any group of base oil is better at Fe wear protection?
Could be, but we haven't seen it. The data may be there, but no one has analyzed it yet.
PS Nothing personal at all.
Well thanks for helping with the base question Pablo. The logic is not weak sir. Why is it illogical to ask a question and get a answer? Look you do not care for the post and that is fine. All you had to say was there was no evidence that mineral oil provided better valve train protection than synthetic oil without all the other ****** stuff. Case closed.
Quote
Spector, be very careful. While your assertion may be essentially correct wrt Fe wear, it is most positively NOT correct for a large number of 'wear' metals.
Care to give some metals and why it is not the case!
quote:The best way to measure engine wear is performing a tear down. I know for a fact that RL gets a LOT of data from engine tear downs compared to other oils. I also know they do a lot of oil analysis as well. Dave from RL made a good point in that if they wanted to design an oil to look good via oil analysis, they would. To think that $20 reports show the whole picture is naive. This is why expensive sequence testing is done. If oil analysis was #1 method, the API would just use bench testing and then take oils samples wouldn't they?
Once again I have to ask "do wear metal particle counts from different engines using different oils mean anything?" The answer I get seems to be "no, UOA measurements are most useful comparing the same engine using the same oil".We know that UOA wear metal particle are not proportional to measured wear in engines. I think we place too much emphasis on UOA particle counts that meant to be used as a trend analysis, not a comparison of wear. I could easily be wrong, please point me in the right direction.
![[I dont know]](/forums/graemlins/dunno.gif)
However, some oils do show better wear than others, some hold their viscosity better and some keep the engine cleaner. It's the total package. Could Mobil be showing slightly higher valvetrain wear? Yes, it's possible. Some oils have better balanced additive packages.
quote:It isn't and I don't think I ever said that. Let me say this and I'll drop it. I am NOT picking on you personally. I am truly sorry if I have offended, this was never my intention. You are free to pose questions however you like and I am free to answer as I see fit as long as we both abide by the BiTOG rules. Newbie start reading BiTOG. Clicks on a thread and takes away: If you look at a large number of Uoa's the iron wear rates seems to be lower with mineral oil when compared to synthetic oil.......is there something in a good dino oil that offers [this] better valve train wear? Certainly his own fault for not properly understanding the question. However by not clearly qualifying all statements, I feel we all do new readers a disservice that snowballs into larger misunderstandings. I have seen it happen so many times over the years I'm simply trying to help the cause. End or rant.
Why is it illogical to ask a question and get a answer?
I'm wondering why my drain plug magnet observations have very little correlation to iron numbers in the UOAs. After summer driving, the Fe was 6, and there was barely any magnetic sludge; winter driving gave an Fe of 7, but at least three times as much magnetic sludge. Ni was zero, so it couldn't be that magnetic element. Could my tiny magnet be removing so much iron that it skews the UOA?
What if one oil chemistry generates smaller iron particles, which have an easier time getting past the filters in the spectroscopy machine? This might falsely indicate greater wear. That's why I like to use a drain plug magnet. Maybe next winter I'll go without the magnet, do another UOA, to see if the Fe is 3x higher.
oilyriser - The obvious conclusion is that your magnet attracts iron particulate matter, and it isn't present in the oil for examination.
This may or may not add anything to the conversation, but a few things I've noticed about UOA iron readings with XW-30 M1 in particular -
It's alwasy higher in the winter.
It's as high or higher when the vehicle sits especially through the winter as when it's been driven.
That indicates to me it's not so much mechanical "wear" but is some product of corrosion.
As an example, I had M1 5W-30 in one vehicle that sat through two Illinois winters but was driven little in 23 months. The iron numbers were higher than when I drove the vehicle many more miles over a much shorter period of time, but mostly in the summer...
If a magnet catches ferrous debris that wouldn't have been caught by the oil filter (this does happen) and the UOA shows similar iron level as before (this has happened) without the magnet, what must we conclude? UOA wear metal readings are not good for measuring actual wear levels. There is a lot of evidence from a variety of sources that this is true. oilyriser's example is just one of them. Just knowing the limitations of the method of getting the UOA wear metal levels indicates this would be true (only detecting wear particle sizes on small end of the spectrum and confusing rust with wear debris).
Of course it's nice to see low wear levels in UOAs but it's a limited piece of information. If the magnet and the UOA says you have a winner, you probably do have a winner. If the two disagree, I'd believe the magnet over the iron wear level in the UOA.
- Status
Similar threads
