Is there any solid scientific evidence that Mobil 1 is good for extended drains?

[Eiron]

quote:

---

Originally posted by GROUCHO MARX:
Eiron, are you doing all that driving on those vehicles yourself? When do you sleep?

---

Thankfully, no! My current job allows me to bike-commute year-round, but my last job had me driving close to 1500mi/mo. At the same time, my wife was driving about 1000mi/mo, so I was changing oil about 10 times a year (average of once every 5 wks). However, some folks here have said they're on the extreme end of frequency & change their oil every 3k miles/two weeks on one vehicle (obviously, an on-the-road job). Others take care of all the vehicles in the family, & keep dozens of filters & gallons of fresh oil on-hand to keep up with the demand.


P.S. (to everyone),
Though he commandeerd this thread quite effectively, I'm amused at the fact that QD still hasn't identified his purpose in doing so. Like a Grand Politician, he's simply let others state or guess at his intentions without saying so himself.
That doesn't mean there hasn't been some decent exchange, only that it's been very unfocused &, perhaps, with less merit than might otherwise have been achieved. (In my opinion.)

[ July 11, 2003, 01:14 PM: Message edited by: Eiron ]

 

[QuadDriver]

quote:

---

Originally posted by MolaKule:
Most full synthetics are combinations of PAO's and some type of ester, usually a polyol ester.

---

that is what is called a pao blend, mostly pao with poly or diester added for cleanliness but not too much to affect seals

quote:

---

and: So your information is somewhat dated.

---

Given I checked up on the chemistry today, then yes, it is dated 7/11/03

quote:

---

and:

I think you are confusing trending and UOA's with catstrophic failures. A hairline fracture in a rod causes localized stresses that are not going to show a potential future failure, and will not show up in a UOA. But that is a manufacturing/QA problem and not the oil's or UOA's failure. What a UOA will show is how much bearing, ring, and other surface wear is occuring in the engine by the elemental analysis listed in the UOA.

---

no. a UOA will only infer that some wear has taken place, and is as relevant as looking at brake dust on a cars front wheels and observing 'your brakes are wearing' I have asked repeatedly, but not received any info on how you quantify the info in a UOA. cmon, this is not that conceptually hard. Bearing wear for example is measured in 1/1000ths of an inch. A manu specifies a certain amount of wear before replacement is called for. If a UOA cannot tell you 'there is an additional 5/1000ths of clearance on the rod bearings', then it is of little to no use to tell me how much (quatifiable) wear has occured. period.

am I asking the impossible of a UOA or any other 'non invasive' technique to tell me wear? Yes. they are not the proper tool. Of course however, I am guilty of using unscientific means and improper tools to determine wear - by actually measuring it. ;-) (imagine if you will, walking into a parts store for new bearings and when the counter guy asks you what size/undersize, you hand him a stack of UOAs. there are plenty of times in this thread where that is exactly what folks are saying they can do. Id like to see it proven.)

At the same times, UOAs are promising the impossible. not really, thats too harsh, UOAs are great for showing contaminants - I dont know how many times I have repeated that. but labs are inferring just a weee bit too much. Its the 'gets your whites whiter' syndrome. The oil makers are just as guilty, but with the spate of FTC suits over the last 2 years, the wording has been carefully selected to withstand scruitiny. Ask yourself, has ALL the wording in this thread done the same? Have people said they know exactly how much (again: quantifiable, something you have to be able to prove) wear they have? yes.

quote:

---

and:
Mobil 1's SS formulation could be better, but then again, they are not selling a boutique oil from an entrepeneur. They are selling an OTC oil at a price the market can bear.

---

Ask yourself this: does mobil1 fail any API, ilsac, manu, ISO, JASO or european test for auto oils that another oil passes? No. Then please for my education, quatify 'could be better', in what measurable way is it falling short? As I said and no one disputes, mobil does the most runniing engine testing of any maker. Given that the blenders typically dont do any, this speaks volumes.

About 10-12 years ago or so when 'oil wars' started on the web, there was on prodigy a retired mobil engineer 'bob miller' who even wrote a book on the subject. I had heard he died a few years after I left p*, which is a shame, he was one of the people who forgot more daily than we all know combined. suffice to say, at the time as some of the other majors were looking into syn oil, he remarked that they are all making the same mistakes one after another, that mobil initially did. It continues to this day.

 

[QuadDriver]

quote:

---

Originally posted by FowVay:
Since the synthetics and mineral oils are all the same (within 10%) I'm going to spend my weekend looking for a mineral oil that meets my car manufacturers requirement of ACEA A3 and MB229.3. I'm sure I can find these mineral oils for $.79 per quart at wally world.

acea a3? API SI/SJ should suffice according to esso.

I might hop on a plane and fly to Europe and teach those pagan heathens about chemistry so maybe they can formulate one of these ineffective man-made fluids to lubricate their stoneage equipment that they use over there. I'm sure I read someplace that they don't have very many synthetic fluids because the people can't afford them. I guess these super exotic Lamborghini, Ferrari, BMW, Mercedes, McLaren, etc, were designed and built in gooberville, USA, so the highly educated engineer/chemist/bearing changers could test their theories of fluid dynamics.

The credibilty of this thread was lost a few days ago. It's now getting embarassing.

---

I wonder how many europeans drive the aforementioned cars.

 

[buster]

quote:

---

About 10-12 years ago or so when 'oil wars' started on the web, there was on prodigy a retired mobil engineer 'bob miller' who even wrote a book on the subject. I had heard he died a few years after I left p*, which is a shame, he was one of the people who forgot more daily than we all know combined. suffice to say, at the time as some of the other majors were looking into syn oil, he remarked that they are all making the same mistakes one after another, that mobil initially did. It continues to this day.

---

This wouldn't surprise me. I'll say this, all of the oils, whether it is Schaeffer's, Amsoil, Castrol or Redline, all can and do make very good products. You can't go wrong with an of them. I still think that Mobil 1 is a great oil and I don't think MB, Aston Martins etc. would use there oil if it wasn't. It is more then good enough. Amsoil buys there base stock from Mobil and then uses a stronger additive package from various other suppliers. We have seen that sometimes it works great, and sometimes it doesn't. Amsoil I consider a mixed bag. Some of there oils are outstanding and some are not. What suppliers are they using for some of there oils that do well and which ones for the bad ones?? My friend told me that the only way to really tell how your engine is wearing is by a compression test. Is this true?

 

[FowVay]

Why don't you spend some of the ridiculous $250/hour labor rate that you charge and go to Europe and learn something? BMW and Mercedes is as common on the roads of Europe as Chevrolet and Ford are here. And I've yet to see a engine built by ESSO so I'd rather use the fluid that the engine builder recommends as opposed to what the oil company says "will suffice". If you haven't noticed, everything from no-name store brands to recycled SafetyKlean lubes meet the API's pathetic requirements. You just can't say the same for the ACEA standards nor for the specific engine manufacturers standards.

When you figure out what the acronym VANOS stands for and how it affects a lubricant then you'll know why I prefer to use what the engine builder specifies as opposed to what the Jiffy lube guy thinks MIGHT work.

 

[MolaKule]

QD: “that is what is called a pao blend, mostly pao with poly or diester added for cleanliness but not too much to affect seals”

No, that is what is called a ‘full synthetic’ base oil. A blend is usually a PAO mixed with mineral oils, generally taken to be at a level of 12% or greater of PAO to Group I-III base oils.

QD: “Bearing wear for example is measured in 1/1000ths of an inch. A manu specifies a certain amount of wear before replacement is called for. If a UOA cannot tell you 'there is an additional 5/1000ths of clearance on the rod bearings', then it is of little to no use to tell me how much (quatifiable) wear has occured. period.”

Wrong again. Bearing wear is measured in kg/m^3, a volumetric measurement. When you equate the ppm of wear to volume, you can then determine how much volumteric wear has occurred. Now you do the math.

QD: “am I asking the impossible of a UOA or any other 'non invasive' technique to tell me wear? Yes. they are not the proper tool. Of course however, I am guilty of using unscientific means and improper tools to determine wear - by actually measuring it. ;-) (imagine if you will, walking into a parts store for new bearings and when the counter guy asks you what size/undersize, you hand him a stack of UOAs. there are plenty of times in this thread where that is exactly what folks are saying they can do. Id like to see it proven.)”

And just what do think a UAO is showing if not elemental wear metals? Can you tell how much wear has occurred with a borescope? No you cannot. This is the only other "non-invasive" method of which I am aware. All other methods are pure invasive.

QD: “…The oil makers are just as guilty, but with the spate of FTC suits over the last 2 years, the wording has been carefully selected to withstand scruitiny. “

I assume you are referring to what we affectionately call “snake oil.” NO lab that provides UOA’s have ever been accused of snake oil tactics.

QD: “Ask yourself this: does mobil1 fail any API, ilsac, manu, ISO, JASO or european test for auto oils that another oil passes? No. Then please for my education, quatify 'could be better', in what measurable way is it falling short? As I said and no one disputes, mobil does the most runniing engine testing of any maker. Given that the blenders typically dont do any, this speaks volumes. “

I never said it didn’t pass those tests, you brought up the subject out of the clear "blue." What could be better about Mobil 1? Here is my shopping list. The use of more esters, a longer lasting DD package, a better and more long-term AW/EP additive package, a lower volatility mix of varying POA viscosities.

QD: “About 10-12 years ago or so when 'oil wars' started on the web, there was on prodigy a retired mobil engineer 'bob miller' who even wrote a book on the subject. I had heard he died a few years after I left p*, which is a shame, he was one of the people who forgot more daily than we all know combined. suffice to say, at the time as some of the other majors were looking into syn oil, he remarked that they are all making the same mistakes one after another, that mobil initially did. It continues to this day.”

I have no idea what your point is here or why you think this adds anything to oil quality or whether UOA’s are deemed useful. Your wording at times seems very scattered and by throwing out disconnected data, you tend to obfuscate the discussion.

QD, I think you’re committing two errors here. One is your data about base oils, UOA’s, and synthetics in particular are incorrect. And two, you are committing a logical fallicy here called, petitio principi, “assuming what needs to be proved.”

If you reject the usefulness of UOA’s and decide not to use them, then my recommendation is to use dino and change 3k-5k. 3M’s and other’s test using UOA’s have shown that synthetics can go the distance.

 

[tweeker43]

i'm about to do an UOA on my subie (M1 SS), but i've never had one performed on my car before. on the other hand, i have had oil analysis performed on manufacturing equipment.

imo, oil analysis will provide data that represents what is going on in your equipment. to say that it is a 1:1 correlation would be a stretch. direct measurement of your components would tell you exactly what is wearing, but would be highly expensive and impractical.

oil analysis in cars can show coolant leaks, high fuel dilution, and other problems that may not be oil related. it will also tell you whether your oil change regimen is working or not. more frequent oil changes will not improve any of these non-oil related conditions.

personally, i use M1 SS for the subaru recommended duration (7500 miles). i'm starting oil analysis right now because the car is almost out of warranty, and i'm going to see if i can go to 10K mile (or more) changes. this isn't to save money; this is to be sure that i conserve natural resources in a way that also provides good protection for my engine.

 

[buster]

QD, I'd quite now.

Good post MK, voice of reason. Molekule is the chem expert and can take on the best of the best.

[ July 12, 2003, 11:08 AM: Message edited by: buster ]

 

[3 Mad Ponchos]

quote:

---

If a UOA cannot tell you 'there is an additional 5/1000ths of clearance on the rod bearings', then it is of little to no use to tell me how much (quatifiable) wear has occured. period.

---

OK, you've brought this up repeatedly, and I'm starting to wonder about this.

To be perfectly blunt: who cares??

What good does it do me to be able to calculate the precise amount of bearing wear taking place? No matter what oil you use, wear is taking place, you cannot stop it. UOAs will give you an idea of how fast it is occurring, and if you switch oils, whether the new oil is making it better or worse. I just cannot imagine any scenario where a precise accounting of bearing wear (even taking the assumption that all bearings wear evenly, which is a biiiiiiig assumption) would do me two licks of good. It seems to me that your condemnation of UOAs is based on a requirement that, for most of us, is irrelevant.

Cheers, 3MP

 

[Mystic]

To Molekule and Terry, exactly how great is the difference between a good synthetic oil and a conventional oil? Could it be described as greater than a 10% quality difference? If you were going to compare, say Mobil 1, with say, Chevron Supreme, could Mobil 1 be described as at least 50% better or 100% better?

If QuadDriver is correct that there is less than 10% difference between oils, then we all might as well use something like Chevron Supreme and drive 7500 miles per oil change.

Seems to me that there has to be a major difference between a synthetic oil and a conventional oil. I personally would not want to take that Chevron Supreme, much as I like it, to 7500 miles on one change. But the Mobil 1 could do it.

One difference for sure is that the Mobil 1 will flow at lower temperatures than the conventional-so there would be less wear in the wintertime.

But could it be said from a chemical point of view that the addtive package in Mobil 1 is 50%, 100%, or whatever better than the chemical additive package in Chevron Supreme. Could it be said from a chemcial point of view that the base oil properties of Mobil 1 are 50%, 100%, or whatever better than Chevron Supreme?

 

[JoggingGuy]

quote:

---

Originally posted by 3 Mad Ponchos:

quote:

---

If a UOA cannot tell you 'there is an additional 5/1000ths of clearance on the rod bearings', then it is of little to no use to tell me how much (quatifiable) wear has occured. period.

---

OK, you've brought this up repeatedly, and I'm starting to wonder about this.

To be perfectly blunt: who cares??

Cheers, 3MP

---

No kidding. Given the choice of updating a UOA trend chart every 3-6 months or a teardown, measure, and reassemble every 3-6 months, I'll take the UOA.

UOAs are like blood tests. They give you warning of something happening in an engine. If it does, then more invasive procedures may be needed to exactly determine the cause of the problem and to fix it.

This thread and it's 190 posts has taught me to look at doctor visits and physicals in a whole new way.

"Mr. UOA Man, during your exam, I thought I felt a lump and your prostrate seemed to be a little enlarged. But you're pretty healthy on the outside, so take these Moly vitamins and we'll see what happens".

"But Doctor, can't you do a blood test to find out if that is really happening?"

"Ummm, no. As a doctor, I'd have to cut you open and actually see the thing before I could quantifiably guarantee that you do indeed have a tumor. Err, lump."

I'm going to go work in the yard now.

 

[G-MAN]

quote:

---

Originally posted by MolaKule:
I never said it didn’t pass those tests, you brought up the subject out of the clear "blue." What could be better about Mobil 1? Here is my shopping list. The use of more esters, a longer lasting DD package, a better and more long-term AW/EP additive package, a lower volatility mix of varying POA viscosities.

---

What would make the DD package "more long-term"? Likewise the AW/EP package? More of it? Better quality? I mean, Mobil 1 is already using many of the same basic DD and AW/EP components that other companies use. So what makes the Mobil 1 inferior in these areas? The quality of the ingredients, or the quantity?

 

[Terry]

Mystic, There are too many variables to make a blanket statement about this oil is better than that oil. I can make intelligent recommendations after seeing a trended oil analysis of your engine with a specific oil and comparing it to reams of data for that engine and other oil combos. Keeping your feedback about driving habits, locations, etc. in mind.

After all that is a REAL RESULT and a response to your question that can be verified by follow up testing and actual operation. FOR YOUR ENGINE USING YOUR OIL.

Once the lube is in the engine the combo is the key, and we all understand the differences that affect the internal combustion air pump .Driving style,environmentals,road conditions,speed allowed,stop and go,fuel quality,filtration,design problems, production problems.

True there are some fully formulated
motor oils using a grp 1 basestock that allow less wear in a given short time frame than some "synthetic oils" in certain engines. Problem is wear rate is only one point to examine , the larger picture encorporates volatility,acid nuetralization, additive efficacy and retention, deposit formation, detergency,dispersancy, corrosion etc. Certainly many others to incorporate in that list.

Use that same low wear formula for 30,000 miles and you generate secondary wear from the weakness's associated with volatility and other formulation issues.

On the other hand the balancing act can go to the other extreme.

I can build a really neato liquid that is almost indestructable while having really poor lubricating capabilities. Oil looks great wear sucks.

Can a LOW WEAR LONG DRAIN FLUID BE MADE with current technology ? yes, can you and I afford it, NO.

Like my testing response to Quad ,technology is costly and not flippantly dismissed. To provide accurate % quality differences between two formulations is costly to do scientifically and verfiably.

Not to mention proprietary issues for those of us who test these brands and get paid by same.


One thing I have found in the last 3 or 4 years is that the oil quality has risen and almost any SL rated oil can perform quite nicely in the short term. Using analysis results I have been successful at adding chemistries to these oils that enable reduced oxidation and insolubles while bolstering the add package for reduced wear.

Auto-RX cleaning is one, Lube Control anti oxidation is another.

Chemists,physicists like Molakule,Rick20, and others lurking on the board have been able to quantify some of those experimentations to help average motorists enjoy the operation of the family car with extended drains and reduced wear at a very reasonable cost.

Note the "brew" of M1 to supplant some of its inherent weakness's mentioned in this thread.

Many of the participants of BITOG are enjoying the benefits of that work in their own cars.

Hope that helps.

Terry

 

[ex_MGB]

I was a big believer in Mobil 1. But after reading this thread and buying an '89 Accord LXi with 160k which had only seen dino every 5k miles, I'm beginning to wonder (car uses no oil and the valve train was a clean as a whistle). Should I forget about Mobil 1 and go with a good dino every 5k miles or so (three changes/year with the fall change to 5W-30 and spring and mid-summer 10W-30)?

I beat the snot out of my Maxima and Miata. Will a good dino work in these just as well as Mobil 1 given a 5k mile change?.

[ July 12, 2003, 05:15 PM: Message edited by: ex_MGB ]

 

[Rexman]

It’s hard to say what sort of twisted voodoo logic has taken place on this thread to cause so many people to accept the erroneous idea that regular oil is just as good as synthetic.

First, no way is any dino even 75% as good as a quality syn. Unless it comes down to a car with mostly highway miles--where only negligible engine wear is taking place regardless of what you put in (I'd almost bet that's the case here with your 160K Honda)-- synthetic is superior in almost every respect.

By it’s very nature, dino cannot be as good as synthetic. It has more paraffin and other natural impurities that cannot be eliminated in the refining process.
Syn is cleaner and purer right from the start, and this gives it a host of other practical advantages over dino—better gas mileage, increased horsepower, higher revving ability, and a thermal stability that no dino can hope to match.
Not to mention, syn is the only oil you should ever put in a highly-stressed hot running turbo engine to keep the turbo bearings from coking as it can with dino.

Would any world class race team show up on race day with a load of dino juice in their $750,000 finely honed driving machine? Come on--Don’t make me laugh!!

Why should any of us settle for anything less to protect the $20-$60,000 investments we have in our vehicles?

If you are leasing your car for two years with the idea of turning it over for the next guy, sure, go ahead and put dino in—that will make for a lot more cars sitting in junkyards a lot sooner (good for the economy maybe, with more new car sales.)
Recommending dino over syn to someone for any reason (other than maybe dire penury) amounts to outright car abuse in my book, unless all they do is sunny day highway miles. It makes a mockery of everything we know about motor oils.

End of rant. Thanks for tuning in. Hey, just doin' my part to get us to 200 posts.

 

[FowVay]

ex_MGB, I have to share with you a situation that I have had. I bought a new 1985 Accord back in 1985. I used only Pennzoil 10W-40 non-synthetic mineral oil in that car with 5000 mile drain intervals for the 8 years that I owned it. I sold it to a co-worker in 1993 with nearly 190,000 miles on it. I never had a single engine problem with that car and it traveled from West Virginia to Georgia to Wyoming and back to Georgia during my ownership days. It saw the smokin' hot summers of Georgia and the arctic freeze winters of Wyoming, all with the Pennzoil in the engine.

My co-worker recently sold that Accord at a car auction with 315,000 miles on the odometer and it was still running. After he bought the car from me he started using Jiffy Lube to get his oil changed so I don't know what that car ended up with inside the crankcase.

This is a testament to the durability of those Honda engines and also a feather in the cap of the high quality mineral oils that are available in this day and age. I honestly can't say that I'd use a synthetic oil in a new Honda unless the manufacturer specified it or specified a standard that could only be met with a synthetic.

I edited this to ask a question. How do you know how many posts this thread contains? I believe I'm missing this magical number somehow.

[ July 12, 2003, 06:25 PM: Message edited by: FowVay ]

 

[rugerman1]

quote:

---

Originally posted by FowVay:
I edited this to ask a question. How do you know how many posts this thread contains? I believe I'm missing this magical number somehow.

---

Look in Today's Active Topics ,the (#).

Mark,br

 

[pscholte]

Is there a record on this board for the number of times a thread was locked and unlocked?

 

[rugerman1]

quote:

---

Originally posted by pscholte:

Is there a record on this board for the number of times a thread was locked and unlocked?

---

No,but we're working on it! mark,br

[ July 12, 2003, 06:36 PM: Message edited by: rugerman1 ]

 

[Rexman]

quote:

---

This is a testament to the durability of those Honda engines and also a feather in the cap of the high quality mineral oils that are available in this day and age. I honestly can't say that I'd use a synthetic oil in a new Honda unless the manufacturer specified it or specified a standard that could only be met with a synthetic.

---

You didn't specify what portion of the mileage was highway--this makes a BIG difference in judging what part the oil played in the car's longevity.

Also, just because an exceptionally well-built car like a Honda went 315k with a dino oil doesn't mean it couldn't have gone twice that with a good synthetic.