Is there any solid scientific evidence that Mobil 1 is good for extended drains?
- Thread starter TooManyWheels
- Start date
- Status
Patman
Staff member
I was referring more to the LT1 and LS1/LS6 V8 engines than the Ford 4.6 V8 though. I believe the Ford 4.6 has much tighter clearances. So it wouldn't need the slightly thicker oil as much.
Ya might want to explain that to ole' Quad. I don't think he's buyin' it.quote:
Originally posted by Terry:
Fundamental philosphical issues to address.
5) Why teardown when I can tell with a very sharp degree of accuracy what needs to be replaced or not with a $35 analysis or short series of trend analysis ?
This might focus our direction here..... , maybe not.
Did you read the posts? And thats not as tongue in cheek as it sounds. The thread went from some people claiming that 1 oil change with timely UOAs produces less wear than a person using many chages with the same oil; to people claiming that dino oil cannot exceed 3000 miles in any case. I beleive all asked questions were answered and all bold assertions were properly challenged. If you could be more specific????
The portions I have put in italics clearly do not violate the 'tie-in sales provision' of the Magnuson Moss Act of 1975
The postings about the BMW requirement I dont see how they CANT violate it.
Yes, I did read the posts. That's how I know that you still have not stated your point to this whole diatribe. I'm not sure how to be more specific than asking you to pause & list the points you're trying to address.
The original comment you're referring to was:
Given two vehicles, someone with fewer changes who had the proof of wear via UOAs would carry more validity of condition than someone who claimed more changes but showed no proof of wear. And no one challenged the fact that your example compared 5k-7k mile intervals to 70k mile intervals.
Regarding the unrequested Saab manual excerpt:
I'm sorry, I didn't realize you were looking only for examples relating to the 'tie-in sales provision' of the Magnuson Moss Act. It was simply an example of another GM division providing longer-than-accepted drain intervals only in conjunction with using fully synthetic oil. These Saab cars do use the latest version of the GM OLM, & require the use of GM-LL-A-025 oils for the OLM measurements to be considered accurate. As I mentioned before, all of the oils meeting GM-LL-A-025 are fully synthetic.
pscholte,
Of the twelve European oils meeting this new GM spec, only two of them were Mobil oils: 0W-40, & SHC Formula LD 0W-30. Of course, Saab & Opel both offer an OE version, & these can be presumed to be made for them by Mobil. Yes, there's a GM/Mobil connection, but it appears to be more of a push towards higher quality oils as a baseline (witness the current SA/SB oil labeling law being promoted in California), rather than a global conspiracy to mask inferior products.
Eiron,
Could you inform us of the other 10 that received approval? Just curious...by the way we're thinking about getting a Saab and I sent Saab Cars USA an email about recommended motor oils and was provided only one answer: "Mobil 1."
Could you inform us of the other 10 that received approval? Just curious...by the way we're thinking about getting a Saab and I sent Saab Cars USA an email about recommended motor oils and was provided only one answer: "Mobil 1."
And has been shown, UOAs have little to no correlation with actual wear inside the motor.
Mack trucks, pretty much the defacto inventor of the UOA knew this 40 years ago when they started doing such on serviced trucks to track fuel and coolant contamination. It was the geniuses (and yes I am being sarcastic) of todays labs that figured this practice could be tracked to ALL items in the oil. Once of course, we adopted unleaded fuels in the late 80's.
Its called specious logic. The following 3 examples are how it is used:
1) Since the end of hostilities in Iraq, no WMD have been found. Therefore, WMD never existed.
2) since the end of hostilities in Iraq, Saddam Hussein has not been found. Therefore, Saddam Hussein never existed.
3) my UOAs did not show hardly any iron or lead in them. Therefore, no wear has occured in my engine.
Of course, anyone of you can prove me forever wrong by taking all of the UOAs for your vehicle and making a prediction, oh, lets be generous, within 20% of the actual wear I would find should I tear down the motor. I can state with all certainty, I will NEVER get taken up on that offer.
man thats alot of reading. took me the better part of today to read the whole thing (well in my free of course) I will say one though.
does anyone honestly "really" believe that engine/car manufacturers WANT the average consumer to go 350k without major engine repair? I mean if that happened they'd all sell 2-3X less cars! we cant have that can we?
Heres a short story I've mentioned once before.
A guy who comes in to fix my RP machines (hes traveling repairman) his region is basically, Indiana,Ohio,Michigan,Kentucky and Illinois. He is a die-hard saturn loyalist. Hes put over 650,000 miles on 3 of them so far. (last time I talked to him was almost 2 years ago so who knows now) Hes one of the highest mileage rankers for his dealership. I guess his pictures on the wall and they've cut him REALLY good deals on his last two cars. Anyway, getting to the point. He never followed the maintence instructions for care. He did ALL the work himself. He used Synth (not sure wich one) in winter (we get bad winters sometimes) and dino in the summer. he changed the oil at 2k Dino and 4k synth. everytime like clockwork.
I find it funny how he has some of the highest mileage saturns at the dealership and he achieved it by basically ignoring the service manual and doing what he felt was best. That being said it raises a question. Do we HONESTLY think he would of gotten such good results if he followed there instructions to the T? He might have... but we just dont know.
I'm not saying car manufacturers would design engines to die after 100k or some other pre-determined interval. Nor am I saying they would give advice that would cause them to die. all I'm saying is do we really, reeaaaally, "really" think they want/care if your car goes to 200-300k instead of 150?...
I personally want my to last that long or as long as possible. And Im not sure if I can fully bring myself to hang 100% on the advice of those who want me to replace it...
does anyone honestly "really" believe that engine/car manufacturers WANT the average consumer to go 350k without major engine repair? I mean if that happened they'd all sell 2-3X less cars! we cant have that can we?
Heres a short story I've mentioned once before.
A guy who comes in to fix my RP machines (hes traveling repairman) his region is basically, Indiana,Ohio,Michigan,Kentucky and Illinois. He is a die-hard saturn loyalist. Hes put over 650,000 miles on 3 of them so far. (last time I talked to him was almost 2 years ago so who knows now) Hes one of the highest mileage rankers for his dealership. I guess his pictures on the wall and they've cut him REALLY good deals on his last two cars. Anyway, getting to the point. He never followed the maintence instructions for care. He did ALL the work himself. He used Synth (not sure wich one) in winter (we get bad winters sometimes) and dino in the summer. he changed the oil at 2k Dino and 4k synth. everytime like clockwork.
I find it funny how he has some of the highest mileage saturns at the dealership and he achieved it by basically ignoring the service manual and doing what he felt was best. That being said it raises a question. Do we HONESTLY think he would of gotten such good results if he followed there instructions to the T? He might have... but we just dont know.
I'm not saying car manufacturers would design engines to die after 100k or some other pre-determined interval. Nor am I saying they would give advice that would cause them to die. all I'm saying is do we really, reeaaaally, "really" think they want/care if your car goes to 200-300k instead of 150?...
I personally want my to last that long or as long as possible. And Im not sure if I can fully bring myself to hang 100% on the advice of those who want me to replace it...
Wow, this has to be a new record post.
I can't argue with what Terry said. He knows a soooo much more then I do about this so I will take his word. I think it comes down to that Mobil 1 is a good oil at the $5 price range, but Schaeffer's with it's better additive package, will show less wear. Hype and marketing muscle are definitely part of the equation when talking about Mobil 1. I would think that Castrol, Shell and others would be able to make an oil that would be able to be factory filled in all of the cars that Mobil 1 is in now. I will say though that OUR data base of UOA's doesn't show Mobil 1 to be any worse then the others.
Think of how long Mobil had Trisynthetic on the market, filled in many cars, when Amsoil and Redline at that time had clearly better oils IMO.
It also depends on which grade of oil too you are refering too. Delvac 1 IS a great oil.
I can't argue with what Terry said. He knows a soooo much more then I do about this so I will take his word. I think it comes down to that Mobil 1 is a good oil at the $5 price range, but Schaeffer's with it's better additive package, will show less wear. Hype and marketing muscle are definitely part of the equation when talking about Mobil 1. I would think that Castrol, Shell and others would be able to make an oil that would be able to be factory filled in all of the cars that Mobil 1 is in now. I will say though that OUR data base of UOA's doesn't show Mobil 1 to be any worse then the others.
Think of how long Mobil had Trisynthetic on the market, filled in many cars, when Amsoil and Redline at that time had clearly better oils IMO.
It also depends on which grade of oil too you are refering too. Delvac 1 IS a great oil.
Joe,
Everyone (especially here) puts all the emphasis on engine life as the determining factor of a cars useful life. It's been my experience that this isn't the case. I don't think I know of any cars in my circle of family or friends that have died due to catastrophic engine failure. Usually a chain of other failures renders the car more trouble, and cost, than its worth, at which point it's sold off and becomes someone else's problem.
Everyone (especially here) puts all the emphasis on engine life as the determining factor of a cars useful life. It's been my experience that this isn't the case. I don't think I know of any cars in my circle of family or friends that have died due to catastrophic engine failure. Usually a chain of other failures renders the car more trouble, and cost, than its worth, at which point it's sold off and becomes someone else's problem.
Correct me if I am worng, but wasn't oil analysis originally (and still is) practiced by the railroads to track required maintinence on the new fangled diesel engines starting in the 1940's? Something like 20 years before you claim Mack trucks invented the practice?
Happy to oblige (keep in mind that this list was compiled about five months ago, so more may be available now):
BP Visco 7000 GM 0W-30 (ACEA A3)
Castrol Formula SLX GM 0W-30 (ACEA A3)
Elf Evolution SXR 0W-30 (ACEA A5)
Fuchs Titan Supersyn SL GM 0W-30 (ACEA A1)
Mobil 1 0W-40 (ACEA A3)
Shell Helix Ultra G-A025 0W-30 (ACEA A1)
Veedol Syntron GM 0W-30 (ACEA A3)
Opel Longlife 0W-30 (No ACEA listed)
Aral Supertronic G 0W-30 (ACEA A3)
Saab Longlife 0W-30 (ACEA A5)
Mobil SHC Formula LD 0W-30 (ACEA A3)
Esso Universal LD 0W-30 (ACEA A3)
Searches at the time also revealed these three oils on various GM-LL-A-025 approval lists, but no supporting evidence could be found to validate their approvals:
Agip 7005 0W-30
Mobil 1 Longlife 0W-30
Motorex Concept 0-XL
Also, I realize there may be ties of which I am not aware between Mobil & some of these companies.
What? Saab didn't even recommend their own oil? How strange! Are you looking at new models or used? The '03 9-3SS is the first model to actually require the use of full syn oil, & the Saab 0W-30 Full Syn was introduced along with the '03 models. At these Colorado altitudes, four cylinders & a turbo beats everything! This past Memorial Weekend we had a full load (four people & requisite luggage for 3 days & 2 nights) & passed everyone during our travels around the Rockies. The best part was having those behemoth V10 trucks get right up on our rear bumper at the start of a long uphill stretch, & then smoothly pulling away from them like they were waiting for a parking space!
Eiron,
TNX for the info
...nope, no mention of their own oil
...looking at new...9_3 or 9_5.
U R right, nothing like a V8 or super/turbocharged V6 (maybe even twin turbo) here.
Paul
[ July 10, 2003, 05:48 PM: Message edited by: pscholte ]
TNX for the info
...nope, no mention of their own oil
...looking at new...9_3 or 9_5.
U R right, nothing like a V8 or super/turbocharged V6 (maybe even twin turbo) here.
Paul
[ July 10, 2003, 05:48 PM: Message edited by: pscholte ]
You guys answered my question for sure!!!!
116 posts!!! Holy cow!!!
116 posts!!! Holy cow!!!
"And has been shown, UOAs have little to no correlation with actual wear inside the motor."
QuadDriver
Really..... Please share the source of this statement and accepted tribological publications to back it up.
You may need to focus a bit on the term "UOA's" referenced above.
ASTM ,API,SAE,and others rely on used oil analysis in specific tests and screens to validate wear in light duty and Heavy duty automotive engines validating both engine wear and PCMO lubricant performance last I knew.
No wonder business has been slow !
Seriously Quad I would agree that the accurate and proper interpretation of the UOA is the missing link or a computer could validate the X # of variables in a cookie cutter fashion. Too many variable combinations to program on a cost effective basis yet.
QuadDriver
Really..... Please share the source of this statement and accepted tribological publications to back it up.
You may need to focus a bit on the term "UOA's" referenced above.
ASTM ,API,SAE,and others rely on used oil analysis in specific tests and screens to validate wear in light duty and Heavy duty automotive engines validating both engine wear and PCMO lubricant performance last I knew.
No wonder business has been slow !
Seriously Quad I would agree that the accurate and proper interpretation of the UOA is the missing link or a computer could validate the X # of variables in a cookie cutter fashion. Too many variable combinations to program on a cost effective basis yet.
Well Terry, keep in mind that he seems to expect all worn metals to show up in the spectrometric analysis. The fact that the spectrometer has limitations renders the entire process useless.
On another note in this thread, I think manufacturers are well aware that most people keep their cars for something like 60k miles, so they're not worried about losing sales because their engines can last 200k. Most new-car buyers never keep them that long; having them running beyond the first owner is simply helping them build a better reputation for having durability beyond what *their* customers will likely use.
I went back and re-read this entire thread, and I *still* don't really understand what QD's argument is.
I'm not sure if it's about oil change intervals, or engine wear, or synthetic oil, or selling old trucks, or UOAs, or what.
Cheers, 3MP
On another note in this thread, I think manufacturers are well aware that most people keep their cars for something like 60k miles, so they're not worried about losing sales because their engines can last 200k. Most new-car buyers never keep them that long; having them running beyond the first owner is simply helping them build a better reputation for having durability beyond what *their* customers will likely use.
I went back and re-read this entire thread, and I *still* don't really understand what QD's argument is.
Cheers, 3MP
Actually, your statement is true to a point, the ATSM tests used do measure wear, but not in an auto/truck engine. they do rely on bench tests that are becoming increasingly more valid to simulate certain types of wear - maybe, or so they used to think. The closest anyone to my knowledge that has come close is the cummins NTC test, but since that is a TTD test (test to destruction) the results are extrapolated from new engine-->wrecked engine, to infer projected oil life* But from conversations I have had with employees at actual labs, oil analysis has shown equally 3 cases: 1) more or less on the money. 2) more wear than has actually occured. 3) less wear than has actually occured. and the kicker is, the tests have been performed on the SAME engine with the SAME oil - removing the factor of perhaps one additive package v s another. but what they have also shown is that the oils degrade at relatively the same pace as each other (meaning if a dino oil is 10% ruined in x miles, so is the syn oil) and that if driving habits are the same, and barring material failure, the motors wear at the same rate (which is the point I was trying to illustrate with my own fleet examples: 3 vehicles with similar milages, 1 kept meticulous, 2 not so meticulous: gut feeling tells me the actual wear inside, will differ proportionate to the measured specs of the oil. we will know all too soon.
like I said in the last post, I will NEVER get taken up on my offer. this site is looking for sponsors, heck, Ill front the labor and parts to do teh teardown and assembly of the guinea pig. thats called putting your money where your mouth is.
* - of note, whereas in the past, fleet long haul trucks would make anywhere from 600K-1M miles before a major, today it is more like 400-600K with stricter sheduled pms, UOA by all the manus and increased use of synthetics. sorta counter intuitive huh?
but your last sentence says it all: there is no way with any degree of accuracy to link a UOA to actual wear in a motor. Now that you agree, if we can get the rest of the ducks in line...
oh and since you like web published things...
lets quote from the field reference guide of a respected fleet testing facility....
they give the returns with 3 colors to catch ur eyes.
the wording for yellow and red clearly states that abnormal or advanced wear may exist. (sounds like case 1, but probably case 2 in my previous post)
point being, not even the labs that perform the tests will go out on the limb to say 'your motor is worn'. May and maybe are the best they can do.
well shoot. maybe the earth will get hit by a large rock...
- Status
Similar threads
