Hmm, I would have thought that the cams would go flat on a 4.6 if they ran dry.
M1 5W-30 knocking noise
- Thread starter metroplex
- Start date
- Status
Patman
Staff member
It is just fine, but it's not exceptional, that is correct. Mobil 1 is not the holy grail, like I pointed out this morning, it sure tends to show a high amount of iron in the UOAs that use it. I think it's corrosion fighting additives must be pretty weak.quote:
Originally posted by buster:
I don't know how anyone can slam M1 right now. They must blind, stupid or brand loyalists of a different brand!It's not the oil and Mobil 1 is just fine.
Patman, I respect your opinions and knowledge but you have me stunned sometimes. There is no HOly Grail. How and why do you think Mobil 1 is not good at fighting corrosion? I use all brands of oil, but I think it's insane to think that Mobil 1 is not as good as Amsoil or any other brand right now. What are you people looking at to base these claims? And please dont say an "LS1" engine.
Patman
Staff member
I just refuse to be thoroughly impressed with Mobil 1. When I see a report that has 1ppm of lead, but then 40ppm of iron, that tells me right there that Mobil 1 is not fighting corrosion all that well.
Seriously, do a search in our UOA section under the name Mobil 1, and look at just how many reports you find where the lead looks really good, in the 1 to 5ppm range, but then the iron is 4 or 5 times higher, and I'm sure it's mostly due to corrosion inside the engine. I just don't believe Mobil 1 is anywhere near as good an oil as their advertising would have you believe. I truly believe Amsoil, Redline, Schaeffer Oil and GC 0w30 would show better wear numbers over Mobil 1 under the same conditions. 3MP will be proving it very shortly.
Of course I am being extremely picky. I do realize that someone using Mobil 1 can still get 200,000 or even 250,000 miles out of their engine in all likelyhood. But for someone who drives extra hard, or wants to get 300,000 miles out of their engine, they are better off with other oils. This is all IMHO of course, but backed up with keen observation of the UOAs on here.
[ September 29, 2003, 08:06 PM: Message edited by: Patman ]
Seriously, do a search in our UOA section under the name Mobil 1, and look at just how many reports you find where the lead looks really good, in the 1 to 5ppm range, but then the iron is 4 or 5 times higher, and I'm sure it's mostly due to corrosion inside the engine. I just don't believe Mobil 1 is anywhere near as good an oil as their advertising would have you believe. I truly believe Amsoil, Redline, Schaeffer Oil and GC 0w30 would show better wear numbers over Mobil 1 under the same conditions. 3MP will be proving it very shortly.
Of course I am being extremely picky. I do realize that someone using Mobil 1 can still get 200,000 or even 250,000 miles out of their engine in all likelyhood. But for someone who drives extra hard, or wants to get 300,000 miles out of their engine, they are better off with other oils. This is all IMHO of course, but backed up with keen observation of the UOAs on here.
[ September 29, 2003, 08:06 PM: Message edited by: Patman ]
Patman, it seems you have an Axe to grind with M1. Your claims are false. We have reports of Amsoil, Redline and Schaeffer's that all have high iron and high lead at times. I really think you mislead people when making these claims. They just aren't supported by any solid evidence. And YES, you are waaaaaayyy to picky!
BTW, some of the best UOA's on here are Mobil 1. If any oil you should be doubting, it's REDLINE!
Put German Castrol 0W-30 and drive off knowing your truck is lovin life. So will you.
Patman,
Most iron wear comes from either the valvetrain components or cylinder walls. The valvetrain parts operate under "mixed mode" lubrication conditions. In other words, you have a mixture of hydrodynamic and boundary lubrication, depending on oil temps, loads etc. For example, the cam lobe/valve lifter interface is lubed by the wedge of oil that is trapped between the front of the cam and the valve lifter. However, as the cam rotates and you approach the cam "nose", the pressures get very high and most if not all of the oil is squeezed out. This is when you depend on the antiwear additives and the sacrifical layer they form. Abnormally high valvetrain wear is normally from using an oil that is either too thin or has insufficient antiwear additives or both.
Cylinder wear is somewhat different....In this case, you have the acidic by-products of combustion that get past the piston rings and coat the cylinder walls. Preventing corrosive wear under these conditions depends on the very thin oil residue on the cylinders. So the detergent/dispersant additive chemistry comes into play and a high TBN oil will be beneficial.
If an oil wasn't preventing corrosion, you would tend to see high Pb levels. Lead is very soft and is easily dissolved by the type of organic acids tha combustion byproducts generate. I think that Mobil 1 does an excellent job in this regard. If iron levels in some of the M1 analyses are elevated - and I'm not convinced they are - it's more likely iron coming from the valvetrain. This is particularly true of OHC or DOHC engines with direct acting tappets and high pressures between parts. While we are on this topic, I've noticed that iron wear with Redline tends to be excellent. I suspect the thick/stable viscosity and higher levels of Zn/P/MoDtc contribute to this, particularly with regards to valvetrain components.
TS
Most iron wear comes from either the valvetrain components or cylinder walls. The valvetrain parts operate under "mixed mode" lubrication conditions. In other words, you have a mixture of hydrodynamic and boundary lubrication, depending on oil temps, loads etc. For example, the cam lobe/valve lifter interface is lubed by the wedge of oil that is trapped between the front of the cam and the valve lifter. However, as the cam rotates and you approach the cam "nose", the pressures get very high and most if not all of the oil is squeezed out. This is when you depend on the antiwear additives and the sacrifical layer they form. Abnormally high valvetrain wear is normally from using an oil that is either too thin or has insufficient antiwear additives or both.
Cylinder wear is somewhat different....In this case, you have the acidic by-products of combustion that get past the piston rings and coat the cylinder walls. Preventing corrosive wear under these conditions depends on the very thin oil residue on the cylinders. So the detergent/dispersant additive chemistry comes into play and a high TBN oil will be beneficial.
If an oil wasn't preventing corrosion, you would tend to see high Pb levels. Lead is very soft and is easily dissolved by the type of organic acids tha combustion byproducts generate. I think that Mobil 1 does an excellent job in this regard. If iron levels in some of the M1 analyses are elevated - and I'm not convinced they are - it's more likely iron coming from the valvetrain. This is particularly true of OHC or DOHC engines with direct acting tappets and high pressures between parts. While we are on this topic, I've noticed that iron wear with Redline tends to be excellent. I suspect the thick/stable viscosity and higher levels of Zn/P/MoDtc contribute to this, particularly with regards to valvetrain components.
TS
As usual TS, great post. Hypothetical question: If Patman is right, which I dont think he is, would that suggest that Mobil 1 is too thin? Right now in it's current form, Mobil is using a decent amount of Moly, Boron and a ton of Calcium. This to me would be a good combination of EP/AW additives.
BTW, Patman, I went back 4 pages worth of UOA's and I think you need to take another look. Mobil 1 produces no higher iron amounts then any other oil.
[ September 29, 2003, 09:15 PM: Message edited by: buster ]
I'm afraid this forum is starting to head in the direction of may other forums I look at with modulators and older/senior members playing god. The old "It's my way or the highway" mentality is becoming ever more apparent. Now we have the Redline bashing without any facts to back it up and of course Mobil still gets more than it's share. Terry says RL is the go and yet we are to mistrust him on this alone but every other single opinion/comment of his we accept without question? You can't have it both ways guys!!
I agree and I'm guilty at times of this. Even though Redline's UOA's have been sketchy, I still bought a case for $90 bc I believe Terry and the other's about this oil. However, when you get others who constantly distort the truth , wanting .00000001 ppm of iron and claming M1 is too thin etc., you start seeing all of these new posters start questioning what to use. That is where I have a problem. Patman, I have to blame you partially for doing this. I think you spread a mass hysteria about Mobil 1 all over the internet.
I have friends with Corvettes that go to ls1.com and corvetteforum.com that start going out of their minds bc they keep seeing your "Mobil 1 is too thin" threads.
[ September 29, 2003, 09:50 PM: Message edited by: buster ]
WARNING: SOAPBOX POST
During the existence of any entity, there are appropriate times to do a self-assessment to ensure that entity is accomplishing what stakeholders want it to. I would hope, that with only a few exceptions, most members on this board want to learn more about lubrication, etc and to help others do the same. I believe this is true because so many people, when they join us, express admiration for what they see (I hope what they see is not superficial). If we are going to preserve our credibility, each of us needs to ask ouselves before we post, "Do I REALLY KNOW what I am talking about/recommending/proposing and am I trying to be unbiased except where the data supports that bias?" There are people who are going to act based on what we say because they believe we are credible. I would ask everyone (I am figuratively looking in the mirror as I say this), except when they are intentionally attempting to be humorous, to stop and consider what you are about to post and ask yourself: (1) do I really have the knowledge to say what I am about to say? (2) could I back it up, if someone "calls me out" on it? (3) do I realize someone may do something to their engine based on what I am posting; (4) would I do to MY engine what I am posting and (5) Am I saying what I am because I believe it to be true or to push my biases on others? It is fun to be part of the dialogue, but it is important that we preserve the reputation for credibility that this site seems to enjoy.
[ September 29, 2003, 10:41 PM: Message edited by: pscholte ]
During the existence of any entity, there are appropriate times to do a self-assessment to ensure that entity is accomplishing what stakeholders want it to. I would hope, that with only a few exceptions, most members on this board want to learn more about lubrication, etc and to help others do the same. I believe this is true because so many people, when they join us, express admiration for what they see (I hope what they see is not superficial). If we are going to preserve our credibility, each of us needs to ask ouselves before we post, "Do I REALLY KNOW what I am talking about/recommending/proposing and am I trying to be unbiased except where the data supports that bias?" There are people who are going to act based on what we say because they believe we are credible. I would ask everyone (I am figuratively looking in the mirror as I say this), except when they are intentionally attempting to be humorous, to stop and consider what you are about to post and ask yourself: (1) do I really have the knowledge to say what I am about to say? (2) could I back it up, if someone "calls me out" on it? (3) do I realize someone may do something to their engine based on what I am posting; (4) would I do to MY engine what I am posting and (5) Am I saying what I am because I believe it to be true or to push my biases on others? It is fun to be part of the dialogue, but it is important that we preserve the reputation for credibility that this site seems to enjoy.
[ September 29, 2003, 10:41 PM: Message edited by: pscholte ]
Not to step on any toes, but I think Mobil 1 gets unfair praise as well as bashing. Talk to anybody on the street and mention Mobil 1, and most of them will assume it is the best without any data to back it up. Go on VWVortex, Audiworld, etc., and the overwhelming number of folks there will use Mobil 1 and claim that it is superior to all others.
Maybe it is, maybe it isn't.
I'm not here to say Mobil 1 is better or worse than any other oil (frankly, I don't have enough technical knowledge about oils to make that claim). My only point is that there seems to be a lot of blind faith when it comes to Mobil 1 and it goes in both directions. I know that in the Audi 1.8T motor (not the VW/Jetta 1.8), there are a few Group III reports that are better than Mobil 1's UofA's (can't speak for other cars because I don't pay as close attention). But it seems like everytime a group III like Valvoline outperforms Mobil 1, people just pass it off. But when Mobil comes through, it's another data point to justify why it's such a great oil. Meanwhile, Valvoline is just another inferior synthetic.
Maybe it is, maybe it isn't.
I'm not here to say Mobil 1 is better or worse than any other oil (frankly, I don't have enough technical knowledge about oils to make that claim). My only point is that there seems to be a lot of blind faith when it comes to Mobil 1 and it goes in both directions. I know that in the Audi 1.8T motor (not the VW/Jetta 1.8), there are a few Group III reports that are better than Mobil 1's UofA's (can't speak for other cars because I don't pay as close attention). But it seems like everytime a group III like Valvoline outperforms Mobil 1, people just pass it off. But when Mobil comes through, it's another data point to justify why it's such a great oil. Meanwhile, Valvoline is just another inferior synthetic.
Consistency is also very important.
If out of 300 Valvoline synpower UOAs, 20 are really good - then it means nothing if out of 300 M1 UOAs, 250 are good.
Generally speaking I haven't heard of any horror stories or problems with M1, and since it was $3.77/qt I decided to switch to synthetics in my 4.6
If out of 300 Valvoline synpower UOAs, 20 are really good - then it means nothing if out of 300 M1 UOAs, 250 are good.
Generally speaking I haven't heard of any horror stories or problems with M1, and since it was $3.77/qt I decided to switch to synthetics in my 4.6
True, metro. The valvoline thing was just an example. I just think that, as a general trend, a group III that performs well gets brushed off, while Mobil often gets the benefit of the doubt. Anyways, I don't want to rip Mobil 1 because I think it is a very good oil. I just wanted to provide a counter point to the claim that Mobil gets unfairly bashed. Heck, I may even go back to it if the German Castrol doesn't work out.
But it would suck to have to return all that German Castrol
[ September 29, 2003, 11:12 PM: Message edited by: VeeDubb ]
I've got the 4.2L V6 and it does the exact same thing. Has since new. Ford says its fine, even started a new one for me to see/hear the noise. They claim it is the drive belt and tensioner, but seems like oil viscosity changes the frequency and the pitch. With 70k on the truck now, I'm just gonna keep running it.
BTW - Does anyone know what the actual fix is for the 4.6?
BTW - Does anyone know what the actual fix is for the 4.6?
Fix for?
If you mean for the above issue of defective heads, replacement of the heads is the solution.
If you mean for the above issue of defective heads, replacement of the heads is the solution.
- Status
Similar threads
