M1 and Fe -additives?

[y_p_w]

quote:

---

Originally posted by buster:
Many on here constantly references the ACEA A3 spec and IMO misuse it to justify their position. What is said above is not true at all IMO. Why then do we see someone using a cheap $1qt oil have lower Fe then some synthetics? Why do we see the 20wt oils show outstanding valve train wear? These are not A3 rated oils. It just doesn't jive.

---

I've seen the requirement list for A1/A3-04. About the only difference is that A1 oils are allowed to be out of grade slightly after the shear-stability test and that the HTHS MUST be under 3.5. The A3 oils must stay in grade at the end of the shear-stability test and the HTHS MUST be at least 3.5.

http://www.infineum.com/information/gaseng2004.pdf

 

[buster]

http://www.rtvanderbilt.com/news_19.htm

quote:

---

We have found unexpectedly good antiwear performance for this additive. OCD-289 is a non-phosphorous, non-sulfur additive which provides antiwear performance exceeding ZnDTPs in our bench screening test.OCD-289 is an excellent candidate for an antiwear agent to meet the proposed ILSAC GF-4 Performance Standards that places limits on both phosphorus ( 0.05% max.) and sulfur (0.50% max.) in the finished passenger car engine oil. The borate in addition can form an iron borate with the metal surface and as a result applies a hard surface layer directly to the metal.

---

Not sure if it's the same Boron.

quote:

---

Conventional Petroleum or Synthetic oils will NOT show ANY Iron in FRESH OIL

SynLube™ however due to unique chemical formulation has typically 50 PPM in the INITIAL FILL OIL and about 75 PPM in the ADD OIL of Iron, because some of the ""sacrificial"" antioxidants contain Fe atoms in their chemical molecular make up.

Normally laboratories "Flag" Fe if PPM is greater than 100, although levels below 1,000 rarely translate into any mechanical problems or abnormal wear even in a Conventional Oil.

For practical purposes about 100 should be subtracted from the Lab report to project any "wear" and that is only simple rule.

---

[ June 06, 2005, 07:26 PM: Message edited by: buster ]

 

[1911]

The bottom line here is that the 1911 man got a little bit upset reading this post as it clearly exemplifies what we know as the "death of reasoning" in the United States. You know, not one jabroni here has considered asking the logical question......the reasonable question. And since nobody thought to ask it, I don't know why I should expect anyone to answer it but here it is nonetheless as a lesson in logical thought if for nothing else.

If the extra Fe shown in UOA's with certain lubes (like M1) are due to the removal of surface films (which these lubes help to create) which are good and required for good AW protection, then why the **** do the oils that alledgedly do not form these films (thus not showing higher UOA iron from these surface active film compounds) not show a lot of wear?

Ya know, the 1911 man is simply going to have to help out here due to the lack of logical thought. You see.... Logic dictates the devil or the deep blue sea here folks with this hot potato. If these films are needed, then you should have bad wear from the engines without them. If the films are not needed, then these surface active effects are tantamount to a corrosion process folks!!!!!!!

One way around this dilemma would be to say that the low Fe UOA oils create films which are stable and do not get removed and then reform. No jabroni here has proposed this idea yet and nonetheless, it may be needed to logically explain one's way out of this contradiction of thought. Another way out is to say that these Fe containing films are really not needed (at least in an Otto Cyle engine), thus they amount to a negative factor and are tantamount to corrosion. Another way out is to say that such films are protective and that engines/lubes that do not form them (thus showing lower amounts of very small Fe particles in the standard UOA) are actually experiencing more wear which is simply not showing up on UOA's perhaps due to particle size.

Now let's put the marijuana cigarettes down and get some answers to this dilemma.

I expect a little bit more reasoning to be demonstrated here. And I also expect an answer from somebody **** it. I'm here to get to logical thinking. I'm not here to make friends.....my students don't like me and neither do you but you will get logical when you read my posts.......and you will master deductive reasoning and think like a champion before I'm done with you. You will figure out what questions need to be asked.

 

[goodvibes]

I was thinking the same thing. After an initial break in with M1 does a recurring sacrificial layer of FE constitute wear? I didn't ask it specifically because it's somewhat understood that metal loss is just that and if it doesn't stop then it's wear for whatever reason. I think the real question is whether or not the iron is from the borate compounds or the motor. Even if it's from the motor, it's still always in the normal range on UOAs with good motors. It's an interesting question but I think it should be restated for newbies that even in the worst possible scenario, what we're talking about isn't something that would stop the motor from outlasting the rest of the vehicle.

 

[1sttruck]

Typical HDEOs are thicker as well as having more robust additives. The thinner HDEOs, like XD3 30 weights not available in the US, also have more robust additive pacs. Both seem to generate less Fe in UOAs compared to Mobil 1 PCMO. Comparing say a 30 weight Mobil 1 PCMO and a 30 weight HDEO, where film behavior will be similar, I'd guess that the the more robust anit-wear additives in the HDEO is producing less wear than the PCMO, but it's a guess on my part as there are several places that Fe can reside and end up in an UOA. The simpler explanation though is that Mobil 1 30W PCMO is resulting in more wear than the HDEO.

 

[Jay]

The notion that corrosive wear isn't really wear is nonsense. If you use a certain brand of oil that causes soft wear metals to increase over another brand--that's wear and that's bad--plain and simple. The same is true of iron. If one brand causes more iron to appear in a UOA, whether the increased iron is friction wear or corrosive wear, the iron came from the engine and ended up in the oil--which is bad.

Stop making things so difficult.

 

[Hirev]

Seems like the words slightly elevated iron are key here. They don't seem to far out of line from what I see. If Mobil 1 were actually wearing a bunch per 1000 miles it seems like lead would spike given how soft it is.

Correct me if I'm wrong but the UOA on many diesel motors seem to show more iron per 1000 miles than Mobil 1 on gas motors. Many of these diesel motors are supposed to go well over 200,000 miles.

 

[hannaco]

I would hope that the average diesel motor would go well beyound the 200K mark. It's just the way they work. The rings over time will wear a bit, as will the cylendar walls. But, looking at the UOAs, the FE is often in the single digets.

 

[Gary Allan]

quote:

---

I'm not here to make friends.....my students don't like me and neither do you but you will get logical when you read my posts.......and you will master deductive reasoning and think like a champion before I'm done with you. You will figure out what questions need to be asked.

---

Don't discount your overtures here ..no..no

Heck, that little bit there gives me that "group hug" feeling (visions of Wayne's World, "No, man ..I mean I really love you." ..or..do you want to play Burt Reynolds and have me be the guy wearing the glasses in Deliverence??

)

quote:

---

No jabroni here has proposed this idea yet

---

Well, now that's no longer true. A jabroni has proposed this idea. Thank you!

But, by all means, please author a few topics to mend our ills and dysfunction ...since we surely need it. Pehaps you have the time to foster us with a selection of works that could match the offerings of the fine Dr. Haas (all due respect to the fine doctor

) and liberate us from out bonds of mediocrety ..and elevate us from the mundane to the exceptional ...well, perhaps functional would be a better expectation.


This is looking for a simple, plausible, explanation for a minor, characteristic, blip on the radar. Not a remarkable flaw. It is easy to say that there is something unique to this ..but falls along the lines of what makes one shade of blonde show up more in certain ethnic groups over others in like environments.

quote:

---

If the extra Fe shown in UOA's with certain lubes (like M1) are due to the removal of surface films (which these lubes help to create) which are good and required for good AW protection, then why the **** do the oils that alledgedly do not form these films (thus not showing higher UOA iron from these surface active film compounds) not show a lot of wear?

---

How do you know the origin of the free Fe? How do you know what operation/function/process produced it? How do you know, with all the logical thinking in the known universe, without knowing the chemical reactive operations taking place ..just what produced it? Suppose you're the king of logic ..but haven't a dimes worth of chemistry and are as capable as a primate is of decoding binary?? Suppose there is some modality that allows Fe to be undetectible in VOA ..yet produces it in UOA? Can you eliminate this logically?

quote:

---

One way around this dilemma would be to say that the low Fe UOA oils create films which are stable and do not get removed and then reform. No jabroni here has proposed this idea yet and nonetheless, it may be needed to logically explain one's way out of this contradiction of thought.

---

Another way around it is to say that the tooth fairy sneaks in and sprinkles Fe in your oil when you aren't looking. This too may be needed to avoid contradiction of thought if you don't have the missing link. That is, any jamboni can pull anything out of their azz if they have nothing else to pull out. Yours produced this.

btw-although I authored the original post, I have nothing more than casual interest in the topic. This is simply an annoying little characteristic that someone surely had thought out already to length and could surely save any brain drain on logically determining the cause through elimination of the unlikely.

(assume genuflections as I retreat out of the audience room)

[ June 07, 2005, 08:01 AM: Message edited by: Gary Allan ]

 

[TooSlick]

Buster,

You clearly don't understand the scientific method or design of experiments....

You can see differences in Fe wear rates even amoung the various grades of Mobil 1. For example, their 0w-30 does NOT provide the wear protection of their 10w-30 or 0w-40, even though they use nearly identical additive chemistries. The reason is that the 0w-30 uses a thinner, less protective basestock. Delvac 1 works better than even the 0w-40 in minimizing valve train and ring/cylinder wear for three reasons:

1) It's about 10% thicker in terms of HT/HS viscosity
2) It's almost completely shear stable
3) It uses an optimized level of ZDP - still the most effective AW additive available.

Forget Moly and/or boron or any other magic "whiffle dust".... The key to getting good wear protection under high pressures is using a thicker base stock, a shear stable VI modifier, and an optimized level of ZDP. It's really that simple and any review of 15w-40 commercial engine oils - with regards to additive chemistry - tells you the same thing. This is also why SAE 15w-40 was the standard for high performance, gas/diesel engine passenger cars in Europe for several decades....

Ted

 

[buster]

Ted, where are you getting this information from? Where do you get the idea that the 0w-30 shows more wear? It does? I have yet to see this. You push ZDDP and completely ignore the fact that all oils now have low ZDDP and are on the thin side in the US. So that means any oils other then RL/Amsoil must show higher valvetrain wear based on your thinking. Maybe you are right, however, I don't see it.

Mobil 1 is but one of many oils on the thin side using GF-4 level of ZDDP. Other more expensive additives are replacing ZDDP, again, something your Amsoil has yet to jump on. Do you even read what Molekule posts on here?

I've also said, if you read what I wrote, that you could be right and that it could be wear, but when someone goes from Mobil 1 to a cheap dino oil with GF-4 levels of additives and Fe wear drops, your theory is blown away. Oh, and how do you account for all the 20wt great UOA's? You never answered that. Put Amsoil aside for a moment.

 

[buster]

I'm waiting for a response to the question above. If ZDDP, thicker basestocks and ACEA A3 help reduce wear, why have so many GF-4 Dino Oils showed great wear and low Fe? Ted, Amsoil uses ZDDP bc it's cheap, no other reason.

 

[TooSlick]

I'm talking about general lubrication theory, not if brand "A" is better than brand "M", or brand "M" is better than brand "RL". You can always pick and choose selected data to prove any point you are trying make - that's worthless information in this discussion.

Where do I get this information from??? Well, you've been indirectly paying for me to learn (and teach), closely related engineering disciplines for the past 30 years. When you pay someone good money for their professional opinion, you really should listen to them...

FWIW, synthetic basestocks DO NOT provide inherently better wear protection than petroleum basestocks of similar viscosities - except in extremely cold or hot weather. It is the anti-wear and detergent/dispersant additives that do the "heavy lifting" when it comes to modern lubricant formulations. All things being equal, a PAO based lube will outlast a Group III based lube, and a Group III lube will outlast a petroleum basestock. But that's really about it....

 

[1sttruck]

"OEM supports 5w-20 and GF-4 last time I checked. Not oils with high levels of ZDDP. "

For vehicles where cleanliness and wear protection are the primary requirements of an oil lots of ZDDP is used, such as with HDEOs. Looking at a chart of Mobil 1 oils the ZDDP levels for Delvac 1 are similar to the levels in their PCMO 'racing' oil. As mentioned previously people use Delvac 1 to solve wear problems with their synthetic PCMOs. 5W20 is used for fuel economy, and GF-4 is a spec primarily for fuel economy and emissions. Vehicles getting good UOA results with 5w20 GF-4 oils does not change the fact why GF-4 5w20 oils are recommended, and it doesn't change the fact that high levels of ZDDP still appear to be the best way to get good wear protection, at least in the HDEO and PCMO oils available to the public.


"The issue was originally - M1 & Fe levels. My point was, why do oils of similar visosity and additive levels show great wear."

There are two issues here. One is the mechanism of film formation and disruption which affects Fe levels in an engine, and the other is the confounding of wear estimates based upon Fe levels in UOAs by that mechanism. I think that Gary started the thread off assuming that Mobil 1 doesn't produce high wear but wondered why the high Fe levels, while Ted suggested that it probably is due to wear and offered some good explanations for why that is the case. I think that there is some increased wear, but also susupect that film disruption seperate from wear is also playing a part.

 

[Gary Allan]

quote:

---

I think that Gary started the thread off assuming that Mobil 1 doesn't produce high wear but wondered why the high Fe levels,

---

Correct. One could reason that one like oil would be as good as another ..on average. Some may show some characteristic with one engine or another due to the different engine specific features (OHC, etc.) ..but M1, in many instances, seems to, in UOA, spawn the comment, "Fe is a little high, as expected with M1". One could assume that AW film formation would be broad in scope and not lacking in any one area of protection in a premier lubricant. That is, it would be unlikely for this type of "defect" to be engineered in, so to speak, unless it was exchanged for some "greater benefit".

In reality, the differences that we see definitely don't constitute "alarmist" reactions ...just noteworthy observation and contemplation.

 

[1sttruck]

Another factor to consider is film strength as well as thickness. I'll guess that under light loads a thicker dino film can produce less wear, everything else being equal, while under high loads a good synthetic will tend to develop a stronger film, especially compared to a dino that thins appreciably under increased load and temeprature. The people running a generic dino under light loads, '..hold on Martha, we're about ready to break the limit again ...' (speed limit), will probably consistently produce good UOAs, while the same oil might not work as well under higher loads, '..hold on Martha, we;re about to break the 2X limit again'. It seems possible that the higher strength but thinner film synthetic could produce more wear at lighter loads, but still provide better protection at higher loads.

 

[TooSlick]

Just to confuse things even more, I wouldn't concentrate so much on the second number of the SAE grade. The first number is equally important for valvetrain protection under "mixed mode" lubrication conditions.

All things being equal, a 10w-30 will provide better protection than a 0w-30, a 15w-40 will provide better protection than a 0w-40 and a 20w-50 will provide better protection than a 5w-50....The reason is that the 10w/15w/20w formulations use higher molecular weight basestocks.

 

[jason07-1zzfe]

Buster, never thought I'd say this, but you are the man. LOL!
I am of the opinion that the Fe in M1 is result of a performance deficit. Most likely corrosion. But could also be wear...
As an example, some have stated that a Jeep 4.0L need a 40wt. UOA here have proved this false. Some have switched to a HDEO 40wt and resulted in lower iron, but I believe it is due to the HDEO formulation, not viscosity. This was proven in instances where one had ran 10w30 M1 in the 4.0L with higher iron values, then simply by adding LC resulted in significant drop in iron. LC has an anti-corrosive effect. And it has been stated that HDEO have more corrosion protection.
This I beleive is where the connection meets.
Viscosity is an over-rated aspect of modern lubes

 

[buster]

quote:

---

There are two issues here. One is the mechanism of film formation and disruption which affects Fe levels in an engine, and the other is the confounding of wear estimates based upon Fe levels in UOAs by that mechanism. I think that Gary started the thread off assuming that Mobil 1 doesn't produce high wear but wondered why the high Fe levels, while Ted suggested that it probably is due to wear and offered some good explanations for why that is the case. I think that there is some increased wear, but also susupect that film disruption seperate from wear is also playing a part.

---

Well said, that really is the issue here.


Lot of good points made in this thread. I could care less who is right or wrong, just trying to really understand what we see. After all, this whole website is about comparing oil A to B, even though it's not that simple. I have no idea what the answer is. All of these variables play a role of some sort. Mobil 1 being the only PAO synthetic on the shelf, might have to "skimp" on a particular component to keep costs down, hence the Fe level. Who knows... I'll leave it at that.

 

[Winston]

I truly have no idea what is happening. But I get the feeling that basis for the explanations for the high Fe is something like. "Mobil 1 is our hero PAO synthetic oil. It has to be good oil. The Fe must be from something else." Most of the explanations for the source of Fe seem to be pretty far fetched. I think Redline would be imediately condemned if it started showing high Fe.