M1 and Fe -additives?

[Gary Allan]

Okay, we've seen M1 show slightly elevated Fe levels when other metals have been at par with other like products in like weights. We could reason that one oil may, more or less and indexed over an appropriate OCI/weight/etc., will show like numbers ..or at least a like grouping of numbers (higher or lower).

In the case of M1, however, we see typical elevated Fe levels. Now some have suggested that these elevated Fe levels are somehow part of the additive package. I've gone through the VOA library and found, without exception, that the entire M1/D1 lineup has 1-2ppm Fe in their virgin state. So where does it come from

This leads me to the question about the VOA/UOA process and perhaps how additives work once inside the engine. Can we assume that the XYZFTR process doesn't break down compounds into their sub components? Can we assume that some additive compounds are broken down leaving, in the case of M1, free Fe in the oil??

If this has been explained before, my apology. If you put Fe and M1 in the search feature you get about 300 hits ..and about 50 of them didn't yield anything about it.

 

[buster]

quote:

---

some have suggested that these elevated Fe levels are somehow part of the additive package

---

I believe this to be the case. Just as RL interacts with certain bearing materials, Mobil 1 probably does the same. It's not ZDDP as some have explained, because all oils today have low levels of ZDDP, including Amsoil.

Another interesting thing is if you look at Mobil 1 UOA's in certain cars, Fe is very low. Other's it's higher. I believe this could be because of the additives as you mentioned.

 

[goodvibes]

Could be but I think it's something else. When some redline, molabrew, or synpower gets added the FE # goes down. Perhaps it's the change of chemistry that is not allowing M1 to release FE when plating but I don't think so. My guess is that the slightly elevated FE is just a relatively insignificant characteristic of M1 wear or oxidation. That wouldn't stop me from using it but I do like quieter oils.

 

[MolaKule]

M1 and many oils start off with a certain level of Fe compound in their formulations.

The anti-wear compounds react with the iron and steel to form ferrous-phospates, ferrous-borates, etc. Some of the ferrous (iron) compounds are liberated into oil when separated from the surfacial film.

I think way too much is being made of this unless the tbn goes downhill quickly or oxidation spikes.

You can't take one variable and then say the oil is bad.

You have to have a GLOBAL view of oils and analysis.

 

[buster]

Makes sense as to why we see it in some cars and not others. Different materials the same way RL acts in certain engines. Thanks for posting this.

 

[1sttruck]

For those drawing conclusions about wear and doing oil comparisons based upon Fe in UOAs, it obviously confounds the issue. It's also what I found awhile back when I was babbling about 'films' possibly affecting UOA results.

 

[buster]

quote:

---

For those drawing conclusions about wear and doing oil comparisons based upon Fe in UOAs, it obviously confounds the issue

---

I agree. It's just not that easy to really determine an oils performance based on a $20 UOA. You can get the amount of life left left in the oil and look for possible coolant leaks etc., but determing wear is just not that good. Redline's take on these reports seems to be correct. Which is also why Roy Howell laughed at me when discussing it with him.

 

[Gary Allan]

quote:

---

For those drawing conclusions about wear and doing oil comparisons based upon Fe in UOAs, it obviously confounds the issue. It's also what I found awhile back when I was babbling about 'films' possibly affecting UOA results.

---

Surely, as you've pointed out on numerous occasions, there is chemical bonding and exchanging going on with most oils to some extent. Molekule confirms this assertion. Naturally one has to index what you're looking at (surely with something like RL for example).

One of the big issues I'm unsure how people are going to cope with is the higher Na levels of the new XOM oils (Mobil 5000 and Uniflow). These have VOA levels in the 2-400 level. So now some use Si additives ...some use Na additives...and those are two fairly critical indicators.

 

[haley10]

I'm getting far afield here guys, but bear with me. A normal healthy man has a pretty high concentration of iron in the blood. This does not come from metal to metal wear contact, but simply from the natural foods we eat. The proper level is essential.

I know an engine is not biological...but something to think about.

I'm not sure the presence of iron automatically means your engine is grinding itself up. All the other factors must be considered. That's why I use a professional oil analyst if I get a uoa.

Fe is only harmful if it can truly be determined to be from actual "wear" or corrosion.

Just a thought, but think... you've got a lot more ppm of Iron circulating in you blood stream than most uoa's are ever going to show, at least I hope so. Isn't that part of how we get oxygen?

[ June 04, 2005, 12:21 PM: Message edited by: haley10 ]

 

[buster]

haley I believe you are correct. Take Redline, it's reputation on BITOG is mediocre at best. Ask the expersts about it and people that race, or that perform tear downs, they will tell a different story. But because RL interacts with Pb in some engines, doesn't mean it's wear or even an issue. Mercedes, Porcshe etc. would not be using an oil that showed high valve train wear IMO. I'm sure the chemists that design these oils know all about wear rates. In particular, the EP stuff was tested in the field for 2 years in multiple engine configurations in multiple climates. I doubt it's an issue IMO.

 

[LarryL]

Are Fe levels only useful if plotted of many UOA's, with the same oil and the same conditions?

 

[hannaco]

I would assume so. Over the past 80K miles using RL, the Fe level per 1K miles is within +/- .4 ppm in my motor. Without trending, you only have a one time snapshot of what happened sometime in the past.

 

[sully]

Makes me realize how important trending is in oil analysis. You really need to establish a baseline.

 

[hannaco]

Yes, more than just one set of numbers is needed. You also have to stop looking at just the gross numbers. Some sort of unit such as ppm/k miles is needed so you can compair one set of numbers against another. Otherwise you will see a high number and say that the oil is bad, without looking at how long the oil was used.

 

[TooSlick]

All these AW additives work using a similar mechanism by forming a sacrificial layer that is constantly being removed and replenished. In the case of ZDP, that layer is iron-phosphate, in the case of gear lubricants containing suphur EP additives, it's iron-sulphide, in the case of boron additives, it's iron-borates.

Qualitative differences in lubricants depend in part on how effectively that very thin AW layer is formed on the surface, and how rapidly it can be replenished under high load conditions. If you use a low level of AW additives - and the oil is formulated very thin for maximized fuel efficiency - you are going to see more valve train and/or cylinder wear.

It makes perfect sense to me that the thicker, ACEA "A3/B4" type formulations like the GC/0w-30, Redline, and Amsoil show consistently lower iron levels. The simple reason is that with a thicker oil film and higher oil pressure, you aren't transitioning from hydrodynamic (full flow) to boundary lubrication as often in the high pressure regions of the valvetrain and cylinder walls. Maintaining complete separation of metal is ALWAYS vastly perferrable to relying on AW additives.

Getting the thin, 20wt and 30wt, GF-4 oils to work effectively under high pressures is very difficult and expensive. That's why you see top tier products like the Synergyn 0w-20, or the Mobil 1R, 0w-30 formulated with high levels of MoDTC, Boron and ZDP....Thicker oils can get by with lower add levels, since you have the thicker oil films and inherently better wear protection.

Tooslick

 

[radiometer]

TooSlick,

It pleases me very much when someone well versed takes on the matter you addressed. You presented it well and clearly made your point. Such postings make this forum worth spending some time on.

I can't see why so many would disagree, but I know they have the right to their opinions. When it comes to car care I greatly prefer facts over opinions.

Thank you.

 

[buster]

Ted, what you wrote sounds great, but it doesn't address the issue. How do you explain then dino oils that are as thin or more thin then M1 showing less Fe with less additives? Your missing the point I believe. Mobil 1 uses significantly more Boron. If viscosity ACEA/A3 were the issue, we would not see this with M1 0w-40. BTW, M1R showed higer Fe as well. I really believe it is part of the Boron/additive system they use. Has very little to do with the over rated ACEA A3 spec, especially if you have been paying attention to the stellar 20wt UOA reports we see on here.

 

[haley10]

Buster, Ted's first paragraph did address iron borates. Maybe there is no disagreement.

He didn't say you can't make a great A5, just that you can't inexpensively.

He did address the issue, quite well. In fact maybe he told us the answer.

Might even be a clue there as to how a weaker additive pak might look better in a uoa, to the untrained eye. Remember the micron sizes uoa's look at. Blowing chunks as oppossed to plating up, so to speak.

[ June 06, 2005, 11:27 AM: Message edited by: haley10 ]

 

[1sttruck]

From what I recall on earlier investigation, Fe in an engine can be found:

1. In the engine, obviously :^). Other than that introduced by the oil and possibly the filter, it's the sorce of Fe that we see in the UOA.

2. Fe present in the oil and the filter.

3. Fe that gets incorprated into sludge and varnish, later released by mechanical or chemical means.

4. Fe that gets incorporated in 'films', specifically anti-wear films. Coumpounds that form with Fe may or may not be selective, forming any Fe present whether it's a surface in the engine or just Fe floating in the oil. Some anti-wear films do seem to build at areas of higher temperature and/or load. Some of the lubrication experts can better answer this.

Potentially a lot of Fe can be incorprated into films as there is a lot of surface area in an engine. Different oils seem to inherently produce more or less Fe in UOAs, especially when introducing the oil into an engine that's used a different oil for awhile. I'll guess that oils designed to keep junk suspended, like HDEOs, will also tend to show more Fe in a UOA than other types of oils.

Another attribute of Mobil 1 PCMO that suggests that it might just be producing more wear, is that many complain about how noisy their egines are when using it. More noise tends to suggest less cushioning/higher impacts, which will tend to produce more wear.

 

[buster]

quote:

---

Buster, Ted's first paragraph did address iron borates. Maybe there is no disagreement

---

I really don't know. I don't have the background to give the answer. TS could be right. What I do disagree with is the following:

Mobil 1 uses much more Boron then any other oil on the market that I've seen. When one uses RL and then switches to an oil at a fraction of the cost, but sees Pb of 30ppm(RL) vs 5ppm(dino) on consecutive runs, it suggests it's not wear but a film interaction. Same can be said with Mobil 1. RL we know interacts with different bearing materials and will show different results bc of this. Mobil 1 in Toyota and Honda's is as good as it gets. RL in German VW's is outstanding.

quote:

---

It makes perfect sense to me that the thicker, ACEA "A3/B4" type formulations like the GC/0w-30, Redline, and Amsoil show consistently lower iron levels.

---

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 guess it's best to play it safe and assume what we see is what it is.