M1 excessive iron found in sample

[buster]

Originally Posted By: RI_RS4
It's not what the M1 response says, it's what it does not say that matters. They did not respond at all to the question, but rather went on the attack, by attacking the veracity of the forum. Then they "prove their point" by shifting focus to M1 being factory fill in the Corvette. This is irrelevant to the question. The engine that was spitting out Fe was a Ford engine of totally different design than the Corvette.

Finally, farrarfan1, the Fe numbers quoted from BITOG are interesting, but not important. The fact that this particular engine is seeing Fe wear 3 times higher than the universal average says that something "may" be going on with the engine or the oil. Without additional samples with different oils, and the same oil, there is no way to know for sure. All we can absolutely say is that this engine is seeing more wear than the average. No more. No less.


I agree.

XOM in Va. had so many requests from people about the high Fe that they sent the R&D lab a few reports and asked them about it. They came back and said it was nothing. Who knows.

 

[glennc]

High Fe is so pervasive IMO in M1 samples that I consider the oil to be the presumptive culprit in any such analysis. I do NOT believe it is a problem. I have a suspicion that it is from corrosion and not wear and that the root cause is that the non-polar PAO oils drain relatively easily from engine surfaces between uses. Pure speculation, of course.

 

[farrarfan1]

RI_RS4, as glennc said it may be corrosion as opposed to wear.Who knows, most of the debate is being done based on pure speculation by people not trained to interpret UOAs. Again, I think Mobil's response is accurate.

If the chart that the site owners supplied isn't important then why did they supply it? If it's not accurate then it should be pulled.

 

[MatchboxCar]

Originally Posted By: Eddie
With fuel at div>


Bingo... The engine is having problems. May be its short trips in winter, or not....

M1 did its job here.

 

[Pablo]

Originally Posted By: MatchboxCar
Originally Posted By: Eddie
With fuel at div>


Bingo... The engine is having problems. May be its short trips in winter, or not....

M1 did its job here.


Why would fuel less than 0.5% be a problem? Could be 0%.

 

[RI_RS4]

Originally Posted By: farrarfan1
RI_RS4, as glennc said it may be corrosion as opposed to wear.Who knows, most of the debate is being done based on pure speculation by people not trained to interpret UOAs. Again, I think Mobil's response is accurate.

If the chart that the site owners supplied isn't important then why did they supply it? If it's not accurate then it should be pulled.


farrarfan1, feel free to my comments on the XOM response point by point. You've stated no reason why you think their response is accurate. I've stated my reasons for thinking that it does not even address the original question. I'd like to understand your reasoning.

The chart on this site is meant as a guide. It is not the bible on tribological analysis. If you don't like it, then I suggest that you contact the owners and ask them to remove it. Whether or not the Fe reported in this UOA is acceptable is up for debate. But, there is no doubt that it is higher than average, by a factor of 3:1, which makes it "interesting". Fe is coming from somewhere. Since we don't know the history of this engine, we don't know whether this amount of Iron wear has been on-going, or if it just now increased. As a result, I would not blame Mobil 1 ... just yet. As with all wear, it just depends on where the wear is coming from. You can lose a lot of iron from the cylinder walls without a problem. Lose the same amount from the surface of one small bearing, and there might be a problem.

 

[RI_RS4]

Originally Posted By: Pablo
Originally Posted By: MatchboxCar
Originally Posted By: Eddie
With fuel at div>


Bingo... The engine is having problems. May be its short trips in winter, or not....

M1 did its job here.


Why would fuel less than 0.5% be a problem? Could be 0%.


It would not, assuming that the reported number is accurate. Blackstone is very consistent in missing fuel dilution problems. Their open cup flash point method just does not seem to have the necessary sensitivity

 

[farrarfan1]

Originally Posted By: RI_RS4
Originally Posted By: farrarfan1
RI_RS4, as glennc said it may be corrosion as opposed to wear.Who knows, most of the debate is being done based on pure speculation by people not trained to interpret UOAs. Again, I think Mobil's response is accurate.

If the chart that the site owners supplied isn't important then why did they supply it? If it's not accurate then it should be pulled.


farrarfan1, feel free to my comments on the XOM response point by point. You've stated no reason why you think their response is accurate. I've stated my reasons for thinking that it does not even address the original question. I'd like to understand your reasoning.

The chart on this site is meant as a guide. It is not the bible on tribological analysis. If you don't like it, then I suggest that you contact the owners and ask them to remove it. Whether or not the Fe reported in this UOA is acceptable is up for debate. But, there is no doubt that it is higher than average, by a factor of 3:1, which makes it "interesting". Fe is coming from somewhere. Since we don't know the history of this engine, we don't know whether this amount of Iron wear has been on-going, or if it just now increased. As a result, I would not blame Mobil 1 ... just yet. As with all wear, it just depends on where the wear is coming from. You can lose a lot of iron from the cylinder walls without a problem. Lose the same amount from the surface of one small bearing, and there might be a problem.


"No we do not, these oil forums are generally gossip and individuals that
are not very knowledgeable about engine oil formulations and who have
hidden agendas."-That's the part of the Mobil response I wholeheartedly agree with. Look at Pablo's questioning an "analysis" right above your post.
As to the chart I see no reason to ask the owners to remove it. I trust it's accuracy much more than I trust most of the amateurs that disagree with it.If they(the owners) say 100-200 ppm is "acceptable" then I think 6 or 7 pages of hand wringing over less than half of that is silly.

You question their accuracy at determining fuel dilution, and others have questioned the accuracy of their comments, but everyone accept their 41 ppm as accurate,. Could it be wrong also?

 

[RI_RS4]

farrarfan1, I'm not sure where all your anger is coming from, or why you're even here.

For your information, the owner of BITOG is not a tribologist, and is not involved in the oil industry. You are placing your trust in the wrong place.

You are right that many people on this board are not knowledgeable. However, some are. XOM clearly is making a statement that is general, in order obfuscate. They say nothing about their oil in any specific application, except the Chevy Corvette.

I am not a tribologist myself, but I have one who consults for me, Terry Dyson, and who's opinion I trust. I've heard his opinion about Mobil 1 oils based on hard science, and based on comparisons in testing laboratories.

 

[farrarfan1]

I'm not angry at anyone or anything. Like most everyone else I'm here to learn.

I'm aware that the owner is not a tribologist. I don't recall saying she was.

"You are right that many people on this board are not knowledgeable. However some are." Looks like we're in total agreement.

 

[buster]

I'm on the fence with M1. On the one hand, more engine builders and OEM's prefer it to any other brand. On the other, it does show higher ppm wear, which I don't find all that significant.

Mobil 1 is a a lot of high end sports cars and you never hear about lubrication failures.

 

[RI_RS4]

Originally Posted By: farrarfan1

You question their accuracy at determining fuel dilution, and others have questioned the accuracy of their comments, but everyone accept their 41 ppm as accurate,. Could it be wrong also?


These are two different unrelated issues. Fe measurements are made with ICP Spectroscopy. It is quite accurate and repeatable, to within at least 5 ppm. Blackstone measurements of wear metals tend to correlate quite well with other labs. I've even done the correlation myself, on samples taken at the same time from my engine and found no issues.

Blackstone does not directly measure fuel dilution. They measure flashpoint using the open cup method. I myself, and others have shown that when comparing Blackstone's methods to those at other labs, blackstone almost always shows higher flashpoint and lower dilution. With Dyson's lab, multiple methods are used, close cup flashpoint, along with IR measurements for fuels. I've been able to show that these different methods correlate quite well, as they should. The only conclusion that I can draw is that Blackstone has issue with the way they measure fuel dilution. This can also be discerned by other signs of dilution in the oil analysis record.

Just because I or someone else questions one aspect of there report does not make the entire report suspect. I believe their Fe measure, because I and others have history showing that this measurement is accurate. I do not believe their fuel dilution measurement, because I and others have history showing that that particular measurement is often incorrect. Their comments can be interesting. They are very good at making most measurements with their equipment, but Blackstone Labs interpretation of the results often falls short. This is why they have an addition service where Terry Dyson provides additional interpretation. There is no inconsistency in my thinking.

 

[Max_Wander]

Originally Posted By: farrarfan1
Originally Posted By: buster
I sent Mobil an email, with this report, asking them if they realize Mobil 1 spits out a lot of Fe and this is what was emailed back to me:

Quote:
No we do not, these oil forums are generally gossip and individuals that
are not very knowledgeable about engine oil formulations and who have
hidden agendas. Mobil1 5W30 is factory filled in the Chevy Corvette and
a host of other high performance engines for very long drain intervals
without any issues.

There's a lot of truth in their response. What can anyone refute in it?


i think you're spreading gossip...