A number of UOA reports on M1 come back with increased wear metals . Is there any sort of rhyme or reason why this is happening ? Any sort of conditions , type of engine , viscosity , etc. that can be isolated ? I ask because Advance Auto is running another buy 5+ qrts. M1 synthetic oil + M1 extended oil filter for $32.00 which is one of the better deals offered so I am considering stocking up .
M1 Synthetic and Increased Wear Metals ?
- Thread starter ChrisD46
- Start date
- Status
Do not over think it. M-1 is a very good PCMO and the #1 selling synthetic if M-1 does not make a grade of oil that does not protect your engine you have bigger issues to worry about.
Full disclaimer I am not a fan of XOM and will go out my way to not use XOM products.
Full disclaimer I am not a fan of XOM and will go out my way to not use XOM products.
There might have been an issue two or three years ago. I haven't seen a controversial UOA in awhile, certainly not since SN oil. So make sure it's SN and don't worry about it, though I used M1 in our Accord even during that time and never had an issue.
There are plenty of plausible explanations for the slightly "elevated" wear metal levels indicated on UOAs with Mobil 1. This topic has been beaten to death, but here's a quick summary:
- Certain oil formulations could conceivably throw bigger numbers on UOAs when there is actually LESS wear.
- The method of spectroscopy used by most UOAs doesn't always give a reliable indication of wear; you could easily have low numbers with big wear, or big numbers with low wear.
- Sometimes, switching oil brands or types can cause wear metals levels to spike briefly before settling out.
- The numbers on a UOA report don't tell you WHERE in the engine the metal is coming from; if Oil A gives you 15 ppm of iron from all over the engine, and Oil B gives you 10 ppm but it's all coming from the cams, Oil A is probably a better choice.
- Something about the car may have changed around the time that the owner switched to Mobil 1.
There's no certainty to any of these, of course. It's also possible that Mobil 1 really is yielding more wear than other brands. The point here is that no one can tell because no one has ruled out those other possible explanations.
What we do know is that Mobil 1 products have a great deal of very powerful endorsements from a broad range of powertrain builders. That has to be worth something.
I don't use Mobil 1, either, and probably never will (unless I have to use it for warranty reasons or something). However, I think it's safe to say that saying Mobil 1 is bad or worse than other oils just because of some $20 UOA reports is bogus.
- Certain oil formulations could conceivably throw bigger numbers on UOAs when there is actually LESS wear.
- The method of spectroscopy used by most UOAs doesn't always give a reliable indication of wear; you could easily have low numbers with big wear, or big numbers with low wear.
- Sometimes, switching oil brands or types can cause wear metals levels to spike briefly before settling out.
- The numbers on a UOA report don't tell you WHERE in the engine the metal is coming from; if Oil A gives you 15 ppm of iron from all over the engine, and Oil B gives you 10 ppm but it's all coming from the cams, Oil A is probably a better choice.
- Something about the car may have changed around the time that the owner switched to Mobil 1.
There's no certainty to any of these, of course. It's also possible that Mobil 1 really is yielding more wear than other brands. The point here is that no one can tell because no one has ruled out those other possible explanations.
What we do know is that Mobil 1 products have a great deal of very powerful endorsements from a broad range of powertrain builders. That has to be worth something.
I don't use Mobil 1, either, and probably never will (unless I have to use it for warranty reasons or something). However, I think it's safe to say that saying Mobil 1 is bad or worse than other oils just because of some $20 UOA reports is bogus.
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
There are plenty of plausible explanations for the slightly "elevated" wear metal levels indicated on UOAs with Mobil 1. This topic has been beaten to death, but here's a quick summary:
- Certain oil formulations could conceivably throw bigger numbers on UOAs when there is actually LESS wear.
- The method of spectroscopy used by most UOAs doesn't always give a reliable indication of wear; you could easily have low numbers with big wear, or big numbers with low wear.
- Sometimes, switching oil brands or types can cause wear metals levels to spike briefly before settling out.
- The numbers on a UOA report don't tell you WHERE in the engine the metal is coming from; if Oil A gives you 15 ppm of iron from all over the engine, and Oil B gives you 10 ppm but it's all coming from the cams, Oil A is probably a better choice.
- Something about the car may have changed around the time that the owner switched to Mobil 1.
There's no certainty to any of these, of course. It's also possible that Mobil 1 really is yielding more wear than other brands. The point here is that no one can tell because no one has ruled out those other possible explanations.
What we do know is that Mobil 1 products have a great deal of very powerful endorsements from a broad range of powertrain builders. That has to be worth something.
I don't use Mobil 1, either, and probably never will (unless I have to use it for warranty reasons or something). However, I think it's safe to say that saying Mobil 1 is bad or worse than other oils just because of some $20 UOA reports is bogus.
Good info, we can't forget how many mistakes they make with these reports either. LOL
There are plenty of plausible explanations for the slightly "elevated" wear metal levels indicated on UOAs with Mobil 1. This topic has been beaten to death, but here's a quick summary:
- Certain oil formulations could conceivably throw bigger numbers on UOAs when there is actually LESS wear.
- The method of spectroscopy used by most UOAs doesn't always give a reliable indication of wear; you could easily have low numbers with big wear, or big numbers with low wear.
- Sometimes, switching oil brands or types can cause wear metals levels to spike briefly before settling out.
- The numbers on a UOA report don't tell you WHERE in the engine the metal is coming from; if Oil A gives you 15 ppm of iron from all over the engine, and Oil B gives you 10 ppm but it's all coming from the cams, Oil A is probably a better choice.
- Something about the car may have changed around the time that the owner switched to Mobil 1.
There's no certainty to any of these, of course. It's also possible that Mobil 1 really is yielding more wear than other brands. The point here is that no one can tell because no one has ruled out those other possible explanations.
What we do know is that Mobil 1 products have a great deal of very powerful endorsements from a broad range of powertrain builders. That has to be worth something.
I don't use Mobil 1, either, and probably never will (unless I have to use it for warranty reasons or something). However, I think it's safe to say that saying Mobil 1 is bad or worse than other oils just because of some $20 UOA reports is bogus.
Good info, we can't forget how many mistakes they make with these reports either. LOL
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Good info, we can't forget how many mistakes they make with these reports either. LOL
Indeed. And thanks for the endorsement.
You know, this gets me thinking: I wonder if some metals readings are more error-prone than others, even within the same test. In other words, I wonder if ICP spectroscopy is more likely to get some numbers wrong than to get others wrong...
Good info, we can't forget how many mistakes they make with these reports either. LOL
Indeed. And thanks for the endorsement.
You know, this gets me thinking: I wonder if some metals readings are more error-prone than others, even within the same test. In other words, I wonder if ICP spectroscopy is more likely to get some numbers wrong than to get others wrong...
Ask Blackstone or whoever what their confidence interval is.
Originally Posted By: dparm
Ask Blackstone or whoever what their confidence interval is.
Exactly! In a sample that measures Parts per Million, how large is the normal variation? A sample with 10 PPM may be exactly the same, within the bounds of statistical variation, as a sample that reads 5 PPM...but the tendency is to say, "OMG, that's TWICE as bad..." when actually, it's the same...and the engine is wearing the same...
Ask Blackstone or whoever what their confidence interval is.
Exactly! In a sample that measures Parts per Million, how large is the normal variation? A sample with 10 PPM may be exactly the same, within the bounds of statistical variation, as a sample that reads 5 PPM...but the tendency is to say, "OMG, that's TWICE as bad..." when actually, it's the same...and the engine is wearing the same...
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: DrDusty86
Chris, I'd choose something else. Better choices on the market.
Please define "better". Because that sounds like your opinion here, and you are stating it as fact.
Chris, I'd choose something else. Better choices on the market.
Please define "better". Because that sounds like your opinion here, and you are stating it as fact.
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: DrDusty86
Chris, I'd choose something else. Better choices on the market.
Please define "better". Because that sounds like your opinion here, and you are stating it as fact.
Do not worry a RP endorsement from the "DR" will be coming soon.
Originally Posted By: DrDusty86
Chris, I'd choose something else. Better choices on the market.
Please define "better". Because that sounds like your opinion here, and you are stating it as fact.
Do not worry a RP endorsement from the "DR" will be coming soon.
Originally Posted By: ChrisD46
A number of UOA reports on M1 come back with increased wear metals . Is there any sort of rhyme or reason why this is happening ? Any sort of conditions , type of engine , viscosity , etc. that can be isolated ?
You already identified the common denominator, its Mobil 1.
A number of UOA reports on M1 come back with increased wear metals . Is there any sort of rhyme or reason why this is happening ? Any sort of conditions , type of engine , viscosity , etc. that can be isolated ?
You already identified the common denominator, its Mobil 1.
I find it interesting how so many recommend UOAs, yet many can find ways to discount them [sometimes the same guys!]!
M1 is a fine oil. Very fine.
You want truly bad oils? They are out there!
Check out the PQIA tests of common oils:
here's the site home
http://www.pqiamerica.com/
M1 is a fine oil. Very fine.
You want truly bad oils? They are out there!
Check out the PQIA tests of common oils:
here's the site home
http://www.pqiamerica.com/
Originally Posted By: mechtech2
I find it interesting how so many recommend UOAs, yet many can find ways to discount them [sometimes the same guys!]!
M1 is a fine oil. Very fine.
You want truly bad oils? They are out there!
Check out the PQIA tests of common oils:
here's the site home
http://www.pqiamerica.com/
Some of those who discount UOAs as a wear measurement tool also obsess about the metal levels in UOAs of oil from their own engines.
I agree with you that nobody need fear using any M1 flavor.
SOPUS may produce some oils that are superior to M1 in the same grades (I wrote "may"), but M1 is certainly very good, reasonably priced and available everywhere.
Can't say that for SOPUS Euro spec oils.
I find it interesting how so many recommend UOAs, yet many can find ways to discount them [sometimes the same guys!]!
M1 is a fine oil. Very fine.
You want truly bad oils? They are out there!
Check out the PQIA tests of common oils:
here's the site home
http://www.pqiamerica.com/
Some of those who discount UOAs as a wear measurement tool also obsess about the metal levels in UOAs of oil from their own engines.
I agree with you that nobody need fear using any M1 flavor.
SOPUS may produce some oils that are superior to M1 in the same grades (I wrote "may"), but M1 is certainly very good, reasonably priced and available everywhere.
Can't say that for SOPUS Euro spec oils.
Originally Posted By: dave1251
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: DrDusty86
Chris, I'd choose something else. Better choices on the market.
Please define "better". Because that sounds like your opinion here, and you are stating it as fact.
Do not worry a RP endorsement from the "DR" will be coming soon.
Well, that's the internet for you. Drop a dime with nothing to back it up.
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: DrDusty86
Chris, I'd choose something else. Better choices on the market.
Please define "better". Because that sounds like your opinion here, and you are stating it as fact.
Do not worry a RP endorsement from the "DR" will be coming soon.
Well, that's the internet for you. Drop a dime with nothing to back it up.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: DrDusty86
Tigs, don't get your undies in a wad.
He's pointing out that you haven't given anyone any reason to believe what you said, and you're responding by... calling him uptight.
Think about that for a minute. Take your time.
Tigs, don't get your undies in a wad.
He's pointing out that you haven't given anyone any reason to believe what you said, and you're responding by... calling him uptight.
Think about that for a minute. Take your time.
In response that the SM version DID infact produce elevated wear metals and people like Tig, and K1ll defended it to the DEATH like I was taking a cheap shot at their kid. NOW, the SN version comes out and people like those guys claim it's been "FIXED" yea right, that's blind ignorance.
[censored]?? really
[censored]?? really
- Status
Similar threads
