180K miles? I can't imagine 180K kms on my BMW. Which oil and oci? Tks..s
Mobil 1 better cleaner than AutoRx?
- Thread starter buster
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2003
- Messages
- 23,591
It's a '96 model. The factory fill remained for 7,500 miles. I then used only Castrol 5W-50 until I hit 120,000 miles in early 2003.
Enter BITOG IN 2003: I tried M1 0W-40, but my engine consumed too much of it. I then switched to M1 T&SUV 5W-40 for a couple oil changes. Somewhere in there was my ARX adventure ("rinsed" with Delo 15W-40). I tried Red LINE 5W-30 and Pennzoil Platinum 5W-40, and Valvoline Max Life 10W-40.
Currently I am using Lubro Moly 5W-40 Synthoil Premium, and I see no reason to switch.
Enter BITOG IN 2003: I tried M1 0W-40, but my engine consumed too much of it. I then switched to M1 T&SUV 5W-40 for a couple oil changes. Somewhere in there was my ARX adventure ("rinsed" with Delo 15W-40). I tried Red LINE 5W-30 and Pennzoil Platinum 5W-40, and Valvoline Max Life 10W-40.
Currently I am using Lubro Moly 5W-40 Synthoil Premium, and I see no reason to switch.
Sounds like our Outback history. I used a lot of 0W40 M1 in the Mazda, now using BP Visco 5000 5W40 w/RX clean. Probably PAO so I don't expect the best result but unemployed and I have a
20-litre drum I need to use up. Shell Helix Ultra 5W40, an oil I havn't had much respect for due to pathetic Timken tests many years back, but no ester or PAO so the only choice for my BMW RX clean. Havoline Energy 5W30 in the Outback sump with RX for a well overdue clean. PIA trying to monitor three vehicles at once.
20-litre drum I need to use up. Shell Helix Ultra 5W40, an oil I havn't had much respect for due to pathetic Timken tests many years back, but no ester or PAO so the only choice for my BMW RX clean. Havoline Energy 5W30 in the Outback sump with RX for a well overdue clean. PIA trying to monitor three vehicles at once.
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2003
- Messages
- 23,591
I used to use BP Visco in my Scirocco. I didn't know you could get a 20 liter drum.
That's where I buy most of my oil, the distributor as it's so much cheaper. 20-litre drum (SJ) or 55 gallon drum which is a tad unwieldy.
Originally Posted By: moribundman
Do you know what the term "conflict of interests" means in the case of friends and family giving testimony?
Friends and family? I don't think so. A positive testimonial does not make transform a consumer into a "friend" or family member. Where's your "proof" of that?
Moreover, the correct evidentiary term is not conflict of interest but bias. Get your terms straight.
If you consider every positive testimonial for a product biased, that's your right. That's why reasonable minds may differ. If a consumer is going to make the effort to publish positive experiences about a product without compensation, that has heightened credibility with me.
But if you want genuine examples of bias, then have a company publish its own test "results", conducted by the company's own employees, or conducted by an "independent" firm, paid for by the company. So they can claim their oils remove 36% of sludge, or score 90/100 on some in-house "cleanliness test", or show no engine wear after a million miles, or seemingly excel in countless four-ball tests. Or a poster who has a long history as an M1 advocate starting a thread "Mobil 1 > AutoRx?"
Do you know what the term "conflict of interests" means in the case of friends and family giving testimony?
Friends and family? I don't think so. A positive testimonial does not make transform a consumer into a "friend" or family member. Where's your "proof" of that?
Moreover, the correct evidentiary term is not conflict of interest but bias. Get your terms straight.
If you consider every positive testimonial for a product biased, that's your right. That's why reasonable minds may differ. If a consumer is going to make the effort to publish positive experiences about a product without compensation, that has heightened credibility with me.
But if you want genuine examples of bias, then have a company publish its own test "results", conducted by the company's own employees, or conducted by an "independent" firm, paid for by the company. So they can claim their oils remove 36% of sludge, or score 90/100 on some in-house "cleanliness test", or show no engine wear after a million miles, or seemingly excel in countless four-ball tests. Or a poster who has a long history as an M1 advocate starting a thread "Mobil 1 > AutoRx?"
Can we get back to the main debate?
The original point made was that Mobil 1 High Mileage oil(s) can clean engine deposits better than AutoRx. I use Mobil 1 oil, but have never used "High Mileage" and have never used AutoRx, so I have no personal involvement or bias.
How to remove sludge presupposes that sludge already exists... so IMO it would make more sense to use an oil that keeps sludge deposits from forming in the first place. It seems to make no sense to use cheap or inferior oil, then switch to an additive or a special oil, clean up the sludge, then switch back to the cheap oil.
Does Mobil 1 High Mileage oil protect engines and prevent sludge? If so, then IMO it would be better to run with it all the time, than use AutoRx to clean the deposits left by cheaper oils.
If Mobil 1 High Mileage oil does not prevent sludge, then drivers need to find another oil that can do the job.
The original point made was that Mobil 1 High Mileage oil(s) can clean engine deposits better than AutoRx. I use Mobil 1 oil, but have never used "High Mileage" and have never used AutoRx, so I have no personal involvement or bias.
How to remove sludge presupposes that sludge already exists... so IMO it would make more sense to use an oil that keeps sludge deposits from forming in the first place. It seems to make no sense to use cheap or inferior oil, then switch to an additive or a special oil, clean up the sludge, then switch back to the cheap oil.
Does Mobil 1 High Mileage oil protect engines and prevent sludge? If so, then IMO it would be better to run with it all the time, than use AutoRx to clean the deposits left by cheaper oils.
If Mobil 1 High Mileage oil does not prevent sludge, then drivers need to find another oil that can do the job.
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2003
- Messages
- 23,591
Originally Posted By: Volvohead
Originally Posted By: moribundman
Do you know what the term "conflict of interests" means in the case of friends and family giving testimony?
Friends and family? I don't think so. A positive testimonial does not make transform a consumer into a "friend" or family member. Where's your "proof" of that?
Only since you ask: look at the posting history of some of the more prolific endorsers. For example, check this one, from the topic of his first post seven years ago to the topic of his last post, with everything in between:
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=userposts&id=193
Do you notice a common theme?
Don't get me wrong, as a consumer I love particular brands that make a variety of products, but I don't go out of my way, on a mission really, posting about them incessantly. Why should I?
Originally Posted By: moribundman
Do you know what the term "conflict of interests" means in the case of friends and family giving testimony?
Friends and family? I don't think so. A positive testimonial does not make transform a consumer into a "friend" or family member. Where's your "proof" of that?
Only since you ask: look at the posting history of some of the more prolific endorsers. For example, check this one, from the topic of his first post seven years ago to the topic of his last post, with everything in between:
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=userposts&id=193
Do you notice a common theme?
Don't get me wrong, as a consumer I love particular brands that make a variety of products, but I don't go out of my way, on a mission really, posting about them incessantly. Why should I?
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
Quote:
How to remove sludge presupposes that sludge already exists... so IMO it would make more sense to use an oil that keeps sludge deposits from forming in the first place. It seems to make no sense to use cheap or inferior oil, then switch to an additive or a special oil, clean up the sludge, then switch back to the cheap oil.
YMMV. It's not that simple. There are many services that make the using of a higher cost synthetic prohibitively expensive. Also while oils have advanced a good bit in the past few years (since around 2002 when there were major problems and major evolutions like Ford bringing 5w-20 to mass market - and VW 500.xx-whatever type stuff). This is especially true of deposit control.
You can surely see disruptions ..from time to time..with switching from one chemistry to another. It doesn't happen often or happen always, but I think mori probably had his consumption retreat as he hung with T&SUV for an evolution or two. I saw the same thing when going from D1 to RTS. Again, it's not always going to occur ..but what does it tell you? It tells you that an inanimate object acclimated to a different chemistry, which doesn't really make all that much sense if expressed in that manner. It's has to be some disruption of existing formations and/or the replacement with others at some sealing point in the engine, most likely the rings/cylinder interface.
Also try and take into account YOUR view. None of us here are stupid by most accounts ..but I doubt that we walked in knowing everything that we know now. Without being an industry insider, I can't imagine the level of delusions of competency that virtually everyone who joins here has. Guys who have wrenched and raced for 40+ years don't know squat about oils. Upscale contemporaries don't even keep up with it since they're occupied with the latest service op evolution or the latest emissions legislation.
So, isn't saying that "if one just uses (fill in the blank) you'll never need to use Auto-Rx" ..given the vast variance in engine design, personal driving demands, and consumer tendencies/habits, kinda like saying "Well, all that they have to do is (fill in the blank) and we'd have no problems with (fill in the entire inventory of problems faced everywhere)?
How to remove sludge presupposes that sludge already exists... so IMO it would make more sense to use an oil that keeps sludge deposits from forming in the first place. It seems to make no sense to use cheap or inferior oil, then switch to an additive or a special oil, clean up the sludge, then switch back to the cheap oil.
YMMV. It's not that simple. There are many services that make the using of a higher cost synthetic prohibitively expensive. Also while oils have advanced a good bit in the past few years (since around 2002 when there were major problems and major evolutions like Ford bringing 5w-20 to mass market - and VW 500.xx-whatever type stuff). This is especially true of deposit control.
You can surely see disruptions ..from time to time..with switching from one chemistry to another. It doesn't happen often or happen always, but I think mori probably had his consumption retreat as he hung with T&SUV for an evolution or two. I saw the same thing when going from D1 to RTS. Again, it's not always going to occur ..but what does it tell you? It tells you that an inanimate object acclimated to a different chemistry, which doesn't really make all that much sense if expressed in that manner. It's has to be some disruption of existing formations and/or the replacement with others at some sealing point in the engine, most likely the rings/cylinder interface.
Also try and take into account YOUR view. None of us here are stupid by most accounts ..but I doubt that we walked in knowing everything that we know now. Without being an industry insider, I can't imagine the level of delusions of competency that virtually everyone who joins here has. Guys who have wrenched and raced for 40+ years don't know squat about oils. Upscale contemporaries don't even keep up with it since they're occupied with the latest service op evolution or the latest emissions legislation.
So, isn't saying that "if one just uses (fill in the blank) you'll never need to use Auto-Rx" ..given the vast variance in engine design, personal driving demands, and consumer tendencies/habits, kinda like saying "Well, all that they have to do is (fill in the blank) and we'd have no problems with (fill in the entire inventory of problems faced everywhere)?
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2003
- Messages
- 23,591
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
Also while oils have advanced a good bit in the past few years (since around 2002 when there were major problems and major evolutions like Ford bringing 5w-20 to mass market - and VW 500.xx-whatever type stuff).
You have to go back to the '80s to find the early VW 50X.XXX oil specs. For example, VW 500.00 (low friction oil) and VW 500.01 (conventional multi-viscosity) were around in the '80s. VW 500.00 was already old and was superseded by VW 502.00 in 1999. I don't know about the milestones and major improvements made to API spec oils, so I'm not going to comment on those.
Also while oils have advanced a good bit in the past few years (since around 2002 when there were major problems and major evolutions like Ford bringing 5w-20 to mass market - and VW 500.xx-whatever type stuff).
You have to go back to the '80s to find the early VW 50X.XXX oil specs. For example, VW 500.00 (low friction oil) and VW 500.01 (conventional multi-viscosity) were around in the '80s. VW 500.00 was already old and was superseded by VW 502.00 in 1999. I don't know about the milestones and major improvements made to API spec oils, so I'm not going to comment on those.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
Most of the evolutions in contemporary oils occurred around the same time. GC became a marvel mystery oil since it was the only oil, outside of dealer, that was approved. This was all the result of the infamous VW/AUDI sludge issues that emerged not long before this coincidental time line co-habitation. I personally think it was a combination of numb consumers and too few Audi/VW dealers that were the (mostly) exclusive distribution point for approved oils (expensive). Around that time (2002-2004) there was a rash of approved oils coming to market and many evolutions, in relatively short order, to the 500 spec right along side the MB 229.xx. The revisions appeared constant, making Mr. Bill's Service Pack 3 look like the history of the Roman Empire (Yes, mori, there is much lack of precision in my time line depiction).
Those approvals never existed on OTC (an important distinction) oils before that (loosely spoken) time ..with the (perhaps) exception of GC.
Those approvals never existed on OTC (an important distinction) oils before that (loosely spoken) time ..with the (perhaps) exception of GC.
Originally Posted By: Tornado Red
Can we get back to the main debate?
The original point made was that Mobil 1 High Mileage oil(s) can clean engine deposits better than AutoRx.
Ok. What's to debate? Does a motor oil whose detergency components are measured in parts per thousand remove existing deposits better than a product consisting entirely of lanolin, aliphatic and polyol esters? I've seen absolutely no proof of that. Arguing the point in reverse by deriding the latter product is not proof. The original point, containing nothing meaningful other than manufacturer marketing links, seems little more than a troll.
In my experience, M1 cleans heavy deposits as well as a good HDEO, which is to say barely adequately. Yeah, it cleans . . . a little. And for the price of a crankcase of it, I can buy a bottle of ARX and a case of conventional. But if you want a motor oil for cleaning, use Redline or another ester-based oil.
Every oil protects engines. And every oil leaves behind some deposits, however negligible. Even XOM concedes that M1 only scores 90/100 on their own cleanliness test. With prudent change habits, deposits never reach a meaningful level. And this is true for most oils, including cheap ones, if changed before their chemistry is depleted.
The fact is, most people abuse their lubrication maintainence at some point, so deposits are inevitable in many instances.
If you want to argue that M1 is very good at keeping engines clean, I agree. It's very good motor oil. But if someone is going to claim that it is better than dedicated crankcase cleansers at removing deposits, then present some proof . . . even testimonials.
Can we get back to the main debate?
The original point made was that Mobil 1 High Mileage oil(s) can clean engine deposits better than AutoRx.
Ok. What's to debate? Does a motor oil whose detergency components are measured in parts per thousand remove existing deposits better than a product consisting entirely of lanolin, aliphatic and polyol esters? I've seen absolutely no proof of that. Arguing the point in reverse by deriding the latter product is not proof. The original point, containing nothing meaningful other than manufacturer marketing links, seems little more than a troll.
In my experience, M1 cleans heavy deposits as well as a good HDEO, which is to say barely adequately. Yeah, it cleans . . . a little. And for the price of a crankcase of it, I can buy a bottle of ARX and a case of conventional. But if you want a motor oil for cleaning, use Redline or another ester-based oil.
Every oil protects engines. And every oil leaves behind some deposits, however negligible. Even XOM concedes that M1 only scores 90/100 on their own cleanliness test. With prudent change habits, deposits never reach a meaningful level. And this is true for most oils, including cheap ones, if changed before their chemistry is depleted.
The fact is, most people abuse their lubrication maintainence at some point, so deposits are inevitable in many instances.
If you want to argue that M1 is very good at keeping engines clean, I agree. It's very good motor oil. But if someone is going to claim that it is better than dedicated crankcase cleansers at removing deposits, then present some proof . . . even testimonials.
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2003
- Messages
- 23,591
Gee, Gary, did you just edit your post?
Anyway, in regard to what you had posted: VW and other Euro manufacturer's in-house oil specs came to be as a result of the "Black Death" sludge issues that swept Europe in the late '70 and early '80s. At that time the current engine oil became unsuitable for the small, but increasingly more powerful engines of the time. This was not a VW-specific phenomenon, but it was an issue that occurred across all makes.
Car manufacturer specific oil specs DID EXIST even in the '80s. Just because they did not exist in the US indicates something, doesn't it? As for GC, it existed way before 2002!
Below is the page regarding the engine oil requirements of my 1989 VW Scirocco. You will see three VW oil specs.
1989 VW Scirocco manual:
June 1988 edition:
Car manufacturer specific oil specs DID EXIST even in the '80s. Just because they did not exist in the US indicates something, doesn't it? As for GC, it existed way before 2002!
Below is the page regarding the engine oil requirements of my 1989 VW Scirocco. You will see three VW oil specs.
1989 VW Scirocco manual:
June 1988 edition:
I cannot claim to be an expert on this subject, since none of my cars has ever suffered from sludge. But a little research shows that sludge is caused by:
1) inferior oil
2) extended oil change intervals with oil not designed to run that long
3) higher engine temperatures,
4) lower sump capacities,
5) coolant contamination
6) pollution devices not working properly
7) and in some cases, poor engine design
We can't do anything about poor engine designs, but here's what we can do:
1) use engine oils that do not break down prematurely
2) perform used-oil testing to determine correct oil change intervals
3) add oil coolers or secondary filter systems to increase sump capacity, keep engines cooler, and improve filtration
4) make sure pollution devices are working, or else remove or bypass them
AutoRx and other additives are useful, I assume, if preventive measures are ineffective. But I gather, from many posts in this thread, that most AutoRx proponents are using it instead of preventive measures.
1) inferior oil
2) extended oil change intervals with oil not designed to run that long
3) higher engine temperatures,
4) lower sump capacities,
5) coolant contamination
6) pollution devices not working properly
7) and in some cases, poor engine design
We can't do anything about poor engine designs, but here's what we can do:
1) use engine oils that do not break down prematurely
2) perform used-oil testing to determine correct oil change intervals
3) add oil coolers or secondary filter systems to increase sump capacity, keep engines cooler, and improve filtration
4) make sure pollution devices are working, or else remove or bypass them
AutoRx and other additives are useful, I assume, if preventive measures are ineffective. But I gather, from many posts in this thread, that most AutoRx proponents are using it instead of preventive measures.
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2003
- Messages
- 23,591
Originally Posted By: Tornado Red
I gather, from many posts in this thread, that most AutoRx proponents are using it instead of preventive measures.
Dirty birdies!
I gather, from many posts in this thread, that most AutoRx proponents are using it instead of preventive measures.
Dirty birdies!
Sludge is caused by excessive short trips where the moisture can't be evaporated, over using an oil past it's capacity, and when the temperatures are so hot that the oil and it's additives break down under the heat.
That's how I understand it anyways...
That's how I understand it anyways...
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2003
- Messages
- 23,591
Originally Posted By: c3po
I thought sludge was caused by lower engine temperatures, not higher engine temperatures.
Not all sludge is the same. You can produce sludge with moisture contaminated oil by driving only short distances without the engine ever reaching operating temperature. Oil thickening, as it occurs during long OCIs, or if the operating conditions are demanding (for example 7-hour Autobahn trips at high speed) can produce sludge. That's why modern engine oils are designed with lower evaporative losses: these oils resist thickening better.
I thought sludge was caused by lower engine temperatures, not higher engine temperatures.
Not all sludge is the same. You can produce sludge with moisture contaminated oil by driving only short distances without the engine ever reaching operating temperature. Oil thickening, as it occurs during long OCIs, or if the operating conditions are demanding (for example 7-hour Autobahn trips at high speed) can produce sludge. That's why modern engine oils are designed with lower evaporative losses: these oils resist thickening better.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
Quote:
Car manufacturer specific oil specs DID EXIST even in the '80s. Just because they did not exist in the US indicates something, doesn't it? As for GC, it existed way before 2002!
I'm sure that they did. We just did not have access to most of the fluids in WIDE DISTRIBUTION.
..and I'm sure GC existed somewhere before 2002 ..but no one had cause to give it a second glance unless you were required to adhere to some Euro spec ..which a limited number of WIDELY DISTRIBUTED oils conformed to.
Q: Is the above statement(s), however inaccurate for anal teutonic precision detailed purposes, more TRUE or more FALSE in the message(s) it attempts to convey?
Car manufacturer specific oil specs DID EXIST even in the '80s. Just because they did not exist in the US indicates something, doesn't it? As for GC, it existed way before 2002!
I'm sure that they did. We just did not have access to most of the fluids in WIDE DISTRIBUTION.
..and I'm sure GC existed somewhere before 2002 ..but no one had cause to give it a second glance unless you were required to adhere to some Euro spec ..which a limited number of WIDELY DISTRIBUTED oils conformed to.
Q: Is the above statement(s), however inaccurate for anal teutonic precision detailed purposes, more TRUE or more FALSE in the message(s) it attempts to convey?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
