From what I understand Mobil 1 Extended Performance is superior to regular Mobil 1. Has there been any used oil analysis (used oil analysis) done that showed high iron from Mobil 1 Extended Performance? If not, then why isn't it recommended here more often?
Mobil 1 Extended Performance, High Iron UOAs Also?
- Thread starter Chasse
- Start date
- Status
There are several recent used oil analysis on here that have reported significant or low Iron number on Mobil 1 Extended Performance and little impact or problems on Mobil 1 Advanced Fuel Economy.
The "High" Iron is not metal wear but chemical reaction of Iron surfaces to the M1 formulation. If you analyse the particle size of the Iron you will see that it has low Iron wear metals and that it just shows high Iron because the UOA is taking the chemical Iron residue into account and skewing the test.
used oil analysis are great, but proper analysis is the key!
used oil analysis are great, but proper analysis is the key!
Originally Posted By: StevieC
The "High" Iron is not metal wear but chemical reaction of Iron surfaces to the M1 formulation. If you analyse the particle size of the Iron you will see that it has low Iron wear metals and that it just shows high Iron because the UOA is taking the chemical Iron residue into account and skewing the test.
used oil analysis are great, but proper analysis is the key!
I've heard you mention this a few times since you've come back. The chemist in me wants to know exactly what the um... heck dyson was talking about. The details I mean because that almost sounds little BSish to me. I'm not saying that it is not true and it would help explain things but I just wish I knew what in the oil is "reacting" with the metal and what these iron compounds are and why and how they are skewing the results of the spectroscopy.
The "High" Iron is not metal wear but chemical reaction of Iron surfaces to the M1 formulation. If you analyse the particle size of the Iron you will see that it has low Iron wear metals and that it just shows high Iron because the UOA is taking the chemical Iron residue into account and skewing the test.
used oil analysis are great, but proper analysis is the key!
I've heard you mention this a few times since you've come back. The chemist in me wants to know exactly what the um... heck dyson was talking about. The details I mean because that almost sounds little BSish to me. I'm not saying that it is not true and it would help explain things but I just wish I knew what in the oil is "reacting" with the metal and what these iron compounds are and why and how they are skewing the results of the spectroscopy.
From what I understand from talking to him it was because the particle sizes of the Iron showing up in the sample were too tiny and/or uniform (I think was the words he used) and this lead the lab to believe it was residue and not metal bits that would occur from wear.
Just relaying a conversation... If this doesn't jive with your "Chemist" profession I will verify with him and get back to you. (I'm just an oil junkie with a bit of a mechanical background because my dad is a long-time mechanic).
Just relaying a conversation... If this doesn't jive with your "Chemist" profession I will verify with him and get back to you. (I'm just an oil junkie with a bit of a mechanical background because my dad is a long-time mechanic).
Like I said I'm not saying it is [censored] it just sounds like it without the details. If you can get the details that would be great. Putting this whole mobil 1 high iron conspiracy to bed would be great. Though Audie Junkie would have nothing to do with his days.
Last edited:
What details do you want specifically than what I have provided and I will get it for you...
ONN: Did you see where I drew contrast to my Santa Fe showing high copper and Silica and I was told similar to the M1 and Iron. For me it's the gasket material that Hyundai/Kia and some Lexus use leaching into the oil and spiking the Copper & Silica. It was found through deeper analysis that it's not wear or contamination of the oil from poor air filtration or some part wearing in the engine but rather the gasket material reacting to the oil.
250K KM's later and he is right because the engine is running top notch with factory PSI on all cylinders and better than government ratings for fuel economy...
I trust Terry and his lab and that is why I say it's not just a used oil analysis but the analysis that counts.
250K KM's later and he is right because the engine is running top notch with factory PSI on all cylinders and better than government ratings for fuel economy...
I trust Terry and his lab and that is why I say it's not just a used oil analysis but the analysis that counts.
Originally Posted By: StevieC
What details do you want specifically than what I have provided and I will get it for you...
So it sounds like he is saying that instead of tiny bits of iron that are being worn off there are some sort of organometallic compounds being formed via a chemical reaction and that these molecules are big enough to be seen as wear particles? And also the molecules contain iron so they show up as iron in the spectroscopy. Or is he saying that a chemical reaction is causing tiny bits of iron to break off of the surface (this makes less sense)?
I'm no tribologist but I have a couple chemistry degrees and usually can get the gist of the chemistry if it is explained to me by someone who is an expert.
What details do you want specifically than what I have provided and I will get it for you...
So it sounds like he is saying that instead of tiny bits of iron that are being worn off there are some sort of organometallic compounds being formed via a chemical reaction and that these molecules are big enough to be seen as wear particles? And also the molecules contain iron so they show up as iron in the spectroscopy. Or is he saying that a chemical reaction is causing tiny bits of iron to break off of the surface (this makes less sense)?
I'm no tribologist but I have a couple chemistry degrees and usually can get the gist of the chemistry if it is explained to me by someone who is an expert.
Quote:
So it sounds like he is saying that instead of tiny bits of iron that are being worn off there are some sort of organometallic compounds being formed via a chemical reaction and that these molecules are big enough to be seen as wear particles? And also the molecules contain iron so they show up as iron in the spectroscopy.
This is what I think he was saying...
So it sounds like he is saying that instead of tiny bits of iron that are being worn off there are some sort of organometallic compounds being formed via a chemical reaction and that these molecules are big enough to be seen as wear particles? And also the molecules contain iron so they show up as iron in the spectroscopy.
This is what I think he was saying...
Originally Posted By: lipadj46
Originally Posted By: StevieC
The "High" Iron is not metal wear but chemical reaction of Iron surfaces to the M1 formulation. If you analyse the particle size of the Iron you will see that it has low Iron wear metals and that it just shows high Iron because the UOA is taking the chemical Iron residue into account and skewing the test.
used oil analysis are great, but proper analysis is the key!
I've heard you mention this a few times since you've come back. The chemist in me wants to know exactly what the um... heck dyson was talking about. The details I mean because that almost sounds little BSish to me. I'm not saying that it is not true and it would help explain things but I just wish I knew what in the oil is "reacting" with the metal and what these iron compounds are and why and how they are skewing the results of the spectroscopy.
The chemist in me (just kidding, I'm not a Chemist but did take Chemstry 102 last semester and got a certificate from the school for getting the best grade of the class) says a report just saying just "iron" in it can't tell you whether it was wear metals or a chemical reaction. If it were a wear metal it would be Iron (III) oxide or just an Iron+2 ion, if it were a chemical reaction it would be something like Triiron dodecacarbonyl or Iron Phosphide depending on what is was reacting with. However, you would think the Calcium based additive would react with the Phosphorous or carbonyl group before the iron would. That is kind of the point of the Calcium based detergent.
If you're talking 30 parts per million it could be either way, you might be better off filtering and looking under a very strong microscope. Using a magnet to attract all the iron particles. Or obviously measuring amounts of wear on the engine directly.
Originally Posted By: StevieC
The "High" Iron is not metal wear but chemical reaction of Iron surfaces to the M1 formulation. If you analyse the particle size of the Iron you will see that it has low Iron wear metals and that it just shows high Iron because the UOA is taking the chemical Iron residue into account and skewing the test.
used oil analysis are great, but proper analysis is the key!
I've heard you mention this a few times since you've come back. The chemist in me wants to know exactly what the um... heck dyson was talking about. The details I mean because that almost sounds little BSish to me. I'm not saying that it is not true and it would help explain things but I just wish I knew what in the oil is "reacting" with the metal and what these iron compounds are and why and how they are skewing the results of the spectroscopy.
The chemist in me (just kidding, I'm not a Chemist but did take Chemstry 102 last semester and got a certificate from the school for getting the best grade of the class) says a report just saying just "iron" in it can't tell you whether it was wear metals or a chemical reaction. If it were a wear metal it would be Iron (III) oxide or just an Iron+2 ion, if it were a chemical reaction it would be something like Triiron dodecacarbonyl or Iron Phosphide depending on what is was reacting with. However, you would think the Calcium based additive would react with the Phosphorous or carbonyl group before the iron would. That is kind of the point of the Calcium based detergent.
If you're talking 30 parts per million it could be either way, you might be better off filtering and looking under a very strong microscope. Using a magnet to attract all the iron particles. Or obviously measuring amounts of wear on the engine directly.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,793
A PQ index would probably be a good test to show total Fe involved.
It's amazing how Mobil 1 seems to inspire legions of followers to come to its' defense against claims of high iron wear. Here's a case history for you. I bought a 1995 Impala SS with the LT1 new. Changed to Mobil 1 the first oil change,probably less than 3,000 miles. 5w30 or 10w30 5,000-7,000 OCI. At about 105,000 miles, I changed the Optispark & decided to go on in and replace the timing chain & sprocket. When I got it apart,it was worn at least as bad as if I'd used conventional. This was an actual visual inspection, not some theorizing or general gum beating. Also, reading other message boards, this seemed to be a common experience with this engine using Mobil 1. Now, I'm not saying it's no good, but the evidence is there, except for those unwilling to see the emperor has no clothes. The proof is in the pudding and Mobil 1 pudding has a lot of iron in it.
Originally Posted By: tgw323
It's amazing how Mobil 1 seems to inspire legions of followers to come to its' defense against claims of high iron wear. Here's a case history for you. I bought a 1995 Impala SS with the LT1 new. Changed to Mobil 1 the first oil change,probably less than 3,000 miles. 5w30 or 10w30 5,000-7,000 OCI. At about 105,000 miles, I changed the Optispark & decided to go on in and replace the timing chain & sprocket. When I got it apart,it was worn at least as bad as if I'd used conventional. This was an actual visual inspection, not some theorizing or general gum beating. Also, reading other message boards, this seemed to be a common experience with this engine using Mobil 1. Now, I'm not saying it's no good, but the evidence is there, except for those unwilling to see the emperor has no clothes. The proof is in the pudding and Mobil 1 pudding has a lot of iron in it.
I like this quote. Sums up how I feel about M1 or any other oil for that matter.
Quote:
Past Performance Is Not Indicative of Future Results
It's amazing how Mobil 1 seems to inspire legions of followers to come to its' defense against claims of high iron wear. Here's a case history for you. I bought a 1995 Impala SS with the LT1 new. Changed to Mobil 1 the first oil change,probably less than 3,000 miles. 5w30 or 10w30 5,000-7,000 OCI. At about 105,000 miles, I changed the Optispark & decided to go on in and replace the timing chain & sprocket. When I got it apart,it was worn at least as bad as if I'd used conventional. This was an actual visual inspection, not some theorizing or general gum beating. Also, reading other message boards, this seemed to be a common experience with this engine using Mobil 1. Now, I'm not saying it's no good, but the evidence is there, except for those unwilling to see the emperor has no clothes. The proof is in the pudding and Mobil 1 pudding has a lot of iron in it.
I like this quote. Sums up how I feel about M1 or any other oil for that matter.
Quote:
Past Performance Is Not Indicative of Future Results
Originally Posted By: tgw323
It's amazing how Mobil 1 seems to inspire legions of followers to come to its' defense against claims of high iron wear. Here's a case history for you. I bought a 1995 Impala SS with the LT1 new. Changed to Mobil 1 the first oil change,probably less than 3,000 miles. 5w30 or 10w30 5,000-7,000 OCI. At about 105,000 miles, I changed the Optispark & decided to go on in and replace the timing chain & sprocket. When I got it apart,it was worn at least as bad as if I'd used conventional. This was an actual visual inspection, not some theorizing or general gum beating. Also, reading other message boards, this seemed to be a common experience with this engine using Mobil 1. Now, I'm not saying it's no good, but the evidence is there, except for those unwilling to see the emperor has no clothes. The proof is in the pudding and Mobil 1 pudding has a lot of iron in it.
I personally don't use M1 nor do I care to defend it. I was just adding to the conversation some information I had that might help others form a more informed decision.
It's amazing how Mobil 1 seems to inspire legions of followers to come to its' defense against claims of high iron wear. Here's a case history for you. I bought a 1995 Impala SS with the LT1 new. Changed to Mobil 1 the first oil change,probably less than 3,000 miles. 5w30 or 10w30 5,000-7,000 OCI. At about 105,000 miles, I changed the Optispark & decided to go on in and replace the timing chain & sprocket. When I got it apart,it was worn at least as bad as if I'd used conventional. This was an actual visual inspection, not some theorizing or general gum beating. Also, reading other message boards, this seemed to be a common experience with this engine using Mobil 1. Now, I'm not saying it's no good, but the evidence is there, except for those unwilling to see the emperor has no clothes. The proof is in the pudding and Mobil 1 pudding has a lot of iron in it.
I personally don't use M1 nor do I care to defend it. I was just adding to the conversation some information I had that might help others form a more informed decision.
Originally Posted By: tgw323
It's amazing how Mobil 1 seems to inspire legions of followers to come to its' defense against claims of high iron wear. Here's a case history for you. I bought a 1995 Impala SS with the LT1 new. Changed to Mobil 1 the first oil change,probably less than 3,000 miles. 5w30 or 10w30 5,000-7,000 OCI. At about 105,000 miles, I changed the Optispark & decided to go on in and replace the timing chain & sprocket. When I got it apart,it was worn at least as bad as if I'd used conventional. This was an actual visual inspection, not some theorizing or general gum beating. Also, reading other message boards, this seemed to be a common experience with this engine using Mobil 1. Now, I'm not saying it's no good, but the evidence is there, except for those unwilling to see the emperor has no clothes. The proof is in the pudding and Mobil 1 pudding has a lot of iron in it.
So what you are saying is , your engine has a design flaw that no oil can can stop?
It's amazing how Mobil 1 seems to inspire legions of followers to come to its' defense against claims of high iron wear. Here's a case history for you. I bought a 1995 Impala SS with the LT1 new. Changed to Mobil 1 the first oil change,probably less than 3,000 miles. 5w30 or 10w30 5,000-7,000 OCI. At about 105,000 miles, I changed the Optispark & decided to go on in and replace the timing chain & sprocket. When I got it apart,it was worn at least as bad as if I'd used conventional. This was an actual visual inspection, not some theorizing or general gum beating. Also, reading other message boards, this seemed to be a common experience with this engine using Mobil 1. Now, I'm not saying it's no good, but the evidence is there, except for those unwilling to see the emperor has no clothes. The proof is in the pudding and Mobil 1 pudding has a lot of iron in it.
So what you are saying is , your engine has a design flaw that no oil can can stop?
Originally Posted By: tgw323
decided to go on in and replace the timing chain & sprocket. When I got it apart,it was worn at least as bad as if I'd used conventional.
Did you for some reason expect less wear on synthetic?
decided to go on in and replace the timing chain & sprocket. When I got it apart,it was worn at least as bad as if I'd used conventional.
Did you for some reason expect less wear on synthetic?
Originally Posted By: tgw323
It's amazing how Mobil 1 seems to inspire legions of followers to come to its' defense against claims of high iron wear. Here's a case history for you. I bought a 1995 Impala SS with the LT1 new. Changed to Mobil 1 the first oil change,probably less than 3,000 miles. 5w30 or 10w30 5,000-7,000 OCI. At about 105,000 miles, I changed the Optispark & decided to go on in and replace the timing chain & sprocket. When I got it apart,it was worn at least as bad as if I'd used conventional. This was an actual visual inspection, not some theorizing or general gum beating. Also, reading other message boards, this seemed to be a common experience with this engine using Mobil 1. Now, I'm not saying it's no good, but the evidence is there, except for those unwilling to see the emperor has no clothes. The proof is in the pudding and Mobil 1 pudding has a lot of iron in it.
Yes but the question here is, did you get the same engine wear on Mobil 1 Extended Performance as you did regular Mobil 1? Or by that point had you given up on all Mobil products? Because your comments don't help anybody considering Mobil 1 Extended Performance.
It's amazing how Mobil 1 seems to inspire legions of followers to come to its' defense against claims of high iron wear. Here's a case history for you. I bought a 1995 Impala SS with the LT1 new. Changed to Mobil 1 the first oil change,probably less than 3,000 miles. 5w30 or 10w30 5,000-7,000 OCI. At about 105,000 miles, I changed the Optispark & decided to go on in and replace the timing chain & sprocket. When I got it apart,it was worn at least as bad as if I'd used conventional. This was an actual visual inspection, not some theorizing or general gum beating. Also, reading other message boards, this seemed to be a common experience with this engine using Mobil 1. Now, I'm not saying it's no good, but the evidence is there, except for those unwilling to see the emperor has no clothes. The proof is in the pudding and Mobil 1 pudding has a lot of iron in it.
Yes but the question here is, did you get the same engine wear on Mobil 1 Extended Performance as you did regular Mobil 1? Or by that point had you given up on all Mobil products? Because your comments don't help anybody considering Mobil 1 Extended Performance.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked