Mobil 1 Fe is NOT Fe wear

[TooSlick]

If there was any significant amount of Fe in the baseline formulation, it would be liberated from any additive compounds when the oil is burned in the extremely high temp, plasma arc of the mass spectrometer. The 1-2 ppm of iron you see in some oils is from rusty pipes somewhere in the processing equipment - at least that's what Dr Dyson calls it.

The iron showing up in batch after batch of analyzed oil is MOST CERTAINLY wear. It's generated by the processes of adhesion/abrasion and from chemical/corrosive wear - this is ALWAYS true, regardless of the oil used. It may be in the form of iron borate or iron sulphide or iron phosphate, but it's coming off the surfaces of the engine that are subject to high pressures and temperatures. It's NOT just sluffing off the inside of the block on a continual basis - unless the rust protection of the lube is just horrible.

Do you honestly think these various ferrous compounds somehow magically replate themselves to the valve train parts and cylinder walls - just before the used oil is drained out of the engine? LOL!

Akems Razor: "The simplest answer is usually the correct one...."

 

[Roger]

quote:

---

25ppm of anything is very small.

---

That is fairly with some of the "acceptable levels" Bob originally posted in his Oil Analysis History section years ago.

http://theoildrop.server101.com/whatisoilanalysis.htm

I've often wondered if we are debating the merits of getting gas mileage of 49.999 miles per gallon vs. 50.0 miles per gallon with some of the comparisons about uoa results that we make.

 

[TheFuror]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pablo:

Here are my thoughts:

1) Yes, it is wear.
2) If it was Amsoil, it would be wear...

---

It does seem that AMSOIL is targeted unfairly in some areas.

However, the irreverant sense of humor is much appreciated.

Bob W.

 

[buster]

quote:

---

Akems Razor: "The simplest answer is usually the correct one...."

---

I started the thread, but I'm taking the stance that it's wear for now until proven otherwise.

 

[Bryanccfshr]

This thread has made me all the more curious so I chose a motor and traced the iron through the UOA's posted here. I chose the 3.4 V-6 that is in the Tacoma and the Tundra. Nice motor and seems to throw fairly consistant numbers despite some extremely varied use.

To Keep It simple I Combined all Mobil1 30wt oils into one column. Amsoil due to formulation differnces I will show the line it came from. Then there are others. I apologize if I missed any but this is what the search feature rendered Here's the #'s I collected. I used avg per uoa seen for the phsycological impact and then I broke it down to miles it takes to build PPM of Fe I did not make adjustments for virgin Fe. The higher the miles per PPM driven the better.


Mobil 1 (5w30 and 10w30 SS)

Miles/ FE in ppm
10108/ 23
7581/11
5557/12
5452/9
5225/7
7861/9
5112/3
10123/8
5500/12
4730/9
AVG per UOA Seen 10.3PPM
67249 total miles 103 ppm
1ppm fe=652.9 miles

AMSOIL
(0w30)
10634/12
11567/17
5455/31
12000/33
10000/20
(10w30)
5900/21
6000/12
(5w30,ASL)
5108/5
5412/5
AVG per UOA Seen 17.3PPM
72076 total miles 156 ppm
1ppm fe= 462 miles

GC(because I don't like lynch mobs)
7377/15
9963/11
AVG per UOA Seen 13PPM
17340 total miles 26 ppm
1ppm fe= 667 miles

Schaeffers 10w30
5937/9
5238/12
5200/12
AVG per UOA Seen 11PPM
16375 total miles 33 ppm
1ppm fe= 496.2 miles

Samples of interest but not really enough data to trend.
Mobil DC 10w30
7490/6
Redline10w30
4948/2
10000/5

These are UOA's going back as far as 2002 with this particular engine. Using the search "Toyota 3.4" in Used oil analysis forum to find these. There were some repeats I had to sort through as many folks have been tabling there long term trends. I excluded any 40wt oils and any factory fills.


So does M1 look like it throws high Fe here? In this engine it looks good to me.

 

[buster]

"So does M1 look like it throws high Fe here? In this engine it looks good to me."

Thanks for posting this. I was going back as well and looking at old UOA's. I'm really not so sure that it does show high Fe in all cases. It seems Fe is always the higher wear metal in most UOA's and I've seen quite a few with high Fe among all oils.

 

[Bryanccfshr]

quote:

---

Originally posted by buster:
"So does M1 look like it throws high Fe here? In this engine it looks good to me."

Thanks for posting this. I was going back as well and looking at old UOA's. I'm really not so sure that it does show high Fe in all cases. It seems Fe is always the higher wear metal in most UOA's and I've seen quite a few with high Fe among all oils.

---

I would like to do other engines but it is time consuming and I have to get some work done now and then

I think what happens is we see a few UOA's where the Fe stands out and it sticks in our minds.

 

[Terry]

If a UOA spectro shows elevated wear, I will tell the customer so. If that oil has an element of Fe chemistry or reactive additives then I mention that too. There are so many variations on that theme for so many reasons that to make blanket statements is misleading and ignorant.

Using cookie cutter wear levels thresholds for a particular element is not useful in the real world of interpreting oil analysis.

Sure a particular bearing may show 50 ppm of lead for 3 years and 50,000 miles but why accept that as OK ? If you as a auto owner are happy with 150 ppm of say Fe then why use oil analysis at all ?

Bill and others you need to realize that I don't JUST use spectro ICP analysis from whatever lab source to base my comments on. I apply/compare years of experience, access, and background with substantially more indepth testing protocals and techniques ( reference the recent Gas Mass Spec testing for the Zoil test. I doubt Roy laughed at that or would laugh at BITOG breaking his formulas down with that technique !) to that oil analysis test you hire me to interpret.

Knowledge of engine metallurgy and construct is important too. Automotive oil analysis is woefully overlooked or I would not have as robust a business as we currently enjoy.

I agree with Roy in that I laugh at many of the comments here that are mostly thinking, ( somtimes not), out loud, by average car enthusiasts that want to learn.

I disagree with anyone that ascribes that the average BITOG poster holds themselves up as a standard of tribological knowledge sourcing.

Instead of laughing at honest folks searching for truth in a public fashion I helped Bob Winters provide the ability to do just that.

Maybe it will or has harmed my professional credibility with those in the industry but I prefer helping customers instead of looking down my tribological nose at them.

Nice thing about being INDEPENDENT !

 

[Bryanccfshr]

Terry,
By trying to break down these numbers I by no means think I am interpreting as accurately (or even in the same ball field) as you.. I am just trying to make sense of this so I know when to ask you for help.

I understand that the actual pool of knowledge posted here is a minute fraction of the data you have available, if we had that data available most of us would be lost.
If I ever havean abnormality I know who I am going to call though!

The contributions that you make here are priceless.

 

[Pablo]

quote:

---

Thread should read Fe is NOT Fe WEAR

---

I kinda THOUGHT that's what you meant. Not a mind reader.....

Here are my thoughts:

1) Yes, it is wear.
2) If it was Amsoil, it would be wear.
3) Basically it's not dissolved Fe, but chunks native in the virgin oil - therefore not picked up in the VOA? I'm not biting, and if it is, this is supposed to make me feel better?
4) Under 50 ppm Fe in 10K I don't sweat B-B's, but it's not good either. If you get 25 ppm Fe in 3K, something ain't right.
5) I do notice sometimes M1 does have a tiny bit more Fe - yet the remainder of the given UOA numbers look great......but have we any statistical significance?

 

[buster]

Terry great post and thank you.

 

[TooSlick]

Brianccfshr,

Have you heard the expression "There are lies, **** lies and statistics"?

You have wisely chosen to compare Fe levels for All Aluminum Toyota engines with DOHC's and timing belts that run dry. These engines are extremely well engineered and have very few ferrous parts in the valve train that can wear. As a result, they show relatively low Fe levels with even the cheapest petroleum oil you can buy for $1.15/qt. It's very hard to discriminate between lubricants in these applications, given the inherent variabilities in oil analysis and individual driving conditions. This is particularly true for short service intervals,as the wear metal concentrations are going to be quite low.

If you REALLY want to see how lubricants compare with regards to valvetrain protection, you need to look at the data from large displacement, pushrod six and eight cylinder engines. These engines have fully lubricated timing chains/sprockets, along with pushrods and tappets, rollers, etc. It is in these larger engines with generally higher iron levels that the differences in wear protection are clear for anyone to see. A difference of say 40 ppm of iron vs 25 ppm of iron stands out more than a difference of 8 ppm vs 5 ppm - even though percentage wise those two sets of data are identical!

Many folks on this forum, including Patman, have wisely concluded that the thicker ACEA, A3/B4 synthetics and/or 15w-40 conventional oils work significantly better in preventing valve train and ring/cylinder wear. By and large that is true and I've explained it using principles of fluid mechanics and physics that really aren't open to debate - unless you have had some sort of relevation in your sleep that stands the world of mechanical engineering on its' head???
No, I didn't think so...

The API/SAE specs for 20wt and 30wt engine oils are designed to do several things:

1) Maximize fuel efficiency in domestic engines that aren't terribly fuel efficient to begin with.

2) Allow for adequate cold temp performance with conventional oils in the coldest regions of North America.

3) Provide "adequate" engine life; provided frequent oil/filter changes are performed - ie engine life that meets the 100k-150k expectation of most customers of domestic vehicles.

The European solution of using xw-30 and xw-40 oils that are 15%-33% thicker in terms of HT/HS viscosity is technically an extremely sound approach. It represents the victory of conservative engineering over marketing and false claims of fuel efficiency gains.

Rather than actually make smaller/lighter vehicles with refined four cylinder engines, many vehicle companies have chosen to make very marginal gains in fuel efficiency by using thinner and thinner oils - including thinner and thinner synthetic lubes. It's really not a sustainable idea in that we have already reached the point with the 5w-20 oils where valvetrain and ring/cylinder protection is going to be compromised. Just wait to you see how well 5w-20's do in some of these large pushrod V-6 and V-8 engines in terms of iron and chrome wear. I think one reason why GM is holding off on SAE 5w-20 is that they are concerned about component durability in these low rpm designs with their inherently thinner oil films - and I think that's a perfectly valid point.

Tooslick

 

[buster]

I believe in most cases Tooslick is right. Large, domestic pushrod V8's are better off with a ACEA A3 rated oil. I'm ok with using a thin oil in the Honda, although I have thought of using the GC or Amsoil ASL/ATM at times. I only like thin oils for some cars.

 

[Bryanccfshr]

Good points TooSlick. I figured if I did the work I should get something out of it so I used an engine that I own. To be honest I was surprised at the pattern myself. I expected M1 to have the highest Fe but not by much. It seems that M1 is well tolerated by this Toyota engine.

Perhaps If I get time during the day today,I will goof off and compare a pushrod engine as you suggest.

 

[Bryanccfshr]

I chose the GM 5.3 Truck motor.

Mobil 1 (0,5,10w30)

Miles/ FE in ppm
3106/9 *
6831/25
6122/11
6000/51
6100/19
3875/24
4761/35
3000/13
3408/21
3000/25
5100/48


AVG per UOA Seen 25.5PPM
51303 total miles 281 ppm
1ppm fe= 183 miles

* Same Vehicle

Amsoil

Miles/ FE in ppm
(0w30)
3916/17*
8313/92~~~(Atypical,not included in AVG)
4435/10
(5w30 Series 3k)
11686/24
(5w30 ASL)
12880/25


AVG per UOA Seen 19 PPM
32917 total miles 76 ppm
1ppm fe= 433 miles

GC

Miles/ FE in ppm
5100/7
5000/11
6033/10
2881/11
4419/10
3094/12

AVG per UOA Seen 10.2PPM
26527 total miles 61 ppm
1ppm fe= 434 miles


Royal Purple(5w30)

Miles/ FE in ppm
2579/10
2855/29
4050/12
2952/17


AVG per UOA Seen 17 PPM
12436 total miles 68 ppm
1ppm fe= 183 miles

Conventionals

Miles/ FE in ppm
(CastrolGTX)
4668/6
3250/6
(all climate 10w30)
4265/17
(Chevron supreme 10w30)
4123/8
(Penz 5w30)
1608/10
(QS)
2689/18
3412/30

AVG per UOA Seen 13.6 PPM
24015 total miles 95 ppm
1ppm fe= 253 miles


It appears that these V-8 GM engines get lower Fe results with Amsoil and GC. Mobil 1 is giving some obviously different averages with this motor.

The question now becomes.. Why?

 

[jsharp]

quote:

---

Originally posted by buster:
"So does M1 look like it throws high Fe here? In this engine it looks good to me."

Thanks for posting this. I was going back as well and looking at old UOA's. I'm really not so sure that it does show high Fe in all cases. It seems Fe is always the higher wear metal in most UOA's and I've seen quite a few with high Fe among all oils.

---

My Toyota 3.4L likely gave us 4 of the data points in the list Bryanccfshr made.

Here's what I've noticed about my engine - Iron wear tracks more with time of year than anything else.

Illinois winters = higher iron.
Summer months = lower iron.

What's interesting to me but I can't explain, is that other metals don't seem to track. So if it's increased wear, it must be from the valvetrain only since other areas would also show additional elements like chomium or nickel I think.

 

[deuginthesky]

quote:

---

Originally posted by TooSlick:
The European solution of using xw-30 and xw-40 oils that are 15%-33% thicker in terms of HT/HS viscosity is technically an extremely sound approach. It represents the victory of conservative engineering over marketing and false claims of fuel efficiency gains.

Tooslick [/QB]

---

You are very right about European approch, we don't like thin oil, and many of us simply can't even think of running XW-20 engine oils.


For example, it is forbidden to run a XW-30 oil on the Renault F4R engine, it's a 4 inline 2.0L N/A gasoline engine that pulls 182hp @6250 RPM (max RPM is 7200).

Except the Motul 300V high RPM for drag racing, I don't know any XW-20 engine oil for sell in France.


To come back to this thread, I don't like seing Fe in a VOA or UOA, makes me think of a contamination in the production line or whatever.
Fe is something we don't want to see in an oil analysis.

I have very few knowledge about oil, but it is common sense to me.

 

[buster]

This engine has a fully lubricated timing chain with pushrods. These are the engines as Tooslick said above, that need a thicker ACEA A3 rated oil. With Mobil 1 it's not ideal, IMO, for large domestic V8's.

If you were to use Mobil 1 in a large V8 with more old school Fe parts, I'd use 0w-40, 15w-50 in these engines. Patman and others have shown via UOA's, that the LS1 for instance, shows lower wear with a thicker oil.

Notice how in Toyota's/Hondas etc., Mobil 1 is outstanding.

One could argue that being M1 contains Fe in a particular compound, it will react more with Fe parts. It could be the case but I don't believe this as much as what I've stated above.

 

[Bryanccfshr]

quote:

---

Originally posted by buster:
This engine has a fully lubricated timing chain with pushrods. These are the engines as Tooslick said above, that need a thicker ACEA A3 rated oil. With Mobil 1 it's not ideal, IMO, for large domestic V8's.

If you were to use Mobil 1 in a large V8 with more old school Fe parts, I'd use 0w-40, 15w-50 in these engines. Patman and others have shown via UOA's, that the LS1 for instance, shows lower wear with a thicker oil.

Notice how in Toyota's/Hondas etc., Mobil 1 is outstanding.

One could argue that being M1 contains Fe in a particular compound, it will react more with Fe parts. It could be the case but I don't believe this as much as what I've stated above.

---

I agree with you and what TooSlick has been talking about it is clearly looking like it is wear related where a higher HTHS is needed in the pushrod and timing chain configurations.

HTHS seems to be the common link.
The RP had similar results to the M1 in this engine while the Amsoil and the GC were also close. I can't find a PDS for RP but it's performance points towards the low 3's like the M1 while the Amsoils range to 3.3 to above 3.5 depending on the line, GC of course being at least 3.5 .

Is it me or is our SAE system of viscosity ratings starting to seem really antiquated?


My Toyota Manual specificly recomends an ISLAC energy conserving 5w30. For me this seems to be working out just fine, the motor can tolerate low HTHS motor oil. My question to GM owners is, do ya'll get the same factory recomendation?

 

[buster]

quote:

---

HTHS seems to be the common link.
The RP had similar results to the M1 in this engine while the Amsoil and the GC were also close.

My Toyota Manual specificly recomends an ISLAC energy conserving 5w30. For me this seems to be working out just fine, the motor can tolerate low HTHS motor oil. My question to GM owners is, do ya'll get the same factory recomendation?

---

I completely agree. So, to end the thread I started, I believe that it's more likely to be "wear". HT/HS is important for many high HP/V8 engines and that lower, more fuel efficient oils, such as Mobil 1, are better suited to some engines then others. These are mainly your Toyota/Sub/Honda etc. Most aluminum engines. Your larger domestic V8's, like your GM pushrods (LS1, 5.3L etc), would benefit from a ACEA A3 rated oil, like Tooslick has said.

I think we all agree now.