Mobil 1 Fe is NOT Fe wear

[buster]

http://www.natrib.com/appnotes/app30.htm

Called these guys today. (found this link on Noria). Guy by the name of Joe I spoke with. He said the Fe is "absolutely not Iron" and said they see this all the time. Said exactly what Molekule said in that it's Fe in the oil compounds. Said 25ppm of anything is very small. So their you have it. These guy's do work for Dupont and the other big name companies. Said Mobil is an oustanding formulator. So it's not wear as we think of.

[ June 13, 2005, 11:35 AM: Message edited by: Gary Allan ]

 

[Gary Allan]

Now you did it. Now there's a mini-"RL effect" to contend with and the conjecture that it will add.


I will never forgive you.

 

[jason07-1zzfe]

So why isn't it in the VOA? And why has LC lowered it in a few cases? I'm going to have to find that Jeep UOA.
No one said it wasn't small difference. But doesn't mean it's not real.

 

[Bill]

quote:

---

posted by buster

Said 25ppm of anything is very small.

---

So, now when we look at a UOA and see 25 ppm Iron or less, we can assume it is pretty much nothing?

 

[bulwnkl]

Actually, yes, you can, unless it's a sudden change in trend.

 

[buster]

Jason, if you like RL, why can't you understand the chemical aspect of oil analysis?

What he is saying is that many oils have a chemical makeup that when in contact with certain metals will show Fe but it's not Fe wear. Their is a paranoia on this board that is becomming an epidemic with wear metals. It's beyond ridiculous at this point to sweat the small differences in ppm. Roy Howell laughs about it!

Change is viscosity is probably worse then small PPM wear the more I read. Call the guy yourself and pick his brain.

 

[Pablo]

quote:

---

He said the Fe is "absolutely not Iron"

---

Please explain.

 

[jason07-1zzfe]

quote:

---

Originally posted by buster:
Their is a paranoia on this board that is becomming an epidemic with wear metals. It's beyond ridiculous at this point to sweat the small differences in ppm. Roy Howell laughs about it!

---

Then why is Terry able to tune an engine and correct mechanical problems with these "small" difference??? Sorry but Roy Howell is a fool for laughing. But I will continue to use is oil however ignorant he is of UOA.

Like I said. I know it's small, doesn't mean its not real. 20% is worst case repeatability. Unless you have over 125ppm, 25ppm is not meaningless.

 

[buster]

Do you guy's really think a $20 report tells the whole story though? C'mon... Why do so many cars run long with lousy UOA's (Jeeps/Corvettes etc.). I think their is far more to it. Plus, Fe wear isn't high until it's over 200ppm. Their is a chemical side to this that only guys like Molekule understand.

 

[jason07-1zzfe]

quote:

---

Originally posted by buster:
Their is a chemical side to this that only guys like Molekule understand.

---

You think I don't know that? I'm the one that's been trying to tell that to YOU for the past year.
Not saying I grasp it all...that's why I pay Terry.

 

[buster]

Jason you have been right and I have been wrong about it. Something I've come to realize....late of course.

Roy essentially said the same thing. More then meets the eye aprantly with these 20$ UOA's. BTW, I'm not saying I can prove it's not Fe wear, but the guy jumped right on what I had to say and was VERY aware of it, said he sees this all the time and said EXACTLY what Molekule said. Plus, he said 25ppm is LOW.

 

[Bill]

quote:

---

posted by buster

Do you guy's really think a $20 report tells the whole story though? C'mon... Why do so many cars run long with lousy UOA's (Jeeps/Corvettes etc.). I think their is far more to it. Plus, Fe wear isn't high until it's over 200ppm.

---

buster,

These analysis tell Terry enough to guide us in preventative maintenace but do they tell the whole story? No.

Unless the standards have changed, Iron is not flagged as 'Abnormal' unless it hits 150 ppm (?), and not flagged 'Excessive' unless the ppm is more then 250 or 300 ppm for Iron? (maybe someone from the Analysis providers can chime in?), I am referring to a PPM wear chart with Abnormal and Excessive wear numbers for gasoline engines, the Abnormal and Excessive may not be the same for all vehicles.

I believe we pick nits here, we worry way too much about a few ppm, when I compare my 0W-30 UOAs with my 5W-30 UOAs, the 5W-30 have less wear but I get better mileage with the 0W-30, I think I can live with more wear knowing my gas mileage will be higher.

 

[buster]

Bill I agree. My point is that it seems to be that some oils react differently with certain metals and show differently in these engines. I'm all for seein the lowest wear possible.

But when your talking about differences of +/- 10ppm, I think we ALL over react a bit. The best thing about a UOA is TBN, Viscosity and contamination. Wear is subjective and the more I read, the more confusing this all becomes.

 

[Winston]

quote:

---

He said the Fe is "absolutely not Iron"

---

quote:

---

25ppm of anything is very small.

---

I am new here, but I am pretty shocked by these two statements. As far as Fe in the oil, if the analysis shows Fe, it is in the oil. Period. As far as "25ppm of anything is very small" That is a rediculous statement. You guys see all sorts of things in a UOA that gives you insight as far as what is happening in the engine. Si, Ni, etc. Is he trying to say that any number below 25ppm is insiginificant? If he is, that is just a rediculous statement. Is he saying that anything less that 25ppm of iron in a Mobil 1 analysis is insignificant? Again, that is not a very credible statement without some explanation to back it up. Saying that "he sees it all the time" is not an explanation.

 

[buster]

What he was saying, again, is that some oils start off with a certain amount of Fe in the oil and then react with Fe in the engine. So he is saying that what you are seeing isn't Fe WEAR. Much like RL and Pb for instance. What is so hard to understand about that?

Is this true? I HAVE NO IDEA but he and Molekule have both said this. His point about the 25ppm is that it is very low.

Thread should read Fe is NOT Fe WEAR . It's Fe, but not from wear. To those that don't agree, do your own research and see what you come up with.

 

[TomJones76]

Ummmmm...
Why doesn't it show up in the virgin oil? Has anyone explained this?

 

[buster]

Just a guess, but the oil itself sitting in a plastic bottle won't have Fe to react with. No idea though. This isn't my theory btw. Take it lightly. Could very well be Fe wear. I'm trying to find out before I change oils.

 

[1sttruck]

If there is Fe in fresh Mobil 1 it will usually get picked up in a VOA, unless it's bigger particles of metal, which isn't a good. If the newer Mobil 1 produces 25 ppm of Fe right off the bat and it's not from the fresh oil, it's fairly reactive stuff, but not out of line with reports of Redline, Royal Purple, Exxon synthetic blend aircraft oils, etc., producing high 'wear metals'.

There'w two cherished beliefs here on a collision course; Mobil 1 PCMO always producing low wear (wear metals in a UOA), and the validity of estimating wear from UOAs (the last oil that I used had 13ppm of Fe, this oil has 8pmm of Fe, therefore the last oil produced 65.5% more wear)

 

[sully]

Why does it only show up as higher FE. If it's actually wear caused by some deficiency in M1's add pack or baseoils then why don't we see an increase in other wear metals. I don't know I'm just asking. I tend to believe the answers Buster has provided are correct.

 

[buster]

Actually that is a good point, one MoleKule stated in a previous thread. Who knows, I'm getting tired of wondering.

*More specifically, the Fe is contained in a compound as an additive component. Something that might not get picked up VOA but only when in the engine.

I did the same thing with Redline. I questioned it to death. Think of RL's reputation among engien builder, then among BITOG. How can one not be curious about that....

I'm actually tired of it though. I should also stop posting at work so I don't get fired.