Mobil 1 - Iron (Fe) Leaching - Not Wear?

[Art_Vandelay]

Apparently wine stored in Crystal decanters can leach up to 5,000 micrograms of lead per liter in a 4 month period.

I'm wondering if something in Mobil's formulations cause the same phenomenon with respect to Iron(Fe)? Maybe that's what folks see in their higher ppm UOA's? That wouldn't be wear at all. It seems plausible.

Maybe we should take some virgin Mobil 1 and dunk a bar of Iron in it for 6 months. Then send it to Blackstone for a UOA.

 

[ArcticCat]

That's still wear, it's just chemical wear, not mechanical wear.

 

[d00df00d]

Yup, that's one current hypothesis.

Another is that Mobil 1 is just particularly good at holding iron wear particles in suspension, whereas other oils let it settle out more.

I'd love to see a test as you propose, maybe comparing M1 to the usual suspects (PP, RP, Amsoil, Red Line, etc.).

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: ArcticCat
That's still wear, it's just chemical wear, not mechanical wear.

True. However, the implications are quite different.

Chemical wear would be spread out over everything the oil touches, and most of that stuff is stuff you don't care about. For example, I'm sure no one would be bothered by their oil passages losing an atom or two here and there. If the oil is leaching a few ppm of iron from the whole engine over tens of thousands of miles, the effects on any one part are insignificant.

On the other hand, mechanical wear is on one specific piece, and it's the kind of piece you care about the most (moving parts). A few ppm of iron off a single bearing every OCI can definitely make a difference in the long run.

 

[tig1]

I have no experience with other oils but I have used M1 for 31 years. Back when, M1 had a reputation for holding particles in suspension thus producing very clean engines. Also those engines where known as long lived engines with little are no wear even after very high miles. My engines today are still very clean and have high mileage. My sons Ranger has 330,000 miles and still runs great on 10-15,000 mile OCIs.

 

[tig1]

By the way I have a friend with a 2000 Taurus and it has 295,000 miles on it all on M1 5-30 at 8-10,000 mile OCIs.

 

[daman]

If that was the case every/most UOA's would be high,,there's lots of 5w30 uoa's with low iron..nothing to worry about.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: daman
If that was the case every/most UOA's would be high,,there's lots of 5w30 uoa's with low iron..nothing to worry about.


Not engines with alloy blocks and those special bores

LOL!

 

[INDYMAC]

I think fuel dilution affects M1 differently than some other oils. Whether it's leaching or actual wear would be hard to determine. It's also difficult to determine what the average fuel dilution % is throughout the entire OCI with only one UOA sample taken. But when I see a high FE number, I suspect high fuel dilution, even if it's not identified with the actual number on the report.

With other brands of engine oils, fuel dilution seems to raise Pb and/or Cu numbers, but not neccessarily FE.

Anyways, that's what I'm theorizing these days.

 

[StevieC]

Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Not engines with alloy blocks and those special bores

LOL!


I know you were kidding, but to touch on that point for a minute... My engine in my Santa Fe is all Aluminum with Iron-Liners for cylinder walls, and as far as I can tell and from reading my technical manual I only have hardened steel and/or aluminum parts in my engine leaving iron only for the oil pump and cylinder walls.

I have used M1 for the first 80K KM of my vehicle changed at 5-6K KM (3-3.5K Miles) as per the warranty.

Vehicle ran great but did show high Iron numbers in the 60's on the UOA's right through from the start to the 80K mark.

Since then I have changed to Amsoil and the Iron numbers have fallen to around 5-6 on average but I doubled the miles run on the Amsoil versus the M1. (Big Difference)

So if I have less iron in my engine than most engines running M1 and if M1 was only leeching the iron and not causing wear why were my numbers so much higher than most versus Amsoil at double the mileage?

Also with Amsoil my numbers indicating "ring" wear at 0's whereas with M1 they were slightly elevated in the 2-3's but nothing to worry about overall.


Not calling M1 out or bashing them, not stating that Amsoil does a better job at protecting my engine, just questioning the numbers is all... For discussion purposes.

 

[buster]

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1507140#Post1507140

 

[StevieC]

Saw it before I saw this one... See comments over there!

 

[ADFD1]

Originally Posted By: StevieC
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Not engines with alloy blocks and those special bores

LOL!


I know you were kidding, but to touch on that point for a minute... My engine in my Santa Fe is all Aluminum with Iron-Liners for cylinder walls, and as far as I can tell and from reading my technical manual I only have hardened steel and/or aluminum parts in my engine leaving iron only for the oil pump and cylinder walls.

I have used M1 for the first 80K KM of my vehicle changed at 5-6K KM (3-3.5K Miles) as per the warranty.

Vehicle ran great but did show high Iron numbers in the 60's on the UOA's right through from the start to the 80K mark.

Since then I have changed to Amsoil and the Iron numbers have fallen to around 5-6 on average but I doubled the miles run on the Amsoil versus the M1. (Big Difference)

So if I have less iron in my engine than most engines running M1 and if M1 was only leeching the iron and not causing wear why were my numbers so much higher than most versus Amsoil at double the mileage?

Also with Amsoil my numbers indicating "ring" wear at 0's whereas with M1 they were slightly elevated in the 2-3's but nothing to worry about overall.


Not calling M1 out or bashing them, not stating that Amsoil does a better job at protecting my engine, just questioning the numbers is all... For discussion purposes.


Interesting about the iron numbers and the reduction when changing over to Amsoil. We have a lot of theories about iron and Mobil 1, my problem is they are just theories. If I ran a UOA and discovered Iron was cut almost 10 fold, I would forget about theories and deal with reality. Reality being Amsoil is giving "you" better iron numbers. Theories are fine, when they're backed up by hard cold facts they become reality. Until then I'd go by the numbers the UOA provides. Especially when a tear down is not practical for a back yard mechanic. JMO

AD

 

[RI_RS4]

Except that M1 shows high Fe in UOA on Aluminum block/cylinder Audi engines. The only steel left in the engine are important moving parts.

 

[StevieC]

Originally Posted By: ADFD1
Originally Posted By: StevieC
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Not engines with alloy blocks and those special bores

LOL!


I know you were kidding, but to touch on that point for a minute... My engine in my Santa Fe is all Aluminum with Iron-Liners for cylinder walls, and as far as I can tell and from reading my technical manual I only have hardened steel and/or aluminum parts in my engine leaving iron only for the oil pump and cylinder walls.

I have used M1 for the first 80K KM of my vehicle changed at 5-6K KM (3-3.5K Miles) as per the warranty.

Vehicle ran great but did show high Iron numbers in the 60's on the UOA's right through from the start to the 80K mark.

Since then I have changed to Amsoil and the Iron numbers have fallen to around 5-6 on average but I doubled the miles run on the Amsoil versus the M1. (Big Difference)

So if I have less iron in my engine than most engines running M1 and if M1 was only leeching the iron and not causing wear why were my numbers so much higher than most versus Amsoil at double the mileage?

Also with Amsoil my numbers indicating "ring" wear at 0's whereas with M1 they were slightly elevated in the 2-3's but nothing to worry about overall.


Not calling M1 out or bashing them, not stating that Amsoil does a better job at protecting my engine, just questioning the numbers is all... For discussion purposes.


Interesting about the iron numbers and the reduction when changing over to Amsoil. We have a lot of theories about iron and Mobil 1, my problem is they are just theories. If I ran a UOA and discovered Iron was cut almost 10 fold, I would forget about theories and deal with reality. Reality being Amsoil is giving "you" better iron numbers. Theories are fine, when they're backed up by hard cold facts they become reality. Until then I'd go by the numbers the UOA provides. Especially when a tear down is not practical for a back yard mechanic. JMO

AD


I didn't base my choice of switching from M1 to Amsoil soley based on this... There was other factors as well but it was surprising to see the drop in Iron whatever it was caused by in a pretty much, all aluminum engine!

Now I can't prove the heightened Iron numbers is wear and not leaching and I have never suggested as such, but being that only time will tell i'm not really willing to take a chance and wait to find out.

That being said I have 3 jugs of TDT and 1 jug of 5w20 that I'm going to run and do comparative UOA's for fun, but I will most likely go back to my trusty Amsoil.

The other thing about M1 versus Amsoil is, M1 is starting to get quite pricey up in this market and you have to watch for the deals to make it a good deal. I pay a few bucks more and I get Amsoil and sleep easy at night not worrying weather the Iron numbers are leaching or wear.

Dunno... Time will tell!

 

[Gary Allan]

I had horrible Fe with M1 0w-30 when I joined here (first UOA). Went to D1 and it was cut to 30% (something like 78ppm to 28ppm) over like mileage. Whatever its origin, it didn't seem to be there with D1 ..but then again, D1 wasn't a 0w-30

That was a long time ago in BITOG years.

 

[river_rat]

Originally Posted By: daman
If that was the case every/most UOA's would be high,,there's lots of 5w30 uoa's with low iron..nothing to worry about.

I agree. Too much good history with M1 all over the world for me to worry one whit about it. But then, without discussion, this would be a boring forum.

 

[daman]

Originally Posted By: river_rat
Originally Posted By: daman
If that was the case every/most UOA's would be high,,there's lots of 5w30 uoa's with low iron..nothing to worry about.

I agree. Too much good history with M1 all over the world for me to worry one whit about it. But then, without discussion, this would be a boring forum.

yep....

 

[ADFD1]

Yes they do have a pretty loyal following. Anytime Mobil 1 and Iron are mentioned in a thread just watch how it grows. One thing this forum isn't is boring! Good stuff!

AD

 

[StevieC]

Originally Posted By: ADFD1
Yes they do have a pretty loyal following. Anytime Mobil 1 and Iron are mentioned in a thread just watch how it grows. One thing this forum isn't is boring! Good stuff!

AD
That's for sure!