Mobil 1: Noiser Engine = More Wear or Just More Annoying?
- Thread starter Big O Dave
- Start date
- Status
Well I'm certainly not convinced in an engine in good running order with decent oil in it that noise and engine wear correlate. Yes if you run the engine with no oil at a certain point (if not instantaneously) it's going to sound noisier. Maybe a worn out oil will sound noisier. However, that is not the issue.
I find it quite possible in an engine in good running order with decent oil that engine wear is not audible by the human ear.
It would be interesting to know in all the engine wear tests done by manufacturers over the years whether they performed vibrational analysis and decibel readings and what the correlations were in terms of higher wear and db levels.
I find it quite possible in an engine in good running order with decent oil that engine wear is not audible by the human ear.
It would be interesting to know in all the engine wear tests done by manufacturers over the years whether they performed vibrational analysis and decibel readings and what the correlations were in terms of higher wear and db levels.
It's not just noise, don't forget the higher Fe. With 'worn out oil' there's more noise and wear, when the oil gets too hot there's more noise and wear, when using too thin of an oil there's more noise and wear, but when Mobil 1 produces more noise and more Fe it's not wear.
Buster,
That's total B--- S---!
The lead wear you see with Redline is also chemical wear - however it dissipates over time.
If a significant amount of iron is always in solution even time you change oil, you have wear, pure and simple. If the VOA of Mobil 1 showed 10-20 ppm of iron, then this theory makes sense - but only then.
Ted
That's total B--- S---!
The lead wear you see with Redline is also chemical wear - however it dissipates over time.
If a significant amount of iron is always in solution even time you change oil, you have wear, pure and simple. If the VOA of Mobil 1 showed 10-20 ppm of iron, then this theory makes sense - but only then.
Ted
I lean towards TooSlicks side of the fence here. I'm curious if M1 shows elevated Fe in vehicles that have very little down time. There's speculation the elevated Fe is from how quickly and almost completely M1 drains back to the pan after use causing more start up wear. Altenately, exposing the top end to more oxidation from lack of a oil film while sitting could cause the higher readings but may also indicate that this wear isn't a big problem as most of the Fe in the top end isn't working area. Could this be a result of M1 keeping things too clean without even a hint of protective .
varnish in many applications? I'm becoming proof that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
Are you saying you are being educated beyond your intelligence? LOL
Hey, at least I'm as smart as I think I am.
I think. More like not enough input so it's guesses and speculation except for those with lots of practice. Nothing like educated experience to posibly comprehend a complex subject. No amount of learnin on its own will get it done.
I thought the last 'high Fe in Mobil 1 (PCMO)' thread noted that in 'high iron content' engines, with metal timing chains, etc., resulted in higher Fe than in 'low iron content' engines, such as with aluminum blocks, heads, timing belts, etc., and that Mobil 1 seemed to generate more Fe than some other oils in the same 'high iron' engines.
Thats what I don't understand. At this point, I really don't care. Kind of tired of the subject. If it's wear, it's wear. It is not significant at all, although I'd want the lowest possible. Labs never flag Fe as high with any oils on here that we see.
What I don't understand is why in some engines, like Toyota's with timing chains, M1 shows extremely low Fe. It does sound like it has a chemical element to it much like RL does with bearings. I do think though that it could just be Mobil 1's additive package isn't as good as it should be.
Here's a recent thread with a table Bryanccfshr compiled comparing a few different oils in Toyota engines -
http://theoildrop.server101.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=000006#000025
"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"
Even with it's gear driven intake cams the Toyota 3.4L doesn't spit out a lot of iron.
But could someone clue me as to where the "M1 = high iron" comes from after looking at that data?
I'd guess M1 might look worse in an American V8 with all their pushods and marginally lubed areas. No way for me to know and also no way to tell if it's because of it being thin or something else...
This is one of the reasons I quit using Mobil 1. The 5.7L in my 98 chevy truck was noisy when using this oil, especially after the engine was hot. I also used more oil when using this oil and my oil analysis results were usually worse than my Chevron Supreme results.
I used to be a diehard Mobil 1 fan and used it for many years but I felt I wasn't getting my moneys worth out of it so I quit using it.
To be honest, I'm a little leery about all of Mobil's synthetic products. I used Mobil 1 rear end fluid in the diffs of this same truck and I had to have the rearend rebuilt in February with only 70 something thousand on it and with hardly any towing. Mobil 1 definatly didn't protect the pinion bearings very well in this case.
I'm done with all synthetics. I still have Mobil 1 in the front diff but that will come out before the fall and its back to dino.
Wayne
I used to be a diehard Mobil 1 fan and used it for many years but I felt I wasn't getting my moneys worth out of it so I quit using it.
To be honest, I'm a little leery about all of Mobil's synthetic products. I used Mobil 1 rear end fluid in the diffs of this same truck and I had to have the rearend rebuilt in February with only 70 something thousand on it and with hardly any towing. Mobil 1 definatly didn't protect the pinion bearings very well in this case.
I'm done with all synthetics. I still have Mobil 1 in the front diff but that will come out before the fall and its back to dino.
Wayne
I have M1 5w30 in my 98 chevy truck with the 5.7L.
It makes a ticking/knocking sound when I first fire it up and while I drive away for the first block and a half of driving.
After that it goes away and the engine runs silky smooth hot or cold. It may be placebo, but when I put this oil in last summer, I could have sworn I got extra horsepower. I was spinning my 33" BFG all terrains as much as I wanted (with a little rain on the ground)...right through first and second gear. Couldn't do that before the M1. Really..pretty childish I know...but I was pretty pleased with my 170k mile vortech 350 with some big 33" meats.
Anyhow, based on what I've read here, I'm going to try the GC or the xd3 0w30 with a cst of around 12.2 to see if that quiets things up.
It makes a ticking/knocking sound when I first fire it up and while I drive away for the first block and a half of driving.
After that it goes away and the engine runs silky smooth hot or cold. It may be placebo, but when I put this oil in last summer, I could have sworn I got extra horsepower. I was spinning my 33" BFG all terrains as much as I wanted (with a little rain on the ground)...right through first and second gear. Couldn't do that before the M1. Really..pretty childish I know...but I was pretty pleased with my 170k mile vortech 350 with some big 33" meats.
Anyhow, based on what I've read here, I'm going to try the GC or the xd3 0w30 with a cst of around 12.2 to see if that quiets things up.
no noticable change in noise switching from 5W30 GTX to M1EP 5W30 in 1300cc suzuki swift.
*throws another ppm into the million*
*throws another ppm into the million*
Original Question: Noiser Engine = More Wear or Just More Annoying?
Reply: As a general rule, more noise equates to more wear with just about everything.
Regards, Gary in Sandy Eggo
Reply: As a general rule, more noise equates to more wear with just about everything.
Regards, Gary in Sandy Eggo
Maybe the noise generated by an engine is just moved around the frequency spectrum by different oils? A particular oil may move the noise into or out of the hearing range of humans or a particular human. I'd have to see an instrumented measurement of sufficient sensitivity to give any credence to this type of subjective evaluation.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,798
Interesting notion. We haven't explored the possibilty that mechanical "harmonics" or resonance can be altered by different lubrication properties (eyes gazing off into self created thought cloud
)
Perhaps there's a dampening effect with certain oils that others lack. How would one explain why one 10 Cst oil is quiet ..while another 10 Cst oil was not
Now my HLAs are noisy all the time ..except on 20w-50. One would think that they bleed down too fast with any reasonable viscosity oil at the volume the oil pump provides ..at fairly high rpm. But just suppose it's something else?? (cue suspence/thriller music
)
Lubroharmonics ...lubroresonance ..hmmm..these could be some catchy terms here..
Perhaps there's a dampening effect with certain oils that others lack. How would one explain why one 10 Cst oil is quiet ..while another 10 Cst oil was not
Now my HLAs are noisy all the time ..except on 20w-50. One would think that they bleed down too fast with any reasonable viscosity oil at the volume the oil pump provides ..at fairly high rpm. But just suppose it's something else?? (cue suspence/thriller music
Lubroharmonics ...lubroresonance ..hmmm..these could be some catchy terms here..
Hmmm...you and I should start a marketing firm. Let's target Castrol as our first customer.quote:
Originally posted by Gary Allan:
[qbLubroharmonics ...lubroresonance ..hmmm..these could be some catchy terms here..[/qb]
I gotta agree..anything hammering away can't be good...
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,798
Castrol Quietrain® with Acousticsolve® Laboratory PROVEN to reduce valve train noise*
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked