Mobil 1 SN Seq IIIG & IVA

[Steve S]

Originally Posted By: tig1
Originally Posted By: DrDusty86
OOOUUUTTTCH!... I'd be ashamed if I was mobil. Thats not impressive...
I used M1 in the past on the ranger 3.0 for 390k of 412k. The ranger 3.0 must have been worn out.
Dusty


My sons old 91 Ranger must have been worn out with 354K on his 3.0 and still going stong when he sold it earlier this year. All on Mobil 1 10w30 with 10-14K OCIs.
It was gone at 100,000 miles and he just didn't notice

 

[Pablo]

Originally Posted By: daman
Originally Posted By: Pablo
I tell you - if that was a cam with Amsoil, some of you would be on it like stink on you know what!!

And they're (fixed it) not here?


Some are....

But I'm glad you can recognize bias.

 

[daman]

Originally Posted By: Pablo
Originally Posted By: daman
Originally Posted By: Pablo
I tell you - if that was a cam with Amsoil, some of you would be on it like stink on you know what!!

And they're (fixed it) not here?


Some are....

But I'm glad you can recognize bias.

I knew what your getting at tho.

 

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted By: daman
Again i ask how many hrs on that cam? 1 or 3,000? plus what overkill said.

The test for the cams would be ASTM D6891 (Sequence IVA). The engine is run for 100 hours.

 

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: DrDusty86
OOOUUUTTTCH!... I'd be ashamed if I was mobil. Thats not impressive...
I used M1 in the past on the ranger 3.0 for 390k of 412k. The ranger 3.0 must have been worn out.
Dusty


What isn't impressive? Did you mic the cam lobe before and after to measure wear or are we basing this all on just our perception of the picture?

Seq IVA Pass:

Seq IVA Fail:

Looks can be deceiving.

While I agree that we can't say that much from the pictures alone and you need to measure it with a precise micrometer (or a better measuring apparatus), I suspect that the legends on those two pictures on that Web page are incorrectly switched. Mistakes happen on Web pages. I can't believe that the smooth and shiny cam is showing more overall wear than the irregularly worn one.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: DrDusty86
OOOUUUTTTCH!... I'd be ashamed if I was mobil. Thats not impressive...
I used M1 in the past on the ranger 3.0 for 390k of 412k. The ranger 3.0 must have been worn out.
Dusty


What isn't impressive? Did you mic the cam lobe before and after to measure wear or are we basing this all on just our perception of the picture?

Seq IVA Pass:

Seq IVA Fail:

Looks can be deceiving.

While I agree that we can't say that much from the pictures alone and you need to measure it with a precise micrometer (or a better measuring apparatus), I suspect that the legends on those two pictures on that Web page are incorrectly switched. Mistakes happen on Web pages. I can't believe that the smooth and shiny cam is showing more overall wear than the irregularly worn one.

You aren't the first one to come to that conclusion, and your predecessor, who made the same assumption, contacted the site, who was assured that the pictures were indeed correct.

The "polished" lobe is WORN. The lobe that isn't polished has some light "tracking" on the factory finish.

As I said, looks can be deceiving. So while everybody here is shooting from the hip at XOM using their best Internet Cowboy assumption techniques, the photos from the people who actually DO the test paint a very different picture than the one many of you'd like to believe is the case.

 

[daman]

Originally Posted By: Pablo
Frankly I for one cannot look at a single SMALL picture of a cam on the web and come to any stinking conclusion.

Same here just got off goggle and all the pics i seen that passed looked like the above IMO i think is fine. it's the wear step skidding you don't want to see.

 

[Ben99GT]

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: DrDusty86
OOOUUUTTTCH!... I'd be ashamed if I was mobil. Thats not impressive...
I used M1 in the past on the ranger 3.0 for 390k of 412k. The ranger 3.0 must have been worn out.
Dusty


What isn't impressive? Did you mic the cam lobe before and after to measure wear or are we basing this all on just our perception of the picture?

Seq IVA Pass:

Seq IVA Fail:

Looks can be deceiving.

While I agree that we can't say that much from the pictures alone and you need to measure it with a precise micrometer (or a better measuring apparatus), I suspect that the legends on those two pictures on that Web page are incorrectly switched. Mistakes happen on Web pages. I can't believe that the smooth and shiny cam is showing more overall wear than the irregularly worn one.

The factory lobe finish isn't going to be a smooth and shiny mirror finish, I think it's pretty clear that the "polished" lobe in OVERK1LL's pics really is the "failed" pic.

These are brand new Ford produced 3V cams:

You can see where the RFF contacts the cam lobes on used examples:

 

[buster]

The SEQ IVA is the cam lobe test. For GF-4/5 you have to be below 90 microns of wear. They show they are at the low end in both tests. I'm not sure why that cam lobe looks that way. I wouldn't know but it doesn't look that good to me.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: buster
The SEQ IVA is the cam lobe test. For GF-4/5 you have to be below 90 microns of wear. They show they are at the low end in both tests. I'm not sure why that cam lobe looks that way. I wouldn't know but it doesn't look that good to me.


Buster, please take a moment.

Look at Ben's photos of the new Ford cams. Then look at the cams that are run, with the tracks on them. Now picture that up close.

That "tracking" is typical (good) behaviour of a roller acting on a cam lobe.

Due to the short duration of the SEQ IVA test, the tracking is broken up into smaller "tracks" along the surface of the lobe. These don't look all that hot when viewed up close, however they do represent that the lobe and roller are not perfectly flat; they are both machined surfaces, with one rolling on the other. Hence the irregularities in the tracks. The "shiny" lobe is what happens when you take a piece of fine emery cloth to the Ford cam Ben showed. The irregularities are worn down and the finish is SMOOTH. Material has been REMOVED. So while the "sweet, it's SHINY!" lobe LOOKS better, it has MORE WEAR than the factory finished lobe that has some light tracking from where the surface pressure differences between the two machined surfaces: that of the cam lobe, and that of the roller acting upon it, are the greatest.

 

[tig1]

Originally Posted By: buster
The SEQ IVA is the cam lobe test. For GF-4/5 you have to be below 90 microns of wear. They show they are at the low end in both tests. I'm not sure why that cam lobe looks that way. I wouldn't know but it doesn't look that good to me.


If the cam was worn, or looks bad as some say here, why would XM put a picture of the cam on their site claiming their oil was much better at cam wear than the standard and use that pic as proof?

 

[buster]

Thanks, I wasn't aware of that! tig, I don't know, I doubt they would.

 

[Gokhan]

I guess it's fair to say that by looking at the camshaft pic, we can't say much; although, one would hope that it would look smoother in any case.

I find the other picture posted on the Mobil 1 Web page far more ridiculous though:

The graph has no scale and no zero. This means that Mobil 1's camshaft wear might be technically as high as 89 micron compared to the industry standard of 90 micron. It's amazing how they treat the general public as so uneducated. Such bogus marketing claims make such reputable companies look very bad.

 

[buster]

Eh that doesn't bother me. The 4 ball wear test is misleading. The general public is uneducated a lot of times.

 

[Pablo]

Originally Posted By: buster
Eh that doesn't bother me. The 4 ball wear test is misleading. The general public is uneducated a lot of times.

Who brought up the 4-ball test?? Buster is BACK!!!

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
I guess it's fair to say that by looking at the camshaft pic, we can't say much; although, one would hope that it would look smoother in any case.

I find the other picture posted on the Mobil 1 Web page far more ridiculous though:

The graph has no scale and no zero. This means that Mobil 1's camshaft wear might be technically as high as 89 micron compared to the industry standard of 90 micron. It's amazing how they treat the general public as so uneducated. Such bogus marketing claims make such reputable companies look very bad.


Would you prefer a "one armed bandit" or Timken test machine be used? You know, something designed to test gear lubes and not engine oils?

One would hope it would be smoother? I would hope it remained as close to the factory finish as possible (and we've now well established that "smooth and shiny" are not characteristics of the factory finish) because that of course means the least amount of wear.

 

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Would you prefer a "one armed bandit" or Timken test machine be used? You know, something designed to test gear lubes and not engine oils?

No, I said I would like to see a scale or an origin (zero) in the graphs because otherwise they don't convey any information and are meaningless.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Would you prefer a "one armed bandit" or Timken test machine be used? You know, something designed to test gear lubes and not engine oils?

No, I said I would like to see a scale or an origin (zero) in the graphs because otherwise they don't convey any information and are meaningless.


As is the case with most marketing literature sir.

 

[84zmyfavorite]

I like Mobil 1 better than Amsoil.....

 

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Would you prefer a "one armed bandit" or Timken test machine be used? You know, something designed to test gear lubes and not engine oils?

No, I said I would like to see a scale or an origin (zero) in the graphs because otherwise they don't convey any information and are meaningless.


As is the case with most marketing literature sir.

That's exactly why most marketing literature doesn't convey any information.