Mobil 1 Wear Rates

buster · Dec 6, 2003

OK, we've seen some excellent reports with M1 and some that show higher then usual Iron. Mobil 1 has the same amount of ZDDP as GC and Chevron Supreme, yet these oils show slightly better wear. While it's not enough to cause premature engine wear IMO, does anyone think it's a Viscosity issue with M1 or is it a ZDDP issue? As I said above, there are other oils with the same level of ZDDP that do was well or better sometimes. It makes me think that Mobil's lighter viscosity is it's dowfall, rather then it's additive package. M1 has a generous amount of Boron, Calcium and Moly. In fact, it's additive package seems more advance then Amsoil's. I'm curious to see if M1 would be better if it were thicker like Amsoil or GC. [Smile]

[ December 06, 2003, 04:49 PM: Message edited by: buster ]

KW · Dec 6, 2003

I have no proof but I agree that the thin M1 has increased wear. My Jeep had a lot of sparkly stuff with the M1 5W30. With 15W50, 15W50/5W30 mix and 0W40 I had no sparkly stuff in the oil. With the thicker oils I gained about 3 MPG with the 15W50 and 0W40 being the higher of the three. Now I am trying Amsoil 5W30 and has just sent off a sample on the 0w40 to Blackstone.

Drew99GT · Dec 6, 2003

I don't understand how Mobil 1 is "thin". Both the 5 and 10w-30s usually end up at around 10.5 Cst. at 100 C after having been run for 5,000 miles, where as chevron supreme and pretty much all other dinos, especially in 5w-30 form, end up well below that, into the 20 weight territory. Even 10w-30 dinos on average end up at a lower measured viscosity then Mobil 1 5/10w-30. [I dont know]

jsharp · Dec 6, 2003

The trouble here is about 3/4 or more of the UOA's from synthetic oils are Mobil 1. Yes, it looks to me like the iron numbers are higher on Mobil 1 than a lot of other oils. But, it almost ( and I'm not stating this as fact ) looks to me like the group II and Group III oils give generally better wear numbers than the group IV and V oils. Provided the drains are kept short on the dino oils anyway. Not to hijack your thread Buster since I think our questions are related, but has anyone else thought this but me? If what I think I'm seeing is true, there's more to it than just the fact that M1 is on the thin side in a given grade...

Al · Dec 6, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by jsharp: The trouble here is about 3/4 or more of the UOA's from synthetic oils are Mobil 1. Yes, it looks to me like the iron numbers are higher on Mobil 1 than a lot of other oils. But, it almost ( and I'm not stating this as fact ) looks to me like the group II and Group III oils give generally better wear numbers than the group IV and V oils. Provided the drains are kept short on the dino oils anyway. Not to hijack your thread Buster since I think our questions are related, but has anyone else thought this but me? If what I think I'm seeing is true, there's more to it than just the fact that M1 is on the thin side in a given grade...

I think you are correct- we really don't know if the iron we are seeing is from wear (in which case it could be the basestock, additives, or viscosity)... or... if it is corrosion induced caused from maybe the basestocks or the additive package. [I dont know]

I'm sure if we call Mobil they will tell us why their oil produces a higher level of iron. [Roll Eyes]

Mark in NY · Dec 6, 2003

This is one of the more interesting revelations at Bobs site here, where we seem to be seeing a lower cost oil actually showing better wear numbers. I do not think the viscosity is the issue. Look at both Penzoil and Motorcraft dino blend showing such good numbers in posted UOA's. (within a 3-4k mileage interval which is appropriate for dino) I now believe the "thicker is better" only applies to bearing life when the engine is run hard enough to get the oil temp frequently above 210 F. I check the magnetic drain plugs on 3 cars during oil changes. This visual indication seems to match the UOA's I get. M1 0-40 and 5-30 had OK but only fair Fe numbers and show noticable gray fuzz on the magnets. Penzoil 5-30 showed only a trace of this residue. In about 6 weeks I will post a UOA for direct comparison in one engine of M1 to Motorcraft 5-20 blend. I suspect this year long sequence is going to save me money by convincing me to permenantly shun the synthetic in favor of Wal-Mart available dino at a fraction of the price. ..and yes,if it was a matter of extended drains or very high temp operation, synthetic has an advantage but in normal service it appears not.

jsharp · Dec 6, 2003

Castrol GTX and Chevron show good numbers too, and we've seen them with UOA's show lower wear numbers than M1 in the same engine...

JohnBrowning · Dec 6, 2003

buster, The add's look ok in my limited but learning opion. Sure I would like to see more moly and some atimony but for $3.89 a quart at Sams or Cosco what more can you ask for! I am almost thinking that if one took 15W50 M1 and added 3 onces of LC per quart and 1 once per 1000 miles this would work out to be a real winning combination! I think that with increased solvency and oxidation resistance that the wear rates would get even lower! I wish their was some way I could buy some concentrated additive package to add to my oil to test some ideas out. I doubt that a company like Mobil,Lubrizol, or Redline would be willing to sell a 5 gallon pail of it's concentrated add package. I would love to try sweetening these oil to see how much the additie levels determine it's ability to reduce wear!

CAtedster · Dec 6, 2003

John, Terry has seen excellent results with mobil 1 and LC. It was posted awhile back. The other thing If I remember right was that it increased viscosity to high 30 low 40

wtd · Dec 6, 2003

jsharp, I've been thinking the same thing for awhile now. I was a dedicated Mobil 1 user for years but when I started doing oil analysis a little over two years ago, I was disappointed with the results I was getting. And I was changing this oil either at 3,000 or 5,000 miles. I began noticing on the used oil analysis section that many conventional oils were posting better results than my Mobil 1 and sometimes with more miles on it. The fairly poor results, combined with Blackstone's recommendations to stay at 3,000 mile intervels, made me feel like I wasn't getting my money's worth by using Mobil 1. Plus the fact that my engine was sounding noisy with this oil. This is what made me decide to use Chevron Supreme. Its cheaper, my engine so far has no startup tapping and is running quieter, and I don't think I've seen a bad Chevron oil analysis yet. I guess we will see soon how well this stuff holds up in my engine. Wayne

jsharp · Dec 7, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by wtd: jsharp, I've been thinking the same thing for awhile now. I was a dedicated Mobil 1 user for years but when I started doing oil analysis a little over two years ago, I was disappointed with the results I was getting. And I was changing this oil either at 3,000 or 5,000 miles. I began noticing on the used oil analysis section that many conventional oils were posting better results than my Mobil 1 and sometimes with more miles on it. The fairly poor results, combined with Blackstone's recommendations to stay at 3,000 mile intervels, made me feel like I wasn't getting my money's worth by using Mobil 1. Plus the fact that my engine was sounding noisy with this oil. This is what made me decide to use Chevron Supreme. Its cheaper, my engine so far has no startup tapping and is running quieter, and I don't think I've seen a bad Chevron oil analysis yet. I guess we will see soon how well this stuff holds up in my engine. Wayne

I've certainly got some mixed feelings about it at this point. I've used M1 for 20+ years and done 7K-10K drains with it all that time. I've had a couple cars run out past 150K miles using it and one I still own with over 200k miles. In every case, the engines were still clean inside and oil consumption was under 1 qt. in 5K miles after all those miles. I've also owned engines that were run on quality dino that looked like a sludge pit in under 100K miles after doing 2K-3K oil and filter changes on them. They also consumed at least a quart of oil in between changes, some a lot more than that. These were dino oils from the 70's and 80's though, not the current breed. Sometimes I wonder if I might have been as well off to never have discovered synthetic oils, UOA's, etc., etc., and stayed fat, dumb, and happy doing what I did before... [Wink]

buster · Dec 7, 2003

quote:
Sometimes I wonder if I might have been as well off to never have discovered synthetic oils, UOA's, etc., etc., and stayed fat, dumb, and happy doing what I did before...

I here you, I feel the same way. The reality is, you should be concerned more with deposits and sludge then comparing 10ppm Fe to 4ppm Fe. It's just not that a significant. This post mainly applies to the perfectionists out there. Keeping the engine clean is extremely important. You can have great wear at 15k mile drains, but if your engine is dirty from this, it's performance will be bad.

Patman · Dec 7, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by buster:
quote:
Sometimes I wonder if I might have been as well off to never have discovered synthetic oils, UOA's, etc., etc., and stayed fat, dumb, and happy doing what I did before...
I here you, I feel the same way. The reality is, you should be concerned more with deposits and sludge then comparing 10ppm Fe to 4ppm Fe. It's just not that a significant. This post mainly applies to the perfectionists out there. Keeping the engine clean is extremely important. You can have great wear at 15k mile drains, but if your engine is dirty from this, it's performance will be bad.

This is so true. All of those guys who are rejoicing that they're seeing similar or less wear with conventional over synthetic, may find themselves changing their tune if their engine is dirty after only 100,000 miles. But if this is indeed the case, the money they saved on not buying synthetic could go towards buying some Auto-rx to clean up whatever mess the conventional oil may or may not leave behind. I also believe the newest SL rated conventionals are considerably better at keeping things clean than oils of 10-15 years ago.

Tones · Dec 7, 2003

I too have noticed the higher wear rates with M1. It has convinced me that a conventional/synthetic blend is the way to go. Shouldn't this provide the best of both worlds? I am convinced to give Schaeffer's oil a try. What's not to like? An ACEA A3 rated oil. Lower NOACK volatility than a conventional oil. Cheap enough to do regular 3-6 month oil changes.

Drew99GT · Dec 7, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by jsharp: [QUOTE]Originally posted by wtd: [qb] jsharp, I've used M1 for 20+ years and done 7K-10K drains with it all that time. I've had a couple cars run out past 150K miles using it and one I still own with over 200k miles. In every case, the engines were still clean inside and oil consumption was under 1 qt. in 5K miles after all those miles. I've also owned engines that were run on quality dino that looked like a sludge pit in under 100K miles after doing 2K-3K oil and filter changes on them. They also consumed at least a quart of oil in between changes, some a lot more than that. These were dino oils from the 70's and 80's though, not the current breed. Sometimes I wonder if I might have been as well off to never have discovered synthetic oils, UOA's, etc., etc., and stayed fat, dumb, and happy doing what I did before...

Did you simply sell the one with 150K, or did it die?

TooSlick · Dec 7, 2003

"It is commonly believed that the higher the level of zinc additive in the oil, the better it's ability to minimize wear. Although there is truth to that statement, it can also be misleading. The reason why zinc content does not dictate wear is twofold. First, the mere presence of zinc does NOT mean it is in the form of ZDP, or zinc Dithiophosphate, the most commonly used anti-wear additive. In other forms, zinc offers additional oxidation protection but little wear control. Second, many other factors such as an oils viscometrics and base stock can have a significant effect on wear control." (Taken from some Amsoil dealer training info I'm reviewing) Optimizing wear protection is a matter of combining the right base stock or base stock blend with the correct additive chemistry. There is a fair amount of synergism between these two components, so simply boosting additive levels or incorporating every type of friction modifer you can find in a shotgun approach doesn't guarantee excellent results. (It's sort of like dumping every spice on the shelf into your stew and hoping it will taste good). [Wink]

The other factor is that formulating lubricants of all types is as much art as science, so there is simply no substitute for experience. In other words, you can't simply get a bunch of high paid chemical engineers in a room and "design" the ultimate oil. Many of the interactions between multifunctional additives aren't well understood at all .... Certain oils work better in particular engines and I haven't got a clue why that is - and neither does anybody else in the more subtle cases .... Tooslick Dixie Synthetics

dickwells · Dec 7, 2003

Some of the previous posts put an idea in my head. Maybe the lower iron in the dino oil UOA is because it is still in the engine, locked up in some kind of deposit. [I dont know]

jsharp · Dec 7, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Drew99GT:
quote:
Originally posted by jsharp: [QUOTE]Originally posted by wtd: [qb] jsharp, I've used M1 for 20+ years and done 7K-10K drains with it all that time. I've had a couple cars run out past 150K miles using it and one I still own with over 200k miles. In every case, the engines were still clean inside and oil consumption was under 1 qt. in 5K miles after all those miles. I've also owned engines that were run on quality dino that looked like a sludge pit in under 100K miles after doing 2K-3K oil and filter changes on them. They also consumed at least a quart of oil in between changes, some a lot more than that. These were dino oils from the 70's and 80's though, not the current breed. Sometimes I wonder if I might have been as well off to never have discovered synthetic oils, UOA's, etc., etc., and stayed fat, dumb, and happy doing what I did before...
Did you simply sell the one with 150K, or did it die?

Sold. It was a typical Toyota I suppose. The body was trashed after 14 years of snow and salt but the engine was still running fine, original clutch and driveline, etc. A construction worker bought it from me to drive to work. He ran it about a year, 150 miles a day. No idea what happened to it after that...

jason07-1zzfe · Dec 7, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by wtd: jsharp, I've been thinking the same thing for awhile now. I was a dedicated Mobil 1 user for years but when I started doing oil analysis a little over two years ago, I was disappointed with the results I was getting. And I was changing this oil either at 3,000 or 5,000 miles. I began noticing on the used oil analysis section that many conventional oils were posting better results than my Mobil 1 and sometimes with more miles on it. The fairly poor results, combined with Blackstone's recommendations to stay at 3,000 mile intervels, made me feel like I wasn't getting my money's worth by using Mobil 1. Plus the fact that my engine was sounding noisy with this oil. This is what made me decide to use Chevron Supreme. Its cheaper, my engine so far has no startup tapping and is running quieter, and I don't think I've seen a bad Chevron oil analysis yet. I guess we will see soon how well this stuff holds up in my engine. Wayne

Dude...you have a COOLANT leak. [I dont know]

jsharp · Dec 7, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Patman:
quote:
Originally posted by buster:
quote:
Sometimes I wonder if I might have been as well off to never have discovered synthetic oils, UOA's, etc., etc., and stayed fat, dumb, and happy doing what I did before...
I here you, I feel the same way. The reality is, you should be concerned more with deposits and sludge then comparing 10ppm Fe to 4ppm Fe. It's just not that a significant. This post mainly applies to the perfectionists out there. Keeping the engine clean is extremely important. You can have great wear at 15k mile drains, but if your engine is dirty from this, it's performance will be bad.
This is so true. All of those guys who are rejoicing that they're seeing similar or less wear with conventional over synthetic, may find themselves changing their tune if their engine is dirty after only 100,000 miles. But if this is indeed the case, the money they saved on not buying synthetic could go towards buying some Auto-rx to clean up whatever mess the conventional oil may or may not leave behind. I also believe the newest SL rated conventionals are considerably better at keeping things clean than oils of 10-15 years ago.

My thoughts too. Problem is, how do you know what's going on inside the engine before it's too late? All of the sudden oil consumption spikes, the engine gets hard to start, gas mileage goes down, etc. You do an Oh S#&t but you're all done except for a rebuild or just keep dumping cheap oil in. I don't know any way to see this coming either. I suppose UOA's *may* tell the story in time if you know what to look for in the trends. Friends used to tell me it was risky doing long drains with synthetic oils. I feel more risk doing short changes with dino myself... [ December 08, 2003, 10:42 AM: Message edited by: jsharp ]

Mobil 1 Wear Rates

Similar threads