What is the iron issue with Mobil 1?

[Captain_Klink]

I keep reading here that Mobil 1 has bad iron wear numbers. Does that include Mobil 1 AFE (advanced fuel economy) 0w30? I like the idea of saving 20$ per OCI, but not if I'm going to need an engine overhaul. It seems like something fishy is here - I thought that Mobil 1 synthetic has an extremely high reputation, and is one of the most premium oils you can get. Should I return my Mobil 0w30 to the store? I tried using "search" on BITOG and can find nothing, and google search shows nothing.

 

[buster]

Fe tends to run higher with M1 but it's nothing alarming. It's also not known what type of wear, if any it really is. Mobil 1 has high solvency and it could be keeping more particles in suspension. Who knows.

 

[dsmith41]

I am interested in seeing the responses to this thread. I got this UOA last year on M1 5w30. High Fe present in the sample. I'm currently running their 0w30 but I haven't seen a UOA for that specific oil yet. Thinking of making a switch to PP maybe.

 

[d00df00d]

I second what buster said. Mobil 1 might be showing high iron numbers, but that doesn't mean actual wear-and-tear is worse. It could be just a fluke of the oil's formulation.

 

[d00df00d]

 Originally Posted By: dsmith41

I am interested in seeing the responses to this thread. I got this UOA last year on M1 5w30. High Fe present in the sample. I'm currently running their 0w30 but I haven't seen a UOA for that specific oil yet. Thinking of making a switch to PP maybe.

This is not a typical report. Usually when people talk about Mobil 1's "high iron", they're talking about a difference of a few ppm compared to another oil when all other wear indicators are about the same. If you're getting 41 ppm in 6300 miles, something else is afoot.

 

[ZZman]

Mobil 1 does show higher iron numbers but that is not really an issue as it is still within normal range. Plus many will say a UOA is no indication of true wear in normal situations. Mobil 1 fed engine run for alot of miles and when torn down look really nice inside.

 

[Nickdfresh]

There are also UOAs that show low wear numbers with Mobil1. And again, we're assuming that UOAs have much benefit for the average consumer beyond determining whether or not their engine has a bad head-gasket with antifreeze presence in the oil, high fuel contamination, or has been extended beyond its usable interval. Some say UOAs are essentially useless for determining real internal wear on the engine and the only way to truly determine is by a tear down...

 

[Gary Allan]

It's a conspiracy. It's dissolving your engine slowly ...quietly. Don't say I didn't warn you It's some minor byproduct of their additive package. It ups the noise a tick on the Fe. Annoying ..but that's about it.

 

[daman]

 Originally Posted By: d00df00d

If you're getting 41 ppm in 6300 miles, something else is afoot.

Totally agree thats crazy high something is wrong,many miles by many cars/trucks on thre road with out issues. i haven't lost an engine yet,send me your 0w30 if you don't want it. these threads like the PYB sludge will never end..

 

[Firehawk409]

ya i would be careful. according to my calculations in exactly 22.3438329804 hours every engine that has M1 in it will explode and need a costly overhaul. As long as i have been reading this forum I have not read anything about a certain oil causing an engine to go bad IF the person used the oil that is spec'ed for thier car and followed a proper OCI.

 

[Bryanccfshr]

TO the OP, I find it interesting that they suggest you go to a conventional oil and they would expect the wear to go down if you do. What in the world would cause high iron numbers but iron in the oil? It's not apparent in any M1 VOA's so it must be coming from inside the engine somewhere.

 

[wannafbody]

150 is the top linit for FE. 41 PPM FE is well withing specs. M1 does turn in many FE PPM's of 20 and less.

 

[Bryanccfshr]

 Originally Posted By: wannafbody

150 is the top linit for FE. 41 PPM FE is well withing specs. M1 does turn in many FE PPM's of 20 and less.

Because passing is good enoug

 

[OVERKILL]

 Originally Posted By: Bryanccfshr

TO the OP, I find it interesting that they suggest you go to a conventional oil and they would expect the wear to go down if you do. What in the world would cause high iron numbers but iron in the oil? It's not apparent in any M1 VOA's so it must be coming from inside the engine somewhere.

A UOA typically only detects particles smaller than 10 microns. Redline had a great document about chemical bonding causing higher iron "readings" in UOA's, which had nothing to do with wear. SO, if you have larger chunks of iron surfing through your oil they are either going to: A. Get picked up by the oil filter and/or B. Not get picked-up by the UOA because they are larger than the range sampled. You could have a FANTASTIC UOA, and an oil filter full of metal particles. This is why the idea of TEAR DOWN TESTING is SO IMPORTANT and why UOA's SHOULD NOT BE USED as an indication as to how an engine is "wearing". But please, feel free to draw all sorts of wild conclusions based on vague single-pass UOA data and disregard Doug's posts on the topic, since he's only been at it for 40 years or so.

 

[OVERKILL]

 Originally Posted By: wannafbody

150 is the top linit for FE. 41 PPM FE is well withing specs. M1 does turn in many FE PPM's of 20 and less.

+1 and this is the CONTAMINATION level, it is not engine "WEAR LEVEL". Doug's condemnation limit was 150ppm of iron for CONTAMINATION in his OTR diesel engines. But hey, they are only still going after 2.5 MILLION Km (with like-new bores when torn-down at 1.5 million Km), so I'm sure he doesn't know what he's doing.........

 

[Gary Allan]

 Quote:

Doug's condemnation limit was 150ppm of iron for CONTAMINATION in his OTR diesel engines.

That was the condemnation level for the lubricant. It also conformed to trends with the engine and the engine family. If he saw 150ppm without expecting 150ppm ..trust me, he just didn't dump the oil early and carry on like nothing was going on.

 

[Bryanccfshr]

I can pass my conclusions on data from a trusted person as well as anyone else can. Something's fishy with those Iron numbers and a trusted individualhas stated this sentiment. My conclusions are not wild nor based on a single pass. They are based on a Trend. A long term trend.

 

[OVERKILL]

 Originally Posted By: Gary Allan

 Quote:

Doug's condemnation limit was 150ppm of iron for CONTAMINATION in his OTR diesel engines.

That was the condemnation level for the lubricant. It also conformed to trends with the engine and the engine family. If he saw 150ppm without expecting 150ppm ..trust me, he just didn't dump the oil early and carry on like nothing was going on.

Correct. And that is why they do period TEAR DOWNS to check for abnormal wear.

 

[OVERKILL]

 Originally Posted By: Bryanccfshr

I can pass my conclusions on data from a trusted person as well as anyone else can. Something's fishy with those Iron numbers and a trusted individualhas stated this sentiment. My conclusions are not wild nor based on a single pass. They are based on a Trend. A long term trend.

I'm not saying your conclusions are based on a single pass; the type of UOA's performed by Blackstone are categorized as a "Single Pass UOA". Does your trend follow the same engine family in a fleet of vehicles over millions of miles? Without a tear-down, you really have no idea if anything is "fishy" about those iron numbers or not. THAT is the issue. It is an unsubstantiated conclusion. In order to be substantiated, a host of engines showing the "high iron" would need to be torn down and examined for abnormal wear. Which I assume nobody on here is going to do, so all that is going to be done is more endless speculation.

 

[Bryanccfshr]

You have faith. May it give you results. Sewripuosly it matters less to me than you. I went camping this weekend and I have work in the AM , Frankly I am tired and dividing this discussion between the movie pearl harbor and my bottle of french wine means I have two hands tied behind my back.. Good night.