What is the iron issue with Mobil 1?

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: StevieC
Here is my original post:

Quote:

Here's a story for you...

Before I was a BITOG member and my Santa Fe was new (after break-in) I used Mobil 1 Synthetic 5w30 and changed according to the owners manual at 6K KM (3500 Miles) not knowing any better I did this for 80K KM (50K miles). When I bought the Santa Fe I bought a ton of M1 because I had a way of getting it cheaper than retail at the time. (no longer have this connection) I literally had about 20 jugs.

I joined BITOG and learned all about used oil analysis etc. so wanting the best for my truck I did a used oil analysis. I got back the results and all the numbers were in check and quite low (including iron at 8ppm).

I kept using Mobil and then I read about the hoopla that apparently they had changed to GRP-III as a part of or as their main basetock for oil. Thought nothing of it at the time.

So I get to the end of my warranty with Hyundai at 100K KM (60K miles) and I see this stuff called Amsoil. So I thought I would try some. I buy the SSO stuff which is just new and put it in for a couple of changes and do a used oil analysis. I notice that the wear numbers on the used oil analysis are slightly lower but the Iron is almost in half at 4ppm. I figure this is good so I want to keep using it and seeing as I don't have Mobil left I continue on.

Then I read here about all the Iron spikes etc. and this has got me curious.

So one OCI later I dump my Amsoil and put back my trusty (good until this point) Mobil 5w30 back in. I run it for 6K KM and dump it out, then refill with more and drive to 6K KM and send in a used oil analysis. I get back the results and the Iron is at 48ppm!

Scared for dear life, and before reading Doug's article I empty it out and put back in my Amsoil and drive it 6K KM and do a used oil analysis and it's back to around 4ppm again. Very happy that I adverted disaster I check the next fill of Amsoil and again I see 4ppm.

I then read Doug's article in the meantime and see that higher Iron PPM doesn't necessarily equate to higher wear.

I put Mobil back in for one last try and again it tests around 40ppm.

While I didn't notice any performance change or metal filings in my oil pan, on the drain plug or in my EAO filter with FilterMag there is definitely something spiking these numbers in my engine when it comes to Iron and I just can't sleep at night IMO, taking a chance that I could be risking the engine with these numbers.

So I switched back to Amsoil and stuck with it. Since then I have tried Pennzoil Platinum and some Dino's that peaked my interest and none of them that I had a used oil analysis done on showed the Iron levels that M1 did.

I'm not saying that this in anyway equates to M1 causing wear, but I sure as heck am not going to see in time what happens.

If Amsoil isn't that much more than M1 and doesn't report those same elevated numbers to me it seems like a logical choice.

Cheap insurance I guess...

Yup, that's the one I cut-quoted above.

I don't think you ran the M1 long enough to be able to draw any sort of conclusions. This is the sort of thing used oil analysis are not supposed to be used for from what I understand from Doug, but get used for on here and people draw all kinds of wacky conclusions, where there are none to be really drawn.

I would imagine, if you had continued on with the M1, the Fe would have trended back down to where it was originally with the M1.... at 8ppm or so, because that's what you found in your first 100,000Km.

Obviously SOMETHING caused the spike. But it may be chemical, it may be what I mentioned earlier.... We really DO NOT KNOW.

You had good numbers to begin with on the M1.

This changed when you changed oil brands, and then went back. Logic would seem to indicate that THIS is the source of the spike, not the oil that previously had given you great numbers for 100,000Km.......... Do you see what I'm getting at here?

 

[pickled]

It's hard to state what an acceptable ppm range is for a single pass UOA. Condemnation levels for wear indication (metals) are a touchy subject and best dealt with through tracking departure from baseline variation rather than a single 100ppm guideline. Again trend is everything. By the time you hit 100ppm you could have already have saved yourself from catastrophic failure. The funny thing is when you look at this data in ppm/1000 miles, as I said in several previous posts, on a control chart wear patterns emerge and are quite evident. When I get back to my database I'll slap a few charts up from some fleet diesel engines.

 

[StevieC]

Even though higher than average Iron levels, but still below condemnation points of 150 are noted with Mobil, you gotta have a gut feeling that something just isn't right when a Dino can produce lower numbers than M1.

I mean c'mon. Get off the "Gotta Defend M1's good name" horse and see the light.

It's the question of why is is so much higher in the Iron area of the used oil analysis than it's weakest competitor if it's such an "upscale", "Nothing outperforms Mobil 1" oil?

This is nonsense and I won't be buying an oil that can't keep it's iron in the same areas as other oils whether it causes excess wear or not. The principal has me against it.

Premium price demands premium results, and high iron just isn't a premium result that is acceptable to me as stated above.

Sure most engines aren't around to see a difference that 50ppm versus 8ppm or 4ppm of IRON makes in the long run of that engine, but what if the engine was around. Wouldn't you want the most life out of it if the price was just a few bucks in difference between Amsoil & M1?

Also all you PRO-Mobil 1 Elitests, who here has run an engine to it's last mile versus other brands to their last mile and can truly claim that the higher iron levels don't equate to more wear compared to other brands? (read this carefully before answering)

Doesn't it bother you that they charge a premium price for something that can't keep Iron levels in the same range or lower than Dollar General SM rated Dino? at 1/3 the cost?

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: StevieC


So if I didn't see any spikes going from M1 to Amsoil, but only saw decreases why would I see spikes going the other way if the additive packs were clashing shouldn't they clash both ways?


Not necessarily.

That's why trending the M1 out for a number of OCI's to see if the Fe trended back down to where it was originally for you would have been useful. Then you would have a definitive data trail to reference to be able to say: "OK, when I go from SSO to M1, it causes an Fe spike, that then normalizes back down after a few OCI's". Or whatever transpires.

Because that never happened, we really don't know.

You got freaked out (and given the M1 bashing and fear mongering on this topic, I don't blame you) by the increase in Fe and did what you thought was the right thing for your engine, and that was switching back to the oil that gave you the "better" numbers.

 

[StevieC]

I have Mobil 1 Turbo Diesel Truck and 5w20 to try. I will even buy another couple jugs of 5w20 to get a true transition and test to make up for any Amsoil additive clashing, but I'm 100% confident that the same spike in Iron is going to happen.

Even if it is as you claim, which I'm 100% sure it isn't, but lets say you are right. That still doesn't explain the other used oil analysis on here showing higher IRON and it still doesn't answer my question about why would you pay premium price for something that doesn't perform as well as the cheapest available dino in the IRON area?

 

[pickled]

I'm not a basher here, but it's interesting that there's the whole concept of the reported Sequence IVa failures and multiple independent samples from folks without agendas that show high iron levels. I mean it's not like we can draw an if and a then out of it, but it does make me take a pause to want to understand the phenomena.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: StevieC
Even though higher than average Iron levels, but still below condemnation points of 150 are noted with Mobil, you gotta have a gut feeling that something just isn't right when a Dino can produce lower numbers than M1.

I mean c'mon. Get off the "Gotta Defend M1's good name" horse and see the light.

It's the question of why is is so much higher in the Iron area of the used oil analysis than it's weakest competitor if it's such an "upscale", "Nothing outperforms Mobil-1" oil?

This is nonsense and I won't be buying an oil that can't keep it's iron in the same areas as other oils whether it causes excess wear or not. The principal has me against it.

Premium price demands premium results, and high iron just isn't a premium result that is acceptable to me as stated above.

Sure most engines aren't around to see a difference that 50ppm versus 8ppm or 4ppm of IRON makes in the long run of that engine, but what if the engine was around. Wouldn't you want the most life out of it if the price was just a few bucks in difference between Amsoil/M1?

Doesn't it bother you that they charge a premium price for something that can't keep Iron levels in the same range or lower than Dollar General SM rated Dino? at 1/3 the cost?


Too many "what ifs" to be drawing conclusions from this type of data.

That is the entire premise behind Doug's article. You are doing exactly what he has stated is done far too often on this site: drawing conclusions from data where none can be drawn.

We DO NOT KNOW what causes what people call the "Fe signature" with M1. What we DO know, is that people who run it exclusively do not seem to have this signature. It is those who play musical oil bottle, changing it up every few OCI's for something else that observe it.

And given the amount of junk M1 seems to be washing out of my Expedition, I have no problem dismissing the "wear numbers" argument about conventional oil being "just as good". Whatever was run in this engine sure as [censored] wasn't "just as good" as what is in there now. Otherwise, I wouldn't have hard carbon chunks showing up in my oil filters.

 

[StevieC]

Originally Posted By: pickled
I'm not a basher here, but it's interesting that there's the whole concept of the reported Sequence IVa failures and multiple independent samples from folks without agendas that show high iron levels. I mean it's not like we can draw an if and a then out of it, but it does make me take a pause to want to understand the phenomena.
Exactly!

I have always said (you can check my posts) that M1 is a darn good oil, I'm just questioning the Iron issue/problem or whatever you want to call it.

I mean it's hard to believe that a huge company like XOM which is supposedly producing an oil that is out performed by no one, have a hard time producing lower iron counts in used oil analysis than the cheapest available dino on the shelf.

All at the same time they supposedly moved to more or all GRP-III base stock, and supposedly failed the Sequence IVa tests.

And the fact that they dance around questions asked of them and won't come out and answer questions about base stocks etc. to put their customers minds at ease. (seem like they are hiding)

Too much evidence stacked up not to find faults and want better for your money right?

 

[StevieC]

Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
... And given the amount of junk M1 seems to be washing out of my Expedition, I have no problem dismissing the "wear numbers" argument about conventional oil being "just as good". Whatever was run in this engine sure as [censored] wasn't "just as good" as what is in there now. Otherwise, I wouldn't have hard carbon chunks showing up in my oil filters.


This is subjective to the previous owners maintenance. How do you know it wasn't over extended on OCI, or it was driven in the city and idled for extended periods of time. You can't blame the oil.

 

[pickled]

It's funny because you here a lot of people talk about signal to noise ratios (in various terms) on here, but when I heard about the IV a testing and then looked back on our little random repository of data it was pretty peculiar and I was getting a signal LOL.

 

[pickled]

Not saying a Mobil 1 engine is going to randomly grenade, but iron trace is definitely not designed to be low in this product.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: StevieC
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
... And given the amount of junk M1 seems to be washing out of my Expedition, I have no problem dismissing the "wear numbers" argument about conventional oil being "just as good". Whatever was run in this engine sure as [censored] wasn't "just as good" as what is in there now. Otherwise, I wouldn't have hard carbon chunks showing up in my oil filters.


This is subjective to the previous owners maintenance. How do you know it wasn't over extended on OCI, or it was driven in the city and idled for extended periods of time. You can't blame the oil.


The vehicle doesn't appear to be abused? It would have had (or at least the opportunity is there) dealer-provided oil changes at regular intervals for the majority of its life, since that is free from Ford during the warranty period.

I am not BLAMING the oil. What I'm pointing out is a superiority point of the oil I am currently using, since you have challenged me to provide one on the basis of the UOA Fe data. It is cleaning out what the old oil left behind.

The first filter I took off this truck had no carbon in it. It was not until I put M1 in it, that this started happening.

 

[StevieC]

So it has superior cleaning abilities that Dino doesn't, who cares... Why can't it control IRON levels that DINO Can, this is the real question which you aren't answering, but picking apart my posts and dancing around instead.

Every oil has it's pros/cons, but none except M1 seem to have the high iron problem on used oil analysis and since metals in suspension can form abrasive wear in an engine I would like to have less of it and especially from a premium priced oil like M1.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: StevieC
So it has superior cleaning abilities that Dino doesn't, who cares... Why can't it control IRON levels that DINO Can, this is the real question which you aren't answering, but picking apart my posts and dancing around instead.



1. I care.

2. We have no idea if it is controlling iron or not. You are looking at a narrow spectrum of sampled particles using a method that is not designed to gauge wear. Again, harking back to Doug's article.

3. I was picking apart your post to make my reply easier to relate to how I was reading your post. This was not intended as an attack, though you seem to have taken it as such as you seem to be defencive now and are trying to turn this around on me. That's not happening.

4. Lets turn this around on YOU. Why is the burden of proof sitting on MY shoulders here? I have two 302's, you've seen pictures of them. Both have VERY high mileage. You know the condition of them. These are KNOWN QUANTITIES. I have nothing to prove here. This product has worked for me, and I'm justifying its use with REAL DATA gleaned from taking them apart, not a piece of paper with some numbers on it to get my panties in a twist.

THEN, we have SPECULATION about "HIGH" "WEAR NUMBERS", using a sampling method which has been noted BY A TRIBOLOGIST WITH HALF A CENTURY OF EXPERIENCE, is NOT a good tool to be used to gauge wear in this manner, and who provided TEAR DOWN PICTURES of an engine with OVER A MILLION KM ON IT to prove his point.

I'm not "dancing around" anything. You are simply upset by the fact that I took issue with your sampling method, when all I was trying to do was draw attention to the fact that M1 HAD performed JUST FINE in your application until you started changing oil brands. THAT to me, should be the point of contemplation.

 

[StevieC]

Let's agree to Disagree.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: StevieC
Let's agree to Disagree.

I know you still have that Mobil 1 Turbo Diesel Truck stash

I don't think we are in complete disagreement

 

[chevrofreak]

If you guys aren't getting paid for all the Mobil 1 pimping you do, you're seriously getting shafted.

 

[ADFD1]

Originally Posted By: pickled
I'm not a basher here, but it's interesting that there's the whole concept of the reported Sequence IVa failures and multiple independent samples from folks without agendas that show high iron levels. I mean it's not like we can draw an if and a then out of it, but it does make me take a pause to want to understand the phenomena.


You made some good points. We can call it noise, static, whatever, higher iron is higher iron PERIOD. A visit to the used oil analysis section confirms it. If we go from 6 ppm iron to 48 ppm iron that is 8 times more iron. I'd rather have the 6 ppm.

Dad worked as a mechanic (briefly) at a local mechanics shop, it was a Mobil station. The owner raced cars, and used a Chevy wagon to tow his race car. This was back in the 70's and the race car and tow rig were very well maintained and filled with Mobil oils. Don the owner was a little hesitant to run synthetic oil in the race car, but tried Mobil 1 in the wagon. Don broke the tow car in on Conventional oil then made the change. After about 1 year of Mobil 1 he suffered engine failure. . Upon tear down the engine was clearly in need of a rebuild with less than 25,000 miles on it. Don changed oil and filter in the tow rig every 2,500-3,000 miles. It was determined that the oil was at fault by Don and GM. Mobil ended up paying for the rebuild. Dad said there were other issues in the 70's with Mobil 1 as well. A long time ago, but a story dad had recently told me I thought I'd share. I'll pass on the Mobil 1 for sure.

Years ago it was claimed that Mobil 1 would last 25,000 miles, they changed that labeling IIRC.

I'm certain after reading countless testimonies from Bitog members Mobil 1 is a good oil today. But I still think there are better oils for the same, or even less money. I spend my money on those oils.


AD

 

[buster]

Originally Posted By: pickled
I'm not a basher here, but it's interesting that there's the whole concept of the reported Sequence IVa failures and multiple independent samples from folks without agendas that show high iron levels. I mean it's not like we can draw an if and a then out of it, but it does make me take a pause to want to understand the phenomena.


+1

It's time someone from Mobil to step up and chime in here.

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: buster
Originally Posted By: pickled
I'm not a basher here, but it's interesting that there's the whole concept of the reported Sequence IVa failures and multiple independent samples from folks without agendas that show high iron levels. I mean it's not like we can draw an if and a then out of it, but it does make me take a pause to want to understand the phenomena.


+1

It's time someone from Mobil to step up and chime in here.



+2 But with so many other oil choices why even bother trying to understand? I just went with another brand. With the attitude Mobil had toward questions my brother and I had asked them I doubt anyone from the company is going to step up and chime in.

There are times when sticking your head in the sand and doing nothing works I guess.