What is the iron issue with Mobil 1?
- Thread starter Captain_Klink
- Start date
- Status
I skimmed over this thread quickly.
I put no faith in UOAs but I do put faith in all of the engines running Mobil 1 with no issues. No, not the "junkyard" theory but if the engines were really putting out 2-3 times the amount of iron with each OCI, you would think eventually something would give. It could be that wear is reduced to the point that the particles are ALL small enough in size to be detected (makes as much sense as the "clean up" theory). As of now it's nothing more than a guessing game. If I weren't so OCD I would run it without thinking twice. Until someone runs a few engines with and without Mobil One and then tears them down, we'll likely never know.
I wonder what they would think if I sent off for a UOA but asked to not have the wear metals included.
I put no faith in UOAs but I do put faith in all of the engines running Mobil 1 with no issues. No, not the "junkyard" theory but if the engines were really putting out 2-3 times the amount of iron with each OCI, you would think eventually something would give. It could be that wear is reduced to the point that the particles are ALL small enough in size to be detected (makes as much sense as the "clean up" theory). As of now it's nothing more than a guessing game. If I weren't so OCD I would run it without thinking twice. Until someone runs a few engines with and without Mobil One and then tears them down, we'll likely never know.
I wonder what they would think if I sent off for a UOA but asked to not have the wear metals included.
LOL So you put AutoRX and M1 10W-30 HM in an engine with 132,000+ miles on it, and this is some sort of baseline result how?
Do you really think 4oz of Auto RX in 160oz of oil is going to be enough to somehow magically cause the Mobil 1 to not protect the engine?
The previous run was Pennzoil Platinum 5W-20 which also had 4oz of Auto RX. Prior to that I had done a full clean (2500 mile) and 2 rinse (2,000 and 1,000) phases on the engine to make sure it was clean before switching to the PP.
The PP filter also had the same magnets on it, and there was nowhere near as much metal on them.
The previous run was Pennzoil Platinum 5W-20 which also had 4oz of Auto RX. Prior to that I had done a full clean (2500 mile) and 2 rinse (2,000 and 1,000) phases on the engine to make sure it was clean before switching to the PP.
The PP filter also had the same magnets on it, and there was nowhere near as much metal on them.
Originally Posted By: chevrofreak
It's the regular Mobil 1 oils that seem to have the iron issue. They seem to actually care about engine protection with their other products.
Mobil 1's mainstream oils are the most popular synthetics on the market. Together, they have a longer list of factory and service fill approvals than just about any group of oils you can find. I find it hard to believe that Mobil doesn't "care about engine protection" in those oils.
If you've had an experience that leads you to believe that Mobil 1 doesn't perform, post it and discuss it. I'm sure most of us would be more than happy to participate. Let's not make sweeping statements about their whole product line until a lot more evidence accumulates.
It's the regular Mobil 1 oils that seem to have the iron issue. They seem to actually care about engine protection with their other products.
Mobil 1's mainstream oils are the most popular synthetics on the market. Together, they have a longer list of factory and service fill approvals than just about any group of oils you can find. I find it hard to believe that Mobil doesn't "care about engine protection" in those oils.
If you've had an experience that leads you to believe that Mobil 1 doesn't perform, post it and discuss it. I'm sure most of us would be more than happy to participate. Let's not make sweeping statements about their whole product line until a lot more evidence accumulates.
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: chevrofreak
It's the regular Mobil 1 oils that seem to have the iron issue. They seem to actually care about engine protection with their other products.
Mobil 1's mainstream oils are the most popular synthetics on the market. Together, they have a longer list of factory and service fill approvals than just about any group of oils you can find. I find it hard to believe that Mobil doesn't "care about engine protection" in those oils.
If you've had an experience that leads you to believe that Mobil 1 doesn't perform, post it and discuss it. I'm sure most of us would be more than happy to participate. Let's not make sweeping statements about their whole product line until a lot more evidence accumulates.
+1, we need more information and less conjecture. Throwing out the long and storied history of Mobil 1 over a couple of oil filter magnets is not science, and I don't even use the stuff. I am a SOPUS man!
Originally Posted By: chevrofreak
It's the regular Mobil 1 oils that seem to have the iron issue. They seem to actually care about engine protection with their other products.
Mobil 1's mainstream oils are the most popular synthetics on the market. Together, they have a longer list of factory and service fill approvals than just about any group of oils you can find. I find it hard to believe that Mobil doesn't "care about engine protection" in those oils.
If you've had an experience that leads you to believe that Mobil 1 doesn't perform, post it and discuss it. I'm sure most of us would be more than happy to participate. Let's not make sweeping statements about their whole product line until a lot more evidence accumulates.
+1, we need more information and less conjecture. Throwing out the long and storied history of Mobil 1 over a couple of oil filter magnets is not science, and I don't even use the stuff. I am a SOPUS man!
Have y'all really, I mean really looked at UOA's? Have you gone back to the beginning of SM and looked at every UOA with 30 grade synthetic oil? Have you calculated the wear area in square inches of the cylinder walls, crank journals, rod journals, type of cam drive, average speed of engine in feet per minute of piston speed, not RPM, peripheral velocity of journals, how the owner said engine was used, is that was said? All extremely important in trying to come up with any conclusion.
You can't just take a couple hundred UOA's and come to anything like a conclusion. Have you deeply studied even a couple hundred?
Go back and do this. Your lower jaw will drop and your eyes will bug out as you say, "this can't be." Then you will be convinced that the UOA's, as posted on BITOG and like forums, tell you basically nothing about engine wear.
You can't just take a couple hundred UOA's and come to anything like a conclusion. Have you deeply studied even a couple hundred?
Go back and do this. Your lower jaw will drop and your eyes will bug out as you say, "this can't be." Then you will be convinced that the UOA's, as posted on BITOG and like forums, tell you basically nothing about engine wear.
$15 rebate on PP, sounds like a nice deal!!!!!! My dad has been driving for close to 40 years, never did a UOA never had an engine failure, along with millions of other Americans. He ran Mobil 1 got turned off with all the B-S, and their attitude. He uses Pennzoil and Amsoil. Figures with the money he saves in UOA's he can spend it on Amsoil, and change the PP a little earlier. So far so good! I seem to be following in his foot steps, its working for me as well.
BTW- in my attempts to learn about UOA's and engine wear, I agree with FrankN4. I will continue to save a lot of cash not getting one, unless AF starts to vanish and my pressure tester doesn't show a leak.
AD
BTW- in my attempts to learn about UOA's and engine wear, I agree with FrankN4. I will continue to save a lot of cash not getting one, unless AF starts to vanish and my pressure tester doesn't show a leak.
AD
Originally Posted By: Ben99GT
Originally Posted By: chevrofreak
The PP filter also had the same magnets on it, and there was nowhere near as much metal on them.
Do you have pictures of filter mag with both PP and M1?
Like I said in that thread, the amount of metal collected by the magnet was so minuscule during the PP run that I did not deem it worth taking a picture of. I sure as heck wish I had. But I'm usually lazy like that.
Originally Posted By: chevrofreak
The PP filter also had the same magnets on it, and there was nowhere near as much metal on them.
Do you have pictures of filter mag with both PP and M1?
Like I said in that thread, the amount of metal collected by the magnet was so minuscule during the PP run that I did not deem it worth taking a picture of. I sure as heck wish I had. But I'm usually lazy like that.
I must admit, if I had a similar experience I would be swayed as well.
I still don't buy into UOAs being the most reliable predictor of wear nor do I think M1 results excessive wear in most cases.
I haven't done a tear down of an engine run long term on M1 since 2006, and formulations do change, but all of my tear down results with M1 have been excellent.
I still don't buy into UOAs being the most reliable predictor of wear nor do I think M1 results excessive wear in most cases.
I haven't done a tear down of an engine run long term on M1 since 2006, and formulations do change, but all of my tear down results with M1 have been excellent.
I've done a little digging and I've come to the conclusion that Mobil 1 may give up a bit of Fe wear, but it's insignificant. Mobil 1 is filled in millions of vehicles worldwide. If there were wear issues, it would be known by now.
What would be the significance of oil A showing 40 ppm of Fe, vs one showing 15 ppm of Fe? Probably not much. Mobil 1 is filled in a lot of turbocharged motors. Turbo Porsche and GM Ecotec engines among others. Mobil 1 has to be able to handle very high heat. The fact that it may allow for more Fe probably means very little in the long run. Engines simply don't have wear issues today. My .02
What would be the significance of oil A showing 40 ppm of Fe, vs one showing 15 ppm of Fe? Probably not much. Mobil 1 is filled in a lot of turbocharged motors. Turbo Porsche and GM Ecotec engines among others. Mobil 1 has to be able to handle very high heat. The fact that it may allow for more Fe probably means very little in the long run. Engines simply don't have wear issues today. My .02
Uh ferrous is iron last time I looked at the periodic table. I need to ask since you seem very sure. What other paramagnetic materials would adhere to the poles of a typical non rare-earth magnet that are present in a modern automobile engine? Other than steel components I can't think of any myself.
Originally Posted By: buster
Mobil 1 is filled in a lot of turbocharged motors. Turbo Porsche and GM Ecotec engines among others.
And the Porsche Carrera GT, if I'm not mistaken. Not turbocharged, but basically a Le Mans race engine with an additional piston ring per cylinder...
Mobil 1 is filled in a lot of turbocharged motors. Turbo Porsche and GM Ecotec engines among others.
And the Porsche Carrera GT, if I'm not mistaken. Not turbocharged, but basically a Le Mans race engine with an additional piston ring per cylinder...
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: StevieC
Read my post again... It said that I ran the Amsoil for a couple of changes. This was to ensure all the M1 was out of the system. Read it again carefully and you will see that it wasn't one right after another.
But you only ran ONE run of Mobil 1 after your consecutive AMSOIL runs, correct?
IE, you didn't trend multiple M1 runs after your AMSOIL runs to see if the Fe would come back to where it was originally...........
Yet this is the same theory you apply for citing that M1 "cleans". You switched to a different chemistry ..it disrupted existing formation (I'll speculate in the ring area) and deem it the all heralded M1 being a cleaning oil because that occurred ONCE. Run M1 for 4 years ..and switch to RedLine ..and I'd expect your filter may show the same byproduct of "disruption".
These transitional disruptions DO SURELY OCCUR. Not always ..but RedLine sure can play havoc in its disruptions with its ester base stock and aggressive additive pack. It does tend to settle down after enough usage.
I never put too much faith in "switch hitting" when it comes to UOA. We're usually too impatient and it takes too long to accumulate meaningful trends on one oil. I think my 0w-10 experiment has been over 2 years now.
I ran Delvac 1 (pre-katrina) for 22k over 2 OCI's. Switched to RTS and had consumption where there was none. So, while I didn't cut open the filter, I can declare RTS a "cleaning" oil since it obviously upset some formation (again, due to consumption - I'll suggest the ring area) ..and was done the disruption of existing XOM DEPOSITS as the consumption retreated.
Again, it's real important that we apply the same criticism to our own conclusions that we do to others.
Originally Posted By: StevieC
Read my post again... It said that I ran the Amsoil for a couple of changes. This was to ensure all the M1 was out of the system. Read it again carefully and you will see that it wasn't one right after another.
But you only ran ONE run of Mobil 1 after your consecutive AMSOIL runs, correct?
IE, you didn't trend multiple M1 runs after your AMSOIL runs to see if the Fe would come back to where it was originally...........
Yet this is the same theory you apply for citing that M1 "cleans". You switched to a different chemistry ..it disrupted existing formation (I'll speculate in the ring area) and deem it the all heralded M1 being a cleaning oil because that occurred ONCE. Run M1 for 4 years ..and switch to RedLine ..and I'd expect your filter may show the same byproduct of "disruption".
These transitional disruptions DO SURELY OCCUR. Not always ..but RedLine sure can play havoc in its disruptions with its ester base stock and aggressive additive pack. It does tend to settle down after enough usage.
I never put too much faith in "switch hitting" when it comes to UOA. We're usually too impatient and it takes too long to accumulate meaningful trends on one oil. I think my 0w-10 experiment has been over 2 years now.
I ran Delvac 1 (pre-katrina) for 22k over 2 OCI's. Switched to RTS and had consumption where there was none. So, while I didn't cut open the filter, I can declare RTS a "cleaning" oil since it obviously upset some formation (again, due to consumption - I'll suggest the ring area) ..and was done the disruption of existing XOM DEPOSITS as the consumption retreated.
Again, it's real important that we apply the same criticism to our own conclusions that we do to others.
Originally Posted By: chevrofreak
Do you really think 4oz of Auto RX in 160oz of oil is going to be enough to somehow magically cause the Mobil 1 to not protect the engine?
The previous run was Pennzoil Platinum 5W-20 which also had 4oz of Auto RX. Prior to that I had done a full clean (2500 mile) and 2 rinse (2,000 and 1,000) phases on the engine to make sure it was clean before switching to the PP.
The PP filter also had the same magnets on it, and there was nowhere near as much metal on them.
I don't want to "believe," I want to know. Everything, or at least most things here are conjecture and opinion. That's fine, you have some support for your opinion and don't like M1, that's fine too. What I am trying to say is that you've reached a conclusion based solely on conjecture. Both Pennzoil Platinum (at least the 5W-30 flavor) and M1 HM share a (marketing?) claim of the ability to "clean."
You don't really know if say the PP 5W-20 (with ARX) "loosened up" deposits or sludge, and then the 10W-30 M1 HM merely continued cleaning as it dislodged more gunk. There was no "control group" per se.
Incidently, you mentioned that the M1 weights I posted UOA links too were "boutique" varieties. That may be true, but so is the 10W-30 HM variant. I recall that one of its first UOAs here (posted a couple of years back) was considered pretty good at the time...
Do you really think 4oz of Auto RX in 160oz of oil is going to be enough to somehow magically cause the Mobil 1 to not protect the engine?
The previous run was Pennzoil Platinum 5W-20 which also had 4oz of Auto RX. Prior to that I had done a full clean (2500 mile) and 2 rinse (2,000 and 1,000) phases on the engine to make sure it was clean before switching to the PP.
The PP filter also had the same magnets on it, and there was nowhere near as much metal on them.
I don't want to "believe," I want to know. Everything, or at least most things here are conjecture and opinion. That's fine, you have some support for your opinion and don't like M1, that's fine too. What I am trying to say is that you've reached a conclusion based solely on conjecture. Both Pennzoil Platinum (at least the 5W-30 flavor) and M1 HM share a (marketing?) claim of the ability to "clean."
You don't really know if say the PP 5W-20 (with ARX) "loosened up" deposits or sludge, and then the 10W-30 M1 HM merely continued cleaning as it dislodged more gunk. There was no "control group" per se.
Incidently, you mentioned that the M1 weights I posted UOA links too were "boutique" varieties. That may be true, but so is the 10W-30 HM variant. I recall that one of its first UOAs here (posted a couple of years back) was considered pretty good at the time...
Last edited:
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
Yet this is the same theory you apply for citing that M1 "cleans". You switched to a different chemistry ..it disrupted existing formation (I'll speculate in the ring area) and deem it the all heralded M1 being a cleaning oil because that occurred ONCE. Run M1 for 4 years ..and switch to RedLine ..and I'd expect your filter may show the same byproduct of "disruption".
Nope.
I have had results with M1 cleaning. This is verifiable via tear-down.
I have results of AMSOIL cleaning. Again, verifiable via tear-down. You've seen the pictures yourself of the Mustang engine we stuffed in an F-150 that was run on AMSOIL, and you could eat off the lifter valley.
I have no results of Redline cleaning, but would expect it to. Just as I expect any good synthetic oil to do that.
I would NOT expect carbon deposits showing up in the oil filter from switching between any of the well-known synthetic oils. Additive clash, chemistry change, stuff that could present itself in a UOA (like I was remarking about Stevie's results) yep! For sure. But not deposits. A good synthetic oil should prevent them, and clean up those left by other lubricants.
The bulk dino that was in the truck when I bought it was put in there by the dealer. It surely was different to what was run in the Expedition for the duration of its life. Yet there were no deposits left in the filter.
Why? Because conventional oils aren't heralded for their cleaning capabilities. And at their price point, I wouldn't expect them to be.
Quote:
These transitional disruptions DO SURELY OCCUR. Not always ..but RedLine sure can play havoc in its disruptions with its ester base stock and aggressive additive pack. It does tend to settle down after enough usage.
Are you talking about UOA results here? Because I'm not........... My mention of UOA results was simply in regards to the spike in Fe particles identified by Stevie's UOA as POTENTIALLY being due to chemistry variances between AMSOIL and M1. Nothing more, nothing less.
My "cleaning" observations are based on what I've found (or not found) in my oil filter, under the valve covers and in the lifter valley, crankcase and the like.
Quote:
I never put too much faith in "switch hitting" when it comes to UOA. We're usually too impatient and it takes too long to accumulate meaningful trends on one oil. I think my 0w-10 experiment has been over 2 years now.
I ran Delvac 1 (pre-katrina) for 22k over 2 OCI's. Switched to RTS and had consumption where there was none. So, while I didn't cut open the filter, I can declare RTS a "cleaning" oil since it obviously upset some formation (again, due to consumption - I'll suggest the ring area) ..and was done the disruption of existing XOM DEPOSITS as the consumption retreated.
I have not had any consumption with TDT/D1. I ONLY had it with the 5w20. BOTH oils provided junk in the oil filter. The TDT/D1 did it with no consumption. I am not one to correlate consumption with cleaning.......
Quote:
Again, it's real important that we apply the same criticism to our own conclusions that we do to others.
My conclusions (about cleaning) were and are based on what I've observed with my own eyes. NOT UOA's.
The conclusion I was arguing against was based on UOA's, and NOT visual inspect.
Two completely different animals.
Yet this is the same theory you apply for citing that M1 "cleans". You switched to a different chemistry ..it disrupted existing formation (I'll speculate in the ring area) and deem it the all heralded M1 being a cleaning oil because that occurred ONCE. Run M1 for 4 years ..and switch to RedLine ..and I'd expect your filter may show the same byproduct of "disruption".
Nope.
I have had results with M1 cleaning. This is verifiable via tear-down.
I have results of AMSOIL cleaning. Again, verifiable via tear-down. You've seen the pictures yourself of the Mustang engine we stuffed in an F-150 that was run on AMSOIL, and you could eat off the lifter valley.
I have no results of Redline cleaning, but would expect it to. Just as I expect any good synthetic oil to do that.
I would NOT expect carbon deposits showing up in the oil filter from switching between any of the well-known synthetic oils. Additive clash, chemistry change, stuff that could present itself in a UOA (like I was remarking about Stevie's results) yep! For sure. But not deposits. A good synthetic oil should prevent them, and clean up those left by other lubricants.
The bulk dino that was in the truck when I bought it was put in there by the dealer. It surely was different to what was run in the Expedition for the duration of its life. Yet there were no deposits left in the filter.
Why? Because conventional oils aren't heralded for their cleaning capabilities. And at their price point, I wouldn't expect them to be.
Quote:
These transitional disruptions DO SURELY OCCUR. Not always ..but RedLine sure can play havoc in its disruptions with its ester base stock and aggressive additive pack. It does tend to settle down after enough usage.
Are you talking about UOA results here? Because I'm not........... My mention of UOA results was simply in regards to the spike in Fe particles identified by Stevie's UOA as POTENTIALLY being due to chemistry variances between AMSOIL and M1. Nothing more, nothing less.
My "cleaning" observations are based on what I've found (or not found) in my oil filter, under the valve covers and in the lifter valley, crankcase and the like.
Quote:
I never put too much faith in "switch hitting" when it comes to UOA. We're usually too impatient and it takes too long to accumulate meaningful trends on one oil. I think my 0w-10 experiment has been over 2 years now.
I ran Delvac 1 (pre-katrina) for 22k over 2 OCI's. Switched to RTS and had consumption where there was none. So, while I didn't cut open the filter, I can declare RTS a "cleaning" oil since it obviously upset some formation (again, due to consumption - I'll suggest the ring area) ..and was done the disruption of existing XOM DEPOSITS as the consumption retreated.
I have not had any consumption with TDT/D1. I ONLY had it with the 5w20. BOTH oils provided junk in the oil filter. The TDT/D1 did it with no consumption. I am not one to correlate consumption with cleaning.......
Quote:
Again, it's real important that we apply the same criticism to our own conclusions that we do to others.
My conclusions (about cleaning) were and are based on what I've observed with my own eyes. NOT UOA's.
The conclusion I was arguing against was based on UOA's, and NOT visual inspect.
Two completely different animals.
The M1 10W-30 HM is definitely loaded with additives, but I'm afraid that may not be quite enough to make it the super mega oil that people are claiming it is.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
Quote:
I have had results with M1 cleaning. This is verifiable via tear-down.
Do you mean that you tore down a dirty engine, left it dirty, reassembled it - dirty - then switched to M1 and tore it down again ..and found it spotless? If so, that's got some merit to it.
Otherwise you saw great deposit control.
Quote:
I would NOT expect carbon deposits showing up in the oil filter from switching between any of the well-known synthetic oils.
You may not. Take a long time on a PAO and switch to a group III or reverse it ..and you may.
Of course, (big smile, pal - Really
) I went from no consumption to freaked out consumption (none over 10.5k and 12.5k to one quart in 3k :shocked ..and eventually back to ZERO) all because of phase changes in the moon. Never could happen
Quote:
The bulk dino that was in the truck when I bought it was put in there by the dealer. It surely was different to what was run in the Expedition for the duration of its life. Yet there were no deposits left in the filter.
So? Suppose the engine ran on conventional Group II all of your pre-ownership life and was still running on Group II when you got it? Suppose it ran on anything other than a Group IV or V oil? Just "changing brands" doesn't come close to being the same thing as changing fundamental chemistry.
Quote:
I have not had any consumption with TDT/D1. I ONLY had it with the 5w20. BOTH oils provided junk in the oil filter. The TDT/D1 did it with no consumption. I am not one to correlate consumption with cleaning.......
..and you ran 0w-20 for how many OCI's? The vast difference in viscosity could have trumped the consumption in transition.
Quote:
My conclusions (about cleaning) were and are based on what I've observed with my own eyes. NOT UOA's.
The conclusion I was arguing against was based on UOA's, and NOT visual inspect.
Two completely different animals.
did you do a UOA on the sump where the junk was found in the filter? Back to back UOA with the same oil? Nope. A switch hitter. Even at that, where would the most likely collection point be ..on an otherwise SPOTLESS engine, for carbonaceous formations? The top of the head? The pan? The oil passages?
..the rings, maybe??
See what I mean? Apply the same inverted standard to your on opinion based conclusions ..even if they're based on direct observations.
I'm not hammering you. You're just punching holes in some things ..while leaving a few of your own uncovered.
I have had results with M1 cleaning. This is verifiable via tear-down.
Do you mean that you tore down a dirty engine, left it dirty, reassembled it - dirty - then switched to M1 and tore it down again ..and found it spotless? If so, that's got some merit to it.
Otherwise you saw great deposit control.
Quote:
I would NOT expect carbon deposits showing up in the oil filter from switching between any of the well-known synthetic oils.
You may not. Take a long time on a PAO and switch to a group III or reverse it ..and you may.
Of course, (big smile, pal - Really
Quote:
The bulk dino that was in the truck when I bought it was put in there by the dealer. It surely was different to what was run in the Expedition for the duration of its life. Yet there were no deposits left in the filter.
So? Suppose the engine ran on conventional Group II all of your pre-ownership life and was still running on Group II when you got it? Suppose it ran on anything other than a Group IV or V oil? Just "changing brands" doesn't come close to being the same thing as changing fundamental chemistry.
Quote:
I have not had any consumption with TDT/D1. I ONLY had it with the 5w20. BOTH oils provided junk in the oil filter. The TDT/D1 did it with no consumption. I am not one to correlate consumption with cleaning.......
..and you ran 0w-20 for how many OCI's? The vast difference in viscosity could have trumped the consumption in transition.
Quote:
My conclusions (about cleaning) were and are based on what I've observed with my own eyes. NOT UOA's.
The conclusion I was arguing against was based on UOA's, and NOT visual inspect.
Two completely different animals.
did you do a UOA on the sump where the junk was found in the filter? Back to back UOA with the same oil? Nope. A switch hitter. Even at that, where would the most likely collection point be ..on an otherwise SPOTLESS engine, for carbonaceous formations? The top of the head? The pan? The oil passages?
..the rings, maybe??
See what I mean? Apply the same inverted standard to your on opinion based conclusions ..even if they're based on direct observations.
I'm not hammering you. You're just punching holes in some things ..while leaving a few of your own uncovered.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
As a follow up in post edit time...
I miss one member that's moved on.... 427Z06. He was up there near XS650 and the crew for brain pan fire power ..at least from my vantage point. The greatest (and most abrasive) part of his tenure here was that he was highly critical of opinion being stated as fact ..even if only facts were used to draw the conclusions. He would cite the holes in any assertion.
I can't count how many times he personally spanked me on this board. It required me to ponder any trap doors that I left unsecured and made multiple qualifications a standard part of any assertion ...just to avoid the spanking. You learned to use the term "suggests to me" when you present things.
I miss one member that's moved on.... 427Z06. He was up there near XS650 and the crew for brain pan fire power ..at least from my vantage point. The greatest (and most abrasive) part of his tenure here was that he was highly critical of opinion being stated as fact ..even if only facts were used to draw the conclusions. He would cite the holes in any assertion.
I can't count how many times he personally spanked me on this board. It required me to ponder any trap doors that I left unsecured and made multiple qualifications a standard part of any assertion ...just to avoid the spanking. You learned to use the term "suggests to me" when you present things.
- Status
Similar threads
