What is the iron issue with Mobil 1?

Status
Not open for further replies.
 Originally Posted By: d00df00d
 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...
My father has a Porsche Carrera 4S. Has had Mobil 1 0w40 all its life. It has 60000miles. Iron shows 9ppm http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb...rue#Post1459281
 
 Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
 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.
Yes. When I bought the Mustang it had been run on conventional oil. When I put M1 5w30 in it, the valve covers began leaking about a week later. I took the covers off, and the heads had some varnish on them, so did the rockers. The engine was not spotless. I then ran it on M1 in various grades: 0w20, 5w30, 10w30, 5w50 for the next 80,000Km. I then purchased a set of GT40 heads, the ones that are currently on the car, and pulled the E7's off. When I took the valve covers off after the 80,000Km of M1 usage, the heads were spotless. The rockers were basically new looking. I probably have them here somewhere if I went looking for them. The OTHER Mustang engine I've had apart, the one that is in the F-150, we do not know what its previous maintenance history was. The guy we purchased it from, put AMSOIL in it and changed it at 5,000Km intervals with an EaO filter after he bought it. It was also immaculate inside, and I doubt it started out that way. On the other hand, you also saw pictures of the sludged-up abomination we took OUT of the truck..... I do NOT know the maintenance history of that engine, but 302's not run on synthetic typically do not stay clean. The Windsor engines are often cited as a "dirty" engine.
 Quote:
 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.
I doubt that running M1 for the last 3 OCI's and then running Redline would be a great example. IMHO, I wouldn't have been running the M1 long enough.... But I WILL, and you can hold me to it, check for deposits in the filters, just as I have done with EVERY filter I've pulled off this truck. And I WILL get a UOA, now that I can get them cheap "just for fun". We can use that to I guess KINDA test your theory here??? What I'm getting from you is that you think the change in chemistry is causing the ring cleaning, whilst I'm thinking its the cleaning capabilities of the synthetic oil.....
 Quote:
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
I have no idea what caused your consumption, and I'm not saying it wasn't chemistry. I'm just not sure one can assume the consumption is due to cleaning or not, which was what I was taking your statement as meaning. I cannot see how it could be interpreted any other way......
 Quote:
 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.
So you feel it is the chemistry change between brands that simultaneously causes consumption and deposit disruption, rather than the synthetic oil having superior cleaning capabilities and deposit control of a dino oil then?
 Quote:
 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.
I ran 5w20 for 10,000Km, one OCI. It consumed 1L of oil over that OCI. I switched to TDT, and it consumed zero oil over 12,000Km. And I definitely think the more robust oil and higher viscosity played a major role in the elimination of the consumption. But I don't think the lighter oil was consumed BECAUSE it cleaned, because the 5w40 cleaned too. I think the lighter oil was consumed because it was lighter and easily sucked through the PCV or made its way past the rings.
 Quote:
 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?
No on the 5w20, because, again, harking back to Doug's data, I don't think UOA's provide much in the way of useful data about wear unless trended against a known database of this engine in this usage pattern over a huge range of mileage... I had not intended on continuing my use of the 5w20, so the TBN data wasn't going to be useful for me. I DID do a UOA on the most recent change, where again, MORE junk was found in the filter. It is in the UOA section.
 Quote:
Back to back UOA with the same oil? Nope. A switch hitter.
No......... I'm only on my 2nd run of the TDT. I'm not switch-hitting. I haven't finished my 2nd run yet. I fully intend on doing a UOA on this fill because it will give me a more "valid" scope of how the oil is holding up, and they didn't give me TBN on my last UOA, which was the entire reason I did it!
 Quote:
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??
Of course the rings, I'm not a moron. Where do you think I thought it came from?
 Quote:
See what I mean? Apply the same inverted standard to your on opinion based conclusions ..even if they're based on direct observations.
No, I don't see what you mean. I'm basing my OPINION of the cleaning capabilities of synthetic oil on physical observations of its use in an engine that is not known to be all that "clean" by nature. I am basing the WEAR observations of the same oil (in this case, M1) on the same engines, which I've had apart and not been able to observe any visible wear. The case I was taking issue with were deviations in UOA #'s which didn't start happening until the change in oil brand took place. I SPECULATED (and made that clear) that the spike MIGHT trend-off if the same oil were run again, like it was in the first place, and had yielded "normal" (not shocking) #'s.....
 Quote:
I'm not hammering you.
Really?
 Quote:
You're just punching holes in some things ..while leaving a few of your own uncovered.
I was taking issue with a method which I found flawed based on information that I gleaned from Doug in terms of the usefulness of UOA's and how important trending is if you want to learn ANYTHING from them. I am well aware that my methodology is far from perfect. I'm a bloody computer guy that likes to play with cars in his spare time. But my observations are as presented and my opinions expressed are simply that.
 
 Quote:
Yes. When I bought the Mustang it had been run on conventional oil.
Good enough.
 Quote:
I doubt that running M1 for the last 3 OCI's and then running Redline would be a great example.
Me neither.
 Quote:
IMHO, I wouldn't have been running the M1 long enough....
I agree
 Quote:
But I WILL, and you can hold me to it, check for deposits in the filters, just as I have done with EVERY filter I've pulled off this truck. And I WILL get a UOA, now that I can get them cheap "just for fun".
Why bother? Both of us feel that it will yield nothing useful.
 Quote:
We can use that to I guess KINDA test your theory here??
In a year or two, maybe. Right now you've already removed a good bit of material ..maybe all of it. So, you can't use it to disprove "my theory". Again, where do you think carbonaceous deposits reside?
 Quote:
No on the 5w20, because, again, harking back to Doug's data, I don't think UOA's provide much in the way of useful data about wear unless trended against a known database of this engine in this usage pattern over a huge range of mileage... I had not intended on continuing my use of the 5w20, so the TBN data wasn't going to be useful for me.
What it would possibly have shown is oddities in wear metals that coincided with the appearance of grit in your filter. Showing that existing film layers were being removed. What you're saying is you didn't do a UOA since it wouldn't show you anything meaningful ..even if it was how the oil held up. Yet you did one on T&TD 5w-40 to show what it didn't do to wear metals in an engine spec'd for 5w-20 There's no doubt that it was robust enough to endure the (or just about any) service.
 Quote:
I have no idea what caused your consumption, and I'm not saying it wasn't chemistry. I'm just not sure one can assume the consumption is due to cleaning or not, which was what I was taking your statement as meaning. I cannot see how it could be interpreted any other way......
We all form our "most plausible explanation" for most things. In the absence of opposing schools of thought with higher merit (which there can surely be) that's what we all default on. Just for details ..I consumed 1 quart 3k into the OCI ...freaked ..changed it ...consumed one quart @ 6k ..changed it...then consumed one quart @ 9k and changed it ..then never tested it beyond there since I figured 9k/6months worked. I may have been able to top up and achieve the same results ..but when you go from none to some ..you freak. In hindsight there would be nothing to indicate any change in the mechanicals in any manner that would have resulted in a marked increase in consumption ..which pointed to the oil. Since the consumption retreated to past levels ..this pointed to it NOT being the oil either ..but rather a transitional condition that was self correcting.
 Quote:
But I don't think the lighter oil was consumed BECAUSE it cleaned, because the 5w40 cleaned too. I think the lighter oil was consumed because it was lighter and easily sucked through the PCV or made its way past the rings.
Quite possible ..maybe even probable to a higher degree ..but we can only speculate at this point. (see what I mean?)
 Quote:
No......... I'm only on my 2nd run of the TDT. I'm not switch-hitting. I haven't finished my 2nd run yet. I fully intend on doing a UOA on this fill because it will give me a more "valid" scope of how the oil is holding up, and they didn't give me TBN on my last UOA, which was the entire reason I did it!
Okay ..that explains the UOA on the 5w-40. That stuff could go a year at almost any mileage without TBN issues, imo. Maybe if you go over 32,0000km it might be "normally low".
 Quote:
The case I was taking issue with were deviations in UOA #'s which didn't start happening until the change in oil brand took place. I SPECULATED (and made that clear) that the spike MIGHT trend-off if the same oil were run again, like it was in the first place, and had yielded "normal" (not shocking) #'s.....
I think we're in agreement ..but neither of us were aware of it ..apparently. Switch hitters get unpredictable results. I can't see someone swapping around oils every UOA and expecting to see more favorable results or any valid results at all. Some do get expected results ..but it's not assured. As I said, we're usually impatient. Using unremarkable oils over unremarkable durations will probably show unremarkable differences in results. Go from a lifetime (long time) of mundane GII oil to something like Red Line ..and I think the first UOA will be littered with "stuff". We seen it many times ..but YMMV .
 Quote:
Really?
Yes. REALLY I'm focused on you at the moment to point to like flaws in conclusion formation without covering the potential escape hatches that most of us over look. Most of what we present here is opinion and the logic train getting there needs to endure an even playing field of peer review. You've cleared a few of these up in how you came to yours. I don't think (No, I'm not checking) that I ever said you were wrong. I think I merely offered what was left in the vacuum of what you didn't say or appeared counter to it. I know my style can appear "wise***" at times. At my old job I'd tell the instrumentation outfit lead guy that did our installations something about the system (evaporators) ..and he'd ask me "How do I know this to be true?". I'd then have to support everything I said to his satisfaction. I never integrated the process well until I came here and got spanked for not engaging in full disclosure (in advance) of any offsetting unknowns in my conclusions.
 
 Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
There`s some new M1 uoa`s that show very low fe levels. They look to be extremely excellent uoa`s.
Perhaps they are listening to all the M1 threads and have tweaked the formulas?
 
 Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
There`s some new M1 uoa`s that show very low fe levels. They look to be extremely excellent uoa`s.
yeah ..it's all the great Group III stuff they're using now in higher dosages. They can reduce the need for their signature iron dissolving agents to "prop up" their older formulations. (gosh I love this thread )
 
Gary: FWIW, Doug told me to change and sample it at my normal interval. Check how it is holding up, then extend it out to ~17K IIRC and do it again. He figured it would easily go 20K. And I think we might be on the same page now as per your last post ;\) I REALLY want to run Redline this winter. The ridiculous pour point is very appealing. On the other hand, I'd really like to continue trending the TDT, as it is holding up very well, and I have more of it on-hand. ARG! This place will drive ya nuts!
 
Not picking on anyone, just a general statement after spending a lot of time on this board, and following Gary's example. I read these threads and see how the mind can justify the use of any product, tweak info based on opinions that we tend to agree with, and pass on facts. Fact is Mobil 1 seems to show consistantly higher iron in certain grade oils. Opinions are how the iron got there? Eg: (Opinion)-Mobil 1 cleaning up another oils mess. Sorry, I don't buy it. I stick to facts higher iron verified by oil sample testing, and stand clear of Mobil 1. When I see facts that sway me the otherway I'll reconsider. Until then................JMO Mobil 1 AD
 
 Originally Posted By: chevrofreak
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.
It is, and I'm fairly certain it's cleaning up my engine a bit...
 
 Originally Posted By: StevieC
 Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
There`s some new M1 uoa`s that show very low fe levels. They look to be extremely excellent uoa`s.
Perhaps they are listening to all the M1 threads and have tweaked the formulas?
XM may be listening to BITOG, but instead of tweaking their formulas they probably are laughing their ______ off at some of you guys, at some of your mis information.
 
It would be nice if they were laughing to offer an expert reason, with proof to set the minds at ease and end the speculation about the high iron. I'd read it.
 
 Quote:
Not picking on anyone, just a general statement after spending a lot of time on this board, and following Gary's example. I read these threads and see how the mind can justify the use of any product, tweak info based on opinions that we tend to agree with, and pass on facts.
It goes beyond that. Have you ever seen a published SAE paper that doesn't prove what it set out to? No. Those papers don't get published. Some do appear to be pure research and just report what they found, but those also tend to support en vogue trends.
 
Cripes, <b>tig1</b>. Have a drink and take a breath. He said "<u>the speculation about</u> the high iron."
 
 Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Cripes, tig1. Have a drink and take a breath. He said "the speculation about the high iron."
The dilemma I am in is that I don't drink!! Besides when some one here uses the word speculation, doesn't that really mean for fact?
 
 Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Gary: And I think we might be on the same page now as per your last post ;\) ARG! This place will drive ya nuts!
Do ya think? Can't tell by me
 
 Quote:
XM may be listening to BITOG, but instead of tweaking their formulas they probably are laughing their ______ off at some of you guys, at some of your mis information.
I think that is probably the case.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

W
What is the difference between oils that say SAE OW-20 and oils that just say OW-20
Replies
6
Views
873
SubieRubyRoo
E
Lexus CT / Prius gen 3 - API SN? API SP?
Replies
18
Views
1K
CR94
Drazyor
Oil recommendation for a 2022 Suzuki Jimny (1.5L gasoline)
2
Replies
27
Views
2K
Graham Piccinini
J
Mobil 1 ESP Oils: '21 Subaru Crosstrek & '21 GMC Acadia
Replies
9
Views
1K
JRHAWK9
buster
Do you have any info on how GM tested Mobil 1 in the Corvette?
2 3 4
Replies
60
Views
3K
Jimmy_Russells
Top