What is the iron issue with Mobil 1?

[Tom NJ]

 Originally Posted By: Bryanccfshr

I am tired and dividing this discussion between the movie pearl harbor and my bottle of french wine

Had a bottle of 1988 Chateau Figeac last night - still in wonderful condition! Went well with grilled ribeye steaks and garlic scapes. Tom NJ

 

[buster]

mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

 

[bepperb]

I had Pabst and a take-out pizza. Apparenlty I need to up my game. But regarding the original post, "What is the iron issue with Mobil 1?" I guess the consensus is nobody knows? The thing that seems weird to me is that you never see Aluminum or yellow metals with higher than what people consider "normal" numbers. I'm with Overkill. I don't know where it's coming from, all one can do is speculate. At 12 dollars for five quarts, I'll be on M1 for the next 30,000 miles on the Accord. I'll let everyone know in two years how it went.

 

[wannafbody]

 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.

And I could show a long term trend of low FE M1 UOA reports(if I compiled a list).

 

[steve20]

"""Mobil 1 fed engine run for alot of miles and when torn down look really nice inside.""" ...and the reason tey are 'torn down' is because they are worn out-clean, but worn out Steve

 

[buster]

People have been complaining about this for years, and Mobil has kept the formula the same while their oils continue to pick up endorsements. Seems everyone in racing loves Mobil 1 so I don't know. It would be great if someone had a ferrography done to see the nature of the iron particles.

 

[tig1]

 Originally Posted By: steve20

"""Mobil 1 fed engine run for alot of miles and when torn down look really nice inside.""" ...and the reason tey are 'torn down' is because they are worn out-clean, but worn out Steve

You knew that's not true when you said that, so why did you say it. My guess is you have never seen the inside of an engine much less know what makes it go round and round.

 

[daman]

 Originally Posted By: tig1

 Originally Posted By: steve20

"""Mobil 1 fed engine run for alot of miles and when torn down look really nice inside.""" ...and the reason tey are 'torn down' is because they are worn out-clean, but worn out Steve

No knew that's not true when you said that, so why did you say it. My guess is you have never seen the inside of an engine much less know what makes it go round and round.

x2...

 

[buster]

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1507140#Post1507140

 

[OVERKILL]

 Originally Posted By: steve20

"""Mobil 1 fed engine run for alot of miles and when torn down look really nice inside.""" ...and the reason tey are 'torn down' is because they are worn out-clean, but worn out Steve

Wow, that's a load of [censored]. The reason mine have been torn-down were for performance upgrades. I've been running M1 since the early 90's in everything from push mowers to a 1950's Ford 312 Interceptor making 425HP. I've never had to rebuild any of these engines. My two 302's were apart due to Heads/Cam/Intake swaps. The one in the Town Car, which had had a small portion of its life on M1 was no where near as clean as the one in the Mustang, which I had been running M1 in religiously for ~80,000Km since I bought it. You've seen the pictures of the Mustang engine on here. That 302 was rated for 225HP (flywheel) in 1987. 20 years later, I tore into it, swapped the heads for a set of ported GT40 irons, a TrickFlow Stage 1 Camshaft, TrickFlow "R" intake, 75mm TB, new timing chain, a set of 1.7 Roller Rockers and a set of larger injectors with a "calibrated" MAF (couldn't afford a chip tune at that time for it, and was planning on getting a TWEECER) and took it to the dyno. Car made 270RWHP (~325HP flywheel) with ~300,000Km on the stock shortblock and that was with a god-awful A/F ratio. That engine was torn down AGAIN last year, new Camshaft Innovations camshaft put in, I've now swapped it to carb, and that engine is in a new car (1982 Capri Black Magic) with IRS from a 2001 Cobra. The engine has now outlived three transmissions...... Cross-hatching is still readily visible in all the bores, no ring ridge, and she holds wicked oil pressure. And this is NOT a babied engine as the application would obviously dictate. Just one example, but no speculation or guessing, those are real results using M1 in an engine that gets WORKED.

 

[Built_Well]

A slight expansion of the topic: Does a high metal issue appear in UOAs of Mobil 1 Synthetic ATF? I'm thinking of doing a drain-and-fill at 30,000 miles in the '06 Camry, using Mobil 1 Synthetic ATF. That would give me a 50/50 mix of Toyota T-IV and Mobil 1 Synthetic ATF.

 

[bepperb]

Does it matter, Mobil makes T-IV or M1. Either way your transmission probably doesn't have any iron left, even after only 30,000 miles. It's basically just sludge holding small pieces of rust together at this point. Actually, I'll be running a 50/50 mix of T-IV and M1 at my next oci, at 60,000 miles. I did one drain/fill at 40k, and it looked like it could use the refresh.

 

[buster]

My best guess would be that M1 just trades off a bit of cam lobe wear protection, for high temperature deposits. It's known to keep engines spotless, many of which are high performance engines. Mobil performing poorly in the Seq IVA test wouldn't surprise me. It would also not surprise me if conventional oils like ybp do better at control cam lobe wear.

 

[Built_Well]

 Originally Posted By: buster

Mobil performing poorly in the Seq IVA test wouldn't surprise me. It would also not surprise me if conventional oils like ybp do better at control cam lobe wear.

At Walmart, I saw small stickers added to PP bottles that read: "No leading full synthetic motor oil provides better wear protection. - Based on Sequence IVA testing."

 

[demarpaint]

If that's the case at least Pennzoil isn't pointing fingers at anyone. Smart marketing in my book, and about time they climbed on the band-wagon.

 

[buster]

Agree. They realize it's more marketing than anything. 8x vs 4x vs whatever...however, passing the test is different.

 

[demarpaint]

I'm a little surprised it took them this long to join in. I like the way they worded it, it has some class. To me it means more than numbers that probably amount to nothing when you add them up.

 

[Captain_Klink]

The safest thing to do here, is run 50% Mobil 0w30 with 50% PP 5w30. I don't want to risk anything here, so I'll hedge my bets.

 

[wannafbody]

I've heard this M1 causes cam wear stuff for over 5 years. Seems odd to me.

 

[bepperb]

"The safest thing to do here, is run 50% Mobil 0w30 with 50% PP 5w30. I don't want to risk anything here, so I'll hedge my bets." Really, if there's any question of weather M1 isn't doing the job, why wouldn't you just use all PP? But honestly, M1 probably outsells Pennzoil Platinum 2 or 3 to 1. So if there was a huge problem with wear, people would know about it. At least there would be pictures, or if no pictures then stories... and if not stores at least somebody who has a brother who knows a guy. But I haven't seen any of it.