What is the iron issue with Mobil 1?

Status
Not open for further replies.
https://www.mobiloil.com/USA-English/MotorOil/Synthetics/Mobil_1_Why_Synthetics.aspx

Interesting that Mobil put up a graph plotting Fe wear over the course of 200k miles, using 25k mile drain intervals. They must know some are concerned about the higher Fe levels.

I like the vehicle dino testing they have going there....

https://www.mobiloil.com/USA-English/MotorOil/Synthetics/Mobil_1_Extreme_Performance_Testing.aspx

Quote:
Mobil 1 testing starts with Industry Specs, but we don’t stop there. We also evaluate Mobil 1 oils in specially designed tests that push engine and oil performance levels beyond standard industry protocol.
 
Buster,

Thanks for posting...
thumbsup2.gif
 
Very interesting that Blackstone said after 500,000 samples which i might add had to be mostly pp mobilone amsoil according to the uoa,s on BITOG they were NOT convinced that syn. oil shows better numbers. that is 500,000 only the Yankees think 500,000 is a small number.Dino could show even better wear numbers they suggested.I think that is really something. They sure are not the guy in the diner type of information that appears here alot on this web site.Now me thinks what to do????
 
Originally Posted By: ottotheclown
Very interesting that Blackstone said after 500,000 samples which i might add had to be mostly pp mobilone amsoil according to the uoa,s on BITOG they were NOT convinced that syn. oil shows better numbers. that is 500,000 only the Yankees think 500,000 is a small number.Dino could show even better wear numbers they suggested.I think that is really something. They sure are not the guy in the diner type of information that appears here alot on this web site.Now me thinks what to do????


Take an English course perhaps?
 
If there were any potential problems with Mobil 1, it would not be factory fill in Porsche or Corvette, Benz, BMW, Cadillac, ect.

Even if the UOA iron numbers are slightly elevated, that doesn't bother me, I'm confident that I'm using a top shelf oil.
 
Originally Posted By: Bryanccfshr
To much loyalty. WHy is it so hard to be objective here?


It's not hard to be objective, here's the way I view it:

UOA's (the kind performed on this site, not particle counts or anything else, since these are what the product is being judged by) have been CLEARLY outlined to be a POOR method, or rather an UNACCEPTABLE method to draw any sort of conclusions on how an engine is WEARING.

They are useful for indicating potential problems with bearings (high copper in engines without a copper oil cooler *ahem GM ahem*) and giving a warning to problems like coolant leaks, air tract leaks and the like.

They are also useful for determining oil contamination level, and lubricant life expectancy so one can gauge how long they are able to run a particular oil for.

This has all been covered in detail by PROFESSIONALS (Doug Hillary for example who even went as far as writing an article on the subject) yet there are STILL people on here preaching them as some sort of oil bible and making condemnations or coronations based on variations in single digits of PARTS PER MILLION using a tool that was never designed for this purpose in the first place.

On the OTHER hand, we have a lubricant manufacturer with an extensive history of OEM and Professional use, spanning almost every racing body across the globe, and being the DOMINANT lubricant manufacturer for many of those sanctioned bodies!

They produce the factory oil for some of the highest performance cars ever made, meet every certification under the sun, and are the FIRST to meet these certifications time and time again.

To me, the information presented speaks for itself.
 
I agree the best use of UOA's is in trending and determining oil life and seeing catastrophic issues such as coolant in the oil (again GM). You have chosen a knowledgeable mentor. I have listened to many knowledgeable folks as well and learned from them. We have a common goal, let us not get wrapped up in the variations in approaches. Let's face it tracer wear analysis and teardown inspections are not practical for 99.9% of us. If I don't have a new hot cam or a broken part I am not tearing anything down for no reason. UOA is a tool, like any tool it must be applied for the purpose and within that tools capabilities.

Lubricant makers. all of them have more resources than all BITOG POSTERS combined.
 
Originally Posted By: Bryanccfshr
Lubricant makers. all of them have more resources than all BITOG POSTERS combined.


That is a definite.

And yes, I guess I would call Doug my mentor (if he accepts the task
wink.gif
) as I find myself drawn back to his knowledge base for answers and recommendations time and time again.

On your point about wear analysis and tear-downs, I agree wholeheartedly. I am not going to tear into my Expedition engine at any time in the forseeable future.

The Mustang engine? I'll be into it (again) next week. I'm changing the valve springs.

Those of us who have a race/performance hobby, such as BuickGN, Ben99GT and myself (and I am sure there are many others that I can't think of off the top of my head) have the privilege of being INSIDE our engines on a somewhat regular basis for the purpose of some sort of upgrade. This means we get to see a lot of stuff that the vast majority of the posters on here will never see, such as the walls of our cylinders, if there is a ring ridge, the condition/cleanliness of our engine beyond what is seen through the oil fill cap on the valve cover....etc.

And I recognize that for the majority of people that this is not practical, or necessary.

But I think it is still necessary to recognize the LIMITATIONS of UOA's, as many don't seem to look at them in the light in which they should be viewed: A tool, one of many, that can be used for engine and lubricant analysis, and who's primary purpose is to gauge lubricant life and contamination and to give a warning for potential problems. Not a universal yardstick of engine wear.....
 
True, we do not disagree. UOA data is easy cheap date. It is a great tool but not the conclusive tool unless you draw on the expertise if a specialist who can interpret UOAs and understand engine metallurgy and tendencies. We have much UOA data...we have little competent interpretation. It can be bought but most are unwilling to pay for the expanded scope.
The main reason I do UOA's is to rule out coolant and contamination issues and to see how the lubricant is holding up to the service... everything else is, entertainment.
 
Originally Posted By: Bryanccfshr
True, we do not disagree. UOA data is easy cheap date. It is a great tool but not the conclusive tool unless you draw on the expertise if a specialist who can interpret UOAs and understand engine metallurgy and tendencies. We have much UOA data...we have little competent interpretation. It can be bought but most are unwilling to pay for the expanded scope.
The main reason I do UOA's is to rule out coolant and contamination issues and to see how the lubricant is holding up to the service... everything else is, entertainment.


Indeed sir. And I think even with expert interpretation, it is still impossible to see any sort of "big picture".

I just did a UOA on the Expedition. I want to see how far I can run the TDT. The other information will be neat as well, but as long as there is nothing flagged, I am not going to draw any wild conclusions from the data
wink.gif
 
It's very hard to say. I mean the Mobil 1 oil has been historically good, so it could be from its high solvency in removing and suspending more particles from an engine.

The oil is releasing all the old/caked up debris in the engine which may or may not contain Fe and other elements/contaminants. Secondly does Mobil 1 come with an Fe package like some other oils do?

I have no doubt that Mobil 1 is a very good oil, one of the best and I have used it for many years with no problems. But perhaps the Fe was already worn and in the engine to begin with?
 
Keep in mind factory fill is mostly based on cost. they can save $$$, factory fill is dumped pretty quick except for Honda, so the fact that the snooty cars come filled with mobil one is not such a big deal. mobil gives them a deal they cannot refuse mobil is in that position to do that over other oil co.How come dino oil and other syn. do better than Mr. factory fill???? on uoa,s ???
 
Originally Posted By: ottotheclown
Keep in mind factory fill is mostly based on cost.


You know this for a fact?

Ford uses ConocoPhilips, BMW uses Castrol.....

Quote:
they can save $$$,


By using a synthetic oil? Yeah.... that's it......


Quote:
factory fill is dumped pretty quick except for Honda, so the fact that the snooty cars come filled with mobil one is not such a big deal.


Most people changing out the factory fill are doing so WAY before the manufacturer suggests. The suggestion to run the factory fill for a reasonable interval is not a Honda exclusive thing. Doug has posted on this topic before.

Quote:
mobil gives them a deal they cannot refuse


Then why is Ford using ConocoPhilips and BMW using Castrol if Mobil's deal is so good?

Quote:
mobil is in that position to do that over other oil co.


They are the largest producer of synthetic base stocks and additives. They also sell those products to many of the blenders......

Quote:
How come dino oil and other syn. do better than Mr. factory fill???? on uoa,s ???


1. UOA wear metals mean VERY little. I suggest you familiarize yourself with Doug's article on the subject.

2. There's this thing called BREAK-IN, where things like the rings are seating.... This causes more oil contamination. It is only logical to assume that the factory fill will be the most contaminated with these things.... This is far from rocket science.
 
Fe is Fe and it's coming from somewhere. I don't think the levels are ever that high. Joe Schmoe runs M1 receives a report that comes back with 40 ppm of Fe then switches to another brand and it drops to 20 ppm. Is that significant? I don't know. Doubtful. M1 has been showing higher Fe for over 5 years now and yet it keeps gaining endorsements.

Another possibility is that it has average to below average wear control but excels in other areas.

People use M1 because it works. $ has little to do with it. M1 is price competitive.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

JavierH19
0w-8 has gone mainstream. M1 AFE 0w-8.
2 3 4
Replies
78
Views
5K
MolaKule
A
can viscosity at 40c or density be correlated with an oils W rating?
Replies
5
Views
863
Rand
N
Mixing 5 quarts Mobil 1 EP + 0.7 quart M1 AFE 0W-20
2
Replies
31
Views
2K
odie
D
Mobil 1 - What does the FS on the jug stand for?
3 4 5
Replies
90
Views
5K
4WD
Shel_B
Has Mobil 1 discontinued Mobil 1's 0W-20?
2 3
Replies
40
Views
9K
OVERKILL
Back
Top