Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
Quote:
I have had results with Mobil 1 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 Mobil 1 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 Mobil 1 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 Mobil 1 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 Mobil 1 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 Mobil 1 for the last 3 OCI's and then running Redline would be a great example. IMHO, I wouldn't have been running the Mobil 1 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 used oil analysis, 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 conventional 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 conventional oil then?
Quote:
Quote:
I have not had any consumption with Mobil 1 Turbo Diesel Truck/D1. I ONLY had it with the 5w20. BOTH oils provided junk in the oil filter. The Mobil 1 Turbo Diesel Truck/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 Mobil 1 Turbo Diesel Truck, 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 used oil analysis.
The conclusion I was arguing against was based on used oil analysis, and NOT visual inspect.
Two completely different animals.
did you do a used oil analysis 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 used oil analysis 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 used oil analysis on the most recent change, where again, MORE junk was found in the filter. It is in the used oil analysis section.
Quote:
Back to back used oil analysis with the same oil? Nope. A switch hitter.
No......... I'm only on my 2nd run of the Mobil 1 Turbo Diesel Truck. I'm not switch-hitting. I haven't finished my 2nd run yet. I fully intend on doing a used oil analysis 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 used oil analysis, 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, Mobil 1) 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 used oil analysis #'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 used oil analysis 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.
