Mobil 1 or Pennzoil Platinum???

[Mystic]

Bill in Utah I just do not understand how Mobil could produce and sell a motor oil for aircraft that apparently could actually damage aircraft engines. I just do not understand that. If it is true this oil was so bad how did it pass product testing?

But than again look at all the defective products and unsafe products coming from China to other countries. For a while it seemed every week we heard about animal food or toys or computers that were unsafe.

With all of the lawsuits nowadays you would think a company would make sure its products were safe to use. Surely a lawsuit is more expensive than product testing.

 

[Bill in Utah]

Originally Posted By: Mystic
Bill in Utah I just do not understand how Mobil could produce and sell a motor oil for aircraft that apparently could actually damage aircraft engines. I just do not understand that. If it is true this oil was so bad how did it pass product testing?

But than again look at all the defective products and unsafe products coming from China to other countries. For a while it seemed every week we heard about animal food or toys or computers that were unsafe.

With all of the lawsuits nowadays you would think a company would make sure its products were safe to use. Surely a lawsuit is more expensive than product testing.


I'm sure they did tons of testing. And tons of UOAs. But REAL WORLD is a lot different than labs / controlled testing.

Airplanes are much harder on oil and they use conventional for thousands of hours with no problems. It's the nut behind the yoke that screws a lot of the engines up (like my factory reman motor that had to be topped @ 300 hours and reman'd again @ 500 hours) All because the pilot over cooked it in New Mexico on a hot day.

And if it had syn in it, the same result would have happened.

Mobil got sued plenty of times. And their lab testing really dropped the ball. There were quite a few that fell for their oil when it came out.

Kept the rebuild and mechanics busy...

take care, bill

 

[ekpolk]

Originally Posted By: Mystic
...

With all of the lawsuits nowadays you would think a company would make sure its products were safe to use. Surely a lawsuit is more expensive than product testing.


Just FYI, on a per capita basis, the number of civil lawsuits filed in the United States has been on a gentle decline for almost a century. Looks like the insurance companies' slopaganda has been working. . .

 

[Ben99GT]

Originally Posted By: chevrofreak
The Ford 4.6 tends to be very clean under the cam covers no matter what oil is used, as long as it's quality oil.


No, I've seen plenty 4.6s with that gold varnish coating under the cam covers and even sludged up.

 

[the1who]

Thanks for the input Bill, I probably haven't been in the industry as long as you, but I have seen some interesting things thus far.

Not to stray from the subject, but across the hangar, there is a plane that they opened up something towards the rear of the engine. The engine failed in flight. They said that (along with the oil) parts came rolling out. Sometimes the pilot/driver, sometimes just the mechanic/manufacturer are the root of the problems, sometimes the lubricant.

You can't put Skydrol where conventional oil was used, will eat all the seals. In class, our instructor had put in seals and other products to show us how damaging Skydrol can be, however it is a good lubricant for it's fire resistance, especially for hydraulic means where the fluid gets hot under load.

I thought that providing that link would be useful. I remember something having to do with the advertising of the product might have had something to do with that lawsuit as well or another complaint with the FTC or similar, like Slick50 type advertising, that it is the cure-all.

To me, they all seem to have the same advertising that if you use their product, your engine will not break down because they have proven with tests that it can sustain anything. I hope that I am making sense to everyone of what I am trying to say.

I just got done with the oil change in my car tonight, put in PP. I hope it's not a placebo effect, but I like it when you can tell that the engine seems to be working more freely and easily. It seemed to have gotten it's pep back.

Here is another aviation oil link, tip 12 discusses synthetics:
http://www.swaviator.com/html/issueja02/Hangar7802.html

Skydrol:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skydrol

 

[Bill in Utah]

The rear of the engine is where all the accessory items ,the mags and the vacuum pumps are located.

I think you'll find that just the changing of oil (ANY oil) you will get the same feeling as you did with PP. This mindset that Syn is slipper than conventional is a myth.

Take care, Bill

 

[buster]

Quote:
This mindset that Syn is slipper than conventional is a myth.


It's actually not. Synthetic base oils have a more uniform molecular structure and therefore have a lower Cf. However, additives can probably play more of a role in that area I'm guessing.

In a Jet engine, only POE's can be used.

 

[Bill in Utah]

Originally Posted By: buster
Quote:
This mindset that Syn is slipper than conventional is a myth.


It's actually not. Synthetic base oils have a more uniform molecular structure and therefore have a lower Cf. However, additives can probably play more of a role in that area I'm guessing.

In a Jet engine, only POE's can be used.


At normal temps? (ie from well below zero to 120 degrees)

We will agree to disagree then.

 

[the1who]

Yeah, that's right, which reminds me of when I was at school. Not that this is just industry related, I am sure there are individuals and instructors across the board that have the learning curve disability or even teaching disability since they are instructors and that is their job.

We were learning about timing, using an O-235. The left mag had the impulse coupling, we had the right mag timed in perfectly. We couldn't get the left to time at all. So we pulled it, and first noticed that the nut that retains the impulse coupling was practically on the last threads. And also the LH/RH rotation pin holes, it was lined up with RH rotation, but it is LH rotating. So two things that messed that up. After that it ran perfectly, it sounded awesome.

On the plane across the hangar, they had a rag on that engine cowling that is just covered in oil where it is dripping down from. It's a 414 the best I can recall. The right engine, outboard side. Pretty nasty.

I just got done doing the oil change in wife's neon putting in PP. Noticed a leak on the back side of the engine. I know that the first generation of Neons, which my wife had, as a 1995 at least, had the problem with leaks from the valve cover and header gaskets. This seems to be the same, I thought it might have been the transmission since it left a nice film around that and the cover. Unless there is a gear box, because that is where the CV shafts are coming out of too. I checked the AT fluid, still full and good color, didn't smell it though I have typically done that in the past for any unforeseen signs.

I have never used synthetic transmission fluid, and that question isn't probably for this thread, but since this is being read so frequently, wondered peoples thoughts, I'll post or follow up on someone's post in that area if I find it, still new here.

As far as full synthetic oils compared to synthblends, how would I know as a consumer, that the bottle is false advertising it's claims or not? Like I have seen some posts on here in that regards. PP says full synthetic in big letters right on the bottle. And switching from M1 isn't an issue from some things I have read, and there is a site I remember stumbling upon from google, that said nowadays, switching from conventional to synthetic isn't a big deal anymore. I just wondered others thoughts on that.

Matthew

 

[the1who]

Originally Posted By: buster


In a Jet engine, only POE's can be used.


Can you explain this acronym, POE for me please. I see a lot of it used here, and I have adapted a bit, such as M1, PP, BITOG, just to name a few. I tried doing a search for POE and not really finding anything relevant to that and jet engines. I did find poly(ortho)esther when I did a search for say "phosphate esther POE."

I did a quick search on JT8D, popular jet engines, typically found on 737-200s, MD-80s, 727s just to name a few. Going through the public files, Type Certificate Data Sheets (TCDS) I found JT8D under TCDS E9NE. It calls for reference of Pratt and Whitney's SB 238 for PW Aircraft Specification 521:

PDF Sheet here

I then googled the PWA 521, found this from Shell:

Shell

The oil calls for MIL-L-23699 specification. Google some more and found that Mobil Jet Oil II was another oil meeting that specification. They call for MIL-PRF-23699 though, not sure of difference:

Mobil Jet Oil II

They all call it synthetic esther. Just trying to get an idea of what full synthetic means, comparatively we couldn't really compare our cars' oil to jet engines, but I am just curious in knowing.

 

[OVERKILL]

According to the article cited, the engines affected were personal craft that flew low hours per year; 100 to 120 hours or so. The issue was lead-loading in the lubricant, which the oil was not keeping suspended well enough and led to a build-up of lead-sludge which ultimately lead to engine failure.

Obviously, the conditions were outside of the scope that Mobil tested for and they are indeed responsible.

 

[Tom NJ]

Hi 1who,

For an overview of esters, which include POEs, see here:

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1252272#Post1252272


For an overview of jet turbine oils such as MIL-PRF-23699, see here:

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=749910&fpart=2

Tom NJ

 

[the1who]

Ok, thank you for that, nice to see already on the site.

 

[ffracer]

Originally Posted By: Zacharyx
Originally Posted By: blueiedgod
Automatics... who cares, they are for girls anyway.

5/6 speeds impress high school girls, autos win races

with that said I would only have a slush box in an all out race car


No racing car uses an automatic for a reason. They all have clutches, they all have manual shifters/paddles, even big rigs use manuals. Why? Direct drive (no sloppy torque converter) and automatics have no eyes (can't see when to shift - just react).

Formula 1, Indycars, Sports Cars (ALMS, GrandAm), NASCAR, etc. - all manual.

No automatic will ever hold a candle to a manual clutch with the same gear ratio. It can't. It is physics. You also need to know to use one.

The whole argument about rpm vs. oil is simple: if the fluid pressure drops enough to reduce friction, it will reduce the rpm level, since the amount of explosion needed to drive the load should be lower.

Having said that, it probably wouldn't make a difference that is noticable with most oils. 100-200 rpm max.

 

[the1who]

Originally Posted By: ffracer
Originally Posted By: Zacharyx
Originally Posted By: blueiedgod
Automatics... who cares, they are for girls anyway.

5/6 speeds impress high school girls, autos win races

with that said I would only have a slush box in an all out race car


No racing car uses an automatic for a reason. They all have clutches, they all have manual shifters/paddles, even big rigs use manuals. Why? Direct drive (no sloppy torque converter) and automatics have no eyes (can't see when to shift - just react).

Formula 1, Indycars, Sports Cars (ALMS, GrandAm), NASCAR, etc. - all manual.

No automatic will ever hold a candle to a manual clutch with the same gear ratio. It can't. It is physics. You also need to know to use one.

The whole argument about rpm vs. oil is simple: if the fluid pressure drops enough to reduce friction, it will reduce the rpm level, since the amount of explosion needed to drive the load should be lower.

Having said that, it probably wouldn't make a difference that is noticable with most oils. 100-200 rpm max.


Just to point out, the use of automatic big rigs is increasing. Groendyke here in the metro has a few of them. I'll confirm with my dad who drives for them, but he told me that he hates the automatics because of the poor shifting for acceleration. Like if he has an empty load, he could skip gears with a the manual rigs, but the automatic rigs don't distinguish the difference.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: ffracer
Originally Posted By: Zacharyx
Originally Posted By: blueiedgod
Automatics... who cares, they are for girls anyway.

5/6 speeds impress high school girls, autos win races

with that said I would only have a slush box in an all out race car


No racing car uses an automatic for a reason. They all have clutches, they all have manual shifters/paddles, even big rigs use manuals. Why? Direct drive (no sloppy torque converter) and automatics have no eyes (can't see when to shift - just react).

Formula 1, Indycars, Sports Cars (ALMS, GrandAm), NASCAR, etc. - all manual.

No automatic will ever hold a candle to a manual clutch with the same gear ratio. It can't. It is physics. You also need to know to use one.

The whole argument about rpm vs. oil is simple: if the fluid pressure drops enough to reduce friction, it will reduce the rpm level, since the amount of explosion needed to drive the load should be lower.

Having said that, it probably wouldn't make a difference that is noticable with most oils. 100-200 rpm max.



Depends on what kind of racing you are talking about.

Drag racing; it's VERY common for somebody to run a built automatic in Pro Stock for example. TH400, TH350, AOD, C4, C6, Powerglide....etc.

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: the1who
Originally Posted By: ffracer
Originally Posted By: Zacharyx
Originally Posted By: blueiedgod
Automatics... who cares, they are for girls anyway.

5/6 speeds impress high school girls, autos win races

with that said I would only have a slush box in an all out race car


No racing car uses an automatic for a reason. They all have clutches, they all have manual shifters/paddles, even big rigs use manuals. Why? Direct drive (no sloppy torque converter) and automatics have no eyes (can't see when to shift - just react).

Formula 1, Indycars, Sports Cars (ALMS, GrandAm), NASCAR, etc. - all manual.

No automatic will ever hold a candle to a manual clutch with the same gear ratio. It can't. It is physics. You also need to know to use one.

The whole argument about rpm vs. oil is simple: if the fluid pressure drops enough to reduce friction, it will reduce the rpm level, since the amount of explosion needed to drive the load should be lower.

Having said that, it probably wouldn't make a difference that is noticable with most oils. 100-200 rpm max.


Just to point out, the use of automatic big rigs is increasing. Groendyke here in the metro has a few of them. I'll confirm with my dad who drives for them, but he told me that he hates the automatics because of the poor shifting for acceleration. Like if he has an empty load, he could skip gears with a the manual rigs, but the automatic rigs don't distinguish the difference.


They say the AT rigs can haul more, but I have my doubts. Any info on that?

Frank D

 

[the1who]

Found out what happened to the plane across the hangar, the alternator ceased, sheared totally inside, but it didn't shear on the shaft as well, most designs are, it sheared totally into the teeth and spread junk everywhere in the engine.

 

[ffracer]

Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: ffracer
Originally Posted By: Zacharyx
Originally Posted By: blueiedgod
Automatics... who cares, they are for girls anyway.

5/6 speeds impress high school girls, autos win races

with that said I would only have a slush box in an all out race car


No racing car uses an automatic for a reason. They all have clutches, they all have manual shifters/paddles, even big rigs use manuals. Why? Direct drive (no sloppy torque converter) and automatics have no eyes (can't see when to shift - just react).

Formula 1, Indycars, Sports Cars (ALMS, GrandAm), NASCAR, etc. - all manual.

No automatic will ever hold a candle to a manual clutch with the same gear ratio. It can't. It is physics. You also need to know to use one.

The whole argument about rpm vs. oil is simple: if the fluid pressure drops enough to reduce friction, it will reduce the rpm level, since the amount of explosion needed to drive the load should be lower.

Having said that, it probably wouldn't make a difference that is noticable with most oils. 100-200 rpm max.



Depends on what kind of racing you are talking about.

Drag racing; it's VERY common for somebody to run a built automatic in Pro Stock for example. TH400, TH350, AOD, C4, C6, Powerglide....etc.


Sorry, you are correct about dragsters. I forgot about them.

Drags are a linear straight line, where all they have to do is upshift at max rpm. As long as you have positive coupling, and don't have to downshift and match gear ratios for turns, it works.

McLaren built a Formula 1 car in 1993 that was a clutch based transmission, but fully automatic. i.e. they mapped the track at it knew when to shift by where it was & load = programmed in real time like a computer game, rather than reacting to what it 'thought' was going to happen. It was banned, since it was not controlled by the driver or even the car passively, unless he overrode it.

 

[chiks]

Originally Posted By: Triple_Se7en
I have the opinion it's a noisier oil than Platinum.

for 6 years I have used Mobil1 5w-20 on my Mazda6 3.0 Duratec V6 with good results...no sludge..clean engine. It has 96,000 miles on it now.

But, it was always my quest to reduce the engine noise and I sincerely believed it was noisier because it is a Ford engine and not a Honda.

Last week I switched to PP 5W-20 and after the oil change I stopped at a gas station for a fill-up, filled her up, got back in and started the car and I heard a screech. Holy Cow...I realized that I had not switched off my engine and I was trying to start an engine that was already running. It was that smooth and noise free.

2 thumbs up for Pennzoil