Does all the Fe in M1 mean to stay away?
- Thread starter tpattgeek
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
Quote:
This is a pretty standard definition of "wear", in any sense. While it seems like parsing words, using imprecise language to explain any concept just results in confusion.
Can you link to the definition and where the consensus of opinion lies? I think that you're splitting hairs ..and that's surely your prerogative ...but I really don't see the need nor the purpose of (something like) Teutonic anal spiffy jargon to state your case here.
Again, the whole question here is about whether it's harmful or not ..and if pressed ...I would clearly define that as "harmful to the user in an "all odds of probability" scenario of effecting utility of the said engine over many typical chassis lifetimes ..and not SIGNIFICANTLY altering the life span of an exceptional chassis age in terms of time/miles.
I think I covered all apertures ..but you'll surely tell me any that I missed so I can post again to state the nth degree of certainty ..as not to be misunderstood.
You need to keep people on their toes around here. Next thing you know, they'll behave the way that they want to ..and not the way that the should.
Thanks for the reminder
This is a pretty standard definition of "wear", in any sense. While it seems like parsing words, using imprecise language to explain any concept just results in confusion.
Can you link to the definition and where the consensus of opinion lies? I think that you're splitting hairs ..and that's surely your prerogative ...but I really don't see the need nor the purpose of (something like) Teutonic anal spiffy jargon to state your case here.
Again, the whole question here is about whether it's harmful or not ..and if pressed ...I would clearly define that as "harmful to the user in an "all odds of probability" scenario of effecting utility of the said engine over many typical chassis lifetimes ..and not SIGNIFICANTLY altering the life span of an exceptional chassis age in terms of time/miles.
I think I covered all apertures ..but you'll surely tell me any that I missed so I can post again to state the nth degree of certainty ..as not to be misunderstood.
You need to keep people on their toes around here. Next thing you know, they'll behave the way that they want to ..and not the way that the should.
Thanks for the reminder
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
Quote:
This is a pretty standard definition of "wear", in any sense. While it seems like parsing words, using imprecise language to explain any concept just results in confusion.
Can you link to the definition and where the consensus of opinion lies?
I don't want to beat a dead horse...even more...but since I don't want to ignore your question, I'll just give you the light reading from Dorinson and Ludema:
Basically, it describes "wear" as "loss of material from mechanical action". No, I'm not suggesting you read the whole chapter defining "wear". In both engineering and daily words, that's a commonly accepted definition.
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
I think that you're splitting hairs ..and that's surely your prerogative ...but I really don't see the need nor the purpose of (something like) Teutonic anal spiffy jargon to state your case here....
Again, the whole question here is about whether it's harmful or not ..and if pressed ...I would clearly define that as "harmful to the user in an "all odds of probability" scenario of effecting utility of the said engine over many typical chassis lifetimes ..and not SIGNIFICANTLY altering the life span of an exceptional chassis age in terms of time/miles.
I agree, it may seem like it's semantics, but let's not forget the origin of the question. A wear particle typically shows up in higher (yet seemingly inconsequential) numbers consistently in UOA's. I think it's overly dismissive (and completely inaccurate) to say "that's not wear". Yes, it's wear. That's why I think it's important to make the distinction. Sorry if that seems overly anal.
And yes, I agree that it's important to then put the question in proper context, so people can make an informed choice. That's it. I agree completely with your conclusions. I have no pro or anti XOM bias, I'm not trying to convince anyone to use it or not to use it.
Quote:
This is a pretty standard definition of "wear", in any sense. While it seems like parsing words, using imprecise language to explain any concept just results in confusion.
Can you link to the definition and where the consensus of opinion lies?
I don't want to beat a dead horse...even more...but since I don't want to ignore your question, I'll just give you the light reading from Dorinson and Ludema:
Basically, it describes "wear" as "loss of material from mechanical action". No, I'm not suggesting you read the whole chapter defining "wear". In both engineering and daily words, that's a commonly accepted definition.
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
I think that you're splitting hairs ..and that's surely your prerogative ...but I really don't see the need nor the purpose of (something like) Teutonic anal spiffy jargon to state your case here....
Again, the whole question here is about whether it's harmful or not ..and if pressed ...I would clearly define that as "harmful to the user in an "all odds of probability" scenario of effecting utility of the said engine over many typical chassis lifetimes ..and not SIGNIFICANTLY altering the life span of an exceptional chassis age in terms of time/miles.
I agree, it may seem like it's semantics, but let's not forget the origin of the question. A wear particle typically shows up in higher (yet seemingly inconsequential) numbers consistently in UOA's. I think it's overly dismissive (and completely inaccurate) to say "that's not wear". Yes, it's wear. That's why I think it's important to make the distinction. Sorry if that seems overly anal.
And yes, I agree that it's important to then put the question in proper context, so people can make an informed choice. That's it. I agree completely with your conclusions. I have no pro or anti XOM bias, I'm not trying to convince anyone to use it or not to use it.
That the question exists and that XOM was given the opportunity to put the issue to bed once and for all - but instead chose to waste that opportunity by skirting the question and leaving it unanswered was why I dropped Mobil 1 from my list of candidate oils. I'm not loyal to any oil brand, and price has always been one of my most important criteria (though not the only one).
Given that here, on their best days, they're priced close (but still slightly higher) to a (to me) equally good alternative where there is no unanswered question like this is reason to save the couple bucks and by the alternative I consider just as good but has no question marks surrounding it.
Not being a Mobil 1 consumer, I don't have that base of experience others fall back to support their continued use of it, nor is it priced as well here as it is in other markets. Here its a slightly more expensive oil that, at one time, was the premium product - with so much competition from the others in the same market, and Mobil admittedly (in their own roundabout way) reformulating the oil to price it more competitively, its no longer any kind of premium oil. Its just another PAO with some ester stock, just like the majority of other OTC oils, and - to me - no better. Maybe no worse either, but I won't make my mind up on that until XOM gives a satisfactory, straight forward answer to account for the higher Fe numbers which show up in Mobil 1, and only Mobil 1.
All the theories, speculation, and warm fuzzies it gives its base just isn't enough for me, personally.
-Spyder
Given that here, on their best days, they're priced close (but still slightly higher) to a (to me) equally good alternative where there is no unanswered question like this is reason to save the couple bucks and by the alternative I consider just as good but has no question marks surrounding it.
Not being a Mobil 1 consumer, I don't have that base of experience others fall back to support their continued use of it, nor is it priced as well here as it is in other markets. Here its a slightly more expensive oil that, at one time, was the premium product - with so much competition from the others in the same market, and Mobil admittedly (in their own roundabout way) reformulating the oil to price it more competitively, its no longer any kind of premium oil. Its just another PAO with some ester stock, just like the majority of other OTC oils, and - to me - no better. Maybe no worse either, but I won't make my mind up on that until XOM gives a satisfactory, straight forward answer to account for the higher Fe numbers which show up in Mobil 1, and only Mobil 1.
All the theories, speculation, and warm fuzzies it gives its base just isn't enough for me, personally.
-Spyder
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
Quote:
I agree, it may seem like it's semantics, but let's not forget the origin of the question. A wear particle typically shows up in higher (yet seemingly inconsequential) numbers consistently in UOA's. I think it's overly dismissive (and completely inaccurate) to say "that's not wear". Yes, it's wear. That's why I think it's important to make the distinction. Sorry if that seems overly anal.
And yes, I agree that it's important to then put the question in proper context, so people can make an informed choice. That's it. I agree completely with your conclusions. I have no pro or anti XOM bias, I'm not trying to convince anyone to use it or not to use it.
Our only dispute is over the importance of distinctions of things that have little or no significance.
In reciprocity, I think it would be overly obsessive(and potentially misleading) not to say "Yes, it's wear, but it's most likely insignificant in most rational terms". I see no division of priority/propriety/appropriateness on any element of definition for discussion's sake to properly put the statement in context. Omitting that qualifier can be just as misleading ..especially when beating on a dead horse.
..but, by all means, make distinctions on proper, but insignificant points .. as needed (I know that sounded "bad", but it was with a smile on my face).
I agree, it may seem like it's semantics, but let's not forget the origin of the question. A wear particle typically shows up in higher (yet seemingly inconsequential) numbers consistently in UOA's. I think it's overly dismissive (and completely inaccurate) to say "that's not wear". Yes, it's wear. That's why I think it's important to make the distinction. Sorry if that seems overly anal.
And yes, I agree that it's important to then put the question in proper context, so people can make an informed choice. That's it. I agree completely with your conclusions. I have no pro or anti XOM bias, I'm not trying to convince anyone to use it or not to use it.
In reciprocity, I think it would be overly obsessive(and potentially misleading) not to say "Yes, it's wear, but it's most likely insignificant in most rational terms". I see no division of priority/propriety/appropriateness on any element of definition for discussion's sake to properly put the statement in context. Omitting that qualifier can be just as misleading ..especially when beating on a dead horse.
..but, by all means, make distinctions on proper, but insignificant points .. as needed (I know that sounded "bad", but it was with a smile on my face).
Mobil could always come out and say...there's x square feet of cast iron exposed to oil in your engine, our oil "cleans" the surface of oxidised iron, and as a result show (relatively) higher iron than our competitors..."look how good we clean"
and would win BITOG Brownie points.
But instead farnarckle around playing like a drug company.
and would win BITOG Brownie points.
But instead farnarckle around playing like a drug company.
Originally Posted By: JOD
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
Quote:
This is a pretty standard definition of "wear", in any sense. While it seems like parsing words, using imprecise language to explain any concept just results in confusion.
Can you link to the definition and where the consensus of opinion lies?
I don't want to beat a dead horse...even more...but since I don't want to ignore your question, I'll just give you the light reading from Dorinson and Ludema:
Basically, it describes "wear" as "loss of material from mechanical action". No, I'm not suggesting you read the whole chapter defining "wear". In both engineering and daily words, that's a commonly accepted definition.
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
I think that you're splitting hairs ..and that's surely your prerogative ...but I really don't see the need nor the purpose of (something like) Teutonic anal spiffy jargon to state your case here....
Again, the whole question here is about whether it's harmful or not ..and if pressed ...I would clearly define that as "harmful to the user in an "all odds of probability" scenario of effecting utility of the said engine over many typical chassis lifetimes ..and not SIGNIFICANTLY altering the life span of an exceptional chassis age in terms of time/miles.
I agree, it may seem like it's semantics, but let's not forget the origin of the question. A wear particle typically shows up in higher (yet seemingly inconsequential) numbers consistently in UOA's. I think it's overly dismissive (and completely inaccurate) to say "that's not wear". Yes, it's wear. That's why I think it's important to make the distinction. Sorry if that seems overly anal.
And yes, I agree that it's important to then put the question in proper context, so people can make an informed choice. That's it. I agree completely with your conclusions. I have no pro or anti XOM bias, I'm not trying to convince anyone to use it or not to use it.
You seem to be stuck on "is it wear?" I don't get the impression that people are saying that it is not wear, rather that if the particles formed during M1 usage are of a different size than with some other oil, they may be of a size that shows up on a UOA more readily. This given that a UOA does not tell the whole story of iron in the oil, just the amount of iron of a particular size range present.
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
Quote:
This is a pretty standard definition of "wear", in any sense. While it seems like parsing words, using imprecise language to explain any concept just results in confusion.
Can you link to the definition and where the consensus of opinion lies?
I don't want to beat a dead horse...even more...but since I don't want to ignore your question, I'll just give you the light reading from Dorinson and Ludema:
Basically, it describes "wear" as "loss of material from mechanical action". No, I'm not suggesting you read the whole chapter defining "wear". In both engineering and daily words, that's a commonly accepted definition.
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
I think that you're splitting hairs ..and that's surely your prerogative ...but I really don't see the need nor the purpose of (something like) Teutonic anal spiffy jargon to state your case here....
Again, the whole question here is about whether it's harmful or not ..and if pressed ...I would clearly define that as "harmful to the user in an "all odds of probability" scenario of effecting utility of the said engine over many typical chassis lifetimes ..and not SIGNIFICANTLY altering the life span of an exceptional chassis age in terms of time/miles.
I agree, it may seem like it's semantics, but let's not forget the origin of the question. A wear particle typically shows up in higher (yet seemingly inconsequential) numbers consistently in UOA's. I think it's overly dismissive (and completely inaccurate) to say "that's not wear". Yes, it's wear. That's why I think it's important to make the distinction. Sorry if that seems overly anal.
And yes, I agree that it's important to then put the question in proper context, so people can make an informed choice. That's it. I agree completely with your conclusions. I have no pro or anti XOM bias, I'm not trying to convince anyone to use it or not to use it.
You seem to be stuck on "is it wear?" I don't get the impression that people are saying that it is not wear, rather that if the particles formed during M1 usage are of a different size than with some other oil, they may be of a size that shows up on a UOA more readily. This given that a UOA does not tell the whole story of iron in the oil, just the amount of iron of a particular size range present.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
Good point to ponder. If that were the case, and (something like) PQ (as Doug suggests) were performed, then the higher Fe could in fact show less total Fe in the sample.
If that were the case, the higher indication would be representing lower lost material.
So, higher Fe could really be "underwear"
If that were the case, the higher indication would be representing lower lost material.
So, higher Fe could really be "underwear"
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
So, higher Fe could really be "underwear"
Something stinks Gary and it ain't no stinkin' iron!
So, higher Fe could really be "underwear"
Something stinks Gary and it ain't no stinkin' iron!
I'm definitely sold on M1's high mileage formula, it has a great add pack and excellent HTHS numbers. I'm using 10w-30 HM in summer and 5w-30HM in winter, only burns about a pint/3000 miles. The car seems to like it.
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Does the higher iron mean anything?
Maybe, maybe not. Given a choice, I'll take less.
+1
Does the higher iron mean anything?
+1
Just do a PQ test and compare to the ratio of ionic metals. If the M1 has "high" dissolved metals and low particles, then you can begin to conclude that it's a chemical ~interaction~.
Originally Posted By: Audi Junkie
Just do a PQ test and compare to the ratio of ionic metals. If the M1 has "high" dissolved metals and low particles, then you can begin to conclude that it's a chemical ~interaction~.
I'd have thought with all the buzz about M1 and higher iron that Mobil would have run that test. Then if it was a chemical reaction they'd have said it.
It seems to me it isn't enough of an issue for them to address, or try and reslove. JMO
Just do a PQ test and compare to the ratio of ionic metals. If the M1 has "high" dissolved metals and low particles, then you can begin to conclude that it's a chemical ~interaction~.
I'd have thought with all the buzz about M1 and higher iron that Mobil would have run that test. Then if it was a chemical reaction they'd have said it.
- Status