Camshaft wear protection of Mobil 1?
- Thread starter njohnson
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: njohnson
Hi folks,
A few years ago, Terry Dyson made a post about how Mobil 1 allowed more valvetrain wear than he cared for. I think this was with the SM Mobil 1. Does anyone know if Mobil fixed this problem?
Well I can only speak from my personal experience. Do a search for my camshaft/valvetrain pictures of my Sienna at 299,000 miles and see for yourself. Granted it's not a removal and measurement, but you can see that the surfaces look fine. I've really never used anything but M1 in that engine (except for a short period on CG when I got convinced it was better than sliced bread).
And a post you think that Terry Dyson made about M1 allowing more wear than he cared for equates into something that ExxonMobil needed to fix with their oil?
Hi folks,
A few years ago, Terry Dyson made a post about how Mobil 1 allowed more valvetrain wear than he cared for. I think this was with the SM Mobil 1. Does anyone know if Mobil fixed this problem?
Well I can only speak from my personal experience. Do a search for my camshaft/valvetrain pictures of my Sienna at 299,000 miles and see for yourself. Granted it's not a removal and measurement, but you can see that the surfaces look fine. I've really never used anything but M1 in that engine (except for a short period on CG when I got convinced it was better than sliced bread).
And a post you think that Terry Dyson made about M1 allowing more wear than he cared for equates into something that ExxonMobil needed to fix with their oil?
There's a standard group of tests that the API/OEMs require an oil to undergo to gain approval, they cover many, many facets of oil performance...camshaft wear, and camshaft wear during warmup being among them. Oils will have varying performance in the tests, may be exceedingly good at one facet, and mediocre at another.
The oil in question may have been identified by Terry as having more of a compromise in that area.
Valvoline identified at a point in time that their testing was that Mobil 1 5W30 didn't meet the actual requirements of the Sequence IVA, and their oil was "4 times" better...that has been explained away rightly or wrongly as due to Katrina.
I doubt that M1 currently does not meet Sequence IV, and I'm sure that the formulation has changed a couple of times since Terry had to leave the board.
So the issue is really of no concern or consequence.
The oil in question may have been identified by Terry as having more of a compromise in that area.
Valvoline identified at a point in time that their testing was that Mobil 1 5W30 didn't meet the actual requirements of the Sequence IVA, and their oil was "4 times" better...that has been explained away rightly or wrongly as due to Katrina.
I doubt that M1 currently does not meet Sequence IV, and I'm sure that the formulation has changed a couple of times since Terry had to leave the board.
So the issue is really of no concern or consequence.
Originally Posted By: tig1
I used only M1 10-30 in a 91Ford Ranger that had 354K when sold. OCIs wre 10K. The engine still performed very well with no more oil consumption than when new. Mr. Dyson was very wrong about cam wear.
Your oil consumption and cam wear are linked ?
I'm interested in how that works.
I used only M1 10-30 in a 91Ford Ranger that had 354K when sold. OCIs wre 10K. The engine still performed very well with no more oil consumption than when new. Mr. Dyson was very wrong about cam wear.
Your oil consumption and cam wear are linked ?
I'm interested in how that works.
Repair a sbc flat tappet of a friends.
He ran 5w-30, I built to his spec years ago, tight and right. So that weight was good, til SN hit the fan.
The cam and tappets were shot. Now he has a stash of orielys m1 truck and suv.
Wish iI had bought some, now looking back.
If it doesn't have flat tappet and high # springs there would be no concern.
Harvey
He ran 5w-30, I built to his spec years ago, tight and right. So that weight was good, til SN hit the fan.
The cam and tappets were shot. Now he has a stash of orielys m1 truck and suv.
Wish iI had bought some, now looking back.
If it doesn't have flat tappet and high # springs there would be no concern.
Harvey
- Joined
- May 28, 2014
- Messages
- 2,261
Originally Posted By: tig1
I used only M1 10-30 in a 91Ford Ranger that had 354K when sold. OCIs wre 10K. The engine still performed very well with no more oil consumption than when new. Mr. Dyson was very wrong about cam wear.
A basic inspection requires a cam to be removed and the camshaft rotated to examine the lobes and lifters. This should tell you right away if there is lobe wear.
You using Mobil 1 oil offers nothing about camshaft wear.
I used only M1 10-30 in a 91Ford Ranger that had 354K when sold. OCIs wre 10K. The engine still performed very well with no more oil consumption than when new. Mr. Dyson was very wrong about cam wear.
A basic inspection requires a cam to be removed and the camshaft rotated to examine the lobes and lifters. This should tell you right away if there is lobe wear.
You using Mobil 1 oil offers nothing about camshaft wear.
Originally Posted By: Shannow
There's a standard group of tests that the API/OEMs require an oil to undergo to gain approval, they cover many, many facets of oil performance...camshaft wear, and camshaft wear during warmup being among them. Oils will have varying performance in the tests, may be exceedingly good at one facet, and mediocre at another.
The oil in question may have been identified by Terry as having more of a compromise in that area.
Valvoline identified at a point in time that their testing was that Mobil 1 5W30 didn't meet the actual requirements of the Sequence IVA, and their oil was "4 times" better...that has been explained away rightly or wrongly as due to Katrina.
I doubt that M1 currently does not meet Sequence IV, and I'm sure that the formulation has changed a couple of times since Terry had to leave the board.
So the issue is really of no concern or consequence.
Why did Terry have to leave? Long story short I used him for years on multiple engines and never got any worth wile advice from the guy. All of his "wisdom" was S***. Other long time members here found out just like I did and I was tipped off by more then a few with PM's.
There's a standard group of tests that the API/OEMs require an oil to undergo to gain approval, they cover many, many facets of oil performance...camshaft wear, and camshaft wear during warmup being among them. Oils will have varying performance in the tests, may be exceedingly good at one facet, and mediocre at another.
The oil in question may have been identified by Terry as having more of a compromise in that area.
Valvoline identified at a point in time that their testing was that Mobil 1 5W30 didn't meet the actual requirements of the Sequence IVA, and their oil was "4 times" better...that has been explained away rightly or wrongly as due to Katrina.
I doubt that M1 currently does not meet Sequence IV, and I'm sure that the formulation has changed a couple of times since Terry had to leave the board.
So the issue is really of no concern or consequence.
Why did Terry have to leave? Long story short I used him for years on multiple engines and never got any worth wile advice from the guy. All of his "wisdom" was S***. Other long time members here found out just like I did and I was tipped off by more then a few with PM's.
Originally Posted By: JR
The cam and tappets were shot. Now he has a stash of orielys m1 truck and suv.
SBC engines were hard on cams, regardless of the oil spec used. SM and SN have the same phosphorus limits in ILSAC grades, by the way. The taxis ate cams - that's just the way it was. And, if there's a concern, that should be addressed at break in.
As for Terry Dyson in general, I have no concerns with him at all. People sometimes want more from UOAs than are reasonable. If you have unreasonable expectations, you might wind up being disappointed.
The cam and tappets were shot. Now he has a stash of orielys m1 truck and suv.
SBC engines were hard on cams, regardless of the oil spec used. SM and SN have the same phosphorus limits in ILSAC grades, by the way. The taxis ate cams - that's just the way it was. And, if there's a concern, that should be addressed at break in.
As for Terry Dyson in general, I have no concerns with him at all. People sometimes want more from UOAs than are reasonable. If you have unreasonable expectations, you might wind up being disappointed.
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: tig1
I used only M1 10-30 in a 91Ford Ranger that had 354K when sold. OCIs wre 10K. The engine still performed very well with no more oil consumption than when new. Mr. Dyson was very wrong about cam wear.
Your oil consumption and cam wear are linked ?
I'm interested in how that works.
As in general engine wear. My entire engine was lubed with the same oil. Cam and all. That engine still showed no sign of engine wear, even in the valve train.
Originally Posted By: tig1
I used only M1 10-30 in a 91Ford Ranger that had 354K when sold. OCIs wre 10K. The engine still performed very well with no more oil consumption than when new. Mr. Dyson was very wrong about cam wear.
Your oil consumption and cam wear are linked ?
I'm interested in how that works.
As in general engine wear. My entire engine was lubed with the same oil. Cam and all. That engine still showed no sign of engine wear, even in the valve train.
Read 540 RAT blog here: https://540ratblog.wordpress.com/ 540RAT refers to his much modified Chevy big block ...
Granted he's searching for oils that will keep aggressive high performance cams and lifters alive. Ones with much higher spring pressures than you have. The oil rankings are about 1/4 of the way down. See first Note as you scroll...
Pennzoil Ultra comes top of the list for unmodified oils, Motul 300V Ester nearby, but M1 is right up there.
Interestingly, Maxlife syn-blend (Red Bottle) comes out a bit better. I've made the switch to Maxlife because it's readily available and cost effective
Granted he's searching for oils that will keep aggressive high performance cams and lifters alive. Ones with much higher spring pressures than you have. The oil rankings are about 1/4 of the way down. See first Note as you scroll...
Pennzoil Ultra comes top of the list for unmodified oils, Motul 300V Ester nearby, but M1 is right up there.
Interestingly, Maxlife syn-blend (Red Bottle) comes out a bit better. I've made the switch to Maxlife because it's readily available and cost effective
Originally Posted By: BrocLuno
Read 540 RAT blog here: https://540ratblog.wordpress.com/
...and yet, you rather conveniently omit his data showing an oil with Prolong additive to beat everything.
As well, he lost me here: "My test equipment is NOT intended to duplicate an engine’s internal components."
This guy is so wound up in this test to admit the applicability of any results in actual engines is nonexistent.
Read 540 RAT blog here: https://540ratblog.wordpress.com/
...and yet, you rather conveniently omit his data showing an oil with Prolong additive to beat everything.
As well, he lost me here: "My test equipment is NOT intended to duplicate an engine’s internal components."
This guy is so wound up in this test to admit the applicability of any results in actual engines is nonexistent.
OK, but his tests are a valid starting point. They are consistent within his testing scenario. So the rankings are useful among themselves. They are Fe to Fe testing and that is what cam/lifters are all about. He is not testing for all types of loads, but targeting cam and lifter wear...
As to the Prolong - yeah it's good for wear reduction. But he is concerned about chlorine based compounds in Prolong and their effects over time, and so am I.
BITOG folks generally stay away from additions like Prolong and others so there is no Add Pak in-fighting. And I agree with this basic tenant.
In the absence of actual engine wear analysis for each engine design and each possible oil which would be cost prohibitive for anyone, or any firm, or any gov't agency - you have to devise some sort of representative testing and he has. It represents cam/lifter interface and higher valve spring pressures.
You do know that drag race engines can run upwards of 400# spring pressures "over the nose" on flat tappets and well over 700# on roller cams... He is searching for lubricants that will live at these pressures. And this thread is specifically about camshaft protection which is what prompted 540 RAT to do all this on his own dime and time in the first place.
Have you done any independent testing that would shed light on this question? Yeah, I thought so ...
As to the Prolong - yeah it's good for wear reduction. But he is concerned about chlorine based compounds in Prolong and their effects over time, and so am I.
BITOG folks generally stay away from additions like Prolong and others so there is no Add Pak in-fighting. And I agree with this basic tenant.
In the absence of actual engine wear analysis for each engine design and each possible oil which would be cost prohibitive for anyone, or any firm, or any gov't agency - you have to devise some sort of representative testing and he has. It represents cam/lifter interface and higher valve spring pressures.
You do know that drag race engines can run upwards of 400# spring pressures "over the nose" on flat tappets and well over 700# on roller cams... He is searching for lubricants that will live at these pressures. And this thread is specifically about camshaft protection which is what prompted 540 RAT to do all this on his own dime and time in the first place.
Have you done any independent testing that would shed light on this question? Yeah, I thought so ...
Last edited:
I place zero validity in the real-world applicability of analysis like this, so myself conducting "independent testing" would be absurd.
Additionally, I understand what he's trying to do. Trying. If he were to gather results and analyze them within the confines of this machine, then that's totally fine. However, the problem arises when he attempts to draw a correlation to actual engine performance; furthermore, here's a quote:
"my test data EXACTLY MATCHES real world race track experience, real world flat tappet break-in experience, and real world High Performance street experience, which PROVES once and for all, that my test data is the spot on REAL DEAL. This completely confirms that my test results WILL ACCURATELY PREDICT what we can expect from motor oils in running engines on the track, during flat tappet or roller break-in, or on the street, EVEN if those oils are high zinc oil."
When Prolong outperforms everything else, you should take a step-back, realize the fundamentally flawed nature of the correlation you've tried to establish, and re-group. Unfortunately, he just continues on. As well, I'll mention here that the Prolong formula isn't top-secret wizardy; VOA's have been performed, and can be viewed on this very forum.
The great thing about the marketplace today is that we have a wide variety of oils available to address virtually any situation; whether extreme temps, or high valvetrain loading, there's a product out there that can be shipped to your doorstep with nothing more than a few clicks of the mouse. Then, we can determine actual performance.
Additionally, I understand what he's trying to do. Trying. If he were to gather results and analyze them within the confines of this machine, then that's totally fine. However, the problem arises when he attempts to draw a correlation to actual engine performance; furthermore, here's a quote:
"my test data EXACTLY MATCHES real world race track experience, real world flat tappet break-in experience, and real world High Performance street experience, which PROVES once and for all, that my test data is the spot on REAL DEAL. This completely confirms that my test results WILL ACCURATELY PREDICT what we can expect from motor oils in running engines on the track, during flat tappet or roller break-in, or on the street, EVEN if those oils are high zinc oil."
When Prolong outperforms everything else, you should take a step-back, realize the fundamentally flawed nature of the correlation you've tried to establish, and re-group. Unfortunately, he just continues on. As well, I'll mention here that the Prolong formula isn't top-secret wizardy; VOA's have been performed, and can be viewed on this very forum.
The great thing about the marketplace today is that we have a wide variety of oils available to address virtually any situation; whether extreme temps, or high valvetrain loading, there's a product out there that can be shipped to your doorstep with nothing more than a few clicks of the mouse. Then, we can determine actual performance.
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2014
- Messages
- 4,118
Some people want to profit on your hobby, and charge a premium for services that you can get for free.
If you had an issue with an oil, don't use it.
Most problems with engines that I've seen were caused by the part manufacturers, the machinist, the assembler, the negligent owner, or someone's expectations.
There are oils out there with a little Z+P if that helps you sleep better at night.
If you had an issue with an oil, don't use it.
Most problems with engines that I've seen were caused by the part manufacturers, the machinist, the assembler, the negligent owner, or someone's expectations.
There are oils out there with a little Z+P if that helps you sleep better at night.
I know the newer roller-type rocker arms are easier on the camshafts, my concern is for older cars.
The whole reason I'm asking is because I just changed the valve cover gasket on my brother's 1997 Civic. I was able to look at the rocker arms and camshaft. I have looked through the oil fill hole in the past, but all I could see was one of the rocker arms, never the camshaft. So, this was the first time. The camshaft was bright and shiny, kind of like chrome, and I wasn't sure if this was normal or if there is unusual wear going on.
My brother bought his Civic in 2007 with 90,000 mi. on the odometer, and now it has 285,000 mi. He basically wants to drive it until it fall apart. Up until last year, he used Pennzoil Ultra and Platinum in it. He told me he wanted to try something different. So, he started using Mobil 1.
Now, I never checked what it looked like using the Pennzoil, it's just when I changed the valve gasket, I was able to look at the camshaft and was concerned by it's appearance. With him wanting to keep it around as long as possible, I'm looking for the best wear protection possible.
The whole reason I'm asking is because I just changed the valve cover gasket on my brother's 1997 Civic. I was able to look at the rocker arms and camshaft. I have looked through the oil fill hole in the past, but all I could see was one of the rocker arms, never the camshaft. So, this was the first time. The camshaft was bright and shiny, kind of like chrome, and I wasn't sure if this was normal or if there is unusual wear going on.
My brother bought his Civic in 2007 with 90,000 mi. on the odometer, and now it has 285,000 mi. He basically wants to drive it until it fall apart. Up until last year, he used Pennzoil Ultra and Platinum in it. He told me he wanted to try something different. So, he started using Mobil 1.
Now, I never checked what it looked like using the Pennzoil, it's just when I changed the valve gasket, I was able to look at the camshaft and was concerned by it's appearance. With him wanting to keep it around as long as possible, I'm looking for the best wear protection possible.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: njohnson
I know the newer roller-type rocker arms are easier on the camshafts, my concern is for older cars.
The whole reason I'm asking is because I just changed the valve cover gasket on my brother's 1997 Civic. I was able to look at the rocker arms and camshaft. I have looked through the oil fill hole in the past, but all I could see was one of the rocker arms, never the camshaft. So, this was the first time. The camshaft was bright and shiny, kind of like chrome, and I wasn't sure if this was normal or if there is unusual wear going on.
My brother bought his Civic in 2007 with 90,000 mi. on the odometer, and now it has 285,000 mi. He basically wants to drive it until it fall apart. Up until last year, he used Pennzoil Ultra and Platinum in it. He told me he wanted to try something different. So, he started using Mobil 1.
Now, I never checked what it looked like using the Pennzoil, it's just when I changed the valve gasket, I was able to look at the camshaft and was concerned by it's appearance. With him wanting to keep it around as long as possible, I'm looking for the best wear protection possible.
This is a much lower stress application than a push-rod, which has to have much higher spring pressures due to the increased valvetrain mass. That setup (the Civic) is not demanding for AW protection.
I know the newer roller-type rocker arms are easier on the camshafts, my concern is for older cars.
The whole reason I'm asking is because I just changed the valve cover gasket on my brother's 1997 Civic. I was able to look at the rocker arms and camshaft. I have looked through the oil fill hole in the past, but all I could see was one of the rocker arms, never the camshaft. So, this was the first time. The camshaft was bright and shiny, kind of like chrome, and I wasn't sure if this was normal or if there is unusual wear going on.
My brother bought his Civic in 2007 with 90,000 mi. on the odometer, and now it has 285,000 mi. He basically wants to drive it until it fall apart. Up until last year, he used Pennzoil Ultra and Platinum in it. He told me he wanted to try something different. So, he started using Mobil 1.
Now, I never checked what it looked like using the Pennzoil, it's just when I changed the valve gasket, I was able to look at the camshaft and was concerned by it's appearance. With him wanting to keep it around as long as possible, I'm looking for the best wear protection possible.
This is a much lower stress application than a push-rod, which has to have much higher spring pressures due to the increased valvetrain mass. That setup (the Civic) is not demanding for AW protection.
If they are shiny and not galled or rough looking at all, the cam lobes are fine. His use of Ultra was a good call. See how far it has gotten him already
I'd keep using it if he wants to keep the car until the wheels fall off
I'd keep using it if he wants to keep the car until the wheels fall off
Well since we are talking about cam wear,and not that I'm trashing Mobil,but there is a 30 page thread here somewhere where there are a whole lot of pics of cams that certainly look worn in a sohc mustang and it's being compared to cams where royal purple was used and they look stellar with more miles.
Fuel.....fire
Fuel.....fire
Originally Posted By: Clevy
Well since we are talking about cam wear,and not that I'm trashing Mobil,but there is a 30 page thread here somewhere where there are a whole lot of pics of cams that certainly look worn in a sohc mustang and it's being compared to cams where royal purple was used and they look stellar with more miles.
Fuel.....fire
Ouch. I remember that thread quite well.
Well since we are talking about cam wear,and not that I'm trashing Mobil,but there is a 30 page thread here somewhere where there are a whole lot of pics of cams that certainly look worn in a sohc mustang and it's being compared to cams where royal purple was used and they look stellar with more miles.
Fuel.....fire
Ouch. I remember that thread quite well.
- Status
