Iron in M1 UOA's?

[tig1]

Originally Posted By: chevrofreak
Originally Posted By: chevrofreak
My belief is that the iron is coming from the camshaft lobes and lifters and is directly related to the performance on the Seq IVA tests.


Perhaps this is also directly related to the increased noise many people hear when people switch to Mobil 1?


Have you ever seen a cam that prematurly failed with M1? Of course not. What noise? My Ford overhead cam engines are smooth as silk. Myself and several of my friends that have engines with 200 to 300,000+ miles laugh at the idea of short cam life using M1.

 

[chevrofreak]

So because your engines aren't noisy on Mobil 1, no engines can be? Ford OHC engines tend to be pretty quiet anyway. My valvetrain is barely audible, especially when I run Pennzoil Platinum.

There are plenty of threads where people observed a noisier engine when using Mobil 1.

 

[buster]

I know someone that ran a ferrography on a report that showed slightly elevated Fe. It turned out to be nothing. The partiles were so small and the wear level was considered to be low.

There really are no issues with any certified oil. There are small differences in performance between some brands due to formulation goals etc. but overall most oils perform about the same if they meet the same specifications.

Mobil 1 is superior at handling high temperatures to most other synthetics. Their performance on the low temp/low load SEQ IVA is probably of no concern to them. Not meeting this test is another issue all together.

 

[tig1]

Originally Posted By: chevrofreak
So because your engines aren't noisy on Mobil 1, no engines can be? Ford OHC engines tend to be pretty quiet anyway. My valvetrain is barely audible, especially when I run Pennzoil Platinum.

There are plenty of threads where people observed a noisier engine when using Mobil 1.


I have read those, but I know people that their engines made less noise with M1.
As for some engine builders,VW-Honda-Toyota etc., just using them as an example,perhaps the problem lies with the design not the oil. I guess that's why Ford engines are long lived.

 

[1sttruck]

Anyway, not trying to whitewash Mobil as they obviously screwed up big time with the synthetic aviation oil, which shows that they can do it again. I place more weight on OEM factory fills and approvals, obviously more than on a collection of UOAs.

Looking back over this thread I see that I'm not doing this forum too many favors. I seem to have become a curmudgeon of sorts, some of this stuff is taking too much time to address, so I think I'll sign off for awhile.

 

[JAG]

Originally Posted By: 1sttruck
Looking back over this thread I see that I'm not doing this forum too many favors. I seem to have become a curmudgeon of sorts, some of this stuff is taking too much time to address, so I think I'll sign off for awhile.

I appreciate your posts in this thread and am in high or even total agreement with you. Very well done and I know that takes a lot of time. I just have been quiet in this thread because I feel like I've posted on this subject enough in the past already.

 

[Gary Allan]

Quote:
I believe Doug did testing for Castrol, Shell and Mobil using OTR trucks, yes. He was able to run D1 out to 44,000Km IIRC and DID perform tear-down testing. This was in concert with frequent UOA's to determine remaining oil life and contaminant level. But from my understanding, his experience in this field is not limited to OTR trucks, I believe this is just where he accrued the most mileage.


I'm not saying that it's the limit of his experience, just the one that he cites the most. Very narrow range of choices in both service and lubricants. What are you supposed to do if you DO see double or triple the wear markers over the same mileage on the same engine family in a different chassis doing the same service? Nothing.

The wear (marker) is what the wear marker is

Quote:
Not according to Redline apparently.....?

They cite (as has been quoted on here) chemical leaching as a source of Fe in UOA's.


Aggressive additive packages can play havoc with UOA in a transitional manner. I have not seen RL do this with sustained usage.

I mean, we can always pull exceptional circumstances out of our behinds for anything

Quote:
Doug did ;\) I've had both of my 302's apart, but no measurements were made. BuickGN tears his apart almost annually


Doug was paid to. You decided to ..and BuickGN (probably) HAD TO.

..but it's beyond most of our capability ..and even if it wasn't, it's a really expensive process in any modern car. It's not like you're just unhooking the fuel line and a pressure sender lead on your 60's or 70's muscle car that you may be bracket racing and refreshing every few years anyway.

Weighing every bearing and ring just to assure you're not measuring it wrong dimensionally isn't standard rebuild practice in my observations

Quote:
I believe the issue was that he did NOT see Pb. He didn't see anything. The UOA's showed "good to go". IIRC, the particles being shed were too large to be picked-up by the UOA......


Understood ..but this means that he could have ignored it if he did see it ..since it's obviously worthless. 50ppm ..100ppm ..every OCI ..perfectly good compared to catastrophic failure..good to go!

You can and will have "shedding". I'm sure that any random material will decay on its own without ever being subjected to any "wear" related insult (rubbing, scuffing, chafing, meshing). This debris can form any size chunk you can imagine.

Quote:
There are a lot of questions. I consider Doug an expert on this topic. If he says a UOA is not good at measuring engine wear, I believe him. He's been doing it longer than I've been alive, has been published and written papers that are regarded as authoritative on the subject.


I agree. Doug is absolutely an expert. I've learned a great deal from his posts.


..but, if confronted with a situation where tear down wasn't part of the process, and where he was encountered with the data available (first, assume that M1 0w-40 wasn't the OEM spec'd oil ..and it was American Refining Group's Group II+ 5w-30 - Sorry, Doug

) ..what would he do?

"Well, I'll just leave the oil in there that shows significantly higher wear numbers and go about my business since it's spec'd".

 

[Gary Allan]

Originally Posted By: Tom NJ
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
Whether directly related or on some tertiary or inferential level, if I see more lint in the lint trap ..it came from somewhere. Even if I know what piece of clothing is shedding the cotton ..but the more that is there, something has less of it from wherever it came from.


Hi Gary,

I like the lint trap analogy! However, what really matters is the total volume of lint generated, not just what is in the lint trap. If some of the total generated lint passes through the lint trap into the vent pipe, and some remains in the dryer, then the volume of lint in the trap alone may not directly correlate to the total volume of lint generated.

Likewise with iron in an engine. To gauge wear one must measure the total quantity of iron generated. If some of this iron is in the filter, some is tied up in sludge & varnish, and some remains dissolved or suspended in the oil, then just measuring the iron in the oil (UOA) may not correlate to total iron generated.

In fact, IF M1 dissolves or suspends some iron containing sludge or varnish, or IF it generates fewer large iron particles for the filter to trap, then less total wear can actually give higher iron in the oil as seen in the UOA.

Since we cannot measure the iron in the filter or in the sludge & varnish, we must take UOA iron with a grain of salt. I wouldn't disregard it altogether, just recognize that judging an oil's wear properties by UOA metals alone may be misleading.

Tom NJ


Thanks, Tom.

I agree with everything you said. What I can't ignore is that, under any rational measure, one can't ignore the wear markers.


While many cite that tear downs produced fine results in the midst of higher wear indications in UOA ..you can't read too much into that either.

To do so would negate standard condemnation levels that are used as a bona fide criteria for sump dumping on many pieces of equipment.

Otherwise, an infinite amount of particle level debris is 100% acceptable for continued use as long as TBN/TAN, visc, flash, NIT/OXI/etc/etc. are within limits ..and WILL result in NO WEAR over limited readable wear markers in comparison. Very hard to swallow.

Yes, this is (again) condemnation standards for THE OIL, but it's a relative indicator of the variance in THAT piece of equipment vs. another. If one lubricant produced shorter service intervals over another over a broad number of units, what would one do?

The "stuff" has to come from somewhere.

 

[JAG]

Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
The "stuff" has to come from somewhere.

Definitely. The issue is how well spectrographic wear measurements correspond to wear from the wear surfaces of engine parts. I remember discussing with you and others in the past about acid digestion of oil samples to see how the non-digested wear measurement compared to acid-digested. The point being to get an idea of how much wear particle sizes are making the spectrographic method inaccurate.

Which of the following two oil samples would you expect a typical UOA to show a recognizably higher iron PPM?
Oil A, which actually is made up of 50 PPM iron, with all particles spherical and 1/10 micron in size.

Oil B, which actually is made up of 50 PPM iron, with all particles spherical and 1 micron in size.

Do you think different oils produce different particle size distributions in same engine/operating condition/same everything, to the degree of affecting UOA wear accuracy?

Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
What are you supposed to do if you DO see double or triple the wear markers over the same mileage on the same engine family in a different chassis doing the same service?

PQ Index Tests! "Read" the magnet(s) installed in/on drainplug and/or oil filter. If feeling really frisky, get a ferrography test done.

 

[Gary Allan]

PQ amd ferrography would surely up the validation, but if those too were presented, I think that the same objections would stand from those that currently object.

There are lots of flaws in using UOA for an incremental indicator of wear. One cannot say that "I'm wearing out my engine MORE and therefore will only see 350k instead of the 500k fatigue limit on (fill in the blank of the specific component - that may not "wear" at all).

 

[Tom NJ]

Hi Gary,

I agree iron in UOAs has some meaning, especially for trending an engine or setting some reasonable maximum limits for oil changes, but if oil A typically gives 25 ppm Fe while oil B typically gives 10 ppm Fe, I would not draw any conclusions concerning wear protection between these oils. There are just too many other variables that could account for these minor differences, such as particle size distribution, oil solvency, filter condition, silicon content, engine design, engine metallurgy, anti-rust and corrosion effectiveness, etc.

Now if we were seeing 50 ppms versus 10 ppm, and the numbers were validated by higher instances of actual wear in the field, then I would be concerned. But small differences without field verification can be ignored. After all, UOA was designed and intended for engine monitoring, not oil comparisons. While some oil comparison can be made with UOAs, one must be very careful in drawing conclusions and not splitting hairs.

What does disturb me is the claim, from a credible source, that M1 5W-30 yields 180 microns in the Seq IVA engine test, and EM's silence on the subject. If the claim is true, I doubt it is related to the long running UOA Fe levels or engine noise claims, but rather a temporary defect in a formulation. I use M1 (EP) and am anxious for a resolution. My car is only one year old, so I am still in love.

Tom NJ

 

[Gary Allan]

I agree with just about all that you posted, Tom


We mostly deal in the "noise" level. It's very hard to put too much into a +/-10ppm reading. Even lab variance on virgin stock will bounce around that much.

Likewise, I don't read too much into non-BITOG anal standard numbers on my use of 0w-10 oil in my 2.5 ..since the thing doesn't give BITOG anal numbers with a 5w-40 over a decent trend. There I just look for all the usual suspects about the oil. Did it endure the service without thinning or thickening? Did it suffer too much oxidation/nitration? Is the TBN/TAN ..and whatever else the OIL shows.

I don't give a darn that M1, in some instances, produces a minor deviation on the up tick in Fe ..it's still just "noise" and some intrude from the background more than others. No biggie.

But if I had a series of LOUD UOA's with one oil ..and a series of quiet UOA's with another ...

Just because something is "inconclusive" doesn't mean that one ignores it when it smacks you in the face.

Now the notion that all that is continental and carrying the M1 OEM fluid of choice doesn't necessarily mean that it's the absolute best available thing since sliced bread either. XOM produces a fixed number of fluids ..and the (mostly) Euro's produce exotic things that have to use them. I'm sure that neither dictates conditions to the other in any mandated manner ..and that there is always some compromise involved.

That is, while I'm sure that XOM is tweaking formulas perpetually ..at least in R&D, I doubt that it's going to custom blend anything that won't be available off the shelf for a given production vehicle, that would lead me to believe that the tail will wag the dog ..so to speak.. and that the engine designers are going to have to "make it work" with the "best choice" out there from XOM (or whomever).

Let me state it this way for clarity. If Audi ..or MB..(anyone) could easily get an oil specifically designed to every engine design that they make (forget sensible market impracticality), would they still have the engines that they do now ..and would they all spec M1 0w-40? I'd say "probably not". The tectonics would have the equivalent of Pentosynth central hydraulic fluid for motor oil in a variety of flavors JUST for that ONE engine's needs ..regardless of how limited the production was.

 

[azsynthetic]

Originally Posted By: Gary Allan


Let me state it this way for clarity. If Audi ..or MB..(anyone) could easily get an oil specifically designed to every engine design that they make (forget sensible market impracticality), would they still have the engines that they do now ..and would they all spec M1 0w-40? I'd say "probably not". The tectonics would have the equivalent of Pentosynth central hydraulic fluid for motor oil in a variety of flavors JUST for that ONE engine's needs ..regardless of how limited the production was.


VW did just that with the specs 505.01, 506, etc. to satisfy their TDIs and their TDIs only. Motul used to put out oil that satisfied 505.01 only. So, the dog is wagging the tail and VW is a very big dog.

 

[Tom NJ]

I fully agree Gary. The oil companies and the auto manufacturers each have their own agenda and priorities, and they wind up meeting somewhere in the middle over time. Performance is rarely the only priority, in fact I believe it is rarely the top priority unless there is a specific outstanding engine problem.

I can see a smaller oil company custom designing an oil for an OEM since even small market segments are big business to them, but the major oil companies need to manage global formulations, inventories, material suppliers, and brands. Compromise is usually more efficient for all, and that means fixed product offerings.

For now I will stay with M1 simply because I have been using it for 10 years and respect the brand, but if they do not satisfactorily address the standing accusations before my next oil purchase, I will have to assume either guilt or arrogance and will move on.

Tom NJ

 

[Gary Allan]

Originally Posted By: azsynthetic
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan


Let me state it this way for clarity. If Audi ..or MB..(anyone) could easily get an oil specifically designed to every engine design that they make (forget sensible market impracticality), would they still have the engines that they do now ..and would they all spec M1 0w-40? I'd say "probably not". The tectonics would have the equivalent of Pentosynth central hydraulic fluid for motor oil in a variety of flavors JUST for that ONE engine's needs ..regardless of how limited the production was.


VW did just that with the specs 505.01, 506, etc. to satisfy their TDIs and their TDIs only. Motul used to put out oil that satisfied 505.01 only. So, the dog is wagging the tail and VW is a very big dog.


European or US market ..or both? ..and the date of onset of 50x.xx, MB229.xxxx, BMWLLxxxyyazza, etc...etc..etc.

 

[buster]

Fwiw, here is the Porsche 996FL engine test an oil must pass to qualify.

Quote:
Porsche 996FL Engine test. This test will last 203 hours. The engine, and the oil, will go through: - 4 times the simulation of 35 hours of summer driving, - 4 times the simulation of 13.5 hours of winter driving, - 40 cold starts, - 5 times the simulation of 1-hour sessions on the “Nürburgring” racetrack, - 3.5 hours of “running-in” program Measurements on the engine and on the oil will be done at regular intervals, and the following parameter will be taken into account to grant the approval or not: - torque curve (internal friction), - oxidation of the oil, - Piston cleanliness and ring sticking, - Valve train wear protection. Cam & tappet wear must be less than 10 µm. - Engine cleanliness and sludge: after 203 hours, no deposits must be visible. - Bearing wear protection: visual rating according to Porsche in-house method.

 

[tig1]

Buster,
Some will say M1 buys off Porsche. Sounds like Porsche has done an extensive testing of oil, and will settle for nothing but the best for their cars.

 

[Gary Allan]

Well, I REALLY don't think I can walk in with a few pails of Bruceblend 0w-10 and say "Hey, you guys want to lunch a perfectly good engine to see if it will cert?".

Anyone that walks in there wants a piece of the OEM pie ..and pays for the privilege of trying. I'm sure there are co-ops in R&D, but I doubt it's just showing up with the oil.

That is, anyone showing the OEM approval paid a sizable ante somewhere.

 

[wannafbody]

legal extortion?

 

[buster]

Originally Posted By: tig1
Buster,
Some will say M1 buys off Porsche. Sounds like Porsche has done an extensive testing of oil, and will settle for nothing but the best for their cars.


I don't think there is a "best". Approved, yes.

w/o approval, you don't know what you are getting.