engine pic after running Mobil 1 for 295,000 mi

[Dieselsrule]

Originally Posted By: Clevy
Originally Posted By: Mystic
Looks really good to me. If I were ever to buy a new car again I think I would run Mobil 1.


It does look good. And the 6000-10000 mile interval just reinforces the idea that most of us change our oil too early.

Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Nice. I would have loved to see the valve train too, and the cylinder bores for hatch marks.



Me too. Likely looked very similar to the block.

OP
Thanks for posting this pic. Just goes to show that m1 is a top shelf oil.
Any oil consumption from the engine?


When newer it would go 6000mi before being down a qt. Now it goes 4000mi before being down a qt. I'm beginning to think the engine will outlast the body.
I didn't look for hatch marks but I can say there is no ridge at the top of the cylinders but I think fuel injection has to get alot of credit for that. I reused the rocker arms and pushrods cause they looked almost new.

 

[Clevy]

Originally Posted By: Dieselsrule
Originally Posted By: Clevy
Originally Posted By: Mystic
Looks really good to me. If I were ever to buy a new car again I think I would run Mobil 1.


It does look good. And the 6000-10000 mile interval just reinforces the idea that most of us change our oil too early.

Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Nice. I would have loved to see the valve train too, and the cylinder bores for hatch marks.



Me too. Likely looked very similar to the block.

OP
Thanks for posting this pic. Just goes to show that m1 is a top shelf oil.
Any oil consumption from the engine?


When newer it would go 6000mi before being down a qt. Now it goes 4000mi before being down a qt. I'm beginning to think the engine will outlast the body.
I didn't look for hatch marks but I can say there is no ridge at the top of the cylinders but I think fuel injection has to get alot of credit for that. I reused the rocker arms and pushrods cause they looked almost new.




That's pretty good as far as consumption goes. A quart in 4000 miles is nothing.

 

[steve20]

OP thanks for posting the picture

Clean, doesn't, and never has meant, less wear

I still can't get past the nonsense XOM pulled during Hurricane Katrina, and pushing stuff out the door labeled Mobil-1 which wasn't even up to SM standards. They could have stopped production if they were missing the proper addtives, but no............

 

[kschachn]

What was wrong with the oil and how didn't it perform? ExxonMobil said at the time the oil was not deficient in any way in terms of performance. In fact, they said the performance was unaffected by the change. Where is your evidence that it was functionally impaired?

It didn't meet the strict definition of the API standard but that in no way meant it was a bad oil. Show us your proof that it was, and why you contend they should have stopped marketing the oil.

Unless you can show us, then please preface your post with "a giant IMO", like you want everyone else to do.

Originally Posted By: steve20
I still can't get past the nonsense XOM pulled during Hurricane Katrina, and pushing stuff out the door labeled Mobil-1 which wasn't even up to SM standards. They could have stopped production if they were missing the proper addtives, but no............

 

[tig1]

Originally Posted By: steve20
OP thanks for posting the picture

Clean, doesn't, and never has meant, less wear

I still can't get past the nonsense XOM pulled during Hurricane Katrina, and pushing stuff out the door labeled Mobil-1 which wasn't even up to SM standards. They could have stopped production if they were missing the proper addtives, but no............


Your logic isn' logical. Are you saying that a dirty engine will have less wear than a clean one? Should oils be made to be leave deposits behind? Clean engines GOOD, Dirty engines BAD.

 

[Dieselsrule]

Originally Posted By: steve20
OP thanks for posting the picture

Clean, doesn't, and never has meant, less wear

I still can't get past the nonsense XOM pulled during Hurricane Katrina, and pushing stuff out the door labeled Mobil-1 which wasn't even up to SM standards. They could have stopped production if they were missing the proper addtives, but no............


Thanks me for posting pic then launches attack.. Poor Hater , go troll somewhere else.

 

[daves87rs]

Looks good...

 

[Jiblet]

Originally Posted By: Dieselsrule
Originally Posted By: steve20
OP thanks for posting the picture

Clean, doesn't, and never has meant, less wear

I still can't get past the nonsense XOM pulled during Hurricane Katrina, and pushing stuff out the door labeled Mobil-1 which wasn't even up to SM standards. They could have stopped production if they were missing the proper addtives, but no............


Thanks me for posting pic then launches attack.. Poor Hater , go troll somewhere else.


I certainly don't know his intent, but I didn't read the clean/wear comment as an attack.

I thought he meant you can wear down the moving surfaces without leaving behind deposits or sludge. But what do I know??

 

[Nickdfresh]

Originally Posted By: Ram01
The pic looks ok but would of look a lot better with pennzoil

 

[Nickdfresh]

A very good looking engine, I've always thought Mobil 1 one of the consistently best oils here. I think just about any quality synthetic will do the job as well though...

 

[steve20]

You are correct there was no malice involved in the post.
Just merely stating one of the reasons I do not use Mobil-1. The proof you are asking for can be found with Valvoline/Ashland Oil. They published the reports, and that is when all of the x, y, & z oils protect 40% better than Mobil-1---and no, I'm not going back to find it, but others should remember.
And yes, that was my thought pattern--you can have a worn engine without leaving deposits behind

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: steve20
You are correct there was no malice involved in the post.
Just merely stating one of the reasons I do not use Mobil-1. The proof you are asking for can be found with Valvoline/Ashland Oil. They published the reports, and that is when all of the x, y, & z oils protect 40% better than Mobil-1---and no, I'm not going back to find it, but others should remember.
And yes, that was my thought pattern--you can have a worn engine without leaving deposits behind



They published the results from ONE test, which is meant to replicate the results of using an oil in an application where it never gets to operating temperature.

While that test certainly correlates with real world conditions, the odds of one batch of oil not meeting that spec causing any actual issues is probably quite low.

No different than an oil with greater than published volatility causing a throttle body to stick or a catcon to fail

Having torn down a few engines running M1, I can't say I've ever observed anything other than cleanliness. My own high mileage 302 was essentially wear-free. Cam bearings were perfect, cylinder walls pristine, lifter bores pristine, camshaft like new....etc.

 

[kschachn]

I'm confused. There's proof that the M1 formulation utilized while it was non-API was inferior?

Originally Posted By: steve20
You are correct there was no malice involved in the post.
Just merely stating one of the reasons I do not use Mobil-1. The proof you are asking for can be found with Valvoline/Ashland Oil. They published the reports, and that is when all of the x, y, & z oils protect 40% better than Mobil-1---and no, I'm not going back to find it, but others should remember.
And yes, that was my thought pattern--you can have a worn engine without leaving deposits behind