M1 0W20, 9,500 miles, 2014 Mazda 6

[Patman]

Mobil 1's marketing claims are no different than any other synthetic on the market, you've just chosen to focus in on them for some reason.

I will say this, I'm much more comfortable to be running Mobil 1's ESP formula of 5w30 than their regular formula of 5w30, but it's not for the lack of quality of the regular 5w30, it's simply because my high performance engine needs a more stout oil with a higher HTHS.

But honestly, with M1 often priced at Walmart in the US for only $22.88 for a 5 quart jug (like it is right now again) that's not really overpriced at all.

 

[irv]

Originally Posted By: Patman
Mobil 1's marketing claims are no different than any other synthetic on the market, you've just chosen to focus in on them for some reason.

I will say this, I'm much more comfortable to be running Mobil 1's ESP formula of 5w30 than their regular formula of 5w30, but it's not for the lack of quality of the regular 5w30, it's simply because my high performance engine needs a more stout oil with a higher HTHS.

But honestly, with M1 often priced at Walmart in the US for only $22.88 for a 5 quart jug (like it is right now again) that's not really overpriced at all.


It's their UOAs that draw me in, nothing else.

And not all CDNs have the option of going to the states as often you and your wife do either, but even so, if you are able to get it for that price stateside, is it still higher than the rest when they are also on sale?

Just my opinion, obviously, but I happen to think Mobil is nothing special at all. Many oils exist out there that show far better looking UOAs than what Mobil does. And this has been the case since I joined the site way back in 2006, which begs the million dollar question, (that no one can seem to answer) why?

 

[Garak]

You're still chasing something that doesn't amount to squat in the real world, nor translate to real wear. If you're chasing a few PPM of iron to base your oil choice, it's not doing you any real good.

 

[4WD]

Have seen some good runs on M1 lately … crickets …
Have seen some OK at best runs on some other lubes … crickets …

 

[Garak]

This is a pretty good M1 run. A 10,000 mile lube held up for a roughly 10,000 mile interval, and could have gone on further.

 

[PimTac]

“Just my opinion, obviously, but I happen to think Mobil is nothing special at all. Many oils exist out there that show far better looking UOAs than what Mobil does. And this has been the case since I joined the site way back in 2006, which begs the million dollar question, (that no one can seem to answer) why? “



Irv, nobody can answer a question that is in fact personal opinion. Your opinion is that M1 is not as good as some other brands and you have the right to that opinion. But I don’t think you or anyone else can come up with a scientific explanation as to why.

Years ago I tried Mobil 1 in a Mitsu 3.0 and it ran noisier compared to the Castrol Syntec I had been running. Why? I’ll never know but I switched back to Syntec on the next change. I do think M1 is a quality product but sometimes certain engines “dislike” an oil for mysterious reasons. Run your favorite brand and be happy.

 

[Artem]

Certain engines dislike certain oil additives, that's for sure. That's the only way to explain the unusual wear vs another brand of the same viscosity. OIL additives matter.

 

[irv]

Originally Posted By: Garak
You're still chasing something that doesn't amount to squat in the real world, nor translate to real wear. If you're chasing a few PPM of iron to base your oil choice, it's not doing you any real good.


If it's not real wear, then what is it, Garak? If 27ppm isn't bad/real then why is 150 ppm? Someone special, that I've been told about, deemed that number to be bad

IIRC, that person also recommended not to use that oil anymore and look further into possible engine problems.

If the OP continually seen higher than average wear numbers, UOA after UOA using Mobil oils, at what point, if one were to add all those numbers up, would one decide to quit using it? I never did UOAs when I used Mobil oil, I just seen numerous on here that showed high wear metals, UOA after UOA, and that was enough for me, which I am thankful for and this site.


Originally Posted By: PimTac
“Just my opinion, obviously, but I happen to think Mobil is nothing special at all. Many oils exist out there that show far better looking UOAs than what Mobil does. And this has been the case since I joined the site way back in 2006, which begs the million dollar question, (that no one can seem to answer) why? “

Irv, nobody can answer a question that is in fact personal opinion. Your opinion is that M1 is not as good as some other brands and you have the right to that opinion. But I don’t think you or anyone else can come up with a scientific explanation as to why.

Years ago I tried Mobil 1 in a Mitsu 3.0 and it ran noisier compared to the Castrol Syntec I had been running. Why? I’ll never know but I switched back to Syntec on the next change. I do think M1 is a quality product but sometimes certain engines “dislike” an oil for mysterious reasons. Run your favorite brand and be happy.


I'm not sure how my question is a personal opinion, Pimtac, when I am talking about this UOA and others that I have seen on here for a long time?

I am also stumped/confused, like you, I assume, with so much scientific analysis/info/data available, that no one can come up with a reasonable/scientific explanation for this? Something has to be in the oil, or not in the oil, to cause this so it's surprising the answer hasn't been found, or shared, that I have ever seen before?

Originally Posted By: Artem
Certain engines dislike certain oil additives, that's for sure. That's the only way to explain the unusual wear vs another brand of the same viscosity. OIL additives matter.


I agree, some oils work better than others, but with the Mobil UOAs I see, the variety of engines/vehicles is broad. If it was a notorious bad oil, say, for a SBC for example, and nothing else, there would be a scientific/mechanical explanation for it, but since I see it in a broad variety of vehicles/engines, imo, there is something definitely going on with it.

Regardless, and like what, Pimtac said, that answer seems elusive and likely will be, (even though I believe one exists somewhere), for sometime yet it seems.

For those that use and like it, good for you, carry on, I just know it's not the oil for me and likely won't be anytime soon.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: irv

If it's not real wear, then what is it, Garak? If 27ppm isn't bad/real then why is 150 ppm? Someone special, that I've been told about, deemed that number to be bad

IIRC, that person also recommended not to use that oil anymore and look further into possible engine problems.


If that's how you've interpreted it, then you didn't properly understand it.

150ppm was deemed a ceiling, or condemnation limit for Fe ppm in the equipment being serviced, however it can, depending on wear rate, be an acceptable limit for other equipment as well. Fe ppm tracks with mileage, this is your wear rate. In the testing you are citing the limit was one of several, others being TBN depletion, oxidation....etc. Once one of those limits were reached in regular service, the fluid was changed.

This is why, in the media you are citing, mileage was mentioned. Because it is important! 150ppm over 30,000 miles would be an acceptable wear rate, that's 5ppm/1000 miles, or 25ppm in your typical 5,000 mile interval. However, 150ppm in a 5,000 mile interval (30ppm/1000 miles) indicates you need to be looking for a problem, particularly if the previously trended wear rate was lower.

Follow?

The OP's wear rate of 27ppm over a 9,500 mile interval gives us a wear rate of 2.84ppm/1000 miles. I'll let you figure out how many miles it would take to reach 150ppm at that rate and whether you think some other factor, like Mobil's limit for the lubricant or TBN depletion would be reached before that point.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: irv
If it's not real wear, then what is it, Garak? If 27ppm isn't bad/real then why is 150 ppm? Someone special, that I've been told about, deemed that number to be bad

IIRC, that person also recommended not to use that oil anymore and look further into possible engine problems.

Overkill already answered much of that. There is more to looking at a UOA as just a set of numbers and making a recommendation. It's been pointed out many times here, by formulators and other experts in the field, that you cannot correlate PPM of iron to microns of wear. It just doesn't work. Now, that doesn't mean you can't have wear rates that are out of whack or iron levels that are over condemnation limits. One can also be using an unsuitable lube.

However, going from one A5/B5 SN/GF-5 5w-30 to another A5/B5 SN/GF-5 5w-30, for instance, based upon iron numbers is folly. The products are completely interchangeable and indistinguishable in service.

 

[Snagglefoot]

Originally Posted By: SubieRubyRoo
Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
I never like seeing double digits of iron.


Less than 3ppm/1k of iron is hardly the end of the world. You’re trying to say I should cut down my 17k OCIs by half just because it ended up at 18ppm, just so I can keep it under 10? Not gonna happen, no basis in fact to do so.


Just curious. Why are you doing UOA’s? .

 

[webfors]

Obvious dilution... borderline for a 20 weight. I would run a 30 weight.