Mobil 1 5w30, 3000 miles, 96 LT1 Camaro Z28

[Patman]

This is a report sent to me by someone on CamaroZ28.com's message board.

3000 miles on oil
98,000 miles on engine
Mobil 1 5w30 Supersyn
K&N oil filter
K&N air filters (in an SLP CAI)
No makeup oil

Report by Blackstone

Aluminum.........5
Chromium.........1
Iron.............18
Copper...........3
Lead.............5
Tin..............0
Moly.............62
Nickel...........0
Silver...........0
Titanium.........0
Potassium........0
Boron............128
Silicon..........18
Sodium...........7
Calcium..........2138
Magnesium........142
Phos.............676
Zinc.............771
Barium...........0
SUS viscosity....60.6
Flashpoint.......385
Fuel.............0
Antifreeze.......0
Water............0
Insolubles.......0.5%


He is now running Redline 5w30.

This is how it's driven:

quote:

---

For the last two years it has been a weekend only car that gets driven very hard on the street, at the occasional drag strip, and monthly autocross sessions. I put no more than 5000 miles a year on it now.

---

 

[buster]

This is the kind of report that really shows how great an oil like Mobil 1 is, especially under those driving conditions. Magnesium?

[ May 12, 2004, 06:51 AM: Message edited by: buster ]

 

[Patman]

quote:

---

Originally posted by buster:
This is the kind of report that really shows how great an oil like Mobil 1 is, especially under those driving conditions. Magnesium?

---

Great? I didn't think so. Good maybe, but not great. My 6200 mile report with GC 0w30 looked better in almost every wear metal category, even though it had double the mileage and went through a cold winter!

My 6200 mile numbers:

Iron-22
Lead-2.5
Aluminum-4.9
Copper-1.8
Nickel-0.4
Titanium-0
Tin-0.7
Silver-0

 

[Schmoe]

Yeah, but I don't think you drive it like that member does. I know you talked about going to the drag strip off and on, but this ol' boy does that plus autocross monthly. I think it's a great report. The only thing I hate seeing lately with M1 is the lower amounts of P and Zn that they using. Glad to see Fe coming down, especially in that engine.

 

[Patman]

True, autocrossing does add that extra abuse to his engine, I'll give you that.

But I think it equals out when you consider he doesn't see super cold weather (he lives in Arkansas) and I did.

I just think Iron seems way too high for only 3000 miles.

I pointed out to him that a big part of his wear is due to his cold air induction (with the K&N air filters) since his silicon is very high too.

So it isn't fair of me to really condemn Mobil 1 here when the K&N air filters are probably mostly to blame.

Even still, the LT1 loves a thicker oil than Mobil 1 5w30, especially when driven hard. I will be sure to post his Redline reports when he sends them to me.

 

[buster]

quote:

---

Great? I didn't think so

---

Patman, with all due respect, I really don't know how you judge UOAs sometimes.

You do realize we are dealing with PPM right? Also, if the RL report shows higher wear, which I believe it will, what excuses will be made for it? Also, if what Terry says is true about M1/Amsoil UOAs that are good, but don't show all the carbon deposits, therefore are misleading, how are you judging GC or any other oil for that matter? It seems things are just inconsistant across the board anymore. This car was driven VERY hard and Pb is only 5ppm. What more do you want? I'll give you Fe with Mobil 1, and it does seem to correlate to lower ZDP.

Now we have BG screwing up RL reports?

[ May 12, 2004, 04:43 PM: Message edited by: buster ]

 

[Patman]

Buster, I'm comparing his UOA to mine! If you don't believe GC showed significantly better results, then nothing is going to convince you. Take a looky at the numbers in ppm/1000

code:

---

GC M1

Iron 3.54 6

Lead 0.4 1.6

Al 0.79 1.6

Ch 0.16 0.3

Copper 0.29 1

---

My numbers with GC are significantly better and it's pretty obvious. Like I said, some of it is probably his increased silicon, but my point is, his UOA is not spectacular here, not compared to mine it's not. I worked hard to find my holy grail!

 

[buster]

Patman, I'm happy you found your Holy Grail and I do think GC is an outstanding oil, possibly the best 0w-30 on the market, however those numbers are hardly better and hardly will make your engine last longer. I just can't get excited about differences of 2-5ppm with wear particles.

Another thing that must be considered are the driving conditions. There are now 2 Mobil 1 UOAs in LS1 engines driven VERY hard that show very low wear. The other is somewhere on here. When you compare those to Vettenuts babied Amsoil UOA, Mobil 1 is the winner in that case as well. There is more to it then just a thicker oil for LS1's IMO.

[ May 13, 2004, 09:21 PM: Message edited by: buster ]

 

[DJ]

LT1 and LS1 are completely different motors, the LS1 very well could like a very different oil.

 

[Patman]

quote:

---

Originally posted by buster:
Patman, I'm happy you found your Holy Grail and I do think GC is an outstanding oil, possibly the best 0w-30 on the market, however those numbers are hardly better and hardly will make your engine last longer. I just can't get excited about differences of 2-5ppm with wear particles.

---

Not even when it's a difference of 2-5ppm per 1000 miles? I'm getting confused as to exactly what you want in an oil.

Isn't our goal here to try and find the oil that shows the lowest wear? And if one shows only 2.5 ppm of lead in 6k compared to one that shows 5 ppm in 3k, does that not indicate a very serious difference to you? That's 4 times more bearing wear with Mobil 1! I've said it before, but Mobil 1 5w30 and 10w30 simply are not a good match for the LT1. Mobil 1 0w40 is the better viscosity.

[ May 14, 2004, 05:09 AM: Message edited by: Patman ]

 

[Patman]

quote:

---

Originally posted by DJ:
LT1 and LS1 are completely different motors, the LS1 very well could like a very different oil.

---

From what I've observed, the LT1 and LS1 seem to like the same oils. So if one oil works well in the LT1, it'll work well in the LS1, and vice versa. The LS1's clearances are slightly tighter, but not by a huge amount. Both engines seem to like an oil of about 12-14cst at 100c if driven hard. If not driven hard, you can get away with something slightly thinner.

 

[Motorbike]

Patman ,

We learn as we go here

and it's been confirmed the LS1 uses bi-metal main and rod bearings where as the LT-1 uses the traditional hi performance tri-metal bearings .

One cannot compare the lead wear in these two engines .

Now it's becoming pretty obvious at least to me the LS1 does use some lead in the cam bearings which makes sense do to superior embedibilty , a must when clearances are tight and or the differences in designed priority oiling systems .

I've often thought the LS1 cams might be driven in with a hammer when new

Core shift and other factors can make for high/low spots on the actual cam bearings though visual inspection with zero miles during mock up of a rebuild or performance engine . Most often when cam bearings are renewed in a OHV motor they must be reamed to fit or they will either be very tight and hard to turn by hand or have one or more high spots after being driven in by the cam bearing tool . Simply turning them by hand can show where they might not even be touched on part of the ID . Many machine shops do not stick a cam in to check for fit after cam bearing replacement and I am of the thinking Zero assembly lines do .

Here is a rebuilt 5.7 Chevy , and through 30 years experience think with 99% certainty the high lead this engine came from the cam bearings yet some were saying use a thicker oil thinking it was the lower end throwing the wear metals out .
High lead

I've seen race motors with as little as 10-- 1/4 mile passes tore down for one reason or another with the cam bearings showing visual copper in spots, just flat wore right through the lead overlay due to improper fit .

Anyway , the lower end bearings on the LS1 and LT1 are two different animals and lead cannot be compared .

Also , 3MP is not the first to note that a LS1 engine runs a bit different on a thicker oil . Hydraulic lifters are enginnered with viscosity in mind . Some are more tempermental to a vi change than others and valve timing is affected by it albeit small for the most part but guys in tune with their motors feel the difference and it or their testimony to it should never be discounted ........IMO

 

[Patman]

quote:

---

Anyway , the lower end bearings on the LS1 and LT1 are two different animals and lead cannot be compared .

---

They seem to show similar averages though.

Besides, this particular report here that Buster and I don't agree on, is with an LT1 engine just like mine, so I can directly compare the lead numbers between the two.

 

[Motorbike]

PS

I know this analysis is with a LT1 engine but I posted because I've seen some try to compare the two engines and wear metals .

It looks like this engine sits a week at a time and speaking of time , insoluables / flashpoint suggest the oil might have been in there quite some time with the occasional " fire up for a friend to hear " or a run around the block but who knows with so little info but IMO , the wear looks good for the driving type we do have information on .

 

[Motorbike]

Quote:
" They seem to show similar averages though "

But would it not be an ill fated attempt to try to tune the viscosity in a LS1 engine to reduce lower end wear metals when it is actually coming from another source ?

That is if consumption was not a problem .