Mobile 1 5W/30, 2642 miles, 2008 Mazdaspeed3

[buster]

Bill is right. tig, you make far too many excuses about M1. I at least back my claims up with some data and info I find here and there.

I'm not sure why it's so inconceivable that M1, especially their 5w30, is deficient in "some areas" compared to other oils. This oil simply crashes when fuel is present.

 

[spasm3]

Originally Posted By: emaax



another point what seems to agravate the problem with M1 is that probably this M1 colided with the remains of the previous oil




What????????

 

[spasm3]

Originally Posted By: emaax

i would assume that you could have killed them because you cleaned the molibdenum that usualy Factory fills have that help the bearings to seat properly within proper clearances






What?????? bearings seating????? valves seat, rings seat, but bearings???????

 

[jjjxlr8]

Thanks for all the replies.

I was a little torn on whether or not to change the factory oil when I did. I left it in there for only 1300 miles. After doing a little research on new engine break in, I figured that 1300 miles should be enough. Maybe it wasn't?

emaax - During that 1300 miles, the car was run plenty hard for break in. It's a Mazdaspeed3! It's a car that's meant for careful WOT sessions.

I had actually read that same article, as well as another on the subject of new engine break in.

I've read about other cases of fuel in the oil with a couple Mazda platforms that use the direct injected engines.

Sounds like I need to switch to a different oil for this car...maybe Penzoil Platinum since I've read that it is better for holding up to fuel dilution.

 

[jjjxlr8]

Originally Posted By: Nickdfresh
Did the 2008 SPEED3's have turbo seal problems --and a recall?

Not to my knowledge. There were some issues unrelated to the turbo in the early 2008 cars, but I bought a 2008.5 to avoid these issues.

 

[tig1]

Originally Posted By: buster
Bill is right. tig, you make far too many excuses about M1. I at least back my claims up with some data and info I find here and there.

I'm not sure why it's so inconceivable that M1, especially their 5w30, is deficient in "some areas" compared to other oils. This oil simply crashes when fuel is present.


Well you know copper from bearings is nuts in this case. If you know what makes an engine go round and round you would know that. Why are Bill and you starting a cyber fight again? Boy you guys need to back off. I was just explaining my thoughts on his through the roof high copper.

 

[Audi Junkie]

Originally Posted By: daman
Originally Posted By: Audi Junkie
Looks great. Mobil 1 is the best!

If it's wearing his engine out like you always post why isn't Alum,chrom and lead elevated also? why only iron wearing? because it's not he has other issues like posted above going on.


Huh? Why do you always direct your posts at me?

THIS is how your post is supposed to read:

Originally Posted By: daman

If it's wearing his engine out, why isn't Alum,chrom and lead elevated also? why only iron wearing? because it's not he has other issues like posted above going on.


See, you can address your response to the original poster, someone who might actually care what you have to say.

 

[tig1]

Originally Posted By: Bill in Utah
Originally Posted By: tig1

If the bearings were worn to the copper there would be evidence of bearing material in the UOA, and the engine would be knocking. Engine would be shot. As it's a new engine maybe something to do with the turbo.


But as you know there have been UOAs that show no problem (ie bearing material?) but the engine is damaged. Correct Tig?

That is why they are "useless"... (your words not mine)

(To the OP, I disagree with those 2 statements but this member posts that often)

I wanted to see where he is at...

Bill,
Actually, you got it right. There have been engines destroyed that still showed exceptable UOAs. To the OP, Bill has it in for me because I don't fully agree with him on doing UOAs for the average engine, thats just one reason he spouts off against me so often. If you like doing UOAs that's fine, and there are some reasons UOAs may be helpful, as I have stated many times. Coolant leaking into the engine, or excessive fuel in the oil come to mind. In your case the copper has nothing to do with bearings so don't let these guys scare you into believing that. And if your bearings were into the copper(which their not)your next stop would be the Mazda dealer for a new engine under warranty.

 

[Bill in Utah]

Originally Posted By: tig1

Bill,
Actually, you got it right. There have been engines destroyed that still showed exceptable UOAs. To the OP, Bill has it in for me because I don't fully agree with him on doing UOAs for the average engine, thats just one reason he spouts off against me so often. If you like doing UOAs that's fine, and there are some reasons UOAs may be helpful, as I have stated many times. Coolant leaking into the engine, or excessive fuel in the oil come to mind. In your case the copper has nothing to do with bearings so don't let these guys scare you into believing that. And if your bearings were into the copper(which their not)your next stop would be the Mazda dealer for a new engine under warranty.


So the copper has to do with what? No oil cooler (common source of copper) and his early change of the factory fill @ 1300 miles did not harm a thing.

Something is going on. Is it the oil in this young engine? Could be. Is it something wrong with his engine? Maybe. But like I said above let's NOT let a SINGLE UOA ruin the world.

Follow what I've said above and then IF you continue to have reports like this, I'd START being concerned.

UOA ARE useful and they do provide data that IS valuable. Much more than blind thinking that just because you run this brand or type of oil all is fine. Or run a oil for a short OCI you will be just fine since its designed for a longer OCI.

My point Tig is this site is for data and facts. The fact is that some oils don't work with some engines. This MAY be the fact here. But until we get more DATA we will just wait and see. But blindly stating that there is nothing wrong here period is not a wise choice. A wise choice is to monitor the situation THEN *IF* it continues, take action.

Bill

 

[Nederlander75]

Copper is from break in, you shouldnt have let it go that long. Doent look unusual for this engine at this point. At this stage having been down the MZR road Id do a flush or 2 of oil and then set of for another analysis. FWIW most are having good results with Rotella T6 5w40 in this app.

You have an oil cooler, water to oil.

 

[38sho]

Originally Posted By: Bill in Utah

My point Tig is this site is for data and facts. The fact is that some oils don't work with some engines. This MAY be the fact here.

Bill



ah yes, facts, facts to whom? you? him? me? everyone puts a different value on a fact. So you consider all these UOA's with statistics and valuable information facts? I consider them basically horse [censored] when you send in the same oil 3 different times, and all 3 times they send back a totally different report LOL....... so which one was the fact, with the REAL information.... probably none of them. We might have done a better, closer representation of the truth just by picking random numbers and filling out one of those little UOA report sheets


I'd like to feel differently on this subject, but my OPINION is, that they just aren't accurate enough to even duplicate their own results.


I will continue to view this section though, as its provides many a heated conversation with people cheer leading for their oil brand

 

[daman]

Originally Posted By: Audi Junkie
huh? Why do you always direct your posts at me?

to answer your question this is why.....
Originally Posted By: Audi Junkie
Looks great. Mobil 1 is the best!

was that sarcasm/trolling necessary?


Originally Posted By: Audi Junkie
THIS is how your post is supposed to read:

Originally Posted By: daman

If it's wearing his engine out, why isn't Alum,chrom and lead elevated also? why only iron wearing? because it's not he has other issues like posted above going on.


See, you can address your response to the original poster, someone who might actually care what you have to say.

and people care what you have to say?, LOL!!!

 

[Bill in Utah]

Originally Posted By: 38sho


ah yes, facts, facts to whom? you? him? me? everyone puts a different value on a fact. So you consider all these UOA's with statistics and valuable information facts? I consider them basically horse [censored] LOL....... so which one was the fact, with the REAL information.... probably none of them. We might have done a better, closer representation of the truth just by picking random numbers and filling out one of those little UOA report sheets


I'd like to feel differently on this subject, but my OPINION is, that they just aren't accurate enough to even duplicate their own results.


I will continue to view this section though, as its provides many a heated conversation with people cheer leading for their oil brand


Please direct me to the links where (your words) "when you send in the same oil 3 different times, and all 3 times they send back a totally different report".

I must have missed that VERY important thread where this happened.

Bill

 

[21Rouge]

Originally Posted By: Bill in Utah
Please direct me to the links where (your words) "when you send in the same oil 3 different times, and all 3 times they send back a totally different report".


*Maybe* he is referring to this (in)famous thread first started last summer?

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1920281&page=1

 

[tig1]

Bill,
I need to clarify something I said that you may have taken wrong in part do to my fault. You refered to me as saying UOAs are useless. Well as I said at the time,I was jestering with Audi. I didn't mean that in the complete litteral sence. I mean useless in the sence that for a perfectly healthy engine,((90% of engines are probally healthy) UOAs are useless in helping the owner to increase the life of his engine. Money better spent somewhere else. As for doing UOAs, hey, go for it if one wants to. I'm pretty much live and let live that way.

In the case of the Mazdaspeed, 38sho may be on to something as UOAs can be inaccurate at times. Maybe a re test would be helpful. I believe if I owned his engine I would do a UOA once again after say 3K on this OC. If it showed high again with copper only, as his first test showed, I would approach the Mazda dealer with the two UOAs and seek a new engine. In cases like this UOAs can be a valuable tool until his copper issue is resolved.

 

[tig1]

Originally Posted By: 21Rouge
Originally Posted By: Bill in Utah
Please direct me to the links where (your words) "when you send in the same oil 3 different times, and all 3 times they send back a totally different report".


*Maybe* he is referring to this (in)famous thread first started last summer?

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1920281&page=1


I would call that thread eye opening and informative. Assuming his info was the truth.

 

[21Rouge]

Originally Posted By: tig1
Originally Posted By: 21Rouge

*Maybe* he is referring to this (in)famous thread first started last summer?

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1920281&page=1


I would call that thread eye opening and informative. Assuming his info was the truth.


OT BUT *if* you are questioning the validity of the data in that thread you have hurt my feelings

as I was the OP and FWIW it is the truth (in that I did not alter any of the #s).

 

[Bill in Utah]

Originally Posted By: 21Rouge
Originally Posted By: Bill in Utah
Please direct me to the links where (your words) "when you send in the same oil 3 different times, and all 3 times they send back a totally different report".


*Maybe* he is referring to this (in)famous thread first started last summer?

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1920281&page=1


I'm aware of that thread. And it is not what SHO38 described and based his post on.

Must have missed the data he is claiming so I am waiting for him to show us that link...

Thanks, bill

 

[tig1]

Originally Posted By: 21Rouge
Originally Posted By: tig1
Originally Posted By: 21Rouge

*Maybe* he is referring to this (in)famous thread first started last summer?

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1920281&page=1


I would call that thread eye opening and informative. Assuming his info was the truth.


If you are questioning the possible validity of the data in that thread you have hurt my feelings

as I was the OP and FWIW it is the truth (in that I did not alter any of the #s).


That phrase about the truth, was added for the skeptics we may have here that would not have believed your data, and it was altered. I actually have quoted your info several times here and found it to be informative.

 

[Bill in Utah]

Originally Posted By: tig1
Bill,
I need to clarify something I said that you may have taken wrong in part do to my fault. You refered to me as saying UOAs are useless. Well as I said at the time,I was jestering with Audi. I didn't mean that in the complete litteral sence. I mean useless in the sence that for a perfectly healthy engine,((90% of engines are probally healthy) UOAs are useless in helping the owner to increase the life of his engine. Money better spent somewhere else. As for doing UOAs, hey, go for it if one wants to. I'm pretty much live and let live that way.

In the case of the Mazdaspeed, 38sho may be on to something as UOAs can be inaccurate at times. Maybe a re test would be helpful. I believe if I owned his engine I would do a UOA once again after say 3K on this OC. If it showed high again with copper only, as his first test showed, I would approach the Mazda dealer with the two UOAs and seek a new engine. In cases like this UOAs can be a valuable tool until his copper issue is resolved.


You've said in many threads that UOA are useless. Esp if its with a certain brand of oil it seems to me.

Look above in my post. Here it is;

Originally Posted By: Bill in Utah


Ask Blackstone to rerun the sample. If it comes back the same, then do another UOA in 3k miles. If you have the same results then switch oils and do a UOA on the 2ND run of the new oil.

If you THEN have the same results, then I'd think about some professional help and get the mfg into the mix.

Bill


I'm consistent here and try to HELP members. I've been doing that since day 1 since this site helped me with my issues that a UOA discovered. A UOA that found coolant in a engine early so it did not damage it to a point that once the bad head gaskets were replaced, the engine was fixed.

A UOA that got Ford to pay for MOST of the repair, ALL of the rental and this was at 61,000 miles when the factory warranty went out @ 36,000 miles.

UOAs are NOT useless. With proper reading and trending they do show issues/possible damage or failure that is upcoming.

That is a FACT. There are industries that put a lot of faith in them because they WORK. Millions of dollars are saved because of UOAs.

Ignoring them or stating that they are useless is very interesting. Its also interesting that it is a certain segment of members that claim this when their brand does less than other brands.

Would I base everything on a UOA? No. But I do take the data that they provide along with everything else.

Bottom line for me is I am glad I'm not loyal to any brand or type of oil to a point where I ignore what is going on with others.

Take care, Bill