Oil wear comparison spreadsheet

Status
Not open for further replies.
Wow! This is very scary. I'm been ruining my engines for so many
years using M1 and didn't know it. I'm heading out to my vehicles
now with a pick axe to chip away at the sludge. LOL!
 
Originally Posted By: zddp77
SEQ.IVA wear test: too recive a pass candidate sample must be under 90 microns of wear... Mobil 1: result 186 microns of wear THAT IS A FAIL ,Valvoline Synpower 26 microns of wear THAT IS A PASS . These are facts not internet hog wash.

Great. But that has nothing to do with the validity of UOA data for determining engine wear. If you want to discuss Sequence IVA testing, start another thread or bump one of the many that have already been made.

By the way, when you do, I would strongly suggest bringing something new to the table. This has been addressed ad nauseum.
 
Originally Posted By: Capa
Definitely extreme. Mobil may not be the best synthetic but it is not junk product. You seem to be blinded by the fact that you too are being a fanboy and it is causing you to make illogical and absurd statements.


Or just a droning hater bordering on cliche at this point...
 
Originally Posted By: ottotheclown
Points out a sludged engine on Mobil 1. Very interesting very but not a surprise me thinks.
34.gif



I'm pretty those evil bottles of Mobil 1--probably the most evil of the evil, the 5w30 variety--are responsible for the British Petroleum spill in the Gulf, too...
43.gif
 
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: zddp77
SEQ.IVA wear test: too recive a pass candidate sample must be under 90 microns of wear... Mobil 1: result 186 microns of wear THAT IS A FAIL ,Valvoline Synpower 26 microns of wear THAT IS A PASS . These are facts not internet hog wash.

Great. But that has nothing to do with the validity of UOA data for determining engine wear. If you want to discuss Sequence IVA testing, start another thread or bump one of the many that have already been made.

By the way, when you do, I would strongly suggest bringing something new to the table. This has been addressed ad nauseum.



So, hang on a sec. Mobil 1 fails the Sequence IVA wear test (due to iron wear) and synpower passes with flying colors... And UOAs seem to show that same kind of trend... While it might not mean anything in overall wear and how long your engines will last, I do think that it might help demonstrate the test.
 
That's a good hypothesis.

Now you have to find a way to test it before making claims based on it. And even if you are successful, that conclusion wouldn't be generalizable because it doesn't address the inherent limitations of UOAs, so the claims you could make would be extremely limited in scope.

That's why I'm saying it's not a fruitful line of discourse here.
 
Of course this chart has nothing to do with the reality that M1 oils are noted for keeping engines very clean, lasting a very long time, and permitting the driver to do extended OCIs with ease.
 
Originally Posted By: GenSan

The marketing is all over the place and not just by valvoline.

Yup it's sure working for me because I switched long time ago from Mobil 1.

Why I don't use Mobil 1 anymore


You do know that the magazine that printed that was forced to make a rebuttal because they ran ENGINE oil in a test designed to test GEAR LUBE right?

Hold on, let me test your bullet proof vest with a rocket launcher. What, you died? that vest must have been JUNK!!!!
 
Originally Posted By: rudolphna
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: zddp77
SEQ.IVA wear test: too recive a pass candidate sample must be under 90 microns of wear... Mobil 1: result 186 microns of wear THAT IS A FAIL ,Valvoline Synpower 26 microns of wear THAT IS A PASS . These are facts not internet hog wash.

Great. But that has nothing to do with the validity of UOA data for determining engine wear. If you want to discuss Sequence IVA testing, start another thread or bump one of the many that have already been made.

By the way, when you do, I would strongly suggest bringing something new to the table. This has been addressed ad nauseum.



So, hang on a sec. Mobil 1 fails the Sequence IVA wear test (due to iron wear) and synpower passes with flying colors... And UOAs seem to show that same kind of trend... While it might not mean anything in overall wear and how long your engines will last, I do think that it might help demonstrate the test.


Let's back this up a bit.

Ashland CLAIMED Mobil 1 failed the Sequence IVA test. The API later stated that it passed it.

Nobody on this board knows any details beyond that.
 
Where was that chart that did show Mobil keeping engines clean and lasting long??? Is it over here? no, how about here no, I know it is around here somewhere!!
21.gif
 
Originally Posted By: ottotheclown
No, they just point out what is in photo and uoa reports. Sort of really easy to see. Either way month after month same chatter with Mobil 1 and the issues they have. Good I read this website would have bought Mobil 1 and a Fram filter I am sure.
34.gif



You are a real funny guy. Have you ever done a UOA yourself? Have you ever tore down an engine? Or do you just like to drop random slams in threads like the troll you are? Seriously, do you have ANYTHING worthwhile to contribute on this board?

For reference:

5w20UOA.jpg

expeditionuoa01.jpg

expeditioncam01.jpg

rockers.jpg


Those are MY results with Mobil 1. In THREE separate vehicles.

Where are your results? Where is your proof? Where are your FACTS? Do you have ANYTHING to bring to the table besides trolling rhetoric and conflict-inciting jabs? If you have, you have yet to post it on this board.
 
Originally Posted By: ottotheclown
Where was that chart that did show Mobil keeping engines clean and lasting long??? Is it over here? no, how about here no, I know it is around here somewhere!!
21.gif



There's this web site called BITOG. You'll find info there on this subject. Also in the real world experience of automotive engine maintainance.
 
Originally Posted By: ottotheclown
Where was that chart that did show Mobil keeping engines clean and lasting long??? Is it over here? no, how about here no, I know it is around here somewhere!!
21.gif



We don't need a chart you bloody pylon. Tig's been using the stuff for THIRTY YEARS. I've been using it for FIFTEEN. I've posted pictures of my results, and I've likely done more wrenching in the last two weeks than you've done in your life. Because if you actually HAD experience, you'd have something more than these bitter slings of conjecture that you keep slopping around like horse manure.
 
Let's get a few things straight. API NEVER claimed that Mobil 1 passed. All they said was that "Mobil told us they passed, and we believe them."
 
Nah, Ashland wouldn't have ran the ads if they weren't true. Most likely they found a flaw being, they can run all the tests, and capitalized on it. Mobil fixed the problem quickly, and never lost their API cert. That is my opinion based on all sides. The Mobil 1 brand has gotten sloppy and dated. Still among the better oils, no longer THE best.
 
prax said:
Let's get a few things straight. API NEVER claimed that Mobil 1 passed. All they said was that "Mobil told us they passed, and we believe them."[/quot

You will believe Valvoline when they say M1 5-30 failed, but not XM when they say it passed?
Click to expand...
 
Originally Posted By: prax
Let's get a few things straight. API NEVER claimed that Mobil 1 passed. All they said was that "Mobil told us they passed, and we believe them."


Mobil would have had to prove to the API they passed. Which would involve showing them their own results (yes, likely run in their own lab) of their oil passing the test. I would expect this to be especially true, given the mud Ashland was slinging at the time.

Mobil 1 is an oil broadly used by OEM's. Ashland's claims would have put any one or even all of those individual manufacturer certs in jeopardy.

Now, I haven't seen Mobil 1 lose any manufacturer approvals. I haven't seen it lose it's API approval. So if there WAS a problem, it may have been with a single batch, that Ashland got their hands on.... It could have been a bad BOTTLE! We have no idea. We do NOT know the details other than Ashland made the claim, and then later the API said that Mobil demonstrated that it passed.
 
Originally Posted By: buster
Nah, Ashland wouldn't have ran the ads if they weren't true. Most likely they found a flaw being, they can run all the tests, and capitalized on it. Mobil fixed the problem quickly, and never lost their API cert. That is my opinion based on all sides. The Mobil 1 brand has gotten sloppy and dated. Still among the better oils, no longer THE best.



That IS your opinion and you are entitled to it. Mine is that they may have "cheapened" their regular oils (with the advent of EP), which is why I tend to gravitate to products like the 0w40 and 5w40, which are much more decorated; their flagship products so to speak.

I do not think their regular lineup is inferior by any means, just that it is not head-and-shoulders above the rest like the two products I mentioned are. And that is simply MY opinion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

A
Start up wear, Normal wear, and the relation to various oil properties. SAE 2006-01-3414
5 6 7
Replies
128
Views
19K
FCD
M
1 Week Review - 2025 Toyota Tacoma Hybrid Limited
3 4 5
Replies
84
Views
24K
mikeduf
S
Volvo iShift Transmission Oil - The Saga
Replies
4
Views
2K
4WD
N
Friction Reduction and Reliability for Engines Bearings (HEIG-VD in collaboration with Renault. Lubricants 2015)
Replies
3
Views
2K
wpod
M
Fiddling with ford’s battery management
Replies
18
Views
10K
meep
Back
Top Bottom