Question about M1

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: Johnny
As long as we are talking ifs, I will give you mine. If I were not using Pennzoil synthetics in my three cars, they would all be on either Mobil 1 0W-20 or 5W-20 without any reservations.


As we had seen you do prior to your current fill. I have no qualms about using other oils, used M1 for 8+ years with no issues. Used Synpower, PP, QS for a few OCI's. On the Xterra I noticed chatter on M1 0w30 and PP 5w30(not on QS though) and none with Synpower until a few thousand miles into an OCI.

Oil is oil, once my current fill runs out I'm dropping in Valvoline WB, MC5K or Formula Shell 5w30. Which ever turns out to be cheapest.
 
Originally Posted By: StevieC
I know from talking to Terry via e-mails about my UOA's and asking about M1 and high Iron that I was told it was just something in the oils composition that reacts with Iron surfaces in the engine and causes leaching of said iron into the oil. Not wear metals or shavings from the pistons/rings going up/down but just chemical iron residue.


Thank you for posting this. This is the first time I've read the "chemical leaching" theory, and it makes sense to me.

Well-intentioned people can ask a technical question about a product to secure an answer on why it happens. Others who don't have an answer and perceive a different motive try to cloud the discussion with "don't worry about it, it'll be fine". They're probably right, but missed the point entirely. There still must be a technical reason for the behavior in question.

People of goodwill can have a technical discussion without turning it into a war. Thanks to those in this thread who have endeavored to do so. I, for one, have found it useful.
 
Quote:
Anti-friction, sometimes called lubricity, is defined as the ability of a lubricant to reduce friction, other than by its purely viscous properties. Anti-friction additives reduce friction below that of the base oil alone under conditions of boundary lubrication. The additives are adsorbed on, or react with the metal surface or its oxide to form monolayers of low shear strength material. The compounds are long chain (greater than 12 carbon atoms), alcohols, amines, and fatty acids. A classic example is oleic acid reacting with iron oxide to form a film of the iron oleate soap. The low shear strength of the soap film causes the low friction.

An observed quality of M1 is its ability to produce bhp (compared to non ester based oils) also lack of ability to take heat away from certain components. My guess is that it could be a spin off from "Supersyn" chemistry. The high fe levels cannot be directly linked to wear from the evidence of UOAs and unlikely to be factory fill if there was a direct link to high wear.
 
Originally Posted By: Johnny
Come on d00df00d, this is a big if. IF

lol.gif
cheers3.gif
 
Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
Originally Posted By: StevieC
I know from talking to Terry via e-mails about my UOA's and asking about M1 and high Iron that I was told it was just something in the oils composition that reacts with Iron surfaces in the engine and causes leaching of said iron into the oil. Not wear metals or shavings from the pistons/rings going up/down but just chemical iron residue.


Thank you for posting this. This is the first time I've read the "chemical leaching" theory, and it makes sense to me.

Well-intentioned people can ask a technical question about a product to secure an answer on why it happens. Others who don't have an answer and perceive a different motive try to cloud the discussion with "don't worry about it, it'll be fine". They're probably right, but missed the point entirely. There still must be a technical reason for the behavior in question.

People of goodwill can have a technical discussion without turning it into a war. Thanks to those in this thread who have endeavored to do so. I, for one, have found it useful.


Definitely agree. It has been hard to actually discuss this subject. Lots of threads but they all end up locked before it gets anywhere.
 
Originally Posted By: Gene K
Any subject that brings three differing opinions as to the source from Terry Dyson, Molakule and modularv8 is very intriguing.


That was just my last memory of Molakule's suggestion. I don't know Terry's or modular's views.

We're in a dynamic environment. What's valid today may not be in a month or two (thinking of the 8X wear deal thing). I can't imagine XOM leaving something unright that way for too long, but that's just my imagination. It's been shocked a few times over recent history.
 
Originally Posted By: StevieC
I know from talking to Terry via e-mails about my UOA's and asking about M1 and high Iron that I was told it was just something in the oils composition that reacts with Iron surfaces in the engine and causes leaching of said iron into the oil. Not wear metals or shavings from the pistons/rings going up/down but just chemical iron residue.

The UOA shows high iron because there is a lot of this residue.

I'm not trying to defend M1, nor am I trying to start a war.

But all this aside, XOM is a huge company with many people using their M1 synthetic and its endorsed by some big names like GM, Mercedes, BMW etc. Don't you think that us as members of some obscure forum really should take this into account and re-examine our thought process on M1 products?

I forget who said it but someone once said something to the effect that "Real world performance is much better than a UOA, and M1 has the proof that their product stands up"

Steve
grin2.gif



Steve you have been gone a while. This site is openly hostile to mobil 1 now and is fairly anti synthetic oil in general. Pennzoil Ultra is the darling can do no wrong synthetic of choice and edge is highly thought of as far as synthetics go. Seems like most around here just are interested in using the cheapest API conventional and if you disagree you get schooled by that gentleman in utah.
 
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
What's valid today may not be in a month or two (thinking of the 8X wear deal thing).


Wasn't the whole 8x wear thing over a UOA where mobil 1 showed 8ppm and who ever else showed 1ppm iron?
 
Originally Posted By: lipadj46
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
What's valid today may not be in a month or two (thinking of the 8X wear deal thing).


Wasn't the whole 8x wear thing over a UOA where mobil 1 showed 8ppm and who ever else showed 1ppm iron?

No. It had to do with some batches of M1 5w30 failing Sequence IVA test as claimed by Ashland (maker of Valvoline) and their subsequent use of this fact to market Valvoline as producing 8x less wear than M1. Or was it Castrol that used it in their marketing? I forget...
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: jstutz


Would this be similar to how we see high copper in a lot of chevy diesels due to the oil cooler. Sounds like it is the same type of thing. Secondly, how big are the particles that get leached? Would they cause the same issue as if they were were wear metals? If parts arent wearing and the iron is being leached, there are still iron particles in there right? Maybe its just so little, that it dont matter or it affects wear so little that it cant be detected, therefore insignificant.


They can tell it's a reaction with Iron surfaces because of the particle sizes being different from that of wear metal.

My engine shows high copper and high Silica and it was proven to be the gasket sealing material Hyundai/Kia uses that reacts with oil formulations and causes leaching.

I guess this is why Terry and those that do the analysis like him might provide more insight than just a plain old UOA which could scare the [censored] out of you when you see high numbers in Iron or Copper and it's just because of these problems.

UOA's are valuable, but the interpretation and proper analysis is the key.
wink.gif


From all the engines I have torn apart and rebuilt, the oils I have used and the UOA's I have done through Terry I can tell you without a doubt from my own observations that Synthetic is the way to go in 50% of the applications and dino oil is perfectly fine in 50% of the applications. The problem is that everyone thinks their application warrants one/other without considering the differences! :)
 
Originally Posted By: Johnny
They both did (Valvoline and Castrol)


Castrol Edge loudly promoted 8X Better Wear Protection than Mobil 1 with the ad with the small Scotsman that looked like The King from Burger King commercials golf-clubbing people in the knee. I remember the commercial because it was so dumb. Fine print said using 5w30 in an Antt-Wear Test.

The more reading is done, the more it looks like M1 is not that bad.

Not the best.

But not that bad.

Now, as far as M1 Not the Best, but very Very Good...
27.gif


FTR, Mobil 1 may beat out Syntec in my application. So that should show how ive come to the conclusion of M1 being bad is rubbish. Most, if not all, of the time.
 
I didn't miss the point, I was just being nice concerning
M1. Here's a couple of points to ponder. If you are
insinuating that higher iron in M1 UOAs are "OK" or even
good because it's M1, you are right...I am missing your point.
Also, the M1 issue is not just limited to iron. Some
makes and models of engines consistently produce 2 or 3 times
the wear metals using M1 as compared to other oils. If M1 is
"leaching" 100% or 200% more of several wear metals as
compared to another oil consistently in a given application
common sense tells me it's doing more than lubricating.
 
Originally Posted By: JonfromCB
If you are insinuating that higher iron in M1 UOAs are "OK" or even good because it's M1

Did you even read what I posted? If any part is unclear, please quote it back to me and I will try to explain more simply.


Originally Posted By: JonfromCB
Also, the M1 issue is not just limited to iron. Some makes and models of engines consistently produce 2 or 3 times the wear metals using M1 as compared to other oils. If M1 is "leaching" 100% or 200% more of several wear metals as
compared to another oil consistently in a given application common sense tells me it's doing more than lubricating.

If common sense were sufficient, there would be no such thing as a lubrication engineer.
wink.gif


As far as I have seen, the only anomaly with Mobil 1 that is in any way systematic -- i.e. it appears in almost all circumstances -- is a high-ish iron count. If some engines are way off the map on iron as well as other wear metals with Mobil 1, the worst you can say is that Mobil 1 might not do so well in those engines under those circumstances. Big deal. Any oil will do poorly in certain cases. That's why there are so many. And note the use of the word "might": Again, without extensive knowledge about the engine in question, it's impossible to say for sure whether the higher numbers on a UOA are even significant, let alone practically meaningful.
 
Originally Posted By: JonfromCB
I didn't miss the point, I was just being nice concerning
M1. Here's a couple of points to ponder. If you are
insinuating that higher iron in M1 UOAs are "OK" or even
good because it's M1, you are right...I am missing your point.
Also, the M1 issue is not just limited to iron. Some
makes and models of engines consistently produce 2 or 3 times
the wear metals using M1 as compared to other oils. If M1 is
"leaching" 100% or 200% more of several wear metals as
compared to another oil consistently in a given application
common sense tells me it's doing more than lubricating.


My engine shows consistently high Copper and Silica with all oils and showed the lowest on M1. It turns out that it's my gasket material leaching into the oil and not some part in my engine wearing prematurely or a foreign air source that hasn't passed through the filter as previously thought.

This was discovered at 50K KM's and has been on each report until now (over 300K Km's) with no ill-results.

So if this can happen why can't M1 show high Iron for the same reason?

UOA's are great, but proper analysis by an experienced person is the key IMO.

Just a thought.
wink.gif
 
I dont know that their are any bad oils from the major players. More like wrong oil for the application.

I think BMW/Castrol 10W60 might not be the right choice for the typical street driven Ford F150 5.4L 3V.

I also think Motorcraft 5W20 might not be the ideal choice for an Open Tracked BMW E46 M3.
 
Originally Posted By: Gene K
I dont know that their are any bad oils from the major players. More like wrong oil for the application.

I think BMW/Castrol 10W60 might not be the right choice for the typical street driven Ford F150 5.4L 3V.

I also think Motorcraft 5W20 might not be the ideal choice for an Open Tracked BMW E46 M3.

Well said, and good examples.
 
Originally Posted By: Gene K
I dont know that their are any bad oils from the major players. More like wrong oil for the application.

I think BMW/Castrol 10W60 might not be the right choice for the typical street driven Ford F150 5.4L 3V.

I also think Motorcraft 5W20 might not be the ideal choice for an Open Tracked BMW E46 M3.


That is pretty much what it comes down too.
 
No need to explain, it's not that complicated. I fully agree with this reply from you, it's morerational and less illistrative of your defense of M1.

M1 just doesn't perform as well in many applications as some other oils do, just as many other oils don't perform well in some applications.

I'm not picking on you, so please don't take it personally I enjoy and respect your posts.

Sometimes I do find it amusing that so many here defend
M1 with such tenacious vigor, clinging to the insights
of one man and words like "leaching" and at the same time
poo-pooing others who simply present better numbers using
a different product.

I also agree with the previous post that this situation
is dynamic and M1 could change it all very soon,
but for now some of the M1 formulas's just ain't what
they used to be, but neither are some of the engines it doesn't perform well in.
 
Last edited:
I appreciate your kind words.

I just have to repeat that if you're talking about my "defense of M1" you simply haven't understood what I said. It's not a defense of any oil. It's a criticism of your method for drawing conclusions about an oil's performance.

By the same token, if you are still reducing the matter to higher or lower numbers on UOAs, you either don't understand or are simply ignoring the objections to your point of view.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom