Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: buster
Quote:
there is no substitute for used oil analyses properly interpreted

What this gentleman did NOT prove was that Valvoline is superior to Mobil.


I think oil analysis is useful but limited.

Correct, he did not prove Valvoline was superior. Nor do you know Mobil is any better.

We do know wear metals dropped and we don't know what version of the 5w40 was run. You could certainly compare D1.

RI's interpretation:

Quote:
1st off, this is not an experiment, it is an ongoing analysis of oil in a vehicle engine. The data is real, not contrived. A change definitely occurred when M1 was switched out and replaced with Valvoline. Arguing about "statistical significance" is a smoke screen. A change occurred in metal wear. That change in metal wear is well outside the error range of ICP spectroscopy used by Blackstone. Thus, something caused that change in wear. Now, we can argue whether it was the oil, or some other condition in the engine, but quite frankly, there are not that many variables that will cause this large an increase in wear.

Having done these sorts of experiments across many miles in my Audi's and having accumulated nearly 100 samples across 20+ Audi RS4 engines, I'd say that his results are what should be expected. It is a testament to good marketing that consumers become angry when the preeminence of Mobil 1 0W40 is challenged. But it does not change the fact that Mobil 1 sometimes does not perform as well as other oils in some engine applications.

Believe it or not, there really are not that many variables to consider that change the results in an oil analysis. Oil itself being the most important variable. Used Oil analysis gives a snapshot of an engine over the average period of the oil change, or analysis, interval. For what is measured, it is highly accurate.

I'd agree that it would be helpful to reintroduce M1 into the engine again. When/if he does, I fully expect to see fuel dilution go up, and Iron wear specifically increase. Why? Because M1 0w40 does not seal the rings well after it has been run in the engine a few thousand miles. And when confronted with fuel, some of it's anti wear additives are washed off of iron bearing surfaces in the engine, resulting in higher wear.


Iron bearing surfaces? The only iron used as bearing surfaces are cam and crankshaft. And its "companion" metal is far more malleable..... And much more likely to wear. The iron is not crankshaft wear. And if it is from the cam, it is not bearing wear, it would be lobe wear. If it comes from the cylinders, again, it is not bearing wear, but bore and/or ring wear.

And (to sound like a broken record) unless tear-down testing is done, this really tells us SFA.

 

[HondaMan]

Rolf,

Take a break buddy. We need it.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: HondaMan
Rolf,

Take a break buddy. We need it.


I'm sure he will when the bashing stops, or when we have some cold, hard facts. Until then, he's living Leonidas' dream.....

 

[Geonerd]

Originally Posted By: buster


Hopefully XOM will respond in time.


In time for what?

I don't think they ever plan to respond.
"Ignore and stonewall until the issue dies" is a time tested and proven tactic.

 

[Nyquist]

If everyone is really that curious, a VOA should be done. If you can find a bottle that was manufactured in mid-2008, that would be good to compare to a bottle made in 2009. If there are stark contrasts, that will support one side of the argument assuming ExxonMobil changed their formulation following the allegations.

Myself, I don't think there is much to find in all of this. If there is more low temperature wear in M1, I could see it as a by-product of meeting all those high temperature specs--gain in one area, but lose in another.

All things considered, I still plan on using the bottle I got on special a few months ago.

 

[Bryanccfshr]

In due time, soon, before the cows come home, while the iron's hot.

They seriously are losing credibility by trying to wait out the outrage.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Bryanccfshr

They seriously are losing credibility by trying to wait out the outrage.


Yes, they are. And it is a genuine [censored]-off.

 

[[RT] ProjUltraZ]

 

[Rolf]

Originally Posted By: buster
We do know wear metals dropped and we don't know what version of the 5w40 was run. You could certainly compare D1.


We do know that wear metals were different between two oils of different viscosity.

Based on UOAs that have been posted here on Delvac 1 in a range of VW/Audi engines, that would be a more direct comparison.

What the analysis did NOT demonstrate, since it was apples versus oranges, is that Valvoline - as a brand - has any advantage over Mobil 1 - as a brand.

As I first noted it also demonstrated Mobil 1 0W-40 is not a good match for that engine.

Btw, the "It is a testament to good marketing that consumers become angry when the preeminence of Mobil 1 0W40 is challenged." was nonsense. No one has expressed the slightest "anger" or indicated "the preeminence of Mobil 1 OW40".

What has been pointed out is that, as professionals, we expect apples to apples comparisons with conclusions supported by the evidence.



.

 

[Rolf]

Originally Posted By: HondaMan
Take a break buddy. We need it.


For what?

To continue unsupported allegations?

To compare apples with oranges without challenge?

For what, exactly?



.

 

[buster]

Quote:
The letter reportedly goes on to say that Valvoline notified ExxonMobil of the failed test results in September and that the company take appropriate action regarding their claim that Mobil 1 meets ILSAC GF-4 and API SM specifications, or provide substantiation that they in fact meet these specifications.

As of today, Valvoline told JobbersWorld, ExxonMobil has been silent.

 

[RI_RS4]

Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL


Iron bearing surfaces? The only iron used as bearing surfaces are cam and crankshaft. And its "companion" metal is far more malleable..... And much more likely to wear. The iron is not crankshaft wear. And if it is from the cam, it is not bearing wear, it would be lobe wear. If it comes from the cylinders, again, it is not bearing wear, but bore and/or ring wear.

And (to sound like a broken record) unless tear-down testing is done, this really tells us SFA.


OVERKILL, alright a cam lobe is a load bearing surface and technically not a bearing. But it does wear like a bear in many engines. Many cam chains also use an iron alloy as the load bearing surface. Thus, it is a bearing which operates in the I stand by my words. In the RS4 engine, specifically, the cam chain is a simplex sleeve-type chain (instead of a roller-type chain). It is stronger than a roller chain, and can handle the increased loads of the engine, but, when the oil is fuel diluted it sheds a considerable amount of Iron.

 

[Rolf]

Originally Posted By: buster
Quote:
The letter reportedly goes on to say that Valvoline notified ExxonMobil of the failed test results in September and that the company take appropriate action regarding their claim ....


I was under the impression licensees provided support to the API, not other companies.

Is there some reason Valvoline would expect a response from ExxonMobil, which is the impression this gave?




.

 

[yeti]

on one of the other 2 "new" mobil 1 threads, a poster writes -- "it's just oil, but around here that often means some sort of cult ...". i didn't identify him, lest he be banished to using an SJ oil, and a fram filter. i had a little bet last night that this thread would be, mercifully, killed off after 43 pages. obviously, i lost. am i the only one here that is ready to go on a shooting spree ? i'm putting on my kevlar vest now.

 

[RI_RS4]

Originally Posted By: Rolf
Originally Posted By: HondaMan
Take a break buddy. We need it.


For what?

To continue unsupported allegations?

To compare apples with oranges without challenge?

For what, exactly?



.


Rolf,

This might not have been the test that YOU wanted, but it is hardly an apples-to-oranges test. Both oils tested have the same approvals for the same application. Therefore, comparative testing between the two is reasonable and appropriate. The fact that another Mobil oil might perform better is immaterial.

 

[Rolf]

Originally Posted By: RI_RS4
This might not have been the test that YOU wanted, but it is hardly an apples-to-oranges test.


If the purpose of the test was to see which performed better in this individual's vehicle, it was not "an apples-to-oranges test". A full test, of course, would have involved controlled conditions of operation over identical courses for fixed lengths.

In addition it would have included measures of mileage and performance. The Mobil 1 0W-40 is actually a lower viscosity motor oil than the Synpower 5W-40, and I would expect both mileage and acceleration to be marginally better with the Mobil 1.

And, as I noted, I would agree that for this vehicle as far as engine wear goes the Synpower was the better motor oil.

But that was not what the comparison purported to "prove".

What it purported to "prove" was that Synpower is - across the board - better than Mobil - across the board.

If we're going to try to assess that sort of thing we at least might start with the same viscosity.

Otherwise we're comparing apples with oranges.





.

 

[Smokescreen]

If not for BITOG it would've never heard of this. How is the general population being informed of this debate? Perhaps Mobil is banking on very low coverage so they don't have to respond, or prove anything.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: RI_RS4
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL


Iron bearing surfaces? The only iron used as bearing surfaces are cam and crankshaft. And its "companion" metal is far more malleable..... And much more likely to wear. The iron is not crankshaft wear. And if it is from the cam, it is not bearing wear, it would be lobe wear. If it comes from the cylinders, again, it is not bearing wear, but bore and/or ring wear.

And (to sound like a broken record) unless tear-down testing is done, this really tells us SFA.


OVERKILL, alright a cam lobe is a load bearing surface and technically not a bearing. But it does wear like a bear in many engines. Many cam chains also use an iron alloy as the load bearing surface. Thus, it is a bearing which operates in the I stand by my words. In the RS4 engine, specifically, the cam chain is a simplex sleeve-type chain (instead of a roller-type chain). It is stronger than a roller chain, and can handle the increased loads of the engine, but, when the oil is fuel diluted it sheds a considerable amount of Iron.


See, now I would have used the term "timing chain" or "iron wear surface" if I were in your position, as to prevent confusion of calling something, that most do not call a bearing, a bearing.

I'm probably a little more "conventional" than you in this regard; my junk is all SBF's. We have a timing set. Which consists of an upper and lower timing gear, thrust-plate, and of course a chain. None of which we refer to as bearings.

I think you may have been better served using an alternative choice of words, as I am likely not the only person who looked at your original statement and scratched my head.

Curious here: How do you know that the iron is from the chain? I'm just wondering.

 

[FrankN4]

I think a lot, if not most, of this Valvoline/Mobil discussion, in the 3 major threads, might be on the order of: I know you think you understand what you thought you heard me say, but I am not sure you realize that what you thought you heard me say is not what I really meant.

 

[RI_RS4]

Jeez, OVERK1LL, that was a quick post I made, not a technical paper. It might be good for you to ask questions, rather than assume and accuse. For example, "RI_RS4, could you clarify what you mean by iron bearings?" That would lead to a reasonable discussion.

My choice of words with regards to the cam lobes were imprecise. However, as far as the cam chain is concerned, there are quite a few sleeve or roller bearings involved in any chain. The point, which often gets overlooked, is that high Iron in a UOA is indicative of the wear of an Iron load bearing component in the engine. For engines with Aluminum cylinder walls, the Iron cannot be coming from the cylinders, thus it must be coming from someplace else. If it were coming from mixed-material bearings, you would see elevations of multiple metals in a UOA. In the case of recent Audi Alusil cylinder walled engines, the wear seems to be primarily iron, and not overlay metals in a bearing, or hard aluminum alloys (used in some of the bearings.) This leaves a very few sources ... Cams, and chains. In this case cams are ruled out, because roller followers are used, and several of the lobes are available for inspection through the oil fill hole.

Another clue, there are sharp changes in average FE levels as fuel dilution rises, and as oil chemistry is changed. A good working theory for this suggests that the wear is occurring in the mixed lubrication regime, where anti-wear films are especially important. Fuel seems to wash ZDDP deposition films away from critical load bearing surfaces, or at the least retards formation of the films.

The timing chain fits right into the mixed lubrication regime, and caries high loads. It is the most likely source of the Iron in my engines.