M1 High Iron. What is wearing?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Jun 29, 2011
Messages
2,022
Location
Crawfordville FL
I've seen some serious snark directed at M1 because it shows higher iron in UOA.

Could it be an additive of some sort?

What wears that releases iron?

Is high iron really a problem? Why or why not?

Let's discuss
 
Ancient history from my point of view. I ran AFE out to 17K miles with no excessive Fe in the UOAs.
 
Yes, it was a few generations ago...

but with any elemental analysis, you have to ask that question...is it wear, or is it material being liberated from the couple of square feet of oil wetted surfaces that have nothing to do with wear.

The latter (appeared to be ) the consensus back in the M1 high Fe days.
 
I'll have a UOA in another month or two of M1 HM 10w-30. I've got 30% left on my OLM which is about 2k miles left in oci. Total miles to 0% is 7500

I'm mulling over if I want to try the M1 AP 5w-30 and take it to 20k. Important to know what's going on
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Yes, it was a few generations ago...

but with any elemental analysis, you have to ask that question...is it wear, or is it material being liberated from the couple of square feet of oil wetted surfaces that have nothing to do with wear.

The latter (appeared to be ) the consensus back in the M1 high Fe days.


I don't find it a coincidence that during the time we saw high iron numbers on UOA here with respect to M1 5W-30 was during the time that it was found that the M1 5W-30 SM was failing the Sequence IVA cam wear tests(direct measurement of cam wear, not UOA "wear" metals).

Yes, SM formulation, one viscosity only, so it's ancient history, and we do have the limitations of UOA to factor into our observations here.

I'm not a consensus seeker. Fifty-one percent of the people picking the wrong answer is a consensus. Fifty-one percent of the people picking the wrong answer does not make it the right answer.

Ed
 
Originally Posted By: edhackett

I'm not a consensus seeker. Fifty-one percent of the people picking the wrong answer is a consensus. Fifty-one percent of the people picking the wrong answer does not make it the right answer.

Ed


Just generally, this is a solid statement.
01.gif

Human civilization would be so much further along if more believed this.
 
Originally Posted By: SilverFusion2010
I've seen some serious snark directed at M1 because it shows higher iron in UOA.
Could it be an additive of some sort?

I'd missed the above mentioned 'era' of higher UOA iron from M1, here in bitog.
So my comments below might be off, though.
I would reckon it's additive package related , and independent of oil viscosity grades in use and/or operating viscosity,to a certain extent.
To be specific, it's related to a minor (but critical in this context) part of add-packs that offers anti-corrosion/anti-oxidation performance.

Quote:
What wears that releases iron?

Primarily corrosion wear was initiated as a function of operating conditions (eg temperatures) and (lack of performance efficacy of )anti-corrosion/anti-oxidation additives.
This corrosion wear initiation is further 'aggravated' in contacting surfaces ( such as cam lobe/follower and piston ring/liner tribopairs ) subsequently by adhesion and/or abrasion phenomena in boundary lubrication and mixed lubrication regimes.
Corrosion wear in non-contacting surfaces are not as severe in magnitude.

Quote:
Is high iron really a problem? Why or why not?

In this context, the 'initial' part of "high iron phenomenon" is NOT a problem for there is generally zero change in operating clearance of contacting surfaces or.. minimal change, in so far as it's acceptable and well below 'critical threshold' of operating clearance.......
beyond which (meaning the 'final' part of high iron phenomenon) another more destructive phenomenon of fatigue failures sets in that results in exponential increase in wear rate, which leads to increased operating clearance prior to equipment shutdown or components destruction.

The 'inescapeable' phenomenon of corrosion wear in contacting surfaces (of increased surface roughness) in normally operated equipments often results in reduced specific oil film thickness under similar operating environments....
hence shifting (previously) hydro-dynamic and EHL lubrication regimes on Stribeck curve leftwards to boundary lubrication and mixed lubrication regimes........
which leads to my preference for upping a viscosity grade or two (over and above OEM recommendation) in normally operated equipments of 'prolonged' use.
Just my
49.gif


Don't flame, but educate me please. [/quote]
 
I don't think that we can draw any conclusions from a collection of mostly snapshot UOAs.
We have always had a handful of members who do regular UOAs, but most of those posted here, like all of those that I've posted, are no more than a look at one run of one oil in one engine.
Across the board, you don't see any significant variations in wear metals with any oil.
There is also the example of the member who has used M1 exclusively for decades through who knows how many changes in formulation and has stuck with it since it's always given good results in his experience.
I'd personally use M1 without any concerns. There is probably no significant or consistent difference in wear metals or actual wear as compared to any other oil.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top