Recent Topics
Weird Electrical Issue.
by George7941
38 minutes 23 seconds ago
Ever puchase movies from cable provider?
by ZZman
42 minutes 13 seconds ago
Mann HU 711/51 X oil filter for Miniís $6.50 Amzn
by 1JZ_E46
43 minutes 6 seconds ago
M1 Oil For My Trucks Engine
by BlueOvalFitter
43 minutes 53 seconds ago
Toyota SofTex upholstery
by CincyDavid
Today at 09:09 AM
Castrol Dexron VI $5 QT at AA
by The_Cams
Today at 08:41 AM
Liqui moly engine flush
by gallydif
Today at 08:27 AM
Uneasy about Bosch Cartridge Filter
by tc1446
Today at 07:36 AM
Harvest King 0w20 Full Synthetic
by oilstudent24
Today at 07:22 AM
oil spec.
by ernied
Today at 07:03 AM
Great dog story to start your day!
by AZjeff
Today at 06:51 AM
BITOGers in the wild west
by Shannow
Today at 03:54 AM
'10 Wrangler 5,350 Miles Cam2 5w30 Synavex
by montero1
Today at 03:31 AM
Jack Horner Ted Talks - Dinosaurs - good fun watch
by Shannow
Today at 02:00 AM
PP life span in engine
by barber613
Today at 01:58 AM
Ford Focus parts clearout! 2000-2007
by Lolvoguy
Today at 01:48 AM
Bad O2 sensor?
by Spetz
Today at 01:13 AM
Let's talk Renault
by dishdude
Today at 01:05 AM
Ipad covers
by daves87rs
Today at 12:11 AM
Did I screw myself...
by NoNameJoe
Yesterday at 10:15 PM
Newest Members
mowermon, Slashdotfx, Dilly, Amersham, Irene
64801 Registered Users
Who's Online
79 registered (ABursell, 1JZ_E46, A310, 2004tdigls, ABerns, 9 invisible), 1609 Guests and 41 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Stats
64801 Members
68 Forums
282059 Topics
4709042 Posts

Max Online: 3590 @ 01/24/17 08:07 PM
Donate to BITOG
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 >
Topic Options
#4697764 - 03/17/18 05:02 PM 2016 Chevy M1 vs PP
A76 Offline


Registered: 03/17/18
Posts: 3
Loc: Indiana, USA
First post so hereís the low down:

2016 Chevy Z71 5.3L L83 (oil changed with OLM between 4 & 14%) (Catch can installed around 5,000) (*Dealer stated they use Mobil 1)

0-5,500 Factory fill and AC Filter
5,500-10,564 1st of 2 included dealer services Mobil 1* and AC Filter
10,564-16,502 2nd of 2 included dealer services Mobil 1* and AC Filter
16,502-22,556 Mobil 1 AFE and Mobil 1 Filter plus added a Filter Mag
22,556-29,618 Mobil 1 EP and Mobil 1 Filter UOA #1 preformed
29,618-36,694 Mobil 1 EP and Mobil 1 Filter
36,694-43,974 Mobil 1 EP and Mobil 1 Filter
43,974-50,983 PP and Fram Ultra Synthetic Filter
50,983-57,978 PP and Fram US Filter UOA #2 preformed


Iíve always been a Mobil 1 guy but with rebates & rewards at AutoZone I was able to get 15 quarts of Pennzoil Platinum and three filters (filters where STP extended performance but I purchased the sizes for my wifeís Tahoe and my sons truck as I wanted to start using the Fram US filters on my truck) for a final total of $30 so I figured being a little over $20 an oil change (had to buy 1 more quart to make 16 and got a 6 pack of XG10575 filters on eBay for $29.95 shipped) Iíd give it a run. With all that said looking at the UOAís which one would you use in the future if the price for either was equal, Mobil 1 EP or PP?


Top
#4697787 - 03/17/18 05:30 PM Re: 2016 Chevy M1 vs PP [Re: A76]
OVERKILL Online   content


Registered: 04/28/08
Posts: 35973
Loc: Ontario, Canada
Given that the UOA isn't going to tell you anything important, I'd use the one that held its TBN better, which would be the first run from 2017. The results appear otherwise nary identical, which means you have a normal wearing engine with nothing obviously weird going on.
_________________________
2016 Durango Limited
2016 Grand Cherokee SRT

Top
#4697875 - 03/17/18 06:56 PM Re: 2016 Chevy M1 vs PP [Re: A76]
zeng Offline


Registered: 09/01/15
Posts: 2095
Loc: Malaysia
Mobil 1 EP 0W20 for its higher residual TBN retention, never mind its heavier viscoisty shearing.


Edited by zeng (03/17/18 06:57 PM)

Top
#4697978 - 03/17/18 08:17 PM Re: 2016 Chevy M1 vs PP [Re: OVERKILL]
irv Offline


Registered: 10/08/06
Posts: 926
Loc: Oshawa, Ont. Canada
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Given that the UOA isn't going to tell you anything important, I'd use the one that held its TBN better, which would be the first run from 2017. The results appear otherwise nary identical, which means you have a normal wearing engine with nothing obviously weird going on.


crackmeup

So again, the noticeable difference in wear metal ratings don't mean anything? Please, enlighten me again, why Mobil oils show higher than average wear metal counts UOA after UOA but Pennzoil and some others don't? shrug

Here's my thinking, run Mobil-1 oil and notice the higher than average wear metal counts in UOAs, then ask why it makes for a nosier running engine using it compared to Pennzoil oils and others then tell me the a reason for that? coffee

Mmm, nosier running engines=above average wear metal counts. Quieter running engines=normal wear metal counts. Does anyone else still think Mobil is all that and worth the extra money one pays for it?

Quit drinking the Kool-Aid.
_________________________
2017 Chevy Impala 3.6 Ltr.
2013 Ram Hemi Bighorn QC 4x4

Top
#4698068 - 03/17/18 09:36 PM Re: 2016 Chevy M1 vs PP [Re: irv]
tig1 Offline


Registered: 01/03/09
Posts: 13516
Loc: Illinois
Originally Posted By: irv
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Given that the UOA isn't going to tell you anything important, I'd use the one that held its TBN better, which would be the first run from 2017. The results appear otherwise nary identical, which means you have a normal wearing engine with nothing obviously weird going on.


crackmeup

So again, the noticeable difference in wear metal ratings don't mean anything? Please, enlighten me again, why Mobil oils show higher than average wear metal counts UOA after UOA but Pennzoil and some others don't? shrug

Here's my thinking, run Mobil-1 oil and notice the higher than average wear metal counts in UOAs, then ask why it makes for a nosier running engine using it compared to Pennzoil oils and others then tell me the a reason for that? coffee

Mmm, nosier running engines=above average wear metal counts. Quieter running engines=normal wear metal counts. Does anyone else still think Mobil is all that and worth the extra money one pays for it?

Quit drinking the Kool-Aid.



Everything you just posted is wrong.
_________________________
2007 Ford Fusion 224,000 miles
M1 0-20 EP
2017 Ford Fusion 47K
M1 0-20 EP
10,000 mile OCIs on both engines
M1 ATF and MC LV
M1 10-30 in all OPE
MC filters


Top
#4698102 - 03/17/18 10:09 PM Re: 2016 Chevy M1 vs PP [Re: irv]
OVERKILL Online   content


Registered: 04/28/08
Posts: 35973
Loc: Ontario, Canada
Originally Posted By: irv
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Given that the UOA isn't going to tell you anything important, I'd use the one that held its TBN better, which would be the first run from 2017. The results appear otherwise nary identical, which means you have a normal wearing engine with nothing obviously weird going on.


crackmeup

So again, the noticeable difference in wear metal ratings don't mean anything? Please, enlighten me again, why Mobil oils show higher than average wear metal counts UOA after UOA but Pennzoil and some others don't?


I'm not rehashing this nonsense with you again. The two UOA's posted IN THIS THREAD, are essentially identical for all metals save copper, which was apparently trending down anyways, as per Blackstone's comments.

Did you even bother to read the bloody UOA or did you just see Mobil 1 and start jackhammering the keyboard?

- Iron at 14/15ppm - THE SAME
- Aluminum at 4/3ppm - THE SAME
- Chromium at 1/1ppm - THE SAME

I don't believe anybody is drinking Kool-Aid, but I certainly think somebody's drafted themselves up an agenda, considering your contribution to this thread was nothing more than an attack on mine. Bravo.

Maybe you could start a professional UOA interpretation business that involves just telling people not to run Mobil 1? Because that's about what your commentary has devolved into here.
_________________________
2016 Durango Limited
2016 Grand Cherokee SRT

Top
#4698127 - 03/17/18 10:26 PM Re: 2016 Chevy M1 vs PP [Re: A76]
1JZ_E46 Online   content


Registered: 04/04/16
Posts: 912
Loc: Oregon
Also have to consider these UOAs were taken at two completely different stages in the engines life cycle.

irv, if anyone is ignoring reality here itís you.

This isnít an apples to apples compariaon. Both oils kept metal engine components from severely touching.
_________________________
2007 BMW X5 4.8i, 105K: Castrol EDGE 0W-40, Mann
2012 Mini Cooper, 45K: Castrol EDGE 0W-30, Mann

Top
#4698134 - 03/17/18 10:32 PM Re: 2016 Chevy M1 vs PP [Re: 1JZ_E46]
OVERKILL Online   content


Registered: 04/28/08
Posts: 35973
Loc: Ontario, Canada
Originally Posted By: 1JZ_E46
Also have to consider these UOAs were taken at two completely different stages in the engines life cycle.

irv, if anyone is ignoring reality here itís you.

This isnít an apples to apples compariaon. Both oils kept metal engine components from severely touching.


thumbsup

Both UOA's are exceptionally unremarkable, which is a good thing. This engine isn't throwing any high levels of anything to be concerned about and you've made a good point about the rather significant difference in mileage on the engine between the two samples. The biggest difference seems to be TBN retention, which I would expect the extended drain oil to be better at, and it was.
_________________________
2016 Durango Limited
2016 Grand Cherokee SRT

Top
#4698141 - 03/17/18 10:39 PM Re: 2016 Chevy M1 vs PP [Re: A76]
A76 Offline


Registered: 03/17/18
Posts: 3
Loc: Indiana, USA
If youíre interested here are the comments from the first test. Truth be told I donít see much difference between the two tests. I did go back with M1 with this change mainly to test a theory before it warms up outside, the theory being that the decrease in mpg that I seen with the switch to PP was only coincidental due to the lower temps kicking in right around the switch to PP. So far that theory would appear to be true as my mpg hasnít changed going back to M1 and Iíve got about 2000 on this fill. The most curious thing for me is their apparent surprise at the low copper numbers, I donít think Iíve done anything special so I can only chalk it up to luck.


Top
#4698523 - 03/18/18 10:59 AM Re: 2016 Chevy M1 vs PP [Re: OVERKILL]
irv Offline


Registered: 10/08/06
Posts: 926
Loc: Oshawa, Ont. Canada
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: irv
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Given that the UOA isn't going to tell you anything important, I'd use the one that held its TBN better, which would be the first run from 2017. The results appear otherwise nary identical, which means you have a normal wearing engine with nothing obviously weird going on.


crackmeup

So again, the noticeable difference in wear metal ratings don't mean anything? Please, enlighten me again, why Mobil oils show higher than average wear metal counts UOA after UOA but Pennzoil and some others don't?


I'm not rehashing this nonsense with you again. The two UOA's posted IN THIS THREAD, are essentially identical for all metals save copper, which was apparently trending down anyways, as per Blackstone's comments.

Did you even bother to read the bloody UOA or did you just see Mobil 1 and start jackhammering the keyboard?

- Iron at 14/15ppm - THE SAME
- Aluminum at 4/3ppm - THE SAME
- Chromium at 1/1ppm - THE SAME

I don't believe anybody is drinking Kool-Aid, but I certainly think somebody's drafted themselves up an agenda, considering your contribution to this thread was nothing more than an attack on mine. Bravo.

Maybe you could start a professional UOA interpretation business that involves just telling people not to run Mobil 1? Because that's about what your commentary has devolved into here.


crackmeup , yeah, I have an agenda, but yet you were the first one to reply to this thread alluding to telling the OP to stick with Mobil. Talk about jackhammering the keyboards!
Do you have a setting on your computer that notifies you when a thread has been started about Mobil oils? Between you and Tig, itís almost impossible to open a thread talking about Mobil oils without seeing you two touting how good it is. crackmeup

Do you not think, seeing how Mobil touts their oil as being the best, superior, the World leader, etc, that that is what we should be seeing in Mobil UOAs, especially when they are also charging World Class prices for it? shrug

Mobil 1 is one of the most widely known and trusted performance brands in the world, especially when it comes to producing superior, technologically advanced products for motorists who want the very best. Mobil 1 is the worldís leading synthetic motor oil.


I personally do. Like I have mentioned before, if it is ďAll thatĒ shouldnít it have the best, or be head and shoulders above the rest, when it comes to wear metals and everything else we see about it in their UOAís?

Keep running it, I really donít care what one uses, but like you touting it constantly, I will occasionally express my opinion what I happen to think about it, or is that not allowed here?

If that upsets you, then so be it, but donít go pointing fingers at me for pointing out itís flaws when you constantly do the opposite pointing out how good it is.

If people were seeing wear metals in their UOAs like I do in Mobil's running store brand oils, they would quickly discontinue its use, guaranteed, and would be on here warning/showing us how bad it is and not recommending its use. With Mobil, however, it is brushed off and given a green light constantly as a highly recommended oil.
_________________________
2017 Chevy Impala 3.6 Ltr.
2013 Ram Hemi Bighorn QC 4x4

Top
#4698545 - 03/18/18 11:25 AM Re: 2016 Chevy M1 vs PP [Re: irv]
OVERKILL Online   content


Registered: 04/28/08
Posts: 35973
Loc: Ontario, Canada
Originally Posted By: irv

crackmeup , yeah, I have an agenda, but yet you were the first one to reply to this thread alluding to telling the OP to stick with Mobil. Talk about jackhammering the keyboards!


I replied to the OP who posted what are essentially two identical UOA's to run the oil that appeared to have the better TBN retention. That's significantly more than your contribution to this thread so far, which has been nothing more than an attack on me at this juncture.

Originally Posted By: irv
Do you not think, seeing how Mobil touts their oil as being the best, superior, the World leader, etc, that that is what we should be seeing in Mobil UOAs, especially when they are also charging World Class prices for it? shrug


Please give us your expert opinion on these two UOA's then, given as you've now decided to define the performance here as substandard. That is what you are claiming, no? That in these seemingly identical UOA results that the Mobil results are somehow inferior because it backs your opinion of the brand.

Originally Posted By: irv
I personally do. Like I have mentioned before, if it is ďAll thatĒ shouldnít it have the best, or be head and shoulders above the rest, when it comes to wear metals and everything else we see about it in their UOAís?


Your lack of ability in understanding how UOA's work, no matter how many times it has been explained by myself and multiple members here isn't my concern. However, your casting my opinion on a UOA as some biased tripe because you don't understand them and dislike the brand is.

Your posts in this thread have been nothing more than an attack on mine.

Originally Posted By: irv
Keep running it, I really donít care what one uses,


You obviously do, or you wouldn't have taken the time to weigh in on this thread with your mockery of my evaluation.

Originally Posted By: irv
but like you touting it constantly, I will occasionally express my opinion what I happen to think about it, or is that not allowed here?


I find it somewhat amusing that you think I'm "touting" anything here. I gave my evaluation of what I saw in the two UOA's posted, you came in and attacked that. To draw a parallel between those two behaviours is laughable.

Originally Posted By: irv
If that upsets you, then so be it, but donít go pointing fingers at me for pointing out itís flaws when you constantly do the opposite pointing out how good it is.


Pointing out what flaws? Again, you aren't even addressing the content of this thread! The two oils performed nary identically, I don't know how many times that has to be said for it to sink in! You are looking for ghosts where there aren't any because you felt you needed to attack my position, nothing more.

You've added nothing but bovine excrement to this thread and are now trying to peddle it under the guise of "freedom of expression" as if your condemnation of my post somehow pervertedly balances my evaluation of the OP's UOA.


Originally Posted By: irv
If people were seeing wear metals in their UOAs like I do in Mobil's running store brand oils, they would quickly discontinue its use, guaranteed, and would be on here warning/showing us how bad it is and not recommending its use. With Mobil, however, it is brushed off and given a green light constantly as a highly recommended oil.


And that applies to the OP's UOA how exactly?

It would seem that it doesn't really matter what the Mobil product looks like in a UOA, despite your claim. If it had, you wouldn't have commented on this thread, because it doesn't fit the scenario you just depicted. But please, tell me again about how you are just "expressing your opinion" smirk
_________________________
2016 Durango Limited
2016 Grand Cherokee SRT

Top
#4698939 - 03/18/18 06:32 PM Re: 2016 Chevy M1 vs PP [Re: OVERKILL]
irv Offline


Registered: 10/08/06
Posts: 926
Loc: Oshawa, Ont. Canada
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: irv

crackmeup , yeah, I have an agenda, but yet you were the first one to reply to this thread alluding to telling the OP to stick with Mobil. Talk about jackhammering the keyboards!


I replied to the OP who posted what are essentially two identical UOA's to run the oil that appeared to have the better TBN retention. That's significantly more than your contribution to this thread so far, which has been nothing more than an attack on me at this juncture.



Attack on you? shrug

Maybe you should go back and re-read it and see who started with the attacks. If a laughing emoticon is an attack, then I give up. I was laughing at your statement that UOAs don't really mean nothing, which you also stated in another thread.
By your analogy, UOAs shouldn't even exist, or at least the wear metal measurement parts of them.

Curious, why did you leave out the copper reading/measurement in your one post? Quite a drop, imo, from the Mobil oil UOA to the Pennzoil UOA, and the truck already had almost 30,000 miles on it. Imo, and as you likely very well know, most wear metals should be long gone or a lot lower by then, shouldn't they?

Anyways, like I mentioned, run what you like but I wish someday you'd answer my question why Mobil oils frequently show higher than average wear metals from their superior/expensive oils but yet other cheaper oils like Pennzoil don't?

I know, I don't understand UOAs, especially the wear metal parts of them, but it's funny, UOA after UOA that I see includes them in their oil analysis. shrug
_________________________
2017 Chevy Impala 3.6 Ltr.
2013 Ram Hemi Bighorn QC 4x4

Top
#4698976 - 03/18/18 07:07 PM Re: 2016 Chevy M1 vs PP [Re: irv]
OVERKILL Online   content


Registered: 04/28/08
Posts: 35973
Loc: Ontario, Canada
Originally Posted By: irv

Attack on you? shrug


Yes, your initial post came across as nothing more than an attempt to discredit mine. That's why you received the reaction you did from me. If that wasn't your intent then you didn't make that very clear in any of your follow-ups shrug

Originally Posted By: irv
Maybe you should go back and re-read it and see who started with the attacks.


Considering I didn't mention you until you quoted and attempted to discredit me, I'd say it was pretty clear who started it.

Originally Posted By: irv
If a laughing emoticon is an attack, then I give up. I was laughing at your statement that UOAs don't really mean nothing, which you also stated in another thread.
By your analogy, UOAs shouldn't even exist, or at least the wear metal measurement parts of them.


In this thread, since both UOA's were remarkably unremarkable, the UOA wasn't going to tell him that anything was going on, because there was no sign that anything was going on. The main difference that the UOA allowed us to observe, and it is as per their purpose, is that the one oil had better TBN retention than the other.

UOA's are a great tool for determining the service life of the lubricant and identifying any strange goings on with the equipment. They can help notify you of coolant ingress or an air filtration leak. But we've already been over all of that. Contrasting wear metals in the manner in which you desire is where we have an issue, but that has no bearing on this thread, which we've now handily run off the rails, since even that doesn't fit here because the results are identical.

Originally Posted By: irv
Curious, why did you leave out the copper reading/measurement in your one post? Quite a drop, imo, from the Mobil oil UOA to the Pennzoil UOA, and the truck already had almost 30,000 miles on it. Imo, and as you likely very well know, most wear metals should be long gone or a lot lower by then, shouldn't they?


Because Blackstone remarked on the copper and they are correct that GM V8's tend to drop a lot of copper. There was no accompanying lead to indicate bearing wear, so it's likely chelation from an oil cooler and that, coupled with Blackstone's remarks, meant it wasn't worth mentioning. They did however remark on how it had been trending down, and given that there was almost 30,000 miles between the two UOA's, it's not surprising it is much lower at this point.

Originally Posted By: irv
Anyways, like I mentioned, run what you like but I wish someday you'd answer my question why Mobil oils frequently show higher than average wear metals from their superior/expensive oils but yet other cheaper oils like Pennzoil don't?

I know, I don't understand UOAs, especially the wear metal parts of them, but it's funny, UOA after UOA that I see includes them in their oil analysis. shrug



But you don't see that in this UOA, do you? It doesn't even support that theory, because the metals are basically the same. I have tried to answer you on why you might see different levels between different brands, but you don't seem to want to cede that chemical composition can have a bearing on what the narrow range of particles sampled by a UOA, which is less than 10 microns, sees. Chemical chelation, which has been discussed quite a few times, is just one example of that.

Look at some of the Redline UOA's for some even more extreme examples of that, since it has a fair slug of polar POE in it.

Ultimately, the metals are useful for indicating health issues with a piece of equipment. That's why you are provided with equipment averages for example and why UOA's are trended. Deviations from the trend may require investigation as it may indicate a change in health for the piece of equipment.
_________________________
2016 Durango Limited
2016 Grand Cherokee SRT

Top
#4699015 - 03/18/18 07:40 PM Re: 2016 Chevy M1 vs PP [Re: A76]
Trav Offline


Registered: 11/20/06
Posts: 18225
Loc: MA, Mittelfranken.de
Nothing wrong with that UOA. I think the higher calcium and phosphorus level may indicate the PP has more cleaning ability over a longer period but I will someone more knowledgeable answer that.
_________________________
ASE L1, Master. Deutsch Meisterbrief.

Top
#4699082 - 03/18/18 08:32 PM Re: 2016 Chevy M1 vs PP [Re: Trav]
OVERKILL Online   content


Registered: 04/28/08
Posts: 35973
Loc: Ontario, Canada
Originally Posted By: Trav
Nothing wrong with that UOA. I think the higher calcium and phosphorus level may indicate the PP has more cleaning ability over a longer period but I will someone more knowledgeable answer that.


I noticed the higher calcium and lower moly and thought that was interesting. I would have expected the calcium to boost the TBN, but it doesn't seem to have shrug
_________________________
2016 Durango Limited
2016 Grand Cherokee SRT

Top
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 >