Had this UOA done two months ago. The Pennzoil Synthetic performed slightly better than the Mobil oils, but not significantly so. Currently running Valvoline DuraBlend Synthetic (I think), and will likely run M1 again for another comparison UOA.

Iron and Lead still seem to be a little high, but I suspect that I may have to accept that this level of wear is the norm for my VQ.

From a couple of threads I recently read, it seems that interest in oil and performance seems to have increased a bit... let's hear from other members out there. What do you think? Any questions?

 

Hello chinee. Looking at these oil analysis reports, it shows the Mobil 1 synthetic oil to be far outperforming the other oils, including the Pennzoil synthetic. The TBN numbers are much, much better for the Mobil 1 synthetic as are the viscosity numbers. With the petroleum oils, (both Pennzoil and Mobil), the TBN and also the viscosity tests failed, where'as the Mobil 1 synthetic really shined. TBN is a very important aspect of an oil's performance. TBN stands for Total Base Number and represents how much of the oil's additive package is left to attack and neautralize blowby contaminants from turning into corrossive acids that eat away at your engine and its gaskets/seals. Even with much higher accumulated mileage, the Mobil 1 oil samples showed far, far higher TBN numbers, whereas the petroleum oils fell flat on their face. The Pennzoil synthetic TBN number wasn't anything to write home about either, as it barely passed the test. Oil analysis laboratories recommend changing the oil if the TBN drops below 2 and the Pennzoil sample barely squeaked by at 2.3. High TBN numbers are what we want in a motor oil. Pennzoil makes a fine product I am sure, but they don't have the years and years of experience that Mobil 1 has in formulating synthetic oils, next to AMSOIL synthetic lubricants, which pioneered the industry in 1972.

With the wear metals, it needs to be noted that with the Mobil 1 synthetic oil samples, the drain intervals were much, much higher than with the other oil samples, so of course there will be and should be more wear metals present, as much more mileage/time has transpired. This is normal.

It should also be noted for the benefit of all the Big Oil industry brainwashed folks out there, (that say you have to change oil because of water and fuel contamination), that the water and fuel contamination present was zero and close to zero. Rely on facts folks, not old myths you have heard.

Durablend is not a synthetic oil but a blend oil. This is an oil that has petroleum and also synthetic in it. An oil company can have as little as 1% synthetic oil in the, "blend", and still legally call it a blend oil. If the oil bottle doesn't state the percentage of the, "blend", (none do!), buyer beware! Adding petroleum oil to a synthetic oil merely serves to reduce the performance and protection abilities of the synthetic oil anyway. A big waste in my opinion.

By the way, what method are you using to collect an oil sample to send off to the oil analysis labporatory? Proper sampling methods are absolutely critical in order to obtain valid and meaningful oil analysis results. A contaminated or improperly collected oil sample can totally invalidate the test results. An oil sample should be collected from the middle level of the oil sump. Obtaining a sample from the bottom of the oil sump via the oil pan drain hole is not a good way to collect an oil sample, as what settles into the bottom of the oil pan is not indicative of the rest of the oil. You might not be too enthused about drinking water collected off of the bottom of a stream, but the water at the top of the stream might be far more appealing.

Steve
CEO of Hi-Tech Oil Co.
Distributing industry leading AMSOIL synthetic lubricants for 19 years

 

Okay Steve... here we go...

Never really looked at TBN as a performance factor before, mostly looked at wear numbers. But I would agree that having a non-acidic oil in the pan is likely more favorable to the seals, etc.

The measurement of TBN changed a couple of years ago, so unfortunately the TBN value of the M1 is not comparative to the newer UOA values. Currently Blackstone suggests that a TBN >1 is adequate.

True most of the ODIs were higher with M1, I wanted to go longer between changes, hence my usage of synthetics. However, there were two M1 intervals in the 4K mile range and the wear metals were high in those as well... that troubled me. I would have liked to achieve wear no greater than 1PPM per 1,000 miles.

I agree for the most part, but I refuse to pay 2.5X and 3X the price of conventional oils for M1 or Amsoil, yet only derive 50-75% better protection. As a consumer, I won't do it. When I started doing this, synths were only a little more than twice the price of dino, so it was worth it to me if I could double the OCI. As I've discovered with my G, I haven't found an oil that provides the low wear numbers I like once I've gone past 4-5K miles.

I have a fumoto valve installed. I clean it, then let about a quart or two drain before collecting a sample midstream. I know there's the likelihood of some contamination left on the valve, but at least the contamination should be consistent in all the samples.


Lastly... I've been reading some of the threads I've missed, and there seems to be a clash of those for and those against M1. I'm not a great fan of M1 myself... at least not for my G, however I can almost swear by it for my wife's Sequioa. Take a gander at these wear metal levels... and don't miss the length of the intervals either.

 

Hello chinee. For many motorists, "adequate", doesn't cut it with an engine worth thousands of dollars. The TBN numbers of the other oils don't even come close to Mobil 1, even though their drain intervals were much shorter than Mobil 1. So the other oils, including the Pennzoil platinum, were not better, according to the oil analysis reports and actually cost more money to use because they don't last as long.

TBN test results are an indication of the quality/condition of the oil. Wear metals are an indication of the quality/condition of the engine. Many other factors affect engine wear rates aside from just oil. Other factors including highway vs city driving, types and brand of fuel used, the environment the vehicle is driven in and temperature differences, the speeds at which the vehicle is driven, the efficiency of the oil and air filter, etc., etc., are all variables that are thown into the mix and affect oil analysis test results. The drain intervals of the oil analysis results you have posted are not even the same. So how can any conclusions be drawn, aside from your vehicles particular engine and the condition it is in internally? Not much, aside from the general condition of the oil, which in the case of Mobil 1, was far, far better than the other oils tested. Unless these variables are strictly controlled, using oil analysis results as a method of specifically saying one brand vs another is better because of a few parts per million wear difference is simply not valid. For test results to be comparatively valid, all variables must be controlled and exactly the same. High school and college science classes have taught this for generations.

It is also noteworthy to mention that the oil analysis results of the Mobil 1 samples were from when the engine was still at a comparatively young age in it's life, meaning the engine was still breaking in slowly and is also an indication as to why some of the wear metals were higher by a tiny fraction, (parts per million). An increase, or decrease by a few parts per million , (an extremely tiny number), is nothing to have a coronary about, in my opinion.

There have been individuals that have seen your posted oil analysis reports, and been led to incorrectly conclude that Pennzoil petroleum is a better oil than Mobil 1 synthetic, which is a total joke of the highest order! lol

This again, is why I don't take anything that BITOG has to say as the truth.

As for the higher initial price of synthetic oils like AMSOIL, or even Mobil 1 vs the lower priced petroleum oils, remember we do get what we pay for in life. Don't confuse price with cost. There is a substantial difference here. In your own oil analysis test results, it shows the Mobil 1 synthetic samples to be in much better condition than the petroleum oil samples, even though the Mobil 1 samples had been changed at roughly twice the drain intervals. So whatever your petroleum oil costs were, you can double that price to equal your cost that Mobil 1 was over the same mileage. Don't forget to add in the cost of the oil filter, the time it took to perform the oil changes, the time and gas used to travel to the auto parts store and back, used oil disposal costs, (fuel isn't cheap anymore!), etc. The better synthetic oils on the market generally save motorists a substantial amount of money vs petroleum oils for most motorists and is precisely why many motorists and fleets of vehicles, are switching over to the savings that better synthetic oils offer. Most of my customers save almost $200 a year using AMSOIL instead of petroleum oils, or lower performing synthetic oils.

If we, "saved", money by purchasing a Yugo but had to replace it every few years because of its poor reliability vs paying for a high priced Cadillac just once, the Yugo ends up costing much more money. Price vs cost - two different things entirely.

Steve
CEO of Hi-Tech Oil Co.
Distributing industry leading AMSOIL synthetic lubricants for 19 years



[QUOTE=chinee]Okay Steve... here we go...
Never really looked at TBN as a performance factor before, mostly looked at wear numbers. But I would agree that having a non-acidic oil in the pan is likely more favorable to the seals, etc.
The measurement of TBN changed a couple of years ago, so unfortunately the TBN value of the M1 is not comparative to the newer UOA values. Currently Blackstone suggests that a TBN >1 is adequate.
True most of the ODIs were higher with M1, I wanted to go longer between changes, hence my usage of synthetics. However, there were two M1 intervals in the 4K mile range and the wear metals were high in those as well... that troubled me. I would have liked to achieve wear no greater than 1PPM per 1,000 miles.
I agree for the most part, but I refuse to pay 2.5X and 3X the price of conventional oils for M1 or Amsoil, yet only derive 50-75% better protection. As a consumer, I won't do it. When I started doing this, synths were only a little more than twice the price of dino, so it was worth it to me if I could double the OCI. As I've discovered with my G, I haven't found an oil that provides the low wear numbers I like once I've gone past 4-5K miles.
I have a fumoto valve installed. I clean it, then let about a quart or two drain before collecting a sample midstream. I know there's the likelihood of some contamination left on the valve, but at least the contamination should be consistent in all the samples.
Lastly... I've been reading some of the threads I've missed, and there seems to be a clash of those for and those against M1. I'm not a great fan of M1 myself... at least not for my G, however I can almost swear by it for my wife's Sequioa. Take a gander at these wear metal levels... and don't miss the length of the intervals either.

 

I hope maybe this sheds some new light on the subject and possibly helps seeing oil analysis laboratory results in a different light.

 

Not really. I liked your initial comment about the TBN and how a higher TBN indicates lesser acidity, that makes a lot of sense. However I disgree with the rest of your "speech", especially the tone in which it is delivered.

I guess this is why many of us frequent the BITOG board... there are healthy and respectful discussions, not one-sided, up-on-the-soapbox, I-know-and-you-don't, speeches. A few of us have been looking at UOAs for a few years, and have learnt a lot from other forums and our own other research. We... I... don't need anyone to come on here and "tell" me what's right... sorry bub... I left my teenage years behind me a couple of decades ago.

I can go on, but arguing like this on an internet board is senseless. I will say though, if I misinterpreted your tone and attitude, I apologize for my response above. However, like most people, I do not like others forcing their opinions, regardless of whether they be fact or myth, down my throat.

The best oil for me isn't one that comes out on top in lab testing; it's the one that works best for me, and suits my VQ35 and driving habits best.... and unfortunately, M1 is not that oil.

Thanks for the TBN theory.. I will certainlky consider this factor in future UOAs.

 

Hello chinee and I hope you and all the other forum members are having a great Memorial day weekend! Remember to honor our veterans. I am sorry if you misunderstood the, "tone", of my post. Many times it can be very easy to misunderstand in a text only world, like this. Which is why the smiley's came along to try and put some personality into the picture. I do my best to be respectful and civil, always saying hi, etc. Happens all the time, so don't worry about it.

First of all, I have read the BITOG board, and coming from someone who has almost 20 years experience in the synthetic oil industry and interpreting oil analysis reports, I personally find the, "information", there to be woefully inaccurate, at best. It is so much so that it might be correctly referred to as disinformation. Your posted oil analysis test results are witness to this. That no one there ever mentioned the vastly superior TBN and viscosity numbers of your Mobil 1 oil samples is simply shocking. It does make me wonder a little about the oil analysis laboratory too.

The best oil for you, or anyone, is an oil that does its job the longest, saving the most money for you in un-needed oil change costs. Your posted oil analysis test results clearly show how vastly superior Mobil 1 is to the other oils tested, including the Pennzoil synthetic.

Fuel economy savings also enter the picture too and with rapidly rising fuel prices, this is an important consideration for many motorists that goes well beyond mere oil analysis test results.

An example is my own daily driver. When I switched over to AMSOIL Series 2000 0W-30, the vehicle experienced a very welcomed 12% fuel economy increase.

Big deal. 12%, so what? Fair question, so let's take a peak and see what we have.

In my area, I am paying $3.25 a gallon for fuel and because of my synthetic oil and car accessory business I rack up about 30,000 miles per year. Previous to the AMSOIL Series 2000 0W-30, my car was getting a solid 33 mpg on the highway using petroleum oil. Not bad. But after the change to AMSOIL, the fuel economy went up to 36.967 mpg! The smile on my face was priceless! lol So, 30,000 divided by 33 mpg = 909 gallons of fuel X $3.25 gallon = $2,954.25 X 12% = $354.51 savings! So even if someone performed petroleum oil changes for my car for free, it still would cost me more to use than the AMSOIL Series 2000 0W-30, which was about $70 and that will cover me for up to 35,000 miles with no need for changing. If I had driven only 15,000 miles, the savings would still be over $150. Maybe that's not important to some folks, but I work hard for my money and $150 - $300 is really worth something to me. The fact that I am keeping that money out of the hands of the greedy SOB's in the Big Oil industry only serves to broaden my smile!

Fuel is forecast to hit $4 a gallon this summer and at that price, the numbers I calculated above increase dramatically. 909 gallons X $4 a gallon = $3,636! X 12% = a savings of $436.32!

Even if the fuel economy increase had been only a modest 5%, that is still a nice savings. $3,636 X 5% = a savings of $181.80, almost $200!

Doesn't the Big Oil industry have enough of our money already? Do we really need to needlessly donate more of our hard earned money to these greedy SOB's? How high do fuel prices have to go before people get mad enough to actually do something about it?

If it would be of interest to you, or anyone else here, it will be my pleasure to e-mail you a free oil analysis guide that will tell you all about the in's and out's of interpreting oil analysis test results. Just PM me your e-mail address and I will send it right out. It's a wonderful guide that is in Adobe format and can be printed out for easy reference.


Steve
CEO of Hi-Tech Oil Co.
Distributing industry leading AMSOIL synthetic lubricants for 19 years