Here's a copy of my post over at BITOG...

I thought this analysis to be quite interesting. After running several fills of Mobil1, I was not satisfied with the UOAs on a 7500 mile interval. Lead and Iron were always very high. On lower mileage intervals the wear numbers improved, but not quite as low as I would have liked. So I decided to switch back to dino, and Bob's members recommended Pennzoil... and the results are much improved.

Comparing this Pennzoil 4K interval with Mobil 4K intervals, with the exception of TIN, all the wear numbers are significantly lower!

This is when I realize that I'm still a newbie on the oil boards... isn't synth supposd to provide better protection? What gives? Can anyone provide an explanation?

I did not change my driving style, and if anything I'm driving 80-90% city miles now, whereas before it was 70-80% highway. I have another Pennzoil fill right now and I cannot wait for the next UOA!

Here's the link to BITOG bob

 

Your molybdenum value has more than doubled over prior readings. Since the VQ has moly coated pistons and cylinders, I would expect that would be a bad sign. Also, the boron and calcium values are very low now compared to the M1. Since those 2 elements are used to buffer and neutralize acids, I would expect that would be a bad sign. Plus the Pennz is highly paraffinitic. Wax makes sludge. Get that stuff out of there. The oil analyst can say whatever he likes, but if it were my motor, the dino juice would be gone and not be back.

 

Moly's an additive in the oils.. Pennzoil has just got more in it than Mobil 1. And Pennzoil being paraffinitic is a myth. I did some research and it's all "I heard this... " and "my mechanic told me....", I could not find any facts to back up the sludge stories associated with Pennzoil. Sorta like saying using syntetic oils causes oil leaks and breaks down engine seals.. yeah right!

Even if you discounted the analyst's comments, the wear numbers tell the story. At this point in my motor's life, the Pennzoil seems to protect better than the Mobil1 ever did. And I've been using Mobil1 in my VQ since July 2003, 7500 miles on the odometer.

 

Chinee, I am beginnign to agree wth you. Your methodology is right on, and when i saw the Moly number go up, the very first thing that i thought was that it WAS the increased additive. I have got dino oil in there now, and I am thinking htat I will experiment with it for a couple of oil changes, and then try the semi synthtic stuff. This is a huge change in thinking for me, given my recent research, admittedly.

Please keep up the good work, i always look forward to your findings. Also, feel free to IM me via MSN messenger/AIM, we can discuss this further.

Another thing to think about would be thick synthetic oil, like M1 15w50, but the UOAs of that oil show that it almost immediately shears to a 40 wt oil. Valvoline racing oil 20w50 dino is one that I will try because of very high recommendations, as well as the new extended use M1's (15w50). We'll see.

 

Great post. Definitely looking forward to seeing similar results from your next dino report!

 

I'd be curious to see dual reports....one from who you normally use and one from Blackstone. What makes me scratch my head is your TBN being so low (1.5) after only 4,000 miles? What would cause such additive wear, and is that distorting your #'s. I often found GREAT disparities between test facilities (CAT, Blackstone, Etc.) until I settled on Blackstone. PM me if ya like, or want to JBX

 

Ok now you have me wondering about some things, sorry if these questions sound dumb

I'm curious how the oil samples are typically collected. Is the filter itself sent in and analyzed to find the total collected volume of contaminants? I would have to think so, otherwise if the sample is just taken from drained oil, there would likely be differences in the rates at which each oil would release contaminants when not being cycled through a running engine.

Is is possible that the Pennzoil will drop larger particles to the bottom of the pan before the synthetic would, resulting in lower counts both in the filter and in the sample?

I'm also curious if different oil types can alter the efficiency and effectiveness of the filters....

 

The best method is to catch your sample from the END of your drainage in the Blackstone provided container. You don't wanna catch the bacon renderings from the bottom of your pan, rather the oil from the most remote area at the end of the purge. Cool? JBX

 

I also feel the consistant use of a quality of the filter is paramount to getting equal readings. "Quality OEM" is an oxymoron...lol JBX

 

Heh, I think I was still re-editing as you were replying

So basically the drop in counts in this report *could* simply be a result of the Pennzoil releasing more crud than the synthetic before being sampled?

It kinda sounds to me like the only really valid test is to analyze

all the crap the filter caught + all particles on the bottom of the pan + everything still suspended in the oil

and then do a comparison. Otherwise it seems like there are too many variables to really do a fair comparison...?

 

From copbait:

Ok now you have me wondering about some things, sorry if these questions sound dumb
Actually you present a interesting set of questions...

I'm curious how the oil samples are typically collected. Is the filter itself sent in and analyzed to find the total collected volume of contaminants? I would have to think so, otherwise if the sample is just taken from drained oil, there would likely be differences in the rates at which each oil would release contaminants when not being cycled through a running engine.
I change my oil after getting the engine up to normal operating temperature. Say after I run a few errands on the weekend, I'll park in the garage and begin the oil change process. I use a fumoto valve which makes the sample collection process way easier. By the time I start draining, about 30 minutes have already passed, and most of the "crud" (if there's any) would have settled. The members at bobistheoilguy have always recommended taking the sample from the "middle", so after about a quart has drained, I stick the sample bottle in the stream and collect my sample.

Is is possible that the Pennzoil will drop larger particles to the bottom of the pan before the synthetic would, resulting in lower counts both in the filter and in the sample?
This is where my knowledge is a little lean... the oil filter should collect any larger particles. I believe that the wear that occurs during engine wear is microscopic and is not trapped by the filter, and is actually suspended in the oil. Remember the values are in parts-per-million. I've always collected my sample at similar points in the drain, so my results should be comparable to each other. However, your question about different oils allowing the wear metals to settle at different rates is intriguing... I think it's a good question for bob's members.. I'll post it up there this weekend.

I'm also curious if different oil types can alter the efficiency and effectiveness of the filters....
I suspect that it's possible, but I think remote. After all, the filter is just a piece of gauze (over-simplified) that the oil runs through. The oil shouldn't create any significant variance in the manner the filter operates.

 

I've always used Blackstone... never tried any other labs. As for the TBN, several months ago, a new method of measuring TBN was initiated, and results which were typically closer to "10" are now in the "under-5" range.

 

Almost consistent in this regard as well. With the exception of two of my fills where I used the Purolator Pure One, I've always utilzed the Premium Plus oil filters.

 

Very interesting thread. I don't understand how M1 is inferior?

 

Ahh ok, so the particles are actually microscopic in size. That clears up some of my confusion then, thanks =)