Amsoil XL7500...just added Schaeffer 132 Moly EP

[mormit]

After reading a lot of good info on the 132, I thought I'd give it a try with the XL7500 (old formulation - all PAO)I'm currently using. This oil, like M1 and many others, is formulated to a relatively low initial viscosity. It takes a beating in a high heat and sheer application like my turbo. Last analysis showed it down to a 20wt in 3600mi.

Car: 02 Volvo S40 10,629mi
Oil: Amsoil XL7500 10w30 filled in late Sep. 12oz of Schaeffer 132 Moly EP added in Nov at 1820mi. Car was driven 30 miles then sample taken at 1850mi.

WEAR METALS
Cu: 2
Fe: 3
Cr: 0
Al: 1
Pb: 0
ADDITIVES
Mo: 10
Ph: 863
Zn: 901
Mg: 30
Ca: 2937
CONTAMINANTS
Antifreeze, Fuel, Silicon: all zero (below detectable values)
H2O: 0.3%.....(I think I can explain)
OIL PROPERTIES
Visc: 10.23Cst@100C
Sulfur: 17
Oxidation: 0
Nitration: 3

The purpose of this analysis was to determine the increase in viscosity the 132 gave this oil which started out at 9.6 from virgin analysis. Wear was good with the previous fill of XL but viscosity dropped out of range really fast. A small ammount of Moly was added (10ppm). This additive also contains antimony at about 2.5x the moly concentration. The antimony uses a similar binding mechanism so total something like 35ppm organometalic FM's added by the 132. Viscosity shows that the whole 16oz could have been added to the 5.5qt of oil.

BTW: I am certain that the water is due to my own sampling error. I took the sample on a rather damp evening. It started to mist while I was transferring oil to the bottle in an unsheltered location. Not surprised if a few droplets landed in the bottle. Otherwise no reason to suspect water....no antifreeze and no reason for condensation.

[ December 04, 2002, 09:40 PM: Message edited by: mormit ]

 

[dragboat]

It looks like Shaeffers has some possible blending problems with the #132 . I put 4 ounces in a 4 quart system added to a non moly oil and has 24ppm of Mo after a 3122 mile run.

Not knocking the Company just an observation,,the observation comes with a but

The motor was plated from use of Pennzoil with a aproximate 500 mile run of the Phillips HD II 15w40 as a purge of sorts.
Maybe it was still plated and did not uptake more Mo and your motor did ?

Anyway there was a thread that showed some varying amounts of Mo in the 132 awhile back. Probably not worth worrying about. The Antimony is the cool part of the product imo.

 

[BOBISTHEOILGUY]

Dragboat, Maybe it was still plated and did not uptake more Mo and your motor did ,that would be a correct asumption. If you had a previous oil with moly, the moly used in a second application would be less likely to have depleted as much since the engine is alread "conditioned" with the moly plating. Once plated, all the existing moly has to do is "maintain" the plated surfaces when that area starts losing its plate. So in his case, given that 24ppms average on moly in the 132, he used approx 14ppms to condition his engine in that short run while he still had some reserve of 10 left to maintain the plated surfaces. I don't think that they do have a q/c problem with their blending process of the 132.

This also shows that it does not take 6-800ppms of moly to condition or maintain a motor like what is used in redline. You'll notice that their oil seems to always have excessive amounts of moly in their oil that was not used or even near used.

I thought it was interesting to see the increase of viscosity as well.

[ December 22, 2002, 08:18 AM: Message edited by: BOBISTHEOILGUY ]

 

[MavRick]

mormit, Interesting results especially the viscosity. Can you post your previous analysis for comparison or at least the viscosity reading?

[ December 22, 2002, 12:22 PM: Message edited by: Giles ]

 

[mormit]

Giles: Virgin analysis of this oil: http://theoildrop.server101.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=000018

Previous analysis on the last fill of XL: http://theoildrop.server101.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=000152

Bob and Dragboat: This was the second fill of Amsoil XL, so there was probably no moly at all plated when this was added. I've since changed this car over to Schaeffer's #703. Looking forward to an analysis around 3k mi.

[ December 23, 2002, 01:57 PM: Message edited by: mormit ]

 

[MavRick]

Well the #132 really seemed to stabalize the viscosity didn't it! The XL7500 doesn't look like a good oil for your application that's for sure. Switching is a good idea in my opinion.

 

[MolaKule]

Bob,

I agreee, the 132 is still a good product in my view. I am theorizing here, but I think maybe their "metering" equipment in the blending process may need some tweaking.

The ELCA carrier is a great stabilizer for tbn and viscosity, anti-oxidant, and detergent.

I hope Schaeffer's doesn't change anything in the formulation, except to "UP" the MoTDC.