I know there are different types of Moly. I also know that my vehicles seem to run quieter on larger amounts of Moly. Also, it seems the boutique oils run large amounts of it, HPL, Amsoil, etc. I know there is a good amount of it in my TGMO 0w-16 as well. Given all of this, why does the current darling Mobil 1 ESP not have it? Or in some weights, a very low amount of it?
Another Moly Question
- Thread starter swrve
- Start date
Moly is one way to get there. Not the only one.
Final formulation is what matters.
Final formulation is what matters.
And just to be clear, there aren’t different types of moly (molybdenum) there are different molybdenum compounds. It comes into play when people try and discern the amount of “moly” in a spectrographic analysis.
What @Plumb Bob wrote is correct. What drives motor oil formulations is performance, that’s what a license or specification or approval meets, not some specific additive. Market can influence this but in the end the oil must meet some standard of performance.
It also highlights why a “dose of moly” or “slug of boron” doesn’t define performance.
What @Plumb Bob wrote is correct. What drives motor oil formulations is performance, that’s what a license or specification or approval meets, not some specific additive. Market can influence this but in the end the oil must meet some standard of performance.
It also highlights why a “dose of moly” or “slug of boron” doesn’t define performance.
And cost. Many motor oils could perform better, but the formulation cost would be higher, so the performance lags because so many consumers purchase based on price and the products on the shelves become highly cost competitive.
There are two types of spectrographic technologies typically used in consumer oil analysis testing, RDE and ICP. RDE can "see" particles about twice the size of ICP. Since there are different molybdenum compounds, some larger than others, one lab's results can be very different from another. The same amount of molybdenum is still in the oil, but some technologies are blind to them.
This is why it's suggested finding one lab and stick with them, submitting a virgin sample for analysis, then having the same lab test all subsequent used oil samples. You're not looking for absolute numbers, just the trend from one sample to the next.
An ICP plasma will decompose any molybdenum compound regardless of the composition. Any compound in solution isn’t going to be filtered out by a protection for the plasma. Which of the common UOA labs use RDE?
And yes people on here all the time mistake absolute concentrations of those decomposed compounds for efficacy. Hence my “dose of moly” comment.
As long as the same ASTM procedure is used then any lab should be reporting results within the test’s reproducibility, which I wish was reported.
Last edited:
That makes sense. So since Mobil 1 ESP doesn’t use Moly, is it just a better base and a different additive that will provide the same performance as Moly? I am only assuming having Moly is a good thing since HPL seems to like using it.
I really don't know. Knowledgeable members could chime in.
I only look and approvals, certifications and licenses the oil meet. Or trust in a blender, such as HPL or Amsoil.
ESP doesn't have any of the molybdenum additives because such additives are very expensive, and Mobil can blend an oil to achieve their target spec slate without it. The shelf-space market is more price-competitive than performance competitive, i.e. vast majority of customers look for the cheapest oil meeting the spec they are looking for. If adding the additive to the blend and bottles can't sell to their MARR, then they won't do it, and that's often the case. There's quite a few multifunctional organometallic friction modifier additives in the commercial market using metals other than moly, such as antimony, tungsten, and titanium. In reality, there's few people that want to consistently see these, and they get sold in the boutique market.
In short, the market prices them out, and current specs don't necessitate their use.
In short, the market prices them out, and current specs don't necessitate their use.
Thank you for the explanation
Speediagnostix.
Here is a link to a post early last year by 2.7ecobootFordBronco where he sent samples from the same quart to three different labs. After seeing this, I emailed Lake who said they use RDE. I didn't ask why he isn't showing any Aluminum and a bunch of Tin, relatively speaking.
Found the email. This was his response:
"In regards to the OEM Molybdenum level, that result is correct. The reason other labs show lower numbers is because they use different equipment to do the elemental analysis. Most labs use the ICP method, which only sees particles up to about 5 microns. We use the RDE method which can detect particles up to about 10 microns. Because of that, Molybdenum levels are different between the methods due to Molybdenum forming platelets of various sizes. "
Last edited:
MolaKule
Staff member
Friction modifier "compounds" chemistry come in many forms:
"Friction Modifiers or Friction Reducers (Performance Additive): Organic fatty acids and amides, lard oil, high molecular weight organic phosphorus and phosphoric acid esters such as Tricresyl Phosphates, ZDDP, ZTDC, Moly TDC, Antimony TDC, family of diphenylamines and amides, and olefin sulfides. Reduces coefficient of friction formulated lubricant in the boundary lubrication regime."
A lower viscosity oil, relative to a given load, is more likely to end up in a boundary condition. Friction modifier and AW would be especially useful in boundary conditions. I could see why an 0W16 might have a higher level of moly. A higher viscosity oil, in your engine, would be in boundary conditions less often, so would need less FM.
All dependent on load, heat, formulation, etc.
Hydrodynamic lubrication is always preferred to boundary, but starts and stops can't be helped.
Also, components like in the valve train are mostly in the boundary lubrication regime. And components like cam chains & sprockets and piston rings are in mixed lubrication at times, which also results in some level of moving surfaces rubbing together due to very small or zero oil film thickness. Boundary and mixed lubrication regimes rely on those AF/AW additives when the viscosity can't keep the parts separated enough. Metallurgy and sometimes surface coatings also help those parts mitigate wear.
Yes, I understand about particles. But I completely do not believe that the size of the molybdenum compounds even if they form aggregates or “platelets” are big enough to be filtered out. That response sounds more like a bug than a feature.
But thanks for the info.
Agree.