Best MOLY additives?

[gathermewool]

With your logical, no-nonsense approach to shared opinions on this forum, I find it unusual for you to be looking for an additive…shame

 

[CharlesInCharge]

For the few of you actually participating in a helpful dialogue, thank you.

For those giving snarky comments, which violate the forum rules and I expressly requested to be omitted, please move along to bother someone else. This forum is cluttered with too many snarky know-it-alls already.

 

[kschachn]

For the few of you actually participating in a helpful dialogue, thank you.

For those giving snarky comments, which violate the forum rules and I expressly requested to be omitted, please move along to bother someone else. This forum is cluttered with too many snarky know-it-alls already.

Forum rule violations should be reported to a moderator.

 

[gathermewool]

For the few of you actually participating in a helpful dialogue, thank you.

For those giving snarky comments, which violate the forum rules and I expressly requested to be omitted, please move along to bother someone else. This forum is cluttered with too many snarky know-it-alls already.

Man, if that’s not the pot calling the kettle black! Dissenting opinions don‘t violate the forum rules, by the way.

Note: I‘m one of the few who backed your posts in the past re: older cars being
more economically sound.

 

[CleverUserName]

Pass on MoS2 and consider Tungsten/Wolfram. Eurol Engine treat contains a healthy dose of Vanderbilt Vanlube W-324. 'W' stands for Wolfram (Tungsten). Much better thermal stability compared to MoS2, no solids, no risk to fall out of suspension. Vanderbilt Vanlube W-324 is what Ravenol is using in there higher-end engine oils.

250ML - E802315 | Eurol Engine Oil Treat

Oil additive aimed at reducing friction through Tungsten technology

eurol.com

Where do yo find this "Eurol" stuff in the states? Only place I found that has it is some website called Parts Boss and I don't know if its legit.

 

[travis8352]

For the few of you actually participating in a helpful dialogue, thank you.

For those giving snarky comments, which violate the forum rules and I expressly requested to be omitted, please move along to bother someone else. This forum is cluttered with too many snarky know-it-alls already.

Exactly the issue with this forum. Theres a wealth of knowledge here but its overshadowed by snarky know it alls like you said

 

[OVERKILL]

I love the comments on here...Moly has been one of the greatest antiwear additives EVER.
And now it aint $%*# anymore. lol give me a break.

Well, for starters, moly dose rate isn't just a "MOAR IS BETTAR!!!!111ONE" thing. Tri-nuclear moly doesn't require anywhere near the same level of treatment to provide the same level of effectiveness:

You'll note in the 2nd graph that things sort of plateau around the 120-140ppm mark and the anti-wear properties plateau just after 50ppm. So while it might make somebody feel totally super awesome to have 10 billion ppm in their oil, Mobil has treated that oil with the amount of moly they've tested to provide the necessary characteristics for anti-wear and friction reduction, so bumping that up isn't going to improve the performance of the product.

Furthermore, yes, moly is a very popular (and inexpensive) FM. But, there are other products also in use, like titanium and tungsten and so adding moly to an oil that's using an alternative FM solution may not be beneficial either and there may be negative synergies there.

 

[Dogman]

Schaeffer’s makes a moly additive, dont know anything about it. Schaeffer’s moly ep. https://www.schaefferoil.com/documents/37-132-td.pdf

 

[Davejam]

Well, for starters, moly dose rate isn't just a "MOAR IS BETTAR!!!!111ONE" thing. Tri-nuclear moly doesn't require anywhere near the same level of treatment to provide the same level of effectiveness:

You'll note in the 2nd graph that things sort of plateau around the 120-140ppm mark and the anti-wear properties plateau just after 50ppm. So while it might make somebody feel totally super awesome to have 10 billion ppm in their oil, Mobil has treated that oil with the amount of moly they've tested to provide the necessary characteristics for anti-wear and friction reduction, so bumping that up isn't going to improve the performance of the product.

Furthermore, yes, moly is a very popular (and inexpensive) FM. But, there are other products also in use, like titanium and tungsten and so adding moly to an oil that's using an alternative FM solution may not be beneficial either and there may be negative synergies there.

I didn't say more is better. The OP asked and I stayed on topic and answered. He can decide what he wants to do for himself.
But you have one graph showing 120-140ppm being ideal (by your judgement) and another showing Mo-trimer at 200 ppm having lowest friction coeff. So...which is it? Nobody is suggesting a ridiculous amount, there is certainly not much harm in a little more. Maybe diminishing returns.
For the oil formulator it is always going to be cost vs. benefit.
For the end user if they want to tweak there may be an optimal, though I doubt you'd generate supporting data.

Its not just that Moly is popular...its popular because it works and has worked for 30+ years.
I didn't say anything against Ti, W, etc etc. But that was not the topic of the thread.

 

[OVERKILL]

I didn't say more is better.

The OP's query centres around the premise that more is better.

The OP asked and I stayed on topic and answered. He can decide what he wants to do for himself.

Providing data that demonstrates that what he's endeavouring to do doesn't carry with it an advantage is still on topic.

But you have one graph showing 120-140ppm being ideal (by your judgement) and another showing Mo-trimer at 200 ppm having lowest friction coeff. So...which is it?

There was very little difference between 75ppm and 200ppm in the cam wear graph, the big difference was between 10 and 50. You'll note it actually bumped up at 100, likely showing just some variability in the actual test. Once you pass a certain threshold, there ceases to be any real benefits in increasing concentration, which seems to be ~140ppm.

Nobody is suggesting a ridiculous amount, there is certainly not much harm in a little more. Maybe diminishing returns.

Let's say the product is formulated using tri-nuclear moly. You add a huge slug of traditional dimer moly. Have you improved anything? What are the synergies between those two different types of moly in the product?

For the oil formulator it is always going to be cost vs. benefit.

Of course, which is one of the reasons infineum (Mobil/Shell) put in the resources to develop trimer. It provided better performance at a lower concentration. They could use less of it to achieve the same effect. Oils are also a balancing act and formulated to meet a variety of performance targets. It is breathtakingly naive to think that we can just dump something else into this full-formulated product and expect that in doing so, we are improving it.

For the end user if they want to tweak there may be an optimal, though I doubt you'd generate supporting data.

They may also degrade the product in other areas. Increase volatility or deposit formation for example.

Its not just that Moly is popular...its popular because it works and has worked for 30+ years.
I didn't say anything against Ti, W, etc etc. But that was not the topic of the thread.

It IS popular; it's the most popular FM because of its performance characteristics and the fact that it is inexpensive relative to other FM's. The issue is that people have the McDonalds mindset when it comes to concentrations of certain components, moly being one, that more is automatically better. They look at Oil A, see way higher levels, and assume that Oil B, which has lower levels, is somehow deficient. Of course Oil B may be blended with trimer. It may use other organic FM's that work with the level of moly used to provide an optimal balance of characteristics that the blender was looking for.

I brought up the other FM's because if you buy Ravenol for example, it'll have no moly. They tend to use Tungsten. Dosing that with a big 'ol slug of moly because in in the mind of the end user, its absence implies that the product is somehow deficient is second guessing the formulators of a top-tier product, in which case, why use that oil in the first place?

 

[Davejam]

The OP's query centres around the premise that more is better.

Right, You have proved that more is better to a point with your graphs.

Providing data that demonstrates that what he's endeavouring to do doesn't carry with it an advantage is still on topic.

Sure, but you don't know what oil he's starting with.
Nor has anyone proved that a minor boost to Moly wouldn't be an improvement.
And you haven't proved that more would be detrimental.

There was very little difference between 75ppm and 200ppm in the cam wear graph, the big difference was between 10 and 50. You'll note it actually bumped up at 100, likely showing just some variability in the actual test. Once you pass a certain threshold, there ceases to be any real benefits in increasing concentration, which seems to be ~140ppm.

Right, but the 2nd graph shows 200ppm trimer, why? Is this data based on virgin oil? What happens when an oil has 5-10k miles on it?
You are basing your opinion on limited data.

Let's say the product is formulated using tri-nuclear moly. You add a huge slug of traditional dimer moly. Have you improved anything? What are the synergies between those two different types of moly in the product?

I don't know the answers to your questions, but would like to know. I have personally mixed MoS2 and dimer additives to hit a specific ppm level and saw no detrimental effects visually or through UOA. No obvious positive effects either.

Of course, which is one of the reasons infineum (Mobil/Shell) put in the resources to develop trimer. It provided better performance at a lower concentration. They could use less of it to achieve the same effect. Oils are also a balancing act and formulated to meet a variety of performance targets. It is breathtakingly naive to think that we can just dump something else into this full-formulated product and expect that in doing so, we are improving it.

I'm not suggesting that fully formulated oils aren't excellent. But if Mobil 1 has 80ppm Trimer. Are you certain that 100, 120, 200ppm wouldn't be better? I'm not certain of that, hence why I support the curiosity on the topic. Its naive to think what you're being sold is the best possible product - it almost never is.

I brought up the other FM's because if you buy Ravenol for example, it'll have no moly. They tend to use Tungsten. Dosing that with a big 'ol slug of moly because in in the mind of the end user, its absence implies that the product is somehow deficient is second guessing the formulators of a top-tier product, in which case, why use that oil in the first place?

Point taken. I would not suggest mixing fundamentally different types of additive packages.
But don't see a concern mixing 1 type of moly with another.

 

[OVERKILL]

Right, You have proved that more is better to a point with your graphs.

That wasn't what I was trying to demonstrate though, lol. I was hoping to show that once you hit a certain concentration, adding more either ceases having any real improvement or the amount of improvement diminishes tremendously to the point of being essentially irrelevant. There appears to be a "sweet spot" for concentration, beyond which just adding more isn't improving things.

Sure, but you don't know what oil he's starting with.

No, that's why I drew attention to the premise as basically a warning that adding moly "just because" isn't likely to be beneficial. This is particularly something to be cognizant of when attempting to do so with lubricants leveraging alternative FM's.

Nor has anyone proved that a minor boost to Moly wouldn't be an improvement.

The lubricant would need to be run through all the same sequences the finished product is in order to reach a definitive conclusion on that. Porsche A40 for example, the MB 229.5x approvals...etc. None of these additives are ever tested in that manner however and of course many of the big blenders don't produce separate additives, despite them clearly being a profit centre.

And you haven't proved that more would be detrimental.

No, but it's clearly a risk. Altering the chemistry of a fully formulated product is far more likely to cause a negative impact than a positive one. It could be something like a slight increase in deposit formation, but without extensive testing, we really don't know.

Right, but the 2nd graph shows 200ppm trimer, why? Is this data based on virgin oil? What happens when an oil has 5-10k miles on it?
You are basing your opinion on limited data.

I'm basing my opinion on data from infineum, who produces the stuff, which is at least better than wild speculation Why they used 200ppm? Not sure, the same test with a variable concentration in the following graph showed that increased effectiveness started to taper-off once you cross 120ppm.

I don't know the answers to your questions, but would like to know. I have personally mixed MoS2 and dimer additives to hit a specific ppm level and saw no detrimental effects visually or through UOA. No obvious positive effects either.

That's just it, none of us have the equipment at our disposal to run any of these crazy sequences at home and a VOA/UOA simply doesn't have the capability. We either trust that the blender has produced a product that is blended in a manner they feel is the appropriate balance of price/performance or we don't. This does not necessarily go hand-in-hand with the perception that we can readily improve said product using off the shelf additives.

There are so many examples of products that, fundamentally, decrease the quality and performance of a lubricant, like Lucas, but we don't perceive this difference. Without actual controlled testing, it's impossible for Joe Average consumer to do so.

I'm not suggesting that fully formulated oils aren't excellent. But if Mobil 1 has 80ppm Trimer. Are you certain that 100, 120, 200ppm wouldn't be better? I'm not certain of that, hence why I support the curiosity on the topic. Its naive to think what you're being sold is the best possible product - it almost never is.

I mean, in the case of an oil like M1 0w-40, which is used in numerous 24hr races, I do think it silly that somebody feels they can improve on the performance of that oil by dumping something else into it.

@MolaKule and I recently had a brief discussion about other organic FM's that XOM uses in their oils. His response to me on the matter was:

I would guess one or a combination of these: borated thioglycerol ester, or borated polyoxyethylene ester, or Bis(2-hydroxyethyl) oleamide, or most likely, borated 2-hydroxyalkyl (or alkenyl) imidazolines because EM likes their borated compounds.

Addendum: I would be leaning more toward the borated 2-hydroxyalkyl (or borated 2-hydroxyalkenyl) imidazoline chemistry because it is a "Multi-Functional" additive, in that is it accomplishes more than one function such as: an ashless Friction modifier, Corrosion Inhibitor, and Rust Inhibitor.

More Multi-Functional chemistry is being used in DI additive packages since different chemistry components don't have to be used. While the resulting molecule is more complex, its functional capabilities cover a wider spectrum of protection and performance attributes.

And a further reply to one of my questions:

One can view Infineum as both an additive blender and an additive research firm. However, Shell, BP, and EOM each have their own research labs and when they discover/develop a specific chemistry they think might improve their respective products, Infineum will "adopt" that chemistry through a cross-licensing agreement..

What I'm trying to emphasize here is that there is more to formulation than just concentration of a given compound and far more to it than just the elements we see on VOA's and UOA's. Companies like XOM who are very much leaders in the industry in developing new, more effective components (like trimer moly) are producing very complex chemistries here where not only is it a balance of the elements we CAN see, but those balance WITH the ones we cannot. So even just looking at trimer concentration, that doesn't tell us anything about what Mobil may have blended in there with it that's complementary and provides a positive synergistic relationship, which has an impact on the selected treat rate.

Point taken. I would not suggest mixing fundamentally different types of additive packages.
But don't see a concern mixing 1 type of moly with another.

Hence my reason for bringing that up. The OP didn't mention the oils in question and they may use alternative FM chemistries.

Concern? No, I'd not expect adding dimer to trimer as being a risk, but I'd consider it a waste of money.

 

[Davejam]

OK, from US Patent 6,074,993 - LUBRICATING OIL COMPOSITION CONTAINING TWO MOLYBDENUM ADDITIVES - Infineum
A combination of moly timer, moly dimer does offer an advantage over the timer alone.

Interesting, no? Doesn't sound like a risk to me, sounds like a synergy.

Again, i'm not suggesting that any singular piece of data is the holy grail.
But in my mind the point of this forum is to educate members and keep an open mind about what is possible.

At the end of the day only Mobil or Infineum have the complete set of data, and even internally probably disagree on what is optimal.
They choose to use certain levels and promote certain dosages based on performance and cost.
Any regular Joe Schmo cannot go out and improve on it. But can a well educated person? Probably.
That's why there isn't 1 brand of oil. That's why people on this forum have had their own brews. That's why additives exist - although admitely most are snake oil.

 

[OVERKILL]

OK, from US Patent 6,074,993 - LUBRICATING OIL COMPOSITION CONTAINING TWO MOLYBDENUM ADDITIVES - Infineum
A combination of moly timer, moly dimer does offer an advantage over the timer alone.

View attachment 67453

Interesting, no? Doesn't sound like a risk to me, sounds like a synergy.

Again, i'm not suggesting that any singular piece of data is the holy grail.
But in my mind the point of this forum is to educate members and keep an open mind about what is possible.

At the end of the day only Mobil or Infineum have the complete set of data, and even internally probably disagree on what is optimal.
They choose to use certain levels and promote certain dosages based on performance and cost.
Any regular Joe Schmo cannot go out and improve on it. But can a well educated person? Probably.
That's why there isn't 1 brand of oil. That's why people on this forum have had their own brews. That's why additives exist - although admitely most are snake oil.

Great table! Thanks for the contribution.
Interesting that just a small amount of organic FM has an impact, but in the presence of dimer, that impact is neutralized or negative, vs positive with just trimer, and that the detergent has an impact (not surprisingly).

For the Calcium based detergents:
Look at 1 and 2, the addition of a tiny amount of organic FM to a blend that just uses trimer drops the COF.
Look at 3 and 4, the addition of a tiny amount of organic FM increases the COF by a small amount with both trimer and dimer in the mix.

For the Magnesium based detergents:
5 and 6, the organic FM has a positive impact with just trimer, dropping the COF.
7 and 8, the organic FM has basically no impact with dimer in the mix.

It's unfortunate that they don't plot different concentration levels of both. 0 to 800 is a huge jump, but the difference is quite small. When we look at this table I posted earlier:

We can see that the 200ppm trimer produces a lower COF by itself than any of the blends shown in your table. But of course we don't know the other characteristics of the lubes used in either test.

That said, qualifiers and caveats aside, it would seem that 200ppm of trimer is more effective than 100ppm trimer + 800ppm of dimer in reducing friction, at least comparing that table to the graph. This begs the question how well higher concentrations of organic FM's work with just trimer vs the dimer/trimer blends, with which it seems apparent that organic FM's are not a benefit to, and we know XOM is using organic FM's in their production lubes at present.

I would also like to thank you for this dialogue, this has turned into a very productive and "classic" BITOG discussion and I really appreciate your sincere and polite engagement.

 

[ka9mnx]

Oils are also a balancing act and formulated to meet a variety of performance targets. It is breathtakingly naive to think that we can just dump something else into this full-formulated product and expect that in doing so, we are improving it.

Thank you...

 

[SR5]

At your next oil change, start with a quart of Nulon 25W60 Street & Track, then add your regular ILSAC synthetic oil on top.

Nulon 25W-60 gonna have to hoard some of this...

https://www.nulon.com.au/images/files/productbulletins/PB-ST25W60.pdf 108 VI, so basically monograde...should put the HTHS at 6+. MoDTC, low S.A. high zinc... What's not to like ?

bobistheoilguy.com

Lots of Zinc, Moly and Viscosity to put some meat on the bones.

 

[930.engineering]

I brought up the other FM's because if you buy Ravenol for example, it'll have no moly. They tend to use Tungsten. Dosing that with a big 'ol slug of moly because in in the mind of the end user, its absence implies that the product is somehow deficient is second guessing the formulators of a top-tier product, in which case, why use that oil in the first place?

Ravenol use to use Tungsten only along with Boron and Moly. I don't remember a single analysis of Ravenol with Tungsten alone.

Overkill and Davejam: Let me say how much I appreciate that this discussion went into something positive I didn't expect.

Where do yo find this "Eurol" stuff in the states? Only place I found that has it is some website called Parts Boss and I don't know if its legit.

I got from the Netherlands. Not sure since it's some time ago, but as far as I remember I purchased it there:

Eurol Engine Oil Treat 250ml | Winparts.nl - Additieven & reparatie

Eurol Engine Oil Treat 250ml E802315-250ML Eurol ! Snelste levering in gehele BeNeLux

www.winparts.nl

.

 

[OVERKILL]

Ravenol use to use Tungsten only along with Boron and Moly. I don't remember a single analysis of Ravenol with Tungsten alone.

Overkill and Davejam: Let me say how much I appreciate that this discussion went into something positive I didn't expect.




I got from the Netherlands. Not sure since it's some time ago, but as far as I remember I purchased it there:

Eurol Engine Oil Treat 250ml | Winparts.nl - Additieven & reparatie

Eurol Engine Oil Treat 250ml E802315-250ML Eurol ! Snelste levering in gehele BeNeLux

www.winparts.nl

.

The VOA I posted of SSL has no moly.

EDIT:
We had a thread on some of the formulation changes that Ravenol went through a while back. It was interesting, because you are right, "back in the day" they were using Moly and then all of a sudden it vanished.

 

[Krieg]

.

 

[OVERKILL]

My OM states not to use additives. But, motor oil has additives in it?

They mean 3rd party additives like Lucas.