Liqui moly ceratec

[kschachn]

@OVERKILL @kschachn @demarpaint

I figure that RAT and other one off film strength testers don't fully simulate real engine conditions, but it's the only point of lubricity I know to compare them by. I do wish that RAT would publish his methodology, but RAT refuses for some reason. Wouldn't a more accurate analogy be judging which is the better gun by using a round that the gun wasn't designed for, or finding out which gun is more accurate by measuring muzzle energy, or some other indirect metric. Higher muzzle energy implies a higher velocity which can correlate with high accuracy at long distances, for example. Not saying it's a good measure, but what else do we have to compare these additives and oils (other than UOAs, but those results can be mixed with engine variance).

A common comment by those who wish to somehow force this square peg of nonsense into the round hole of relevancy. You might as well publish a taste test for the oil as it would be equally relevant.

There are standardized ASTM tests or others that would conclusively show an additive's performance IRT an engine's operating parameters. There is absolutely zero need to try and use an incorrect test to show some previously unknown or undiscovered property that somehow hasn't been sufficiently characterized.

Even then that's only the first problem. It gets a whole lot worse after that. Each and every aspect of that goofy test is fatal in and of itself.

 

[OVERKILL]

@OVERKILL @kschachn @demarpaint

I figure that RAT and other one off film strength testers don't fully simulate real engine conditions, but it's the only point of lubricity I know to compare them by. I do wish that RAT would publish his methodology, but RAT refuses for some reason. Wouldn't a more accurate analogy be judging which is the better gun by using a round that the gun wasn't designed for, or finding out which gun is more accurate by measuring muzzle energy, or some other indirect metric. Higher muzzle energy implies a higher velocity which can correlate with high accuracy at long distances, for example. Not saying it's a good measure, but what else do we have to compare these additives and oils (other than UOAs, but those results can be mixed with engine variance).

@Nickmaio Liqui-Moly advertises Ceratec as having immediate effect, so that isn't likely to be the issue. Or if it is, Liqui-Moly should change their advertising.

No, because as noted, there is a test that specifically is designed for measuring EP characteristics, two versions in fact, one for gear oils the other for greases. The reason they are not used on motor oils is because motor oils aren't subject to EP conditions. If you want to know what's the best motor oil to use in your differential, THEN it might be appropriate, follow?

This is why engine oils aren't blended with EP additives. Bleach, Pert Plus, all kinds of products that are not appropriate to put in your crankcase will do well in one of these "test rigs". There are myriad engine oil tests used by the API, ACEA and the manufacturers themselves to measure ACTUAL performance in use. These are complete with tear-down analysis and wear measurement. The Porsche A40 sequence, which simulates lapping of the Nurburgring among numerous other protocols followed by tear-down, inspection and measurement of actual wear is going to be far more valuable than putting the oil through a machine whose primary purpose, in professional application, is as an initial screening tool for a gear lube or grease to ascertain whether the product has adequate EP performance before further development.

 

[blingo]

Vom Regen in die Traufe: From RATblog to Bitog. Critical Theory is dead anyway – long live the narrative criticisyphosm and the Porsche A40 myth.

The continued insinuation of all sorts of tests as illegitimate in everything that's not "representing" hypoids remains as poor as can be. RATblog's sermon certainly also remains inacceptable, but that's no excuse.

 

[demarpaint]

LM's Ceratec is explained by them as having 1) a solid friction modifier (like their MoS2 product) that should work immediately and only lasts for the single oil change and 2) a chemical friction modifier that takes some time to adhere/whatever sorcery it does and lasts up to 30K miles.

Their goal is to sell product, it's that simple. I've seen @Trav 's pictures, along with others, the stuff falls out of suspension, collects at the bottom of the sump and remains there even after restarting the engine and driving the vehicle. I'm talking about cars that sit for extended periods of time. Sorry to say I want no part of that. But if you feel it's going to benefit you, by all means use it!

IIRC Slick 50 was supposed to last the life of the engine, it "adhered/whatever." LM only claims 30K miles, with the operative words "up to."

 

[Tomat]

Both mos2 and ceratec take a number of hours to actually plate to metal.
This might explain PF's findings.
They did not allow time to plate before their tests.

I agree and even liqui moly minimum 3000 miles for ceratec to get full effect.

 

[TiGeo]

Their goal is to sell product, it's that simple. I've seen @Trav 's pictures, along with others, the stuff falls out of suspension, collects at the bottom of the sump and remains there even after restarting the engine and driving the vehicle. I'm talking about cars that sit for extended periods of time. Sorry to say I want no part of that. But if you feel it's going to benefit you, by all means use it!

IIRC Slick 50 was supposed to last the life of the engine, it "adhered/whatever." LM only claims 30K miles, with the operative words "up to."

As I understand it, didn't he just drive it a short distance to the garage to change the oil and not a normal driving cycle/cycles that would have re-suspended the material eventually?

 

[demarpaint]

As I understand it, didn't he just drive it a short distance to the garage to change the oil and not a normal driving cycle/cycles that would have re-suspended the material eventually?

He started car moved it to the garage to drop the oil pan to replace a leaking gasket. He said there was no way what was settled in the oil pan was getting mixed back into suspension. Starting an engine should put anything that fell out of suspension back into suspension within a few seconds. Shoot him a PM I'm sure he'll tell you his observations with MoS2, and Ceratec.

 

[TiGeo]

He started car moved it to the garage to drop the oil pan to replace a leaking gasket. He said there was no way what was settled in the oil pan was getting mixed back into suspension. Starting an engine should put anything that fell out of suspension back into suspension within a few seconds. Shoot him a PM I'm sure he'll tell you his observations with MoS2, and Ceratec.

I'm sure he will - but to be fair and as much as folks go on and on here about data, proper testing, and drawing conclusions from poorly run tests, antidotal evidence, etc., this is not a fair way to chastise the product for this issue. Go drive to work and back for 30 min or the like getting the oil up to full temp (b/c no way his was) and then look. Cool you don't want to use it , but this notion that it won't be re-suspended needs to be property tested before this conclusion can be drawn.

 

[demarpaint]

I'm sure he will - but to be fair and as much as folks go on and on here about data, proper testing, and drawing conclusions from poorly run tests, antidotal evidence, etc., this is not a fair way to chastise the product for this issue. Go drive to work and back for 30 min or the like getting the oil up to full temp (b/c no way his was) and then look. Cool you don't want to use it (zero f's by me), but this notion that it won't be re-suspended needs to be property tested before this conclusion can be drawn.

The pictures were proof enough for me, along with a few discussions with him regarding the product. It was clumped up in the pan, just starting an engine should have mixed it up. But hey you believe otherwise so for it.

 

[Trav]

Hang on a minute, you talk about proof, there is no proof this almost snake oil actually does anything beneficial in modern engine oils. The Ceretec was dropped out in all sorts of places in the compressor and that is pressure lubed and runs all the time.
If MoS2 and Ceretec is so great why does the company that peddles it not use it in their own branded engine oils with the exception of one 10w40 they put MoS2 in and none with Ceretec.

The stuff in my pan was well below the pickup so why would it remix and if it did suck all that stuff up in one go it would probably clog something and possibly do damage. There are many reports of noisy lifters/lash adjusters after putting the stuff in the oil.
If you wan to use it have at it, it makes no difference to me or anyone else but it should not be looked at as some sort of whiz bang in a can that stops engine wear, IMO it is just brand name snake oil, nothing more or less.

 

[TiGeo]

The pictures were proof enough for me, along with a few discussions with him regarding the product. It was clumped up in the pan, just starting an engine should have mixed it up. But hey you believe otherwise so for it.

I don't know if I believe otherwise b/c nobody has tested this at a reasonable level to know.

 

[TiGeo]

Sure, it probably is snake oil/doesn't improve anything but on the settling, nobody has tested this enough to know that it won't re-suspend under normal operating conditions and temperatures and is making an assumption based on your experience.

 

[CleverUserName]

I always thought the MoS2 ( LM 2008 ) primarily worked as a dry lubricant. It would be beneficial in a dry start or similar condition but if an oil film was present it wouldn’t do anything.

I used it in my old 2009 buyback Jetta and it did contribute some 250 ppm moly to the UOA, so it was in suspension when the sample was taken.

 

[kschachn]

I always thought the MoS2 ( LM 2008 ) primarily worked as a dry lubricant. It would be beneficial in a dry start or similar condition but if an oil film was present it wouldn’t do anything.

I used it in my old 2009 buyback Jetta and it did contribute some 250 ppm moly to the UOA, so it was in suspension when the sample was taken.

Considering there is no such thing as a "dry start" as you describe then you're saying it never does anything?

 

[TiGeo]

I always thought the MoS2 ( LM 2008 ) primarily worked as a dry lubricant. It would be beneficial in a dry start or similar condition but if an oil film was present it wouldn’t do anything.

I used it in my old 2009 buyback Jetta and it did contribute some 250 ppm moly to the UOA, so it was in suspension when the sample was taken.

That was my experience having UOAs with both MoS2 and Ceratec - both indicate the additive was in suspension but I drive my car daily and always change my oil when warm.

 

[kschachn]

That was my experience having UOAs with both MoS2 and Ceratec - both indicate the additive was in suspension but I drive my car daily and always change my oil when warm.

Well it indicated that some of it was but you don't know how much of it, do you?

 

[CleverUserName]

Considering there is no such thing as a "dry start" as you describe then you're saying it never does anything?

“Dry start or similar condition” is what I said, meaning any situation where there was a lack of oil or oil pressure.

so if you didn’t start a vehicle for long periods or lost or had marginal oil pressure then there would be a beneficial effect from a dry lubricant. (LM 2008)

you could calculate how much of the suspension was in the sample by testing the raw LM 2008 and doing some math. I don’t care really but if I was trying to prove my point it would be worthwhile.

 

[kschachn]

There’s always an oil film unless it’s been chemically or mechanically removed, that’s why I said there isn’t a dry start. That implies there is no oil film and would rely instead on the plating, which isn’t going to happen.

Continuing to drive with no oil pressure? Maybe but you’ll have other problems that will cause the engine to grind to a halt regardless of the plating.

 

[nicholas]

That's not the problem.

?......then what is the problem old wise one?

 

[kschachn]

?......then what is the problem old wise one?

I think that’s been pretty well explained in this thread or others. You’re new, so maybe do a search on the numerous threads dedicated to the merits of these PF videos.