Long Life Oils a New Development? No!

Status
Not open for further replies.

MolaKule

Staff member
Joined
Jun 5, 2002
Messages
25,209
Location
Iowegia - USA
For those who are impressed with the Long Life and Longer Drain interval oils and who think this is a new development, consider this:

In Lubrication Engineering of 1976, International Molybdenum Company (IMC) ran a series of ads for their motor oils; they were called, "Long Oil."

They stated their Molysulfide oils would go 30,000 to 75,000 miles depending on the which type you bought.

Here are some of the claims from that ad:
1. 1% more suspension of Moly from special additive package,
2. 12% reduction in engine friction,
3. 4-9% increase in gas mileage over pure mineral oils,
4. 2-5% increase in diesel fuel mileage
5. 3-6% increase in horsepower,
6. 12.5% improvement in cold starts,
7. significant reductions in varnish and sludge
8. dramatic wear reductions in vital engine components.
 
You have to remember the time frame. Juat a couple of years after the oil embargos, 55mph speed limits, lots of big boats still on the road. Advertising hype for the time.
 
I remember picking up a book on car maintenance by noted mechanic Smokey Yunick. It was his opinion that "polyester motor oils" could conceivably never need an oil change in passenger cars if they could be properly filtered.

However - motor oil additive technology has advanced so much that additive wear is an important reason that motor oil needs to be changed.
 
quote:

Originally posted by y_p_w:
However - motor oil additive technology has advanced so much that additive wear is an important reason that motor oil needs to be changed.

Not sure which came first - the increasingly highly stressed engine designs "chicken", or the increasingly advanced additive technology "eggs" to accomodate the chickens. In other words, both are mutually interactive and inevitable results of progress on both fronts. Pressure from the agenda-driven EPA for ever cleaner burning engines and pressure from entitlement-minded consumers for ever more powerful engines further complicates the situation.
 
I think that the average citizen doesn't know, or care to research, what oil to use.
Present and past marketing aim at this vast majority.
I'm just glad lubricants are improving.
 
quote:

Originally posted by Ray H:

quote:

Originally posted by y_p_w:
However - motor oil additive technology has advanced so much that additive wear is an important reason that motor oil needs to be changed.

Not sure which came first - the increasingly highly stressed engine designs "chicken", or the increasingly advanced additive technology "eggs" to accomodate the chickens. In other words, both are mutually interactive and inevitable results of progress on both fronts. Pressure from the agenda-driven EPA for ever cleaner burning engines and pressure from entitlement-minded consumers for ever more powerful engines further complicates the situation.


Sure - it might be possible to produce a synthetic oil with minimal additives and ridiculous longevity that would be suitable for an engine that was spec'ed for API SE or SF motor oil. Back then, the superior base oil probably meant reduced friction. These days, there are friction modifier additives that do it very well.
 
And they're already being pushed to the limit in some engines . . . "SM" did not come about without considerable infighting among the OEMs - at one point, GM threatened to go it alone with its own, potentially incompatible, motor oil spec. The development phase of "SN" should be very interesting to watch unfold, courtesy of "Lube Report" postings. $12.00/qt motor oils demanded by certain high-buck, high-strung European engines are pointing the way to what's ahead. By the time any standard is codified and marketed, it's demise is already in sight.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom