MMO 20% Rotella 15w40 (80%) 4650 Mi 2003 Deville

[440Magnum]

Originally Posted By: JohnBrowning

THis is a diesel oil that when used in the harsh diesel invironment can easily go well past 20,000 miles but in this case coulod hardly make it to 7000. THis car has a large sump so the only thing that is out of place is the 20%MMO. TBN is important!


I agree on the TBN being lower than it should, but isn't it true that *generally* speaking, gasoline engine combustion generates acidic residues faster than diesel? Diesel generates gobs of particulates, but I thought it was easier on TBN. I could be remembering wrong, which is why I ask. Running RTS for nearly 6k miles in my Jeep drops the TBN to around 4.

 

[Gary Allan]

Quote:
3. I decided to run 20% MMO with the Rotella 15w40 for an OCI in this Cadillac for general cleaning just "for good measure" and, honestly, out of curiosity for what the analysis would look like.


Using it prophylactically, sure. That's what I do with Auto-Rx. Unknown engine ..

..and yes, curiosity is a good thing. We want to know.

Quote:
4. I put 6 quarts of Rotella and 1 1/2 quarts of MMO in and ran for the whole OCI with it. The dipstick dropped about halfway down the cross-hatched area during the OCI - meaning usage of about a quart every 10,000 miles by extrapolation - and no make up oil was added.


It may be zero consumption over 10k. I speculate that the consumption that you noted, and given the flash point (which is just about virgin), I'd say that you flashed off all the volatiles in MMO and are seeing the substrata residuals that are more stable, but lower in visc.


Nice report.

The main passive objections/resistance to MMO routine usage is just that oils are just so darn good today. They're "elegant" compared to oils of just 15-20 years ago. Surely making major advancements in the past decade of high merit. Most of us just can't see adulterating such fine product.

..but it doesn't appear to be a bad thing, per se~

You'll note that Amsoil, the all time bashed poster child of snakeoil marketing ( from some views

) has no "routine" additive for oil. Not one. Surely they would be "right there" to capitalize on it if there was much to be done.

 

[JAG]

Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
I agree on the TBN being lower than it should, but isn't it true that *generally* speaking, gasoline engine combustion generates acidic residues faster than diesel? Diesel generates gobs of particulates, but I thought it was easier on TBN. I could be remembering wrong, which is why I ask. Running RTS for nearly 6k miles in my Jeep drops the TBN to around 4.

Based on UOAs, I have no doubt that you are correct that gasoline engines typically lower the oils' TBN faster than diesel engines using ULSD.

 

[ronrackley]

Originally Posted By: 440Magnum

$20 says it looks BETTER. Northstars are super low-wearing for the most part- the low wear numbers are no surprise (Northstars just pull head bolts and threads out of the block when they're ready to die, rather than wearing away). The low TBN and obvious additive dilution won't be there without the MMO is my bet.



I'm not a betting man when it comes to UOAs, but thanks anyway.

I agree about the Northstars. My wife and I are on our third and fourth 2000 or later Devilles. After putting 160K and 140K nearly trouble free miles on our 2000 and 2001 cars, we decided to trade up to newer ones last year. They are very easy on oil, as you say, but I always change at 5K no matter what the OLM says just because I think it is good to do that. Being the teenage son delagated to sitting out back with a putty knife, wire brush and five gallon pail of Gunk cleaning sludge out of valve covers and, especially, oil pans of engines we overhauled at my father's shop in the 1960s marred me for life, I suppose. I think Cadillac solved the head bolt problems in the 1990s and that has never been a concern for me, although our older Devilles used a lot more oil than the ones we presently drive.

Yes, I was surprised at the 2.7 TBN. I was expecting at least 4 or 5 at these miles even with the dilution. My Rotella experience is with RTS Synthetic 5w40 which I have used for the last several years (I used Mobil 1 products for about 20 years before that), though, and I didn't know what to expect with the 15w40 conventional oil that I used just because I couldn't "see" putting MMO in the more expensive synhthetic oil for a clean-up.

The iron, copper and lead numbers being at a fraction of the averages for this engine is what caught my eye - and nothing else was out of line despite the low-looking TBN. I was expecting somewhat lower viscosity numbers with the dilution, actually, but they are not a problem where they are. I wonder if the wear numbers will be this low on this engine with the RTS I just put in? You know, a 2.7 TBN wouldn't bother me at all if I stick with a 5000 mile OCI.

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: ronrackley


The iron, copper and lead numbers being at a fraction of the averages for this engine is what caught my eye - and nothing else was out of line despite the low-looking TBN. I was expecting somewhat lower viscosity numbers with the dilution, actually, but they are not a problem where they are. I wonder if the wear numbers will be this low on this engine with the RTS I just put in? You know, a 2.7 TBN wouldn't bother me at all if I stick with a 5000 mile OCI.



Exactly! If you plan on an extended OCI then I'd be a little concerned. I look at it this way, you didn't do a VOA either, so is it possible the TBN started a little lower? Could they have been off with the TBN #'s? I'm still learning about UOA's, I have them down pretty good, but that is the reason for the questions.

In life there are trade offs, maybe MMO does lower the TBN a bit. No biggie for me if I'm getting great wear numbers and a cleaner engine it's worth it. JMO

 

[Jax_RX8]

Originally Posted By: Jim Allen

Your financial contribution notwithstanding, Jax,


And what financial contribution would that be??? I am in no way associated with Marvel, nor I have been compensated in some fashion as you suggest.

I am just a user that happened to "discover" MMO a few years back (read my previous posts), went through the normal skepticism, and through trying it out, liked it, and started doing a lot of research on the product.

This is why I was able to provide the detailed makeup data I have provided, through my research I performed when I was in the skeptical phase.

With this research, use, and observations, I have evolved to admire and use the product.

I have previously used many of the products this board has recommended in the past, and have liked some such as LC products, but have kept an open mind as time goes on. While it may not be for all, I have not yet found another product to better fit my needs and expectations.

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: Jax_RX8
Originally Posted By: Jim Allen

Your financial contribution notwithstanding, Jax,


And what financial contribution would that be??? I am in no way associated with Marvel, nor I have been compensated in some fashion as you suggest.

I am just a user that happened to "discover" MMO a few years back, went through the normal skepticism, and through trying it out, liked it, and started doing a lot of research on the product.

This is why I was able to provide the detailed makeup data I have provided, through my research I performed when I was in the skeptical phase.

With this research, use, and observations, I have evolved to admire and use the product.

I have previously used many of the products this board has recommended in the past, and have liked some such as LC products, but have kept an open mind as time goes on. While it may not be for all, I have not yet found another product to my needs and expectations.


I haven't tried LC products as of yet. But we do share the same views about MMO. Glad you posted the detailed make up data, it was interesting and helpful!

 

[Jaymus]

With the UOA of this 'combo', I'd stick with it, no doubt.

BUT, is this really RTS 15W-40? Look at the Calcium, Zinc, and Phosphorous. Doesn't look like it, to me. But the vis looks right considering it's 20% MMO. Eh, who knows..

 

[ronrackley]

Originally Posted By: Jaymus
With the UOA of this 'combo', I'd stick with it, no doubt.

BUT, is this really RTS 15W-40? Look at the Calcium, Zinc, and Phosphorous. Doesn't look like it, to me. But the vis looks right considering it's 20% MMO. Eh, who knows..


Well, I poured it out of two white gallon jugs with the "Triple Protection" label that I bought at a local WalMart. I bought them about a year ago, if memory serves me correctly. I checked to make sure that the cap seals were intact when I bought them, as I had some RTS (Rotella T Synthetic 5w40) from WalMart that I discovered had been opened when I went to use it a few years ago.

The car has RTS in it now with no MMO. I'll have an analysis done on it when it gets close to 5,000 miles on the oil. I estimate that will be in late March. It will be interesting to see how it compares then with this first report. I will post what I find.

 

[MolaKule]

Quote:
Any ZDDP dilution is well overcome by the other friction reduction properties of MMO.


And what is in the MMO additive package that would do this?


I can put a large percentage of methanol in a 20W50 and still have decent wear numbers on a SB racing engine. But it only proved that my additive package and base oil selection was robust enough to survive.

Point is, a 15W40 is probably not a good test vehicle for testing the potential of viscosity reduction verses wear.

 

[gib]

Originally Posted By: Jax_RX8
Originally Posted By: Jim Allen

Your financial contribution notwithstanding, Jax,

And what financial contribution would that be??? I am in no way associated with Marvel, nor I have been compensated in some fashion as you suggest.

Originally Posted By: Jax_RX8 earlier in this thread
My 2 cents.

He wasn't implying anything, just joking a bit.

 

[Jax_RX8]

Originally Posted By: MolaKule

And what is in the MMO additive package that would do this?


First the Boron, and I do understand many oils already have some of this, but some do not - so in some cases, this may be neither a plus or minus.

Most importantly for friction reduction are the 2 different di-chlorobenzenes, which are potent friction reducers at very low levels within the oil.

Of course these are used in many cutting oils. I do understand that these are being phased out of some cutting oils due to environmental issues. I also understand that they have the potential to create acids when in use, and this is why the TBN would used up faster with MMO's use, in neutralizing any acid formation caused by the chlorinated benzenes.

For this reason, I would only run MMO full OCI for 5000 miles maximum with most dino oils (HDEOs and some synthetics could go longer), to not exceed the anti-oxident capacity of the host oil. If I wanted very long OCIs, I would wait and not add the MMO until the last 1000 miles of an OCI for a good cleanup shot before the oil change.

I would also say that we have now seen quite a few UOAs that have shown most any host oil today has plenty of anti-oxidents to counter any acid production for a "normal" length OCI, although the HDEO oil used on this case has a higher starting TBN and could have gone quite a bit longer.

The last thing is we only know what we know about MMO through VOA, MSDS, and things revealed off of the MMO website - there may be other ingredients that we are not aware of in the formulation that may also contribute.

Is my logic/understanding here off base?

 

[Jax_RX8]

Originally Posted By: MolaKule

Point is, a 15W40 is probably not a good test vehicle for testing the potential of viscosity reduction verses wear.


I forgot to address this on in the previous post.

There was a very good report on a Dodge Charger police car that ran 4500 miles on generic 5w20 oil and a full quart of MMO (6 quarts total) - this report showed the end viscosity at 7.6 cst at the end of the run, a very minor viscosity drop and well within the 20 weight range.

MMO tends to have a lessor effect of viscosity reduction as the base oil get thinner. On the Marvel website, they acknowledge the viscosity reduction against 30 and 40 weight oils in that they may reduce an equivalent 1/2 a weight for a 30 weight (to a low 30 or high 20) and 1 range for a 40 weight, but for 20 weight oils, the reduction is very minor and within the specs of a 20 weight oil.

This Charger saw typical police duty with many, many hours of idling followed by many full acceleration, very hard driving. This report showed low wear levels with and Iron reading of 12 ppm, well below the historical norm for this hemi engine for the same OCI interval. Other wear metals were similarly low.

I do not view the viscosity reduction as a big concern, but if you want to be conservative like I am, the easy answer is to run one grade higher with a full quart of MMO in the mix - this is what I do for my 2 Ford 5.4's, as they call for 5W20 and I run 5W30 with a full quart of MMO, essentially getting a 9.25 cst oil at operating temp (a high 20 or low 30 weight.)

I am interested in your thoughts on this approach as well.

 

[ronrackley]

Originally Posted By: Jax_RX8


Most importantly for friction reduction are the 2 different di-chlorobenzenes, which are potent friction reducers at very low levels within the oil.

Of course these are used in many cutting oils. I do understand that these are being phased out of some cutting oils due to environmental issues. I also understand that they have the potential to create acids when in use, and this is why the TBN would used up faster with MMO's use, in neutralizing any acid formation caused by the chlorinated benzenes.



I'm impressed with this scientific-sounding explanation that seems to clarify it all. I assume you know more about chemistry than I remember from the basic inorganic courses I took at Clemson 40 years ago. I don't know what to think, but I know I found what I found with the MMO in for the OCI.

If I draw out some of the straight RTS I have in the car now at about 4500 miles [I've been wanting to get one of those gadgets for doing that through the dipstick hole ever since I saw them on the Blackstone website] and the wear metals look closer to the engine averages than the very low values I found with the mix, should I try 80% RTS/20% MMO next or repeat the first formulation? RTS is what I normally use.

 

[Jax_RX8]

Originally Posted By: ronrackley

If I draw out some of the straight RTS I have in the car now at about 4500 miles [I've been wanting to get one of those gadgets for doing that through the dipstick hole ever since I saw them on the Blackstone website] and the wear metals look closer to the engine averages than the very low values I found with the mix, should I try 80% RTS/20% MMO next or repeat the first formulation? RTS is what I normally use.


Marvel recommends replacing one quart of your sump capacity, not to exceed 25%. 10% is considered the "minimum" treatment dosage for effectiveness.

I substitute one full quart with each oil change as it is jut easier than calculating 20% or pushing to the 25% maximum substitution. Two of my cars have 6 qt capacity and one has a 7 qt capacity. This puts me at 16.6% MMO for the 6 qt capacity engines and 14.3% MMO for the 7 qt capacity, providing my observed improvement in engine quietness, smoothness, and maybe even a little more pep.

That said, your 80/20 ratio showed great results and you could very well stick with that ratio as well (I am not sure what you mean by "first formulation" as I thought this was what was run).

Hope this helps in you decision making.

 

[Jim Allen]

Originally Posted By: Jax_RX8
Originally Posted By: Jim Allen

Your financial contribution notwithstanding, Jax,


And what financial contribution would that be??? I am in no way associated with Marvel, nor I have been compensated in some fashion as you suggest.




It was a joke, son! Your post said something about, "your $.02" Play on words???

 

[ronrackley]

I'm OK on the 80%/20%. I put in 6 quarts of Rotella 15w40 for 80% of the 7.5 quart sump capacity and 1.5 quarts of MMO for 20%. It is the same concentration of MMO you would get with 4 quarts of regular oil and 1 quart of MMO in a regular 5 quart sump.

By "first formulation" I meant with the motor oil in the mix being Rotella 15w40 - their conventional oil - that I ran the last OCI with the MMO as opposed to the Rotella T Synthetic 5w40 that I normally run and that is in the car for a new OCI now. I used the conventional Rotella because I figured why waste money on synthetic oil for a maintenance cleanup run with MMO. I sent the sample in just for fun, but when I saw the wear metal numbers I decided that I would do a little more analysis to see if there is more to marvel over than I ever realized. I'm going to have this new RTS analyzed at about the same mileage and decide what to do from there. If the wear numbers don't look as good as they did this last OCI with the MMO, I'm going to repeat the MMO run to see if it agrees with the first one. I'm thinking that I'll do that with MMO in some RTS next time unless I talk myself into going out and buying some more conventional Rotella for science.

 

[Jax_RX8]

Originally Posted By: Jim Allen
[
It was a joke, son! Your post said something about, "your $.02" Play on words???


My bad, I misunderstood.

With all the talk lately about paid sponsors of products, I just wanted to make everyone understood my opinions/data are my own.

 

[Jax_RX8]

Originally Posted By: ronrackley

I'm OK on the 80%/20%. I put in 6 quarts of Rotella 15w40 for 80% of the 7.5 quart sump capacity and 1.5 quarts of MMO for 20%. It is the same concentration of MMO you would get with 4 quarts of regular oil and 1 quart of MMO in a regular 5 quart sump.

By "first formulation" I meant with the motor oil in the mix being Rotella 15w40 - their conventional oil - that I ran the last OCI with the MMO as opposed to the Rotella T Synthetic 5w40 that I normally run and that is in the car for a new OCI now. I used the conventional Rotella because I figured why waste money on synthetic oil for a maintenance cleanup run with MMO. I sent the sample in just for fun, but when I saw the wear metal numbers I decided that I would do a little more analysis to see if there is more to marvel over than I ever realized. I'm going to have this new RTS analyzed at about the same mileage and decide what to do from there. If the wear numbers don't look as good as they did this last OCI with the MMO, I'm going to repeat the MMO run to see if it agrees with the first one. I'm thinking that I'll do that with MMO in some RTS next time unless I talk myself into going out and buying some more conventional Rotella for science.


Aw, I missed that your current filI was with RTS.

RTS is a fine oil, and if you don't mind spending the extra, run it with the MMO. I did that with my old RX8 (now sold), which benefitted from a thicker oil, and very much liked the results.

But, with the results of this OCI, I think I would save my money and stick with the dino Rotella and MMO (once you have used up your RTS stash) exactly as you described.

 

[Jim Allen]

Originally Posted By: Jax_RX8
Originally Posted By: Jim Allen
[
It was a joke, son! Your post said something about, "your $.02" Play on words???


My bad, I misunderstood.

With all the talk lately about paid sponsors of products, I just wanted to make everyone understood my opinions/data are my own.


Not problemo! I

This has been an interesting discussion overall and I've learned a lot about MMO. Still not convinced of the benefits or necessity of using it, but if I was presented with a good reason to do it, I wouldn't worry about my engine blowing up.

If someone would just set me up with a test lab and a large budget (and I'd work pretty cheap), I'd solve all these burning questions. Sigh!