Moly Level In Engine Oil

[RDY4WAR]

There's a couple of reasons common API oils don't contain high amounts of Mo. The first is cost, the second is Teost. High amounts of Mo will fail Teost even though it has no effect on turbo deposits in the real world. Teost is just sensitive to Mo. Even if common brands wanted to spend the extra for more Mo, they're hampered by API still requiring Teost 33c. This is part of why I don't care about certs and licensing as they often hinder performance as much as they help. Teost is starting to lose favor, being replaced by a newer turbo deposit test in the near future, so that limitation could be lifted.

There is a synergistic relationship between ZDDP and MoDTC and other Mo-based FMs. ZDDP + MoDTC will reduce wear better than just ZDDP alone.

 

[buster]

Oils in general are moving away from high levels of metallic additives in general. See the latest Mobil 1 Advanced Clean VOA that can clean. Toyota used to use 600ppm of moly in their oils so I don't think it has anything to do with cost. Amsoil Domintor uses no moly and it's $17qt. There are other FM available. I've also read in the past that trinuclear is best at lower treat rates (80ppm).

Oils that pass the TEOST test also have to pass the GM Turbo test as well for dexos approval. And the more recent TEOST TT.

Lastly, you keep repeating "This is part of why I don't care about certs and licensing as they often hinder performance as much as they help". So, your solution is to use oils with no approvals in very expensive engines and guess that they work in all areas? That's a risk many won't want to take until outside of warranty period. OEMs are getting stricter about oil changes and using certified oils. Probably better to take the chance post warranty.

You can have outstanding licensed approved oils that greatly exceed the industry standard tests, including the more stringent tests. In fact both Valvoline and Mobil talk about how they greatly shoot above them all when developing.

TEOST may be dated in some respects, but I'm not too sure I'd be happy purchasing a $17qt oil (RL) to have it fail the TEOST by 100mg. Passing is 30mg and RL scored a 126mg.

I emailed RL by the way with those results. Silent. No response. They always respond too.

Don't get bamboozled.


This is Mobil 1 Advanced Clean which meets GF-7, dexos and states it can clean up an engine in 1 OCI.

113 moly
446 mg
1,004 ca
P - 609
Zn - 653
TBN - 5.49
Oxidation - 6


"If high-temperature deposits are the concern, the 33C method remains the best choice. For lower temperature deposits that are more related to oxidation, the MHT method would be preferred for areas where volatiles are not likely to accumulate, and the Turbo method is preferred for areas where volatiles are more likely to be retained and participate in these undesirable reactions."

https://www.savantlab.com/testing-highlights/teost-turbo-test-method-evolution/

 

[Japanese]

So what are the molybdenum disulfide levels in this discussion based on a spectrographic analysis?

From what I've seen - pretty low.

 

[GW.]

Oils in general are moving away from high levels of metallic additives in general. See the latest Mobil 1 Advanced Clean VOA that can clean. Toyota used to use 600ppm of moly in their oils so I don't think it has anything to do with cost. Amsoil Domintor uses no moly and it's $17qt. There are other FM available. I've also read in the past that trinuclear is best at lower treat rates (80ppm).

Oils that pass the TEOST test also have to pass the GM Turbo test as well for dexos approval. And the more recent TEOST TT.

Lastly, you keep repeating "This is part of why I don't care about certs and licensing as they often hinder performance as much as they help". So, your solution is to use oils with no approvals in very expensive engines and guess that they work in all areas? That's a risk many won't want to take until outside of warranty period. OEMs are getting stricter about oil changes and using certified oils. Probably better to take the chance post warranty.

You can have outstanding licensed approved oils that greatly exceed the industry standard tests, including the more stringent tests. In fact both Valvoline and Mobil talk about how they greatly shoot above them all when developing.

TEOST may be dated in some respects, but I'm not too sure I'd be happy purchasing a $17qt oil (RL) to have it fail the TEOST by 100mg. Passing is 30mg and RL scored a 126mg.

I emailed RL by the way with those results. Silent. No response. They always respond too.

Don't get bamboozled.


This is Mobil 1 Advanced Clean which meets GF-7, dexos and states it can clean up an engine in 1 OCI.

113 moly
446 mg
1,004 ca
P - 609
Zn - 653
TBN - 5.49
Oxidation - 6


"If high-temperature deposits are the concern, the 33C method remains the best choice. For lower temperature deposits that are more related to oxidation, the MHT method would be preferred for areas where volatiles are not likely to accumulate, and the Turbo method is preferred for areas where volatiles are more likely to be retained and participate in these undesirable reactions."

https://www.savantlab.com/testing-highlights/teost-turbo-test-method-evolution/

One thing that the Lake vid taught me was you have to be very careful which boutique to run in a street vehicle. Without test data we really don’t know what you’re getting. Some are very specialized.

 

[buster]

One thing that the Lake vid taught me was you have to be very careful which boutique to run in a street vehicle. Without test data we really don’t know what you’re getting. Some are very specialized.

I think sometimes we think more is better with oil when in reality it's the better balance is that is better. Of course you can skimp out and cut costs and also use cheaper components.

Red Line has kind of been one of those oils that looks great but seems to do just OK. Does well in some engines, not so well in others. One of the guys from Bimmerworld said some moved away from RL as they saw no improvement and got as good or better results with the BMW oil.

I've also seen COF tests done with RL and dynos where RL produced less HP than oils with much less moly. So you don't know until you really test the heck out of it.

 

[Z28racecar]

Oils in general are moving away from high levels of metallic additives in general. See the latest Mobil 1 Advanced Clean VOA that can clean. Toyota used to use 600ppm of moly in their oils so I don't think it has anything to do with cost. Amsoil Domintor uses no moly and it's $17qt. There are other FM available. I've also read in the past that trinuclear is best at lower treat rates (80ppm).

Oils that pass the TEOST test also have to pass the GM Turbo test as well for dexos approval. And the more recent TEOST TT.

Lastly, you keep repeating "This is part of why I don't care about certs and licensing as they often hinder performance as much as they help". So, your solution is to use oils with no approvals in very expensive engines and guess that they work in all areas? That's a risk many won't want to take until outside of warranty period. OEMs are getting stricter about oil changes and using certified oils. Probably better to take the chance post warranty.

You can have outstanding licensed approved oils that greatly exceed the industry standard tests, including the more stringent tests. In fact both Valvoline and Mobil talk about how they greatly shoot above them all when developing.

TEOST may be dated in some respects, but I'm not too sure I'd be happy purchasing a $17qt oil (RL) to have it fail the TEOST by 100mg. Passing is 30mg and RL scored a 126mg.

I emailed RL by the way with those results. Silent. No response. They always respond too.

Don't get bamboozled.


This is Mobil 1 Advanced Clean which meets GF-7, dexos and states it can clean up an engine in 1 OCI.

113 moly
446 mg
1,004 ca
P - 609
Zn - 653
TBN - 5.49
Oxidation - 6


"If high-temperature deposits are the concern, the 33C method remains the best choice. For lower temperature deposits that are more related to oxidation, the MHT method would be preferred for areas where volatiles are not likely to accumulate, and the Turbo method is preferred for areas where volatiles are more likely to be retained and participate in these undesirable reactions."

https://www.savantlab.com/testing-highlights/teost-turbo-test-method-evolution/

Amsoil Dominator has a small amount of moly in it. I sent what I had left over from my 565s dyno run for a VOA and it came back with 68ppm of moly. I don't know what kind though

 

[buster]

Amsoil Dominator has a small amount of moly in it. I sent what I had left over from my 565s dyno run and it came back with 68ppm of moly. I don't know what kind though

Thanks. For quite a while it wasn't using any moly and they touted a specialized FM. Guess they're using some trinuclear. Notice the level you mentioned is only 68ppm and that's their premium racing oil. That tells you don't always have to have high amounts and it's not about cost.

 

[KCJeep]

I think sometimes we think more is better with oil when in reality it's the better balance is that is better.

Ding ding ding we have a winner folks!

 

[buster]

Here is one of the best racing oils on the market from 2 years ago. No moly. It's not about cost it's about the chemistry balanced and what works best with the chemistry being used for a stated purpose.

 

[Z28racecar]

Here is one of the best racing oils on the market from 2 years ago. No moly. It's not about cost it's about the chemistry balanced and what works best with the chemistry being used for a stated purpose.

View attachment 315354

My VOA was from April last year for 10W-30. It's on the VOA database if you'd like to look

 

[buster]

My VOA was from April last year for 10W-30. It's on the VOA database if you'd like to look

Oh I believe you. I was just pointing out that high moly doesn't guarantee anything.

 

[Z28racecar]

Oh I believe you. I was just pointing out that high moly doesn't guarantee anything.

No worries, I wasn't trying to insinuate you didn't. I'd trust Amsoil Dominator just as much as I'd trust a moly rich oil like HPL

 

[OVERKILL]

Moly or molybdenum disulfide makes engines dirty

No, it doesn't. Most oil additives by themselves are not going to look "clean", their appearance prior to blending does not reflect what transpires in actual operation.
https://www.ruhanilubricants.in/products/gasoline-engine-oil-additive-package-sfslsmsn.html

---

Moly is a friction modifier that has a synergistic relationship with ZDDP, reducing wear more than ZDDP alone. The type and treat rate of the moly compound, or compounds, varies depending on the rest of the formula. Infineum developed Trimer moly, which reduced the required treat rate to get most of the same benefits of MoDTC, though Dave has mentioned that blending trimer and dimer together can perform better than either by themselves, and that different FM's can also be complimentary. While the most common FM is moly, titanium is used as an alternative in some lubricants as is tungsten, so if you don't see moly, it's often due to the fact that one of these has been used in its stead.

Most boutique oils, as @RDY4WAR noted, have more moly (though the types and treat rates are of course proprietary) than anything with the API stamp. This includes, Redline, HPL, Driven, Torco...etc. I suspect he's right and that it's TEOST 33C that restricts the amount of moly FM that can be used in API-spec lubricants. Blenders trying to produce product that performs better than the minimum level mandated by the API, but are still API-approved, have had to be creative in their blending approach, working within the constraints imposed, like the ceiling on phosphorous for example.

 

[FranklinJL]

There's a couple of reasons common API oils don't contain high amounts of Mo. The first is cost, the second is Teost. High amounts of Mo will fail Teost even though it has no effect on turbo deposits in the real world. Teost is just sensitive to Mo. Even if common brands wanted to spend the extra for more Mo, they're hampered by API still requiring Teost 33c. This is part of why I don't care about certs and licensing as they often hinder performance as much as they help. Teost is starting to lose favor, being replaced by a newer turbo deposit test in the near future, so that limitation could be lifted.

There is a synergistic relationship between ZDDP and MoDTC and other Mo-based FMs. ZDDP + MoDTC will reduce wear better than just ZDDP alone.

Im sure thats why HPL Euro numbers are fairly equal Moly+ZDDP

 

[FranklinJL]

One thing that the Lake vid taught me was you have to be very careful which boutique to run in a street vehicle. Without test data we really don’t know what you’re getting. Some are very specialized.

This is why I trust the HPL stuff.....Ive seen so many good used oil analysis, and honestly their euro oils are pretty close to say a blender like Ravenol, just more moly, and I'm sure better base stocks

 

[buster]

This is why I trust the HPL stuff.....Ive seen so many good used oil analysis, and honestly their euro oils are pretty close to say a blender like Ravenol, just more moly, and I'm sure better base stocks

And all of their lines are premium. Even offer a No VII oil which is unheard of.

 

[I<3oil]

Here is one of the best racing oils on the market from 2 years ago. No moly. It's not about cost it's about the chemistry balanced and what works best with the chemistry being used for a stated purpose.

View attachment 315354

How often are those racing vehicles having their engine torn down and rebuilt versus a mass-produced passenger sedan? Not exactly apples to oranges, if yanno whatta mean.

 

[buster]

How often are those racing vehicles having their engine torn down and rebuilt versus a mass-produced passenger sedan? Not exactly apples to oranges, if yanno whatta mean.

I imagine some can go quite a while on Dominator but racing oils are usually not designed for longer OCI. We often see high levels of moly in some racing oils, but Dominator is not one of them.

 

[RDY4WAR]

Oils in general are moving away from high levels of metallic additives in general. See the latest Mobil 1 Advanced Clean VOA that can clean. Toyota used to use 600ppm of moly in their oils so I don't think it has anything to do with cost. Amsoil Domintor uses no moly and it's $17qt. There are other FM available. I've also read in the past that trinuclear is best at lower treat rates (80ppm).

Oils that pass the TEOST test also have to pass the GM Turbo test as well for dexos approval. And the more recent TEOST TT.

Lastly, you keep repeating "This is part of why I don't care about certs and licensing as they often hinder performance as much as they help". So, your solution is to use oils with no approvals in very expensive engines and guess that they work in all areas? That's a risk many won't want to take until outside of warranty period. OEMs are getting stricter about oil changes and using certified oils. Probably better to take the chance post warranty.

You can have outstanding licensed approved oils that greatly exceed the industry standard tests, including the more stringent tests. In fact both Valvoline and Mobil talk about how they greatly shoot above them all when developing.

TEOST may be dated in some respects, but I'm not too sure I'd be happy purchasing a $17qt oil (RL) to have it fail the TEOST by 100mg. Passing is 30mg and RL scored a 126mg.

I emailed RL by the way with those results. Silent. No response. They always respond too.

Don't get bamboozled.


This is Mobil 1 Advanced Clean which meets GF-7, dexos and states it can clean up an engine in 1 OCI.

113 moly
446 mg
1,004 ca
P - 609
Zn - 653
TBN - 5.49
Oxidation - 6


"If high-temperature deposits are the concern, the 33C method remains the best choice. For lower temperature deposits that are more related to oxidation, the MHT method would be preferred for areas where volatiles are not likely to accumulate, and the Turbo method is preferred for areas where volatiles are more likely to be retained and participate in these undesirable reactions."

https://www.savantlab.com/testing-highlights/teost-turbo-test-method-evolution/

A team of 300,000 engineers working for 10 years couldn't design a submersible strong enough to withstand the crushing depths of my disappointment in you with your recent statements.

I'm not surprised RL didn't respond, especially if you came at them like you did this comment. What did you expect them to say? Would you have accepted their response if they did? (no)

Savant is correct that 33c is currently still the best choice for API oils. You used to not be one to bench race controversial lab tests, and yet here we are. You used to not be one to be bamboozled by marketing jargon, and yet you're calling me bamboozled.

I don't care what Teost 33c says when I've seen cleaner turbo center sections on RL and HPL than I have with any API oil. If Teost 33c was accurate with high moly oils, then HPL's tens of millions of miles of data in turbo engines would have evidence of turbo coking all through it. Yet, they routinely get back the cleanest results these fleets have ever seen. There's a white paper published on the invalidity of Teost to the real world.

You make this out as if RL, Driven, Amsoil, and HPL are just throwing tons of moly at a formula at will without any R&D, and I KNOW you know better than that.

 

[buster]

A team of 300,000 engineers working for 10 years couldn't design a submersible strong enough to withstand the crushing depths of my disappointment in you with your recent statements.

I'm not surprised RL didn't respond, especially if you came at them like you did this comment. What did you expect them to say? Would you have accepted their response if they did? (no)

Savant is correct that 33c is currently still the best choice for API oils. You used to not be one to bench race controversial lab tests, and yet here we are. You used to not be one to be bamboozled by marketing jargon, and yet you're calling me bamboozled.

I don't care what Teost 33c says when I've seen cleaner turbo center sections on RL and HPL than I have with any API oil. If Teost 33c was accurate with high moly oils, then HPL's tens of millions of miles of data in turbo engines would have evidence of turbo coking all through it. Yet, they routinely get back the cleanest results these fleets have ever seen. There's a white paper published on the invalidity of Teost to the real world.

You make this out as if RL, Driven, Amsoil, and HPL are just throwing tons of moly at a formula at will without any R&D, and I KNOW you know better than that.

I'm here to discuss oil, unbiasedly as possible. My bamboozled comment wasn't directed at you, it was directed at the "more is better, trust me bro, API/Euro cert oils can't be that good" generalizations. It's just not true.

I asked RL if they had any explanation why their oil failed the TEOST so badly. No response. Is it an issue? I don't believe it is as I've said before. I think people over the years would have noticed a problem. I personally haven't used RL in a turbo or seen any teardowns to know if RL would leave deposits behind so I can only go by what they say. But they didn't respond, bottom line. If they do I'll post up.

I think I've said repeatedly that you need modeling, bench, engine testing, field testing. I never said to rely on bench tests. It also depends on which bench test we're dealing with. People tend to cherry pick favorable results when their oil does well.

I was one of the people that posted about the TEOST being flawed. It's still required though and used in the industry. And the TT accounts for high moly oils.

I don't know if it's true but years ago RL would formulate, run some basic bench tests in-house, then run in their cars. If no problem, good to go. Amsoil now has their own dedicated engine lab one with a dewpoint-controlled test cell. Not sure what Driven has.

More isn't better and boutique oils don't necessarily always mean better. That was my point. Amsoil Dominator uses no moly and is a premium racing oil. Different chemistry.

I personally have not seen any turbo teardowns or engine teardowns on RL or HPL, but I believe you.

Unfortunately, some people don't want to have to guess or assume things or play Guinea pig with their cars. With HPL, Amsoil, RL, they have a proven history and are very solid, reputable companies.