Moly Level In Engine Oil
- Thread starter FranklinJL
- Start date
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Ahhh yes, good old AI.
Here are the slides from the Afton handbook for all the MB approvals:
Now, I'm not seeing TEOST 33C anywhere there
Ahhh yes, good old AI.
Here are the slides from the Afton handbook for all the MB approvals:
View attachment 316791
View attachment 316792
View attachment 316793
View attachment 316794
View attachment 316795
View attachment 316796
View attachment 316797
View attachment 316798
Now, I'm not seeing TEOST 33C anywhere there
Well, that’s good, it scratches possibility 1 off my list.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
As I said, I suspect it's as simple as I posited, that all these oils carry the basic API approval, which means they are subject to TEOST 33C and that necessarily limits their moly content.
Do you think if TEOST 33C was removed from API we would see a few blenders with HPL levels of Mo in approved oils?
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
That may not be cost effective, but I think we would see levels increase.
I know what happens when you assume things (I'm retired US Army), however here I go. Would it be safe to assume if these different higher end oils that do so well on the turbocharger deposit testing would be better at not causing or allowing the oil ring coking/sticking on these newer low tension piston ring engines than say off the Walmart shelf API rated oils also?
So within the licensed world you have your basic low-cost budget blends (just meets the spec/bulk oil etc.) and top tier brands (Mobil 1 Extended Performance/Pennzoil Ultra Platinum/Valvoline Restore and Protect) that greatly exceed the baseline tests, and cost more. The boutique brands can formulate to their own higher standards which in theory should generally be better across the board, and they sometimes are. The only potential downside is when boutique companies top treat/modify existing add packs, hopefully under the guidance of the additive supplier, you run the risk of having an unbalanced formulation. However the well know and respected boutique blenders - Amsoil, HPL, RL, know what they're doing and have years of experience.
To answer more directly, there are many off-shelf oils that will do a fantastic job at keeping rings clean under OEM OCI. Those would include Mobil 1 Advanced Clean / Mobil 1 Extended Performance, Pennzoil Ultra Platinum, Valvoline Restore and Protect, Mobil 1 ESP.
In theory, a boutique oil has the potential to be better than a licensed product because they're less restricted and not formulated to a price point. The major brands have economy of scale, but it's still a price battle on the shelf and they're chemically restricted in some areas. To actually quantify though where the improvements are with a boutique brand can be tricky. We saw TiGEO use HPL in racing and it gave him better shear stability. So that was a measurable difference. For deposit testing, it's unclear. In theory yes, the boutique brands should do a better job at keeping rings clean. There is a leap of faith though because you truly don't know. The brands I mentioned have great reputations.
I prefer testing results. I always have and I think it's important. That doesn't mean oils without them aren't as good or better, it simply means they fall into the "should be better" category.
Here is an example of what Amsoil does, even for their CVT fluid. You don't need this information to make a good decision, but I like to see it.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2021
- Messages
- 727
Can we buy boron as a separate additive like moly ?
There’s no OEM approved euro oil with more than 150 ppm that I’ve seen of late. The BMW 10W-60 has 200 ppm but it’s just an A3/B4, BMW has no actual spec for the 10W-60.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
I think he's referring to this thread:
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
I found a few on the Russian oil club site that were between 200 and 300, but nothing 300+.
Except, Castrol doesn't always do that. Longlife III is for 504/507 & C30. No MB approval. There probably wasn't an equivalent MB spec Castrol thought it would be a good business case to include getting current manufacturer approval
But for Longlife IV FE 0w20, it has the 508/509, C20, as well as MB 229.71/229.72, BMW LL-17 FE+, and even API SQ & ILSAC GF-7
I have used this product with success on a 2015 Honda CRV that started a VVT actuator cold start rattle on cold start at about 60,000 miles. That particular 2.4L engine was known for the issue. This Liqui Moly MoS2 stopped that rattle, saving me money, not having to fix it properly with replaced parts.
That would explain it, RDE is better for gross screening rather than accurate results.I think he's referring to this thread:
This last OCI, I sent samples to Speediagnostix (RDE) and Wearcheck (ICP) and their numbers tracked very closely, well within the margin of error of $35-$70 used oil analysis testing.
Even LSJR says pick a lab and stick with it. You're not looking at individual numbers, but the overall results across many samples, aka "trend analysis" (I know you know this, @kschachn, but not everybody does). Whether a labs' testing method is "good" or "bad", they should be relatively consistent. You lose the consistency when switching labs.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Yep, and if you are worried about fuel, choose a lab that uses GC, which means it can't be Blackstone.
Also, we've found Blackstone tends to track low on elemental concentration relative to the other labs.
I've had excellent service from OAI/Polaris here in Canada (lab is in Edmonton), I just wish they checked for a few of the more exotic FM compounds.
Yes a test has both repeatability and reproducibility. Both an ICP analysis and the RDE will or should have corresponding ASTM procedures which will give you repeatability and reproducibility as long as the test procedures are performed in accordance with the test. You really should not lose a lot between labs, I seriously doubt the reproducibility is really that bad. I know it isn’t for ICP.
From what little I know about RDE it does have some masking or sensitivity problems with some elements but I don’t know which ones. But really the key is following proper calibration and analysis techniques in strict accordance with the procedure. Sometimes people like to do Q&D “field tests” to get rough numbers and RDE is a whole lot more conducive to this type of test.
So yeah I’m agreeing that a proper lab test should yield similar numbers if the test is being performed properly. I was just stuck on the whole notion that the different tests gave “2x” differences which is whack in my mind. Of course it depends on the absolute results, if one test give 1 ppm and the other 2 ppm then of course that’s 2x. I just don’t think the methods are that far apart.
Per LSJR (yeah, I know 
), ICP is limited to particles in the range of ~4 microns while RDE is ~8 microns. Also, ICP requires the sample to be diluted while RDE does not.
The only element where I've really seen differences was in molybdenum in certain oils, and this was due to the types of molybdenum used in that oil.
), ICP is limited to particles in the range of ~4 microns while RDE is ~8 microns. Also, ICP requires the sample to be diluted while RDE does not.The only element where I've really seen differences was in molybdenum in certain oils, and this was due to the types of molybdenum used in that oil.
Similar threads
