Moly vs non-Moly oils

[doublebase]

It's hard to really say whether one oil is better or worse with or without moly additives. Molybdenum dithiocarbamates are added to engine oils as friction reducers and to compliment anti-wear properties of ZDDP and EP additives. MoDTC also acts as a good anti-oxidant and is proven effective at reducing LSPI events in higher concentrations. However, MoDTC contains sulfur which is limited by API. A certain brand may decide to reduce or eliminate moly from the formula in order to make room for other sulfur containing additives that may be more beneficial to their intended use of the oil.

There's also organic moly compounds that contain no sulfur, are very effective at friction reduction even at lower temperatures, but are also very expensive making them typically out of the question for the common API oils on the shelf trying to be competitive price wise. Vanderbilt's Molyvan 855 would fall in this group.

There's other friction modifiers out there that can perform the job friction reduction job of moly at lower concentrations and without adding sulfur or phosphorus. Titanium and antimony additives would be in this group. There's also ashless additives such as ionic liquids that are making their way on the scene. Much like the organic moly compounds though, they are rather expensive, and likely won't find widespread use in common API oils for quite sometime unless drastic changes in API requirements accelerates their use.

Probably five years ago I owned a Lexus and all I ever heard about was the TGMO and it’s high moly count. I used it on accession, obviously didn’t notice any difference between that oil and any of the name brands I was using. Then one day they dropped their moly count dramatically. And high moly was their thing, their MO...their high moly count. The TGMO crowd claimed that it was because they were now using a “higher quality” moly and didn’t need as much. Never looked into if that was true, imagine it wasn’t. But I don’t know.

 

[RDY4WAR]

Probably five years ago I owned a Lexus and all I ever heard about was the TGMO and it’s high moly count. I used it on accession, obviously didn’t notice any difference between that oil and any of the name brands I was using. Then one day they dropped their moly count dramatically. And high moly was their thing, their MO...their high moly count. The TGMO crowd claimed that it was because they were now using a “higher quality” moly and didn’t need as much. Never looked into if that was true, imagine it wasn’t. But I don’t know.

If they switched from di-nuclear MoDTC to tri-nuclear MoDTC, that explanation is plausible. It could also have been a cost cutting measure though. Kinda like adding compression to an engine, you start seeing diminishing returns above a certain point. They may have just found the benefit not worth the cost of keeping the content that high.

 

[doublebase]

If they switched from di-nuclear MoDTC to tri-nuclear MoDTC, that explanation is plausible. It could also have been a cost cutting measure though. Kinda like adding compression to an engine, you start seeing diminishing returns above a certain point. They may have just found the benefit not worth the cost of keeping the content that high.

I’m trying to think about price of that oil...it was always high in price. And when they switched to a lower content of moly, I think the price basically stayed the same. So I’d have to say that they reduced the moly as a cost cutting measure. But I guess I’ll never know, but it just seems like something Toyota would do on a large scale investment such as motor oil. In other words, I can’t picture Toyota NOT trying to save money off of an oil that they had Mobil1 make for them.

 

[yowps3]

So, can moly increase horsepower? There is an engine oil company in Australia called Nulon that claims that it does, they even dyno tested their oil compared to some others a few years ago now. They use Moly DTC.

How much PPM of Moly is in the Nulon MoDTC range? It could be placebo but the engine feels so smooth each time Nulon is used..

 

[adams355]

How much PPM of Moly is in the Nulon MoDTC range? It could be placebo but the engine feels so smooth each time Nulon is used..

I'm not 100% sure on their normal range probably 80-100ppm. The Nulon race oil varies from 450-650ppm. Nulon is the best oil I've used especially the racing oil and its made in Australia which is awesome.

 

[ARCOgraphite]

I am looking for a 0w20 with the lowest moly content possible, preferably none. Any thoughts?

Why? Most ILSAC 20's in the past have had "extra" moly.

The old formulation of Valvoline was sodium based, no moly.
Everything else usually has a MoDTC treat of 60-70ppm.
That what I ran in the Subaru new FB engine to good effect.

But, I wouldn't loose any sleep over this. Because I dont think you have any open options

Unless you can find a stash of Synpower ca. 2017 or NAPA 0W20.

 

[yowps3]

I'm not 100% sure on their normal range probably 80-100ppm. The Nulon race oil varies from 450-650ppm. Nulon is the best oil I've used especially the racing oil and its made in Australia which is awesome.

Nulon technical rep advised the full synthetic range contains approx 800ppm of Moly. However oddly the D1g2 5w30 contains no moly.

 

[adams355]

Nulon technical rep advised the full synthetic range contains approx 800ppm of Moly. However oddly the D1g2 5w30 contains no moly.

That's interesting, there is not even that much in their racing oil unless its different types. NR 5w40 attached and link NR 5w30.

Nulon Race Oil 5W30 Virgin Oil Analysis, VOA

Hello internet and BITOG faithful. here is the goss from downunder. Nulon over priced their race oil products ($110-120AUD/5L.) As such they were not real stock turner's. Thus last week SuperCheapAuto did a runuout to clear inventory at $48/5L. As such I snapped up the last 3 5W30 5L tins in...

bobistheoilguy.com

 

[SR5]

That's interesting, there is not even that much in their racing oil unless its different types. NR 5w40 attached and link NR 5w30.

Nulon Race Oil 5W30 Virgin Oil Analysis, VOA

Hello internet and BITOG faithful. here is the goss from downunder. Nulon over priced their race oil products ($110-120AUD/5L.) As such they were not real stock turner's. Thus last week SuperCheapAuto did a runuout to clear inventory at $48/5L. As such I snapped up the last 3 5W30 5L tins in...

bobistheoilguy.com

Those VOAs still show 700 to 750 ppm Moly, and 1600 to 1800 ppm Zinc, which is still a rich brew.

Maybe being racing oils, they didn’t want the moly to over compete with the zinc for the metal surface. Or maybe in mass production Nulon use an acceptable Moly range, and the guy on the phone just quoted the top end of the expected distribution range, but these products still fall within the expected production limits. Just guessing

 

[SR5]

Keep in mind that there are different forms of moly. Shell and Mobil both use Infineum's tri-nuclear moly, which requires a lower treatment rate to achieve the same effect.

I’ve heard this many times here, and no disrespect, but I’m not sure it matters to us BITOGers who mostly look at VOA or UOA analysis.

Sure when making the final oil product as a chemical engineer measuring out additives in weight or volume, you many need to add less volume of a more effective add to your oil.

But when looking at a VOA the molecules are broken apart (via AA or ICP-MS or whatever) and only the atoms are counted. Their source doesn’t matter and it’s the amount of moly atoms present that is important.


Three molecules of di-nuclear MoDTC gives 6 Moly atom, and two molecules of tri-nuclear MoDTC gives 6 Moly atoms, and they should both give the same Mo ppm in a good quality VOA oil analysis.

 

[OVERKILL]

I’ve heard this many times here, and no disrespect, but I’m not sure it matters to us BITOGers who mostly look at VOA or UOA analysis.

Sure when making the final oil product as a chemical engineer measuring out additives in weight or volume, you many need to add less volume of a more effective add to your oil.

But when looking at a VOA the molecules are broken apart (via AA or ICP-MS or whatever) and only the atoms are counted. Their source doesn’t matter and it’s the amount of moly atoms present that is important.


Three molecules of di-nuclear MoDTC gives 6 Moly atom, and two molecules of tri-nuclear MoDTC gives 6 Moly atoms, and they should both give the same Mo ppm in a good quality VOA oil analysis.

It doesn't distill down that easily as it's the compound itself that is more effective at a lower treat rate.

So, using your VOA example, say an oil has 600ppm of moly, this won't be tri-nuclear, as the treat rate is too high. If it has 150-200ppm? Then it probably is. IIRC, the documentation presented on here at one point showed that 150-200ppm of tri-nuclear provided the same benefits as a significantly higher treat rate of the more traditional form. It allowed the manufacturers (at the time, Mobil and Shell) to decrease the concentration of moly in the formulas, perhaps to allow for other compounds while keeping the overall additive percentage relative to the base oil blend the same, while retaining the benefits the moly was providing. That's why it was developed and started being used.

I think the only caveat was that at much higher treat rates, there were advantages to the traditional form that weren't present with the new compound, but my memory is a bit sketchy on the details, as that discussion was quite a while back now.

 

[SR5]

It doesn't distill down that easily as it's the compound itself that is more effective at a lower treat rate.

So, using your VOA example, say an oil has 600ppm of moly, this won't be tri-nuclear, as the treat rate is too high. If it has 150-200ppm? Then it probably is. IIRC, the documentation presented on here at one point showed that 150-200ppm of tri-nuclear provided the same benefits as a significantly higher treat rate of the more traditional form. It allowed the manufacturers (at the time, Mobil and Shell) to decrease the concentration of moly in the formulas, perhaps to allow for other compounds while keeping the overall additive percentage relative to the base oil blend the same, while retaining the benefits the moly was providing. That's why it was developed and started being used.

I think the only caveat was that at much higher treat rates, there were advantages to the traditional form that weren't present with the new compound, but my memory is a bit sketchy on the details, as that discussion was quite a while back now.

I hear you, but i think we need to start being very clear with our language. When you say "the compound itself that is more effective at a lower treat rate."

What do you mean by treat rate and how is the treat rate measured?
Is it in mL of the compound in a carrier solution at some concentration, or grams of the compound, and how is the concentration of the compound in solution measured, mole fraction ?

Then there is the question, more effective at what exactly? Wear reduction? Coefficient of friction ?

Basically, with a good description of the two treatment rates, we should be able to calculate the number of molybdenum atoms being added to the finished oil (normalised to per litre), which then can be correlated with bench test data and VOA ppm Mo.

Not trying to pick a fight here (and a link to that document would be great), but I do analytical chemistry for a living at a large research University (not oil analysis, but solid metals and minerals, so this isn't my exact field), but I just can't quite get my head around some of the statements I see in the UOA section (not you in particular).

Maybe I need to know more about how the various moly compounds behave in an engine, like I said, organometallic chemistry and mech eng isn't my field, I'm strictly analytical inorganic chemistry coming from an atomic physics angle.

Can anybody explain to me, does three units (molecules maybe?) of di-nuclear MoDTC have the same "effect" in an engine oil as two units of tri-nuclear MoDTC? And if it does, isn't this being more effective at a lower treatment rate? Or have i missed something? (Happy to be wrong or mistaken here).

BTW, nice Ref here on how UOAs are measured

Used Oil Analysis - Bob is the Oil Guy

How your Blackstone sample is processed by David Newton Used Oil Analysis – we all talk about it, and many can understand the results, but few people have had the opportunity to actually see how the process works. Blackstone Laboratories is an oil analysis lab in Fort Wayne, Indiana. If you...

bobistheoilguy.com

If somebody like Mola could help here, that would be great.

 

[OVERKILL]

I hear you, but i think we need to start being very clear with our language. When you say "the compound itself that is more effective at a lower treat rate."

What do you mean by treat rate and how is the treat rate measured?
Is it in mL of the compound in a carrier solution at some concentration, or grams of the compound, and how is the concentration of the compound in solution measured, mole fraction ?

Then there is the question, more effective at what exactly? Wear reduction? Coefficient of friction ?

Basically, with a good description of the two treatment rates, we should be able to calculate the number of molybdenum atoms being added to the finished oil (normalised to per litre), which then can be correlated with bench test data and VOA ppm Mo.

Not trying to pick a fight here (and a link to that document would be great), but I do analytical chemistry for a living at a large research University (not oil analysis, but solid metals and minerals, so this isn't my exact field), but I just can't quite get my head around some of the statements I see in the UOA section (not you in particular).

Maybe I need to know more about how the various moly compounds behave in an engine, like I said, organometallic chemistry and mech eng isn't my field, I'm strictly analytical inorganic chemistry coming from an atomic physics angle.

Can anybody explain to me, does three units (molecules maybe?) of di-nuclear MoDTC have the same "effect" in an engine oil as two units of tri-nuclear MoDTC? And if it does, isn't this being more effective at a lower treatment rate? Or have i missed something? (Happy to be wrong or mistaken here).

BTW, nice Ref here on how UOAs are measured

Used Oil Analysis - Bob is the Oil Guy

How your Blackstone sample is processed by David Newton Used Oil Analysis – we all talk about it, and many can understand the results, but few people have had the opportunity to actually see how the process works. Blackstone Laboratories is an oil analysis lab in Fort Wayne, Indiana. If you...

bobistheoilguy.com

If somebody like Mola could help here, that would be great.

By treat rate, I am speaking to ppm as measured in solution, the same thing you'd see in a UOA/VOA.

Here's a good read for you that discusses the differences between the Moly types and also happens to use ppm:

http://elit-oil.io.ua/files/0001/21/00012167.pdf

It covers most of the things I've stated here, including treat rate, and it comes from Infineum, so I assume the source is good enough for you

 

[SR5]

By treat rate, I am speaking to ppm as measured in solution, the same thing you'd see in a UOA/VOA.

Here's a good read for you that discusses the differences between the Moly types and also happens to use ppm:

http://elit-oil.io.ua/files/0001/21/00012167.pdf

It covers most of the things I've stated here, including treat rate, and it comes from Infineum, so I assume the source is good enough for you

Thank mate, I'll give that a read now.

 

[SR5]

OK, good read, and I shared it with my chemist mate at work to get his interpretation of it.

We both think it's a bit ambiguous in the wording, such as "200ppm Mo dimer" could be;
- 200ppm of elemental molybdenum sourced from the dimer molecule
OR
- 200ppm of the molybdenum dimer compound

Both are reasonable interpretations of the english, but they would return different elemental concentrations of Mo.

However after a few readings, and comparing how it relates to other statements in the presentation, we think the first interpretation is most likely correct. (executive summary: We think OverKill is right and SR5 is wrong)

In particular we were both looking for a mechanism of why it's not a simple elemental concentration relationship with two different carrier molecules. The statement "...Molybdenum Trimer....More sulfur in the core facilitating MoS2 production" gives the reason.

It seems the boundary friction is reduced by a formation of a layered MoS2 like structure on the surface, and the trimer form of the molecule has more accessible sulphur to get this formation happening. This is supported by their slide that shows sulphur-free molybdenum does little to reduce friction.

Also their XPS results of Atom% on Alusil steel only make sense if you assume equal starting elemental concentrations of Mo.

Thank You, I understand a lot better now.

 

[PimTac]

By treat rate, I am speaking to ppm as measured in solution, the same thing you'd see in a UOA/VOA.

Here's a good read for you that discusses the differences between the Moly types and also happens to use ppm:

http://elit-oil.io.ua/files/0001/21/00012167.pdf

It covers most of the things I've stated here, including treat rate, and it comes from Infineum, so I assume the source is good enough for you

A lot of that is over my head but I found it interesting especially the part about moly and how it works with different metals and surfaces.

 

[OVERKILL]

OK, good read, and I shared it with my chemist mate at work to get his interpretation of it.

We both think it's a bit ambiguous in the wording, such as "200ppm Mo dimer" could be;
- 200ppm of elemental molybdenum sourced from the dimer molecule
OR
- 200ppm of the molybdenum dimer compound

Both are reasonable interpretations of the english, but they would return different elemental concentrations of Mo.

However after a few readings, and comparing how it relates to other statements in the presentation, we think the first interpretation is most likely correct. (executive summary: We think OverKill is right and SR5 is wrong)

In particular we were both looking for a mechanism of why it's not a simple elemental concentration relationship with two different carrier molecules. The statement "...Molybdenum Trimer....More sulfur in the core facilitating MoS2 production" gives the reason.

It seems the boundary friction is reduced by a formation of a layered MoS2 like structure on the surface, and the trimer form of the molecule has more accessible sulphur to get this formation happening. This is supported by their slide that shows sulphur-free molybdenum does little to reduce friction.

Also their XPS results of Atom% on Alusil steel only make sense if you assume equal starting elemental concentrations of Mo.

Thank You, I understand a lot better now.

You are quite welcome!

One of the things I found particularly interesting was that the effectiveness activation temperature changed with treat rate but overall effectiveness, once activated, didn't, once concentration reached a certain level.

It seemed, depending on the test, but generally, that effectiveness pretty much plateaued at ~200ppm, earlier in a few of the tests, but if you wanted the most rapid activation, going beyond that added very little value.

 

[smithph]

Interesting discussion and article references.

It was stated Mobil uses Infineum's tri-nuclear moly and needs a lower treat rate, Yet Toyota's latest SP formulation has about 750 of moly and is made by Mobil. Why would Toyota want such a high level of Moly (or a different type) than Mobil uses in its retail oils?

TGMO SP VOA Link

 

[OVERKILL]

Interesting discussion and article references.

It was stated Mobil uses Infineum's tri-nuclear moly and needs a lower treat rate, Yet Toyota's latest SP formulation has about 750 of moly and is made by Mobil. Why would Toyota want such a high level of Moly (or a different type) than Mobil uses in its retail oils?

TGMO SP VOA Link

TGMO is produced, for the North American market, by XOM, but it's done using whatever formula Toyota specs. Since Infineum's tri-nuclear moly is possibly exclusive to Mobil/Shell, and TGMO is made by other blenders for other markets, its development, which likely neither Mobil or Shell was involved in, would not have used that type of moly.

 

[OilUzer]

@SR5

So what's the bottom line?
Why do engines sound VERY smooth with moly and most if not all Japanese recommended oils have it?

Is it because it clings better? I know it's a pricey additive and not just for Japanese engines. I've read about the smoothness reports in several different car websites including Ram, etc. Basically you have a much better chance (i.e. not always) of making things quieter with moly than without.

btw, do you know Shannow? j/k
I hear that sometimes. You moved here from ... do you know xyz? lol