Originally Posted By: edhackett
You don't have anything to gloat over. You did not find an oil that uses MoS2. You found one of the many, many oils that use an oil soluble, organometallic form of molybdenum. Castrol and Kendall use an organometallic form of titanium. Organometallic tungsten has been used by various companies off and on.
The mechanism by which these organometallic compounds work in conjunction with the organic zinc compounds to form a low friction anti-wear layer on the metal is well known, documented, and fully tested.
Go to this link and scan across the Molybdendum row to see which oils contain Mo as part of their additive package.
http://www.pqiamerica.com/March2013PCMO/Marchsyntheticsallfinal.html
Ed
Liqui-moly/lubro-moly,the manufacturers of the mos2 additive in question in the thread produce a 10w-40 that uses the exact same moly compound found in the additive.
I've bought and used the oil so I know it exists. Its in a grey jug and very clearly states synthetic 10w-40.
I'm leaning towards the fact that the colour may turn people off and potentially scare them. Heck the first time I tried it I looked long and hard before pouring it in simply because of the way it looked.
Let's seriously consider how most of us in NA hold on to our wives tales and oil myths. It's almost a religion regardless what an oem says.
Now let's bottle up some grey lookin oil and now tell the consumer its fine,or use an invisible,cheaper organic type and tell the public nothing.
The oil still looks like oil. Let's also use the purple and blue examples out there and let's recall the many negative posts that those colours attract.
I think its purely because the masses would have a hard time accepting an mos2 infused oil en masse.
Originally Posted By: Finz
As I recall, the dosage was 50ml per liter of oil
I'm pretty sure you've got er.
Simple application rules. Any sump 5 litres or less use the whole can,then half a can per oil change after the first application.
From 5-7.5 litres use 1.5 cans,then a single can for every oil change after. I suggest using a syn and exchanging the intervals if using mos2. Get as much return as possible.
Originally Posted By: Sw296inchblue
So their is no difference? The 300ml bottle will plate a 1.4l
eng. and a 6.0L eng roughly the same?
Yes. The mos2 will plate everything it contacts under pressure,then once the parts are annealed the mos2 will just circulate until the layers previously applied wear off.
I've found in the many years using the stuff that I only had to go full strength the first time. Once the first full strength application has finished I've found only a half dose is required to maintain the engine running improvements whether it be smoother running,cooler oil temps,increased fuel economy etc.
Originally Posted By: Smokescreen
ARCOgrahite's issue with some oils & oil additives (MoS2, MMO etc) stretches back to at least 2009 folks. Do a search for yourselves, but for one reason or another he has had several engine issues, or noises from different engine manufactures some to which just oil or oil additives he has attributed the source. No one else on here has been able to find any supporting evidence as to why his issues exist. It's the internet and we are all allowed to post our opinions.
Back to the thread....
The truth of the matter is on the topic of MoS2, it flows through the filter media freely. It can't & won't cause oil pressure issues. It works as advertised promoting engine smoothness and quietness. It may/may not contribute to increased fuel economy depending on your specific engine condition, it may/may not solve all your engine woes (stuck rings, blow-by etc), but it does work as advertised.
The second paragraph in this quote should be copied and pasted in every mos2 thread from now til eternity.
The stuff performs as advertised. Many of us observe different running condition improvements and we mention these improvements HOWEVER liqui-moly doesn't make the claims many of us observe. So at times the product gets shot down because of what some of US have observed however liqui-moly has never made some of the claims that we as users do observe.
So to conclude I'll just parrot that beauty paragraph above and confirm the product works exactly as the manufacture advertises,and in my experience with all liqui-moly products I've used the entire company's products perform exactly as ADVERTISED BY THE MANUFACTURER.
Many of us users observe other benefits however not every user also observes these benefits so if the advertising doesn't claim a particular function its possible the product will do it however its not guaranteed.
What they are assuring the consumer is that I performs as advertised.
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Originally Posted By: dave5358
Originally Posted By: Smokescreen
The truth of the matter is on the topic of MoS2, it flows through the filter media freely. It can't & won't cause oil pressure issues. It works as advertised promoting engine smoothness and quietness. It may/may not contribute to increased fuel economy depending on your specific engine condition, it may/may not solve all your engine woes (stuck rings, blow-by etc), but it does work as advertised.
+1
+2 Well said.
And a +3 right here.
We in the forum here have observed some significant changes in engine operation while other members have observed no changes or in 1 case a member claimed engine failure because mos2 started a chain reaction,a claim which I find absurd based on my many years using the product in a plethora of cars,trucks,bikes,vans,diesels and gasoline powered.
A couple of those example were breathing their last breath yet not one engine failure,even though failure was imminent.
Originally Posted By: Injured_Again
I think from my sound level testing that, in the absence of any mechanical changes, the reduction in noise almost certainly signifies some reduction in friction. The real question is, does the amount of friction reduction cause a statistically significant in fuel economy.
In the case of my Miata, fuel economy has increased by 5-8% in steady state freeway operation, to about 35 MPG at 70 MPH. So, let's see if I can do some rough math correctly.
One gallon of gasoline contains approximately 120000 kilojoules of energy. I'm using two gallons per hour, 240000 kj total. A 5% decrease means saving 12000 kj over 7200 seconds, which is 1667 watts or 2.36 horsepower.
That seems reasonable to me that the Miata's 1.8 liter engine, spinning at 3500 RPMs, requires 2.36 hp less to overcome inherent friction minus whatever benefit I got from better cylinder/ring sealing.
Very interesting calculation.
Originally Posted By: Smokescreen
...by that math, you can mod an engine by moving to MoS2 providing the same gains as most aftermarket mufflers or intakes...LOL
I noticed no change in fuel economy.
Some folks observe no change in fuel consumption,others see a significant consumption decrease.
My commute is all highway on flat roads at 70mph. I drive in traffic for mere moments.
When in a city type driving environment I observed no change whatsoever in fuel consumption however when I tracked consumption over 3000 highway miles and compared the mos2 treated figures to the just oil consumption figures,and factor in lower oil temps which I also observed while being on the highway was confirmation enough for me.
In the city there was no measurable difference,the highway coupled with mds nets my charger over 30mpg if I'm not driving into a headwind.
If I draft a pick up truck I've seen mpg figures as high as 36mpg. All these figures blew me completely away.
I cannot come anywhere near those numbers without mos2. I tried on this oci just using cera-tec and my mileage fell off to less than my established baseline that I monitored when I first bought the car.
After 5000 miles into this interval I added mos2,roughly 1000 miles ago and again my mileage is creeping up again.
I'm beyond trying to convince anyone of the merits of using mos2 in their engines. The stuff costs 8 bucks. For many of us the 8 bucks is re-coup'd within the first tank of fuel,others observe higher cylinder compression pressures as well as tail pipe a smaller "puff" of burning oil or complete elimination of it.
It's a great product and I'm confident in its merits. As far as new users are concerned all I can say is try it. It costs 8 bucks and I'm absolutely positive its not going to do any harm.
Mos2 will perform as advertised. All other claims are user experiences so they may or may not apply however rest assured the manufacturers advertised claims are a piece of cake.
