NO MOLY PREFERENCE

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Jul 14, 2005
Messages
402
Location
midwest
Is there anyone out there who prefers any conventional oil that does not contain a lot of moly the way Havoline does, for example?

Kicking Valvoline All Climate around again, I realize it does not use moly, yet it is a Grp II (according to some Bitogers) and serves well within a 3-4k OCI. But without moly, what benefit would an engine be missing?
 
Well, if the Moly white papers are to be believed (and' *I* am in no position to contradict), it's a great additive. You could run the Havoline (I do now), or add Moly with an oz. or two to the quart of Valvoline Synthetic Oil Treatment at your OCI (I do that too). It smoothes things out on my little 4-banger, I know that. Makes me wonder if the Dura-Lube I used to replace a quart at OCI every 30K had a lot of Moly.

Wonder if anyone ever did a VOA of that stuff.
 
Definite moly preference here.

I believe that you could run an oil without moly, then run a similar oil with moly, and be highly confident that your wear levels will go down. They might not go down much, if you have a very good-wearing engine that is easy on oil, but in some apps they will go down quite a bit.

There has been a definite trend towards moly in PCMOs since the SM oils came out, and the oil makers seem to have decided it's good stuff since they are now adding it to HDEOs like Delo as well, which already have strong additive content.

I don't think it will make much difference in how long your car lasts, in most cases, but nor will any other motor oil decision you make as long as you change the stuff from time to time. If you want to put everything in your favor, though, why not use an oil with it? In particular, I can't think of any advantage Valvoline would have over Havoline.

- Glenn
 
To give my oil a moly boost, I add a little Schaeffer's #132 Moly E.P. treatment.

I think the FTC report I read about Duralube indicated it contained chlorinated paraffins, which I think are commonly used in cutting oils but might not be a good idea in engines because the chlorine could react with any water and form nasty byproducts.
 
That link to moly basics is misleading.

The moly used in engine oil is NOT molybdenun disulfide. It is Molybdenum Trialkyldithiocarbamate or a related compound. It is not gray and granular. It is invisible, soluble in oil, and a very high quality engine oil additive. There are other ways to produce a top quality engine oil, but I choose "moly" oils.


Ken
 
quote:

To give my oil a moly boost, I add a little Schaeffer's #132 Moly E.P. treatment

porcupine73, are you sure you're adding moly with #132? Here are two #132 VOAs that indicate that it's not really much of a moly additive: #132 VOA #1 and #132 VOA #2

Have you had a used oil analysis done on your oil to confirm an increase in moly after you added #132? I'm not saying #132 is a bad product, I'm just saying it may not have the moly you think you're adding; it has other AW, AO, FM, etc. components that make it a good additive.

If you want to add moly, consider Torco MPZ: Torco MPZ VOA

VSOT: VSOT VOA #1
(although this VOA conflicts with that theory: VSOT VOA #2

or SX-UP:
SX-UP VOA
 
moly = overated

GC and Amsoil AFL and Amsoil XL are kicking serious low wear numbers out.....where's the moly, mommy?
smile.gif
 
The Conoco brands are very popular here ..ie... Motorcraft/Kendall/Trop-Artic/Philips 76. You don't need moly to reach close to a half-million miles... only a sound engine with routine care/TLC.
 
Ahhh..so the truh unfolds. Naturally, all this is just opininion. Sort of all leads back to the underdog of oil "Valvoline"... which has shown in UOA to give good results; however, not for exteneded drain. Val A/C uses no moly in their forumulation, and that is all you hear on Bitog, is "no moly this, no moly that"...
 
farran1,
Simply that, all this hubub about moly is really unfounded. With regard to the Havoline, that is the biggest thing you hear, is that how much moly it contains in its formulation.
 
Blokey thanks for the info. I'm awaiting the results of a used oil analysis that did have some #132 added to it so I'll have to see what the numbers look like. It looks like from the #132 VOA's the antimony and carrier oil is a plus. MSDS indicates hazardous ingredients as antimony dialkyldithiocarbamate and organomolybdenum compound.

I did just order some SX-UP which looks like a terrific product with a sweet VOA and is probably much more in line with what I was actually looking for.

Plain Amsoil HDD 5w30 just gave me a good used oil analysis so I probably don't need to be adding things to it anyway but I can't resist.
 
quote:

farran1,
Simply that, all this hubub about moly is really unfounded. With regard to the Havoline, that is the biggest thing you hear, is that how much moly it contains in its formulation.

Oh I see. Seem to be a lot of people buying a lot of additives with moly in it to put in their oil.
 
farrarfan1,
Very true; however, from what you read in this post alone, moly is not the deal breaker. May not even need it; however, the oil companies are using something in place of the moly I guess
 
I agree with Pablo, too much significance is attached to moly as the ultimate anti-wear additive.

If moly is indeed the answer to low wear numbers, Redline oils should be beating the pants off Amsoil & GC in UOA reports.

Course, we haven't seen that happen...
grin.gif


The big gains for GF-4 spec conventional oils were in oxidation & heat resistance, generated by the tougher Sequence IIIG test.

While moly does work in conjunction with ZDDP for anti-wear, I think the increased levels we see in the conventional 5W oils, such as Havoline, are for oxidation purposes, rather than anti-wear.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom