Rotella and MoS2, a perfect combination???
- Thread starter KCJeep
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: Mystic
Skyship, are you English but just working in Germany if you don't mind my asking? You seem English to me.
He had occupation as pilot and location as blighty before he came up with this German/insurance twist.
Skyship, are you English but just working in Germany if you don't mind my asking? You seem English to me.
He had occupation as pilot and location as blighty before he came up with this German/insurance twist.
Originally Posted By: Mystic
After I use some Pennzoil Platinum to make sure my engine is nice and clean I am thinking about trying the Liqui-Moly brand Moly oil supplement. I have not tried it yet but two other oil supplements I have had very good luck with are Schaeffer's oil supplement and Lubegard BioTech Engine Supplement. These are some of the very few oil supplements that I believe in.
One of these days I am going to order some of the Lubegard nonsolvent engine flush. I will probably use that this summer. I have had very good luck with Lubegard products. I like the idea of a nonsolvent engine cleaner.
Liqui-moly makes some great products. They are the only brand of additives I will buy,although I've not used the rands you've mentioned I think you will be happy with the liqui-moly brand.
After I use some Pennzoil Platinum to make sure my engine is nice and clean I am thinking about trying the Liqui-Moly brand Moly oil supplement. I have not tried it yet but two other oil supplements I have had very good luck with are Schaeffer's oil supplement and Lubegard BioTech Engine Supplement. These are some of the very few oil supplements that I believe in.
One of these days I am going to order some of the Lubegard nonsolvent engine flush. I will probably use that this summer. I have had very good luck with Lubegard products. I like the idea of a nonsolvent engine cleaner.
Liqui-moly makes some great products. They are the only brand of additives I will buy,although I've not used the rands you've mentioned I think you will be happy with the liqui-moly brand.
Originally Posted By: Trav
Originally Posted By: Mystic
Skyship, are you English but just working in Germany if you don't mind my asking? You seem English to me.
He had occupation as pilot and location as blighty before he came up with this German/insurance twist.
I'm firm in the belief he drives the used motor oil collection truck. That would explain his twisted knowledge of oil(from a mechanics viewpoint)and how he mentions he talks to guys in the industry.
That's my theory.
Originally Posted By: Mystic
Skyship, are you English but just working in Germany if you don't mind my asking? You seem English to me.
He had occupation as pilot and location as blighty before he came up with this German/insurance twist.
I'm firm in the belief he drives the used motor oil collection truck. That would explain his twisted knowledge of oil(from a mechanics viewpoint)and how he mentions he talks to guys in the industry.
That's my theory.
If you are using a good oil and sensible OCI why do you think the engine needs cleaning? In terms of results, how do you know if an additive has worked or not?
Originally Posted By: Mystic
After I use some Pennzoil Platinum to make sure my engine is nice and clean I am thinking about trying the Liqui-Moly brand Moly oil supplement. I have not tried it yet but two other oil supplements I have had very good luck with are Schaeffer's oil supplement and Lubegard BioTech Engine Supplement. These are some of the very few oil supplements that I believe in.
One of these days I am going to order some of the Lubegard nonsolvent engine flush. I will probably use that this summer. I have had very good luck with Lubegard products. I like the idea of a nonsolvent engine cleaner.
I've used the LG non-solvent flush a couple of times. Hard to say what it did/didn't do, but I also like the idea that it is non-solvent. Also, one of the vehicles I used it on was quite clean, and the other had only minor varnish.
After I use some Pennzoil Platinum to make sure my engine is nice and clean I am thinking about trying the Liqui-Moly brand Moly oil supplement. I have not tried it yet but two other oil supplements I have had very good luck with are Schaeffer's oil supplement and Lubegard BioTech Engine Supplement. These are some of the very few oil supplements that I believe in.
One of these days I am going to order some of the Lubegard nonsolvent engine flush. I will probably use that this summer. I have had very good luck with Lubegard products. I like the idea of a nonsolvent engine cleaner.
I've used the LG non-solvent flush a couple of times. Hard to say what it did/didn't do, but I also like the idea that it is non-solvent. Also, one of the vehicles I used it on was quite clean, and the other had only minor varnish.
Has anybody looked at the UOAs that Skyship uses as examples? I looked at one of those and the company that did the oil analysis said that everything looked good. The person who submitted the UOA had been adding Lupri-Moly supplement with moly to the oil. Skyship claims that adding moly to an engine can be bad.
Maybe Skyship can use some UOAs supplied to him by the chaps at the oil labs. He says that he sees those oil lab chaps on a regular basis. Even if the UOAs were in German we have somebody here (Trav) who can read and speak German.
Maybe Skyship can use some UOAs supplied to him by the chaps at the oil labs. He says that he sees those oil lab chaps on a regular basis. Even if the UOAs were in German we have somebody here (Trav) who can read and speak German.
Originally Posted By: Mystic
Has anybody looked at the UOAs that Skyship uses as examples? I looked at one of those and the company that did the oil analysis said that everything looked good. The person who submitted the UOA had been adding Lupri-Moly supplement with moly to the oil. Skyship claims that adding moly to an engine can be bad.
Maybe Skyship can use some UOAs supplied to him by the chaps at the oil labs. He says that he sees those oil lab chaps on a regular basis. Even if the UOAs were in German we have somebody here (Trav) who can read and speak German.
I noticed the same thing. The one Honda UOA he posted looked just fine. Even the insolubles were 0.4, NOTHING to be worried about.
Has anybody looked at the UOAs that Skyship uses as examples? I looked at one of those and the company that did the oil analysis said that everything looked good. The person who submitted the UOA had been adding Lupri-Moly supplement with moly to the oil. Skyship claims that adding moly to an engine can be bad.
Maybe Skyship can use some UOAs supplied to him by the chaps at the oil labs. He says that he sees those oil lab chaps on a regular basis. Even if the UOAs were in German we have somebody here (Trav) who can read and speak German.
I noticed the same thing. The one Honda UOA he posted looked just fine. Even the insolubles were 0.4, NOTHING to be worried about.
Originally Posted By: Mystic
And those are the examples of UOAs that Skyship himself used to try to prove that moly caused problems in an engine! Those are the UOAs SKYSHIP HIMSELF USED TO PROVE MOLY was bad!
Exactly, problem is they look just fine!
And those are the examples of UOAs that Skyship himself used to try to prove that moly caused problems in an engine! Those are the UOAs SKYSHIP HIMSELF USED TO PROVE MOLY was bad!
Exactly, problem is they look just fine!
Skyship has been saying that his 'contacts' in the oil labs were telling him that moly was bad in the new, high tech synthetic motor oils under development. And he has repeatedly said that too much moly in an engine can cause problems and result in sludge, etc.
But the very UOA samples Skyship himself uses as examples to prove his point that moly is bad disprove what he says. Those UOAs look good according to the testing results.
He also uses UOA testing results that can be obtained right here at bitgo. If Skyship has such wonderful contacts in the oil labs where are the UOAs from those labs proving moly is bad? He can't use them because they are confidential?
I would like for Skyship to supply a UOA that proves that moly is bad. A UOA where a moly supplement like Lupro-Moly was used and the engine was actually damaged by the moly or at least the testing company suggested the owner to stop using a moly supplement.
But the very UOA samples Skyship himself uses as examples to prove his point that moly is bad disprove what he says. Those UOAs look good according to the testing results.
He also uses UOA testing results that can be obtained right here at bitgo. If Skyship has such wonderful contacts in the oil labs where are the UOAs from those labs proving moly is bad? He can't use them because they are confidential?
I would like for Skyship to supply a UOA that proves that moly is bad. A UOA where a moly supplement like Lupro-Moly was used and the engine was actually damaged by the moly or at least the testing company suggested the owner to stop using a moly supplement.
You didn't look at the insolubles figures.
Originally Posted By: skyship
You didn't look at the insolubles figures.
Show us some UOA reports that were posted here by our members showing problems with MoS2 added to the oil. I haven't seen any, maybe you have them bookmarked.
You didn't look at the insolubles figures.
Show us some UOA reports that were posted here by our members showing problems with MoS2 added to the oil. I haven't seen any, maybe you have them bookmarked.
The only time I've seen a side effect from Moly use was with one of the new G4 synthetics that uses Magnesium sulfonate, there are very few of those on this site and I have only seen two examples one of which I posted in this thread. When you use Moly with a good quality oil it makes no difference, but it does seem to help poor quality oils that lack AW additives.
So in other words Skyship according to what you are saying RIGHT NOW in your most recent post, the addition of moly improves 'poor quality' motor oil, has little effect in 'good quality' motor oil, and you have noticed problems only with using moly with G4 synthetics that use a certain additive.
This is hardly an indication that the addition of moly causes problems in motor oils. At best only certain synthetic motor oils would be affected if what you say is accurate. We would have to have somebody test Lupro-Moly in a G4 synthetic to find out.
So any sweeping condemnation of moly in motor oils is unjustified-right? I don't know how you define 'poor quality' motor oils and 'good quality' motor oils. But it looks like moly would work just fine in most motor oils-right?
This is hardly an indication that the addition of moly causes problems in motor oils. At best only certain synthetic motor oils would be affected if what you say is accurate. We would have to have somebody test Lupro-Moly in a G4 synthetic to find out.
So any sweeping condemnation of moly in motor oils is unjustified-right? I don't know how you define 'poor quality' motor oils and 'good quality' motor oils. But it looks like moly would work just fine in most motor oils-right?
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Mystic
So in other words Skyship according to what you are saying RIGHT NOW in your most recent post, the addition of moly improves 'poor quality' motor oil, has little effect in 'good quality' motor oil, and you have noticed problems only with using moly with G4 synthetics that use a certain additive.
This is hardly an indication that the addition of moly causes problems in motor oils. At best only certain synthetic motor oils would be affected if what you say is accurate. We would have to have somebody test Lupro-Moly in a G4 synthetic to find out.
So any sweeping condemnation of moly in motor oils is unjustified-right? I don't know how you define 'poor quality' motor oils and 'good quality' motor oils. But it looks like moly would work just fine in most motor oils-right?
Why bother Mystic? You have him figured out, don't you?
So in other words Skyship according to what you are saying RIGHT NOW in your most recent post, the addition of moly improves 'poor quality' motor oil, has little effect in 'good quality' motor oil, and you have noticed problems only with using moly with G4 synthetics that use a certain additive.
This is hardly an indication that the addition of moly causes problems in motor oils. At best only certain synthetic motor oils would be affected if what you say is accurate. We would have to have somebody test Lupro-Moly in a G4 synthetic to find out.
So any sweeping condemnation of moly in motor oils is unjustified-right? I don't know how you define 'poor quality' motor oils and 'good quality' motor oils. But it looks like moly would work just fine in most motor oils-right?
Why bother Mystic? You have him figured out, don't you?
Originally Posted By: Mystic
Has anybody looked at the UOAs that Skyship uses as examples? I looked at one of those and the company that did the oil analysis said that everything looked good. The person who submitted the UOA had been adding Lupri-Moly supplement with moly to the oil. Skyship claims that adding moly to an engine can be bad.
Maybe Skyship can use some UOAs supplied to him by the chaps at the oil labs. He says that he sees those oil lab chaps on a regular basis. Even if the UOAs were in German we have somebody here (Trav) who can read and speak German.
No problem. He should post them i can translate in a minute or two.
ZF is a gearbox manufacturer not too far from his claimed location so i wonder why they would be doing UOA on engine oil.
My Cousin works for BMW M division as an engineer in München, they are an official partner with ZF.
Maybe he can find out what the story is and if there is any English outsiders privy to info and data from the "chappies".
Has anybody looked at the UOAs that Skyship uses as examples? I looked at one of those and the company that did the oil analysis said that everything looked good. The person who submitted the UOA had been adding Lupri-Moly supplement with moly to the oil. Skyship claims that adding moly to an engine can be bad.
Maybe Skyship can use some UOAs supplied to him by the chaps at the oil labs. He says that he sees those oil lab chaps on a regular basis. Even if the UOAs were in German we have somebody here (Trav) who can read and speak German.
No problem. He should post them i can translate in a minute or two.
ZF is a gearbox manufacturer not too far from his claimed location so i wonder why they would be doing UOA on engine oil.
My Cousin works for BMW M division as an engineer in München, they are an official partner with ZF.
Maybe he can find out what the story is and if there is any English outsiders privy to info and data from the "chappies".
I think everybody here has him figured out! If he just would have stuck to his main theme that nobody should use oil supplements or engine cleaners and everybody should just use good quality motor oil, I would not have had problems with his posts. Except I would have wondered why he was even bothering to come to the Oil Additives Section.
And then he had the runaway turbo car story (supposedly caused by a drive around engine cleaner), the gold dust as an additive in motor oil story, the story about additives being tested one at a time in 30 weight oil by good old chaps, his invitation by the testing chaps to ride the test bus with them, and his supposed close relationships with the oil lab chaps.
When was the last time the lubrication chemists at Exxon/Mobil invited you in to a meeting demarpaint? When was the last time Valvoline invited you to attend engine sequence testing for a new motor oil? When was the last time Pennzoil invited you to their testing grounds? I have not received an invitation yet from any of them. But Skyship must have an amazing personality because the oil lab people seem to love him.
He seems to have something against using moly in motor oils. But moly has been used in several motor oils by the oil companies themselves! And the UOAs that he uses as examples of moly being bad seem to generally show no real issue with using moly.
But he keeps right on posting. You go Skyship!
And then he had the runaway turbo car story (supposedly caused by a drive around engine cleaner), the gold dust as an additive in motor oil story, the story about additives being tested one at a time in 30 weight oil by good old chaps, his invitation by the testing chaps to ride the test bus with them, and his supposed close relationships with the oil lab chaps.
When was the last time the lubrication chemists at Exxon/Mobil invited you in to a meeting demarpaint? When was the last time Valvoline invited you to attend engine sequence testing for a new motor oil? When was the last time Pennzoil invited you to their testing grounds? I have not received an invitation yet from any of them. But Skyship must have an amazing personality because the oil lab people seem to love him.
He seems to have something against using moly in motor oils. But moly has been used in several motor oils by the oil companies themselves! And the UOAs that he uses as examples of moly being bad seem to generally show no real issue with using moly.
But he keeps right on posting. You go Skyship!
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
