Safe to add Moly to GC?

Not open for further replies.
Mar 23, 2005
Denver, Co
I searched and didn't find it ok to add something like Schaeffer's 132 to GC? Also, I'm thinking of going with GC for my '05 V6 Accord after break in and read something about GC possibly not being so great for "Copper-rich" engines like this one. Any ideas pro or con? (other than you don't want someone else grabbing up more GC [Smile] )
You really shouldn't add anything to synthetic oil IMO, unless your a chemist. With GC, their is absolutely no reason to add Moly.
I would add only LubeControl for long drain oxidation stability, the other adds are not needed in my opinion. GC may be one of the least reactive formulas to the low friction bearing alloys you mentioned. Fuel dilute in that Honda will be the main problem with leachate. Cheers.
[Duh!] No fair Terry...I think a blood vessel just popped in my brain...come on I'm a newbie here...hahaha! At the expense of any pride I have left, could you explain what that means in layman's terms? I appreciate it- Yag (mainly the fuel dilute and "leachate?" issue)
Yagenta, read dude or dudette until you puke and that will help you gain the knowledge to understand. [Coffee] ...I think Bob Winters posted a glossary at one time with some of the more common terms used here. Use context to help or ask a good question like you did. No one at BITOG should be proud since MOST of us want to learn and share the good lube knowledge to make us better lube consumers ! Fuel dilute= oil is cut with too much fuel getting past combustion chamber for any number of reasons. Leachate = chemical or mechanically induced release or extraction of materials from a component, in this case proprietary copper alloys used in low friction bushings/bearings.
Got it! Thanks for the extra explanation. I don't know what to do to fix those issues but from what I've read in the UOA's, that's just part of the character of the 3.0 Honda V6. My reasoning on the 132 additive is that without a true downside which has not been brought up yet, why not add the 132? As long as it won't react in a negative way with GC, it could only help or at worst be inert. I've read good things here about the additives in 132, moly being just one, and so I thought it could only be a positive. Thanks for the info!
A VOA of 132 shows that it has very little moly. It is an excellent product especially if you want increase the viscosity of an oil. However, I believe that it relies more on Antimony more for some of its anti-wear properties.
Not even the 'good' Valvoline additive or the Shaeffers moly compound or Molakules moly additive?
Not open for further replies.