Schaeffer's #132 Moly Question

[David]

I would use the 107 Moly Bond x-200 40 wt. in the gallons. Comes 6 to a case. I think you would be very happy with it. David 107 Moly Bond X200

 

[ShootingStar]

quote:

---

Originally posted by David: I would use the 107 Moly Bond x-200 40 wt. in the gallons. Comes 6 to a case. I think you would be very happy with it. David 107 Moly Bond X200

---

Thanks! How does this stuff compare pricewise to the 700 series Schaeffer's?

 

[MolaKule]

Hang on Dudes until we get this clarified. Schaeffer's may have upped the moly content in their latest #132 formulations. Will let you know when we get something new.

 

[Bio-T]

I keep reading this with interest, as the general consensus has always been that oil additives and enhancers were snake oil. My opinion is that if the oil you are using is not doing the job that you require or expect, then change your brand to an oil that can do the job. That is what you pay for. A better alternative than playing chemist.

 

[David]

ShootingStar, The price is less than the 702. has the same base oil and same additives. just not a synthetic blend. You may email me for the price. need your zip code for shipping price. David

 

[MolaKule]

If you want some additives that are not contained in your favorite oil, then you add them and do oil analysis to determine if there is any performance benefits for the price. Not all additives are snake oil.

 

[Bio-T]

MolaKule, You won't get a disagreement from me on all additives not being snake oil. I just believe that the Schaeffer's 7000 15W40 and 10w30 will take care of my engines as I desire. If it can't I won't experiment, I'll change brands. HOWEVER, I don't ever forsee this happening as the oil is preforming as desired. In fact, I'm waiting on analysis on the 15W40 with 3K on a new engine. Plus, I wanted to see if you really read these posts.

 

[MolaKule]

Ahhh Vetteman, you got me. Yea, sometimes I get enough time to travel through the various threads. No disagreement on Schaeffers. Their fully formulated blends will get you enough moly to keep that fishin' truck in top shape. I am using the 10W30 in the '92 Burb pheasant hunting truck,, errr, actually my wife lets me borrow it during pheasant season. I was experimenting a bit with a low moly synth and I wanted to see if the #132 would lower the wear metals further, flatten out the Nox and Ox, and hold the TBN.

 

[David]

Larry Ludwig, Chief Chemist at Schaeffer said The #132 will put in approximately 120-150 parts per million of moly in the engine oil. (With 5 qts of a non moly oil.) David

 

[Chris A]

David, that is more what I had expected to see. MolaKule's analysis does make me wonder. Was this an analysis lab error, or a Schaeffer's QC error?

 

[MolaKule]

Well, we don't know yet. The sample was right out of the bottle and showed 24 ppm and the other two samples were from #132 added to Mobil 1 10W30 SS. The 10W30 SS with 250 mL of 132 showed approx. 112 ppm of moly: Virgin M1 SS has approx. 88 ppm of Moly; Subtract 88 ppm from 112 and you get 24 ppm, subtract about 1 ppm of moly for ring wear and you get 23 ppm; pretty close to what was showing up in the sample drawn directly from the bottle of 132. Will be sending a later production sample to the labs. Stay tuned to this station!

 

[David]

Tell you what, I going to send in a virgin sample of 132 tomorrow and see for myself what happens. Because I want to get the FACTS also on the moly content. Will post my report as soon as it comes back. David

 

[ShootingStar]

David, Thanks for taking the bull by the horns. Standing by...

 

[dragboat]

David, Thanks much for running another test on the 132 although I believe the below you had already posted will be the actual results do to another factor involved in the 24 ppm post. I see a pretty good load of moly in my #132 containers,rather when I pour it out. (Larry Ludwig, Chief Chemist at Schaeffer said The #132 will put in approximately 120-150 parts per million of moly in the engine oil. (With 5 qts of a non moly oil.)

 

[MolaKule]

"Tell you what, I going to send in a virgin sample of 132 tomorrow and see for myself what happens. Because I want to get the FACTS also on the moly content. Will post my report as soon as it comes back." Thanks David, I too will be interested in what you report. I am hoping this was a fluke and that there really is 150 ppm in 500 mL of #132, since I am one of those who use this product extensively. As I stated before, my calculations showed there should be 125-150 ppm, but the actual analysis showed less than that.

 

[ShootingStar]

quote:

---

Originally posted by MolaKule: I am hoping this was a fluke and that there really is 150 ppm in 500 mL of #132, since I am one of those who use this product extensively. As I stated before, my calculations showed there should be 125-150 ppm, but the actual analysis showed less than that.

---

Just so I understand this correctly... Wouldn't it really need about 8-10 times the 150 ppm of moly in a 1 pint bottle to get a moly number of 120-150 ppm after being "diluted" by 4-5 qts. of oil?

 

[MolaKule]

The answer is no. Let's assume there is no moly in the virgin oil of say 4.8 L. If I place 500 mL of a carrier oil that contains 150 ppm of Moly, then the resulting oil should have its Moly content "raised" by 150 ppm. In other words, the concentration of Moly in the 500 mL should disperse in the host oil to increase its content of Moly by 150 ppm.

 

[David]

quote:

---

Originally posted by MolaKule: "Tell you what, I going to send in a virgin sample of 132 tomorrow and see for myself what happens. Because I want to get the FACTS also on the moly content. Will post my report as soon as it comes back." Thanks David, I too will be interested in what you report. I am hoping this was a fluke and that there really is 150 ppm in 500 mL of #132, since I am one of those who use this product extensively. As I stated before, my calculations showed there should be 125-150 ppm, but the actual analysis showed less than that.

---

Was that a use oil sample that you sent? If so how many miles? If it was then I suppect the moly had been plating up. And depending on the type oil you used, it may have had to work harder. Remember that is NOT the only friction release additive schaeffer uses in thier oils. (hit penetro, that works as well as the moly).That's why our oils don't drop in moly that fast. One more thing I like to say is that I don't really like putting other additives in oils, you and I are NOT blenders. Never Liked the idea. so as you might can tell, I don't push or try to sell the stuff, except in special needs. How many times have you used 132 in that engine? David [ October 19, 2002, 06:16 AM: Message edited by: David ]

 

[Sciguyjim]

quote:

---

Originally posted by MolaKule: The answer is no. Let's assume there is no moly in the virgin oil of say 4.8 L. If I place 500 mL of a carrier oil that contains 150 ppm of Moly, then the resulting oil should have its Moly content "raised" by 150 ppm. In other words, the concentration of Moly in the 500 mL should disperse in the host oil to increase its content of Moly by 150 ppm.

---

I'm afraid you're wrong MolaKule, You're comparing apples and oranges. When you analyze the 132, you are measuring a small amount, and every small amount will have the same 150 ppm of moly. The total container will have much more as a total. When you measure the oil with the diluted 132 in it, you are also measuring a small amount. Sure, if you measured ALL your oil, the total moly concentration will be 150 ppm more, but it is less in a smaller sample. The small sample can't have the same moly conc. as the whole bottle of 132. Here's another way to look at it. On a "contact patch" of given size in the engine, it is seeing only the amount of moly that is in that contact patch, the diluted conc., not the total amount in ALL the oil. OK?

 

[MolaKule]

David, The sample of #132 that resulted in 24 ppm was right out of the bottle. "Larry Ludwig, Chief Chemist at Schaeffer said The #132 will put in approximately 120-150 parts per million of moly in the engine oil. (With 5 qts of a non moly oil.)" Right. And that's why I said I am glad you're sending in a sample as well. I am giving the benefit of a doubt here, that this may be a fluke. The original sample was right out of the 132 bottle, as per a previous post in this varous moly threads. The one sample of mixed oil I explained in this and other threads on moly had only 949 miles on it. The other sample was a pure mix with no miles. Regarding blending. No I am not a blender, but I do formulate oils for certain interests. As I stated before, if there is an additive from another company that gives me a certain enhancement, I will use it. I value your opinion and I am sure that your statement was an opinion, since I don't believe that is the policy of Schaeffer's, because if it was, they wouldn't be selling the #132 or any other additive. I am using the product because I see certain benefits to doing so, just as I use Neutra to gain certain benefits. In fact, when we add Neutra, Auto-RX, or 132, we are all blenders in a certain narrow sense of the word. SciGuyJim, So what you're saying is that a pint bottle of 132 should have 1,500 ppm of MoDTC in it to yield a 150 ppm for 5 qts? That's not what the chief chemist at Schaeffer's stated. I await your calculations in the matter, but please read all the moly posts before responding.