# Schaeffer's #132 Moly Question

Status
Not open for further replies.
quote:

Originally posted by MolaKule:

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.

Ok, I'm no chemical engineer (hell, I barely graduated high school
), so please bare with me. If there is 150ppm of moly in a 1 pint (450 ml) bottle of anything, that amounts to .00015% or .0675 ml of the total package. Now if I mix 5 quarts (4500 ml) of oil with this 1 pt bottle, the total will now be 11 pints or 4950 ml, yet the same amount of moly is still present that was in the original 1 pint bottle. If I took a sample of this mix, I think it should now contain approximatly 13.63 ppm (150 ppm divided by the 11 pints) of moly since the same amount of moly is now dispersed over 11 pints vs. the original 1 pint. If I pour that same 1 pint bottle of #132 into a 55 gal drum of oil, mix and sample, I'd be lucky to even see a trace amount of moly, right?

quote:

Originally posted by MolaKule:

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.

By my math, You'd actually need 1,650 ppm in that 1 pint bottle to get 150 ppm in a mix with 5 quarts of oil. Pickin nits here, I know...

MolaKule,

Sorry, I see where I screwed up. Sometimes I get so tired I don't think clearly. That's why I don't work now. I did read all the posts before I answered, but my lack of sleep affects my memory too. Don't take it personally. I thought about what I wrote before I posted it, but like I said, my judgement gets bad when I'm too tired. Please bear with me.

ShootingStar,

I was calculating for a ratio of 1:10.

No problem SciguyJim, we value your input.

I would like to see Schaeffer's clarify the issue, however.

I was thinking of starting a new thread on moly and its possible effects on copper but I decided to bring this one back from the not too distant past.

Can moly have an adverse effect on copper in engines? Take a look at these two articles:

http://www.rtvanderbilt.com/petro_5.htm

http://lubesolutions.com/html/molyeo.html

Perhaps this explains the high copper reading in GM cars which use Red Line (which is loaded with moly)?

--- Bror Jace

Bror, New GM Modular engines have high copper regardless of type/brand of oil used from what I have seen. No apparent correlation between Moly use and high copper in the GM engine.

Bror,
"There is firm evidence that certain friction modifiers, molybdenum dithiophosphate for example, can in certain formulations result in cam follower pin failure at relatively low mileage"........

This is true! molybdenum dithiophosphate is a problem. It will attack metals and such but Molybdenum Trialkyldithiocarbamate, or disulphide does not.

From years working with engine test programs to approve engine oil formulations for API licensing, we can tell you that NO engine oil containing Molybdenum additives has been certified by the full range of engine tests necessary to gain API approval

Obviously this isn't true as Schaeffers is API certified as is m1 and castrol all of which has been api certified.

[ October 28, 2002, 01:38 PM: Message edited by: BOBISTHEOILGUY ]

On page 7 it has a section on FRICTION MODIFIERS states: "There is firm evidence that certain friction modifiers, molybdenum dithiophosphate for example, can in certain formulations result in cam follower pin failure at relatively low mileage........"

Moly DTP contains a phosphoric acid component that is not as stable as
Moly dialkyldithiocarbamate (MoDTC). Most Moly additives for engine formulations
use theMoDTC version of moly or the newer moly ester.

Am I correct in thinking the High Milaege oils use this dithiophosphate moly in their formulation? I beleive I remember it posted some time ago that it was possibly Pennzoil,Q-State and Castrol and the Pennzoil HD oil?

Don't carve that in stone,,just going off memory and a note from the old site.

The last time I recall seeing Moly dithiophosphate used was back in '84. The newer, more stable MoTDC and Moly esters I believe to be the norm.

Terry, I know you see a lot more oil analyses than I do. It’s just when I saw those articles pointed out to me about molybdenum causing copper corrosion, I was reminded of the handful of Red Line analyses posted on this forum which show copper as an extraordinary “flyer” with all other wear metals looking superb. Red Line probably uses more moly than any other major oil formulation (600ppm) so, I figured there might be a connection.

My first run with Red Line showed slightly elevated copper ... but I believed at the time (and I still do) that it was due to my glycol contamination because lead was up proportionately.

Are you saying you’ve seen the same copper “fliers” with GM vehicles using other oils, conventional and synthetic? If you have snippets of data (not entire analyses), that’d be great.

You know, I’m sure, that this is not some attempt by me to bash Red Line. That little red, black & white sticker didn’t find its way onto my car’s window by accident.
I’m just trying to find out the truth (either way), that’s all.

--- Bror Jace

Guys (and the occasional girl),
I've been thinking about moly, piston slap and its effects on an engine's innards.

Bob likes to point out that a whopping does of moly does is not necessarily needed and that a little moly in an oil (200ppms or less) is plenty to allow plating throughout the engine. In general, I agree with this. We've seen some really good analysis of oils which have only 60-80ppms of moly in them. Doubling, tripling or quadrupling the moly content does not seem to halve, third or quarter the amount of wear. In fact, it may not reduce wear at all.

BUT, what if your car has some sort of significant wear "issue" ... *cough, piston slap, cough, cough* ... and has a serious amount of its internal surfaces in contact and in need of moly plating? Would an oil with a mega-dose of moly be better in this case?

An oil can show an improvement in its wear characteristics with just a very small amount of moly. Mobil 1 SS seems to be a really good example of this. But, if you need a great deal of plating (because many metal surfaces are in contact with each other) will a higher concentration be even better?

In short, I wonder if the concentration affects the rate at which the moly plates up?

It could just be, however, that a lesser concentration might just take a longer to plate a given area. So, if you are trying eliminate piston-slap noise, it might just take longer for a 200ppm moly oil to quiet the noise than an oil with 500ppm. But, how much longer? A few hours of operation? Days or weeks? Even a month or more?

Of course, many of the above examples assume it's moly which is what deadens the piston slap noise. It might have been something else about the Red Line oil that quieted down my Civic's motor upon start-up. I'm not sure of another condition that would require so much plating up (metal-to-metal contact).

--- Bror Jace

Bror, Yes I'm seeing the high copper in the GM modular engines regardless of oil brand or add types. I have theories about it unproved yet.

One reason that is overlooked here in regard to higher soft metals concentration using a Redline or other ester cleaning agent is that the oils are cleaning residual soft metals that are hidden in the engine from break-in and are not new wear as such but plated on the walls and crevices of the block internally.

Hope that helps, I'm no chemist so I can't intelligently address the differing Moly compounds and their relationships to copper or other wear.

quote:

Originally posted by MolaKule:
ShootingStar,

Consider this:

VOA of Schaeffer's 10W30 Supreme Blend shows approx. 170 ppm from the bottle.
Put 4 or 5 quarts of the blend into your engine and do a UOA at 500 miles or so.
The analysis will show slightly less than 170 ppm of Moly.

MolaKule, I have no doubt that what you say is true, but just don't see how this relates to my original question. I'd still like to know either the ppm of moly in a 1 pint bottle of Schaeffer's #132 Moly E.P. Oil Treatment or how many ppm of moly a VOA (or a UOA) would yield when a pint of #132 is mixed with 4 or 5 quarts of a moly-free oil.

ShootingStar,

Maybe this will answer the question (check my math to verify):

#132 comes in pint containers (pretty full and accurate from what I've seen);
1 pint = 473 mL or 0.473 L, [a mL is 1/1000th of a liter)
1 quart = 2 pints = 946 mL or 0.946 L
5 quarts = 10 pints = 4,730 mL or 4.73 L, add to that 1 pint of the carrier oil
and you have 11 pints = 5.2 L;

Assuming the relationship is linear, or near linear, let's solve by ratio and
proportions:

Problem Statement - Schaeffer's claim: "Larry Ludwig, Chief Chemist at Schaeffer said
'The #132 will put in approximately 120-150 parts million of moly in the engine oil.
(With 5 qts of a non moly oil.)'"

Okay, I take that to mean that what is contained in the #132 will RAISE the final 5.5 quarts (of non-moly-containing oil) to 150 ppm. Now what is the ppm of the original
pint of #132? (At this point I won't call it a Moly concentrate).

(150 ppm)/(0.473 L) = (X ppm)/(5.2 L); solving for X, X (in ppm) = (150 ppm x 5.2 L)/0.473 = 1,649 ppm. So the original pint or 473 mL of #132 should have close to
1,650 ppm of moly. Looking at this another way, if the #132 has this moly in
1 pint, then 1,650 ppm per pint/11 pints = 150 ppm.

Again, lab tests show 24 ppm of Moly right out of the #132 bottle, and blending with other oils also show this level to be correct.

[ November 09, 2002, 12:40 AM: Message edited by: MolaKule ]

quote:

Originally posted by MolaKule:
ShootingStar,

Problem Statement - Schaeffer's claim: "Larry Ludwig, Chief Chemist at Schaeffer said
'The #132 will put in approximately 120-150 parts million of moly in the engine oil.
(With 5 qts of a non moly oil.)'"

Again, lab tests show 24 ppm of Moly right out of the #132 bottle, and blending with other oils also show this level to be correct.

Molakule, No need to check your math. I looks like it all pretty much agrees with what I came up with in my post of Oct 20th, only your math is even more precise. Your lab test and the statement from "Larry Ludwig, Chief Chemist at Schaeffer" certainly are contradictory though. David said he was gonna get to the botttom of this, but I haven't heard any more from him.

ShootingStar,

Consider this:

VOA of Schaeffer's 10W30 Supreme Blend shows approx. 170 ppm from the bottle.

Put 4 or 5 quarts of the blend into your engine and do a UOA at 500 miles or so.

The analysis will show slightly less than 170 ppm of Moly.

My apologies for missing your post;

I went back and looked up the post and you did indeed do a good job on your calcs.

I think Bob is also going to be asking some similar questions when he arrives in St. Louis.

BTW, need a job in the chemlab?

[ November 09, 2002, 12:38 AM: Message edited by: MolaKule ]

ShootingStar and MolaKule,
Sorry you have not heard from from me yet about this. The sample did not get sent out for about 8-9 days after I got it ready to send. I found it setting in my shop not mail!

It's been gone for about 8 days now and I should get it back very soon! Going to St. Louis today and will be back Thursday. I know that it will be here by then and I will post my findings. I am going to ask your questions while in St Louis.

Sorry for the delay.

MolaKule, Regarding blending you are right! It's just my opinon !

Davidtheotheroilguy

[ November 09, 2002, 11:30 AM: Message edited by: David ]

Status
Not open for further replies.

Replies
31
Views
1K
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
29
Views
1K
Replies
17
Views
1K
Replies
59
Views
3K