Schaeffers 132 Oil Treatment Experiment

[ramechanic4]

Let me start by saying I am a huge fan of/believer in Schaeffer products. However, I am a mechanic so I have a background of disbelief when it comes to "fixing" a problem with something out of a bottle. Here's the test:
2001 Silverado 1500 w/ 4.8L, 190,000mi, run on Valvoline 10w-30 the last 120k or so. It is currently consuming oil (not leaking) at about 1qt/1000mi. I pulled 1 plug from each bank, checked compression, recorded all data, poured in #132 and toped off with Valvoline. I will recheck compression and oil consumption in 1000 miles and probably retreat and continue. This oil will get changed in November, hopefully with a greatly reduced consumption problem and better compression. Any suggestions on how to improve this test or bets on outcome are welcome.

 

[ChattZX]

1 quart for every 1,000 miles? Sounds like that motor is on its last leg and most-likely not worth fooling with IMO. Sounds like the rings are about gone.

 

[ericthepig]

I put a bottle of #132 in my Sienna for this OCI. Theory is that it bonds a layer of moly on the cylinder walls and slightly decreases the space for oil blow by. I'm not presently tracking the Sienna's consumption since I'm putting so few miles on it now (use to consume a little over a qt in 2k). Figured the 132 might help a bit in this one yr OCI, so I dropped it in.

 

[ramechanic4]

Ha, that's funny cause that's about the same thing my dad says (it's his truck).

But that's also the reason it makes such a good test subject for this product. Will it help? I don't know, but that's what I'm going to find out, if it doesn't I'm out a very minimal amount of time and a few bucks for a couple bottles of 132. If it does help, then it's some pretty awesome stuff and I'll know it from personal experience, not just cuz a salesman told me it was. And a happy side effect will be that I gave my dads truck a crutch to lean on instead of just hopping around on 1 leg.

 

[Ken2]

132 is mainly brite stock (very thick base oil) plus some excellent antiwear additives. If it works, try a 40 wt oil in that engine next time. You'll accomplish about the same thing at lower cost.

 

[Neil Womack]

Ken2 has some good advise. I had a Saturn that consumed a quart per thousand. Reduced the consumption to less than a quart every 3k with 15w 40.

 

[Loobed]

2001 year GM truck engines had a problem with oil consumption. One of the fixes was a fixed orifice PCV valve.

 

[demarpaint]

#132 is a good product and gets some good reviews here.

A qt of oil/1000 miles is considered normal even for a new car by some car makers. Just try and bring in a new car that uses oil that isn't leaking and you'll hear a qt/800-1000 miles is normal. I'd flip and they'd fix it but that's another story.

Shell did a study and found that thinner oils actually helped reduce consumption in engines using oil if the rings were at fault. It might be worth a shot trying a thin 30 instead of the 40 grade. Good luck! Let us know what happens.

 

[ramechanic4]

I fully intend to post results (or lack there of) as I get them. This is pretty much a test just for my own personal knowledge of the product, but thought it would be fun to share on here and maybe get some other input on it. But not as fun as it's gonna be to rub it in my dads face when it works!!!

 

[dailydriver]

Originally Posted By: Ken2
132 is mainly brite stock (very thick base oil) plus some excellent antiwear additives.


I'm suprised to hear that, as I would have thought that Schaeffers would avoid bright stock like the plague since Lucas is always soooo blasted on here for selling it in their various oil stabilizer products.

I guess they are selling that great aw add pack more than the bright stock??

 

[WMSmotorhead]

Lol.. You gotta Clean that motor with MMO and Kreen....
Just kidding.

I do like to "wash out" a motor if it's consuming just in case it's something "Stuck"...

I think you're on the right track, and this vehicle is a good guinea pig for this product.

 

[zoomzoom]

sounds like #132 is very similar to Lubro Moly MoS2?

 

[ericthepig]

Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Shell did a study and found that thinner oils actually helped reduce consumption in engines using oil if the rings were at fault. It might be worth a shot trying a thin 30 instead of the 40 grade.


My Sienna consumption seemed to drop significant when I went thin - began running 20wt oil (mixed w/ one qt 5w30).

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: ericthepig
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Shell did a study and found that thinner oils actually helped reduce consumption in engines using oil if the rings were at fault. It might be worth a shot trying a thin 30 instead of the 40 grade.


My Sienna consumption seemed to drop significant when I went thin - began running 20wt oil (mixed w/ one qt 5w30).


That is in line with Shell's study if the "rings" are the cause of the problem. They used 20 grade oil and 40 grade oil for their test, and found 20 grade oil reduced consumption in engines with bad rings. It goes against conventional wisdom.

 

[ramechanic4]

Originally Posted By: WMSmotorhead
Lol.. You gotta Clean that motor with MMO and Kreen....
Just kidding.

I do like to "wash out" a motor if it's consuming just in case it's something "Stuck"...

I think you're on the right track, and this vehicle is a good guinea pig for this product.


Under normal circumstances of just trying to get it to straighten up I would have used something (probably neither of those)to clean it out first, but this is more about finding out what 132 can on it's own. Most likely when I am done with this experiment (reguardless of results) I'll pour in a little 131 neutra to see if I can get any "further" results.

 

[Boss302fan]

Originally Posted By: zoomzoom
sounds like #132 is very similar to Lubro Moly MoS2?


132 has much less moly in it then LM Mos2. I own a case of both of these and really do not use the 132 anymore.

Many links on this forum about both of these products that can explain the benefits of both...

 

[ramechanic4]

Originally Posted By: Boss302fan
Originally Posted By: zoomzoom
sounds like #132 is very similar to Lubro Moly MoS2?


132 has much less moly in it then LM Mos2. I own a case of both of these and really do not use the 132 anymore.

Many links on this forum about both of these products that can explain the benefits of both...



While I'm convinced moly is some extremely cool stuff, I'm not sure it's use in motor oil is really all that great without the right combination of additives to help it out. I'm also convinced that Scheaffers has found that right combo. But like I said earlier, I'm past the point of having the benefits explained to me, I want real world, hands on, personal results.

Tnx for your input everyone.

 

[JHZR2]

Im pretty sure that 132 does NOT create a moly layer that helps reduce consumption as was mentioned above. The Mo content of 132 as I recall is quite low. It is the synthetic stock with Mo and particularly Sb that is beneficial for protecting against corrosion and other issues.

 

[ericthepig]

Originally Posted By: ramechanic4
..I'll pour in a little 131 neutra to see if I can get any "further" results.


The original Bob (of BITOG) was a heavy user/tester of 131 - and would run up to a quart of 131 in a relatively small sump (I think it was a small Ford vehicle) - and would run it for thousands of miles.

A Toyota mechanic told me to run up to a quart for my gummed rings in the Sienna, and to run it for at least 1k miles (and he also was very familiar with the Schaeffer product line). The same mechanic said he often started his customers on 131 and he used a boroscope to see the before and after of 131 used in the gas and oil, and saw significant cleaning of carbon deposits w/ continued use. But he said it requires prolonged use - not single hit.

I often run 16oz in my Sienna's 5qt sump for last 1k of OCIs.