Shaeffers #132 Moly EP with Amsoil Synthetic.

[jjbula]

I agree that MolaKule is an AWESOME contributer to this board.

Terry, Bob, Dragboat, and Patman are too.

Just look at the number of posts Patman has. Someone should buy him a new keyboard.

My hope is that new members will continue to use the search feature not only for topics but to find out who they are talking to. You can figure out who says what.

Cheers

[ December 16, 2002, 07:08 AM: Message edited by: jjbula ]

 

[Patman]

Hehe, I do need a new keyboard! I can no longer see the letters E,S,D,C,N,I or L, and K and M are disappearing fast too!

I'm not just posting a lot in this forum though, on one of the boards where I'm a moderator, I have over 21,000 posts, and on another one I'm at 3300, and yet another at 2000. I've been around the net a while.

It truly is great how many contributors we have on this board that bring us good info every single day. I don't know 5% of what these guys know, but I'm learning fast thanks to them, and I definitely include MoleKule on that list, as well as Bob and Dragboat and Terry and many others too. It's what makes this place so interesting to come to everyday and I hope we continue to grow even more and attract new oil experts too (such as the recent addition of Kevin D, who really knows his stuff too!)

 

[TooSlick]

Molekule,

I've worked as a propulsion engineer for quite some time, but you don't see me suggesting folks play with red fuming nitric acid or hydrazine in their garage.

It's just too easy for something to go wrong. That's ALL I'm suggesting ....

Clearly, in the case of oil additives the outcome isn't going to be that grave, but there is still the possibility of ruining your engine or transmission. In most cases the additive isn't going to do anything, either good or bad and all you'r doing is wasting a few bucks. But there is always a finite possibility of coming up with an incompatable mixture of additives and basestock that could cause increased wear and/or deposit formation.

My view on this is very simple - if you feel the need to "improve" the oil you are using, you probably need to think about going to something else. Even with the testing you are doing with the Schaeffers 132, you may be able to show short term reductions in wear rates, but how do you know the long term effects - if any - of doing this? Unless you run a carefully controlled test with at least several engines and tear them down at the end of the test, you can't say the overall effect is beneficial to engine life.

 

[GROUCHO MARX]

Terry,

The chlorinated parrafins you speak of are widely known to be a basis of the formulations in additives such as Duralube and Prolong (and others, I'm sure).You stated that it is just a matter of time before they become uninhibited and start to produce corrosion, etc,etc. Can you tell us more about, this such as time frames, miles/hours on oils containing these substances?

 

[MolaKule]

I think much of the success of this board is all you great people who come to the forum with wit and humor and take it "all in stride."

While so much of this stuff is technical and serious, you guys make it cook with your neat and fun attitudes, wit, and humor (wierd sometimes, but I like it!).

 

[Terry]

Mr. Marx, It varies and depends on application. THe more poorly engineered CP friction reducers are very unstable and can begin eating away in 3000 to 5000 miles, albeit at a slow rate.

Add any extra water contamination to the crankcase after being used and you are asking for a catastrophe.

There are more stable formulations but they usually are not sold OTC for automotive pcmo applications.

The lube sprintman is impressed with would be one of the better ones from what I understand. "militec" ?

Chemists here will give more detailed data than I can.
I know one of the Chemists for Auto-RX had some experience in years past with CP's and wanted the Auto-RX product to be the antithesis of those compounds, safe,inert,stable,gentle.

 

[Bror Jace]

I first began browsing this thread because I am currently using 2/3 of a pint of #132 mixed in with my Schaeffer Supreme 7000 5W30. Why? Because I was concerned with wear in my Civic's engine, mostly as a result of coolant contamination, and I was fearful that the 5W30 (which is what I had on hand when I last changed my oil) wasn't thick enough and/or would not provide enough protection for 4,000+ miles until my next oil change in the spring.

When I first picked up a bottle of this stuff, I figured it was probably like STP: a polmer goo with a heavy dose of barrier additive. But, while STP uses ZDDP, the Schaeffer #132 probably used molybdenum (as the name implies). I have since been set straight by the 'Kule Dewd that it's much better than mere goo with a different 'flavoring.'

But so much has been said here, I felt the need to comment on bits and pieces from above:

Bob: (Re #132 and the term "snake oil") "It's an additive designed for a specific intended purpose and that intended purpose is not a snake oil."

But what if I rubbed it all over my pet python "Reggie" to give his skin a nice, glossy shimmer? Could I call it 'snake oil' then?

Yes Dragboat, I think that oil analysis of yours after using some #132 is the single best one I've ever seen.

'Boat: "If you want ... moly & antimony in a formulated, proven oil, Schaeffer has it already mixed for you in 32 ounce bottles."

Um, bottles of #132? You mean 16 ounces (1 pint), right? Either that or I can't read labels ...

... and my hands have suddenly doubled in size!

Does anyone know if gigantism is a possible side effect of antimony contamination?

Patman: "I DO need a new keyboard! I can no longer see the letters E,S,D,C,N,I or L, and K and M are disappearing fast too! I'm not just posting a lot in this forum though, on one of the boards where I'm a moderator, I have over 21,000 posts, and on another one I'm at 3,300, and yet another at 2,000."

OK Patman, with that disclosure, you need to tell us your secret. What kind of barrier lube do you use on your fingertips? Is "Liquid Glove" all it's cracked up to be or just another reptile lube? Do you have any analysis you can share with the rest of the group? C'mon now, don't be shy ...

TooSlick: " ... you don't see me suggesting folks play with red fuming nitric acid or hydrazine in their garage."

No, of course not. You selfish buggers are hoggin' all the fun for yourselves!

'Kule: " ... all you great people who come to the forum with wit and humor and take it "all in stride." While so much of this stuff is technical and serious, you guys make it cook with your neat and fun attitudes, wit, and humor (weird sometimes, but I like it!).

"

I have no idea what you're talkin' about.

--- Bror Jace

 

[BOBISTHEOILGUY]

You've got WAY TOO MUCH time on yer hands there BJ!

 

[MolaKule]

This is a repost.
TooSlick,

"...but you don't see me suggesting folks play with red fuming nitric acid or hydrazine in their garage. It's just too easy for something to go wrong. That's ALL I'm suggesting ....

I think that comment was meant as a joke!

In my profession, we are "pushing the envelope" all the time for turbomachinery, lubricant formulations, and new propulsion systems; some conventional, some exotic. We constantly go through the prediction/analysis/testing cycle all the time and there is always a risk with working with leading edge technology. Risk assesement is one of the tools we use to determine if the risk is worth the gain. Most of the time it comes down to: no risk - no gain.

If one has knowledge of the materials (organic chemistry) and it's affect on surface interactions (tribology), one can predict with a certain probability how the formulation will perform. Short interval testing will either falsify or verify the original formulation theory. I know that in the past, you have criticized short interval testing, but it does have it's place in the overall scheme.

Now the "brewskies" were tested and presented so as to give a CHOICE to the consumer as to whether or not he/she wanted to attempt to improve an oil, with no implied warranty, and at the same time letting the consumer DETERMINE if the RISK was worth the potential GAIN. Having said that, the whole topic of "brewskies" is off limits now so the subject is somewhat "non sequitur."

How could anyone have predicted the Challenger diaster? The booster seal allowed hot combustion gases to eat into the hydrogen tank and cause a mini hydrogen bomb explosion. A better launch decision may have averted this disaster, or, or...

Yes, we live in a world with risks. There ain't no such thing as zero risk.

[ December 17, 2002, 10:55 PM: Message edited by: MolaKule ]

 

[Terry]

Strap me in sir, I'll fly it !

 

[MolaKule]

"Duralube and Prolong "

Those chlorinated waxes (wax - just another name for a high molecular weight ester) decompose in an engine due to thermal degradation and moisture, forming hydrochloric acids. These corrosive acids attack metals and not even the base chemicals can neutralize them.

Some forms of chlorinated esters have been used in the past in gear lubes and racing engine formulations, but are now considered hazardous waste.

 

[TooSlick]

Molekule,

If you look at the glass transition temp of viton rubber and how it responds at low temps, you could have anticipated some potential issues with launching the Shuttle at temps at or below freezing. As you may recall, this was the "teacher in space" mission and there was lots of political pressure from "Bonzo's buddy" to get the launch off in time ....None of this is news by the way, it was all in the investigative report ....

I can tell you know what you're doing, but the average motorhead isn't going to pick up organic chemistry from reading a few internet posts ....

Terry,

We may have a mission for you yet ...

TooSlick

 

[jjbula]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bror Jace:
'Boat: "If you want ... moly & antimony in a formulated, proven oil, Schaeffer has it already mixed for you in 32 ounce bottles."

Um, bottles of #132? You mean 16 ounces (1 pint), right? Either that or I can't read labels ...

... and my hands have suddenly doubled in size!

Does anyone know if gigantism is a possible side effect of antimony contamination?

I have no idea what you're talkin' about.

--- Bror Jace

---

Bror,

He's talking about the quarts of Schaeffer oil.

BTW, no more cold medicine for you during computer time.

 

[Bror Jace]

Oh, he meant QUARTS?

--- Bror Jace

 

[MolaKule]

TooSlick,

True, but let's give the gearheads more credit than that.

 

[sprintman]

TooSlick
Ahhhh! the joke re UDMH, LOX and Red Fuming Nitric Acid addition to my fuel was for you not Molakule. It's a big hint as to where I went to high school as we call it here.
Wanna guess?

 

[ofelas]

MolaKule -

Do you recommend using #132 with -

5 quart fill of Amsoil ATM (has 150ppm moly) in a 2003 Jeep 3.7l

5 quart fill of Amsoil ZRT (60ppm moly) or HDD (0ppm moly) in a 1988 roller TBI Dodge 318?

If so, how many oz, and what ppm of Moly would it bring the oil upto?

Thx