Slippery Oil
- Thread starter Shel_B
- Start date
That could also apply to some degree with doing Frankenbrews.
MolaKule
Staff member
If we are going to use equivocal or undefined defined tribological terms such as slippery, then why not "Slick" or "Slickery?"
a: having a smooth surface : slick wet leaves
b: having surface plausibility or appeal : slick advertising
Wow, those marketing guys sure do use some slick advertising!
a: having a smooth surface : slick wet leaves
b: having surface plausibility or appeal : slick advertising
Wow, those marketing guys sure do use some slick advertising!
Last edited:
Maybe not flushed after 100k, but a slow drain and fill over time is still fairly safe.
That's how it was explained to me when I called liquimoly about Molygen 5w30 and was told it was okay to use Mos2 also at same time.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Yes, but it's a balancing act. Too much can also be detrimental to the performance, that's why it needs to be tested. That's the problem with additives, these aren't being tested with individual formulas and then recommending based on that. Every oil is different. I had a very good talk with Dave at HPL about this topic and it basically comes down to you don't know what the optimum FM chemistry looks like until you test it. Each formula will respond differently, so you absolutely have to test because something that worked with Oil A could actually be detrimental to the performance of Oil B for example.
It comes back to the fact that oils are fully formulated products and altering that formula by dosing it with something else is unlikely to improve it, because what was already there was the result of the formulation process, which includes extensive testing of this, and myriad other parameters.
Pick one. The sense of touch can tell you a lot about a variety of things. And chemistry in oils is complex but just because you don't like, use or believe in an additive doesn't mean they are all crap and do not work. I personally don't mind trying something for a specific reason or to clean up a new to me car/engine. Ymmv
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
It's not about "belief"; this isn't religion class, we have testing equipment and protocols that are used to test for FM efficacy and at what concentration/concentrations things plateau or even get worse. When fully formulated oils are, as the name would suggest, formulated, FM chemistry is determined/selected as part of that process.
If we look at these charts from Infineum, you see that wear reduction for trimer moly effectively plateaus at just over 50ppm:
While we see that coefficient of friction is "best as it can get" (0.05 per @sk_pete's chart that showed moly posted previously) already at 200ppm:
While this slide shows the difference in effectiveness between trimer and others:
Of course this doesn't get into synergies, which can alter the most effective concentrations, and you have to consider other FM chemistries like titanium and tungsten in that process as well, as they can be complimentary, at the right dose.
The problem with Joe Average dumping a wizard in his sump is that he's already inclined toward that concept of belief; belief that it will do something because he spent money on it. Furthermore, that process; that doping of his engine's lubricant is not a testbed from which the efficacy of said wizard can be derived, which brings us back to the problem with "belief".
There are additives that, objectively, work. A solvent will dissolve deposits. Yes, they can cause other issues, but it does the job it claims to do. Ester-based cleaning products like AutoRX and HPL's engine cleaner function based on well-understood chemistry, to gently, and slowly, remove varnish and deposits. Other additives are complete garbage, like Lucas. And then there are some that will likely do little more than lighten your wallet, but also don't risk causing any damage (unlike Lucas).
The point is that the vast, VAST majority of "performance improving" additives are used not because there has been any actual proof of performance or objective evidence presented as to their effectiveness, but because somebody thought that more is better, or that Castrol/Mobil/Valvoline/Shell...etc wasn't giving them "the best" and that they could dump in this magic in a can and make it better! It plays on the psychology of both bravado (I can do better! rah rah rah) and paranoia (Castrol did it on the cheap, but I can fix it).
Automotive manufacturers don't put those blurbs in their manuals about not using additives because they don't want you to discover that you can get 50mpg with your HEMI by dumping in Super Wizard Fuel Saver 9000, they put them in there because some of them can actually be harmful.
You also don't see Mobil selling "Mobil 1 Ultimate Engine Oil Enhancer" because a fully formulated oil not only doesn't need anything added to it, but, the odds that some characteristic will be negatively impacted, are, far, FAR higher, than those of realizing any actual improvement.
As I said, I discussed FM chemistry at some length with Dave at @High Performance Lubricants and it was quite clear that, without extensive testing, you really have no idea how a specific FM chemistry is going to behave in a given additive package and base oil blend. And what's optimum for one oil, may end up being completely different with another. There is no substitute for this methodic and extensive testing, so it is breathtakingly naive to think that one can circumvent this entire process and still end up ahead of the game. It would be like winning the lottery. Sure, it happens, but the odds are definitely not in your favour.
There was a recent article in JAMA about this and vitamins. People "believe" in what they choose, in spite of no proof, partly because they spent money on the product(s). Having been told that Vitamin C in some amount is needed to prevent scurvy, more than that amount must be better. Then add in marketing, some "experts" (like "a great mechanic") are quoted to say you need 500 mg per day, or 1000, or 10,000, and some people add Vitamin C to their intake until they create severe digestion problems. So, people thing "moly" is good in an oil, and more must be better, or ZDDP, or whatever...it appears to be human nature to act on beliefs rather than to require proof.
I don't get how you (and others) become a bully when someone tries to politely disagree w your opinion- it is okay that we disagree. Some of your posts on here have some knowledgeable facts, experiences, fluff, but sound very indignant and point to the attitude of- I said it is false so don't question me. I understand oil makers know what they are doing and I understand and get your point of view. But if your philosophy held true then every oil is formulated perfectly and no engine would have valvetrain, timing chain, vvt problems or any varnish, sludge, stuck rings, leaking or any oil related problems bc the oil would prevent all that. Every car manufacturers claim of oci's would be perfect, the oil would last perfectly and no oiling problems would ever happen. Even on the most properly maintained engine these problems can happen.
You site Mobil1 as not making additives and quality oil that doesn't need it. Liqui Moly and Schaeffer make quality oils but also make additives, so are they wrong and not to be trusted? No, they make both and many including me trust them. As I am sure their chemists/scientists/engineers would disagree with your point of view on not needing any additives and have many facts to back what they say. I am just a shadetree mechanic that has been turning wrenches starting w my dad at a young age that has some experiences over the last 45 years, trying to share some of it and learn from others on here. I am sure you also have some wealth of knowledge and experiences that others, including myself can glean from- I never claimed to be the smartest person in the room or even at home. That would be my wife who used to be a chemist but now teaches chemistry and sciences to HS kids as she got tired of looking at data all day and wanted to help kids.
I have experienced some additives to have helped some engines and fail to do anything in others- no big deal. Used some of the ones Molekule has commented on as plausible/maybe helpful and am currently using HPL EC in 3 of my newish to me used vehicles that have known to no known service history. Some people who use additives are trying to avoid a bigger expense if something small in cost can help or prolong it for money/times sakes. Or love their car and trying to help keep it running great for as long as it can based on an experience or information they have had, read, or heard w an additive. Right or wrong it is not my job to say, it is their money and car.
This post started w someone asking about slippery oil, now my experience was with the Moly EP and how it felt. Is that what they were asking for probably not but thought my experience was worth while. Someone else tried to ask why I guessed the antimony and also say they didn't touch the oils/use additives and I suggested they try it- whether use or feel it or not, no biggie. This stuff is the most slippery oil additive or mixed in an oil or plain oil I have ever felt and I shared it. Why I don't know but I took a guess as it contain a good amount of the antimony and most other additives/oils do not have as much if any. If you don't agree with me using an additive that is fine and we can agree to disagree but it is not your business to say I am wrong for using an additive. That sensation and guess of what is making it so slick is my experience, if it is not the antimony and you can share your knowledge of what it may be- that is awesome and thanks for sharing it and expanding my knowledge. Does it help my engine- maybe, maybe not but the money to buy it once a year is mine and it gives me peace of mind in my truck while towing.
So you can keep not using additives, I will keep using them occasionally and the world will keep on turning.
This applies to everything in life. (including politics)
Let's take a salad as an example. You have your lettuce, purple cabbage, cucumber, spinach, arugula, crushed walnuts and almonds, etc... a good, healthy salad. A little extra virgin olive oil and vinegar will top it off nicely, synergizes with the leafy greans and crunch from the walnuts, a good meal. However, you decide to supplement that healthy salad with something to make it "better" so you grab for some ranch dressing, croutons, bacon bits, dried fruit, candied nuts, etc... Your "belief" is that you're still eating healthy and appealing to your senses as well, despite the fact that your salad now has more saturated fat and refined sugar than a McDonald's big mac.
Mixing chemistry can have polar opposite affects. Hydrogen and oxygen act as fire accelerants by themselves but combine to make water, a fire suppressant. Sodium and chlorine, explosive and deadly elements to themselves, combine to make sodium chloride (table salt), a food preservative and flavoring agent. Both water and salt are safe in your body but will rust iron. There's tons of examples of this all throughout chemistry. So to think you can just add a little bit of one element or molecule, to a solution of 20+ different ingredients, and everything will be fine is asinine and careless. When you add a supplement to engine oil, you're playing backyard chemist.
I didn't see @OVERKILL's post as being a bully. It just sounded like someone trying to set the record straight and educate about a touchy subject. He provided actual data to back it up as well. We like clear, concise, and repeatable data here. Anecdotal and empirical evidence carries no weight.
Let's take a salad as an example. You have your lettuce, purple cabbage, cucumber, spinach, arugula, crushed walnuts and almonds, etc... a good, healthy salad. A little extra virgin olive oil and vinegar will top it off nicely, synergizes with the leafy greans and crunch from the walnuts, a good meal. However, you decide to supplement that healthy salad with something to make it "better" so you grab for some ranch dressing, croutons, bacon bits, dried fruit, candied nuts, etc... Your "belief" is that you're still eating healthy and appealing to your senses as well, despite the fact that your salad now has more saturated fat and refined sugar than a McDonald's big mac.
Mixing chemistry can have polar opposite affects. Hydrogen and oxygen act as fire accelerants by themselves but combine to make water, a fire suppressant. Sodium and chlorine, explosive and deadly elements to themselves, combine to make sodium chloride (table salt), a food preservative and flavoring agent. Both water and salt are safe in your body but will rust iron. There's tons of examples of this all throughout chemistry. So to think you can just add a little bit of one element or molecule, to a solution of 20+ different ingredients, and everything will be fine is asinine and careless. When you add a supplement to engine oil, you're playing backyard chemist.
I didn't see @OVERKILL's post as being a bully. It just sounded like someone trying to set the record straight and educate about a touchy subject. He provided actual data to back it up as well. We like clear, concise, and repeatable data here. Anecdotal and empirical evidence carries no weight.
Last edited:
I see his point, I agree with you about preferences and the understanding of wanting solid data. I am not denying any of that but simply disagree and try an additive occasionally never claim my way is better just different. When refered to as foolish, naive or talked down to about using something other than oil out of the jug it gets old. I simply stated w the additive of Moly EP it is super slick and then the tangent of you don't know the science or lack the understanding of data of not using an additive begins. I do understand it but try it- being a "backyard chemist " another name called. Several on this forums I have read over the years- had a different username and could not remember it besides this one- will post something and put a phase about bracing for the anti-additive crowd, placebo police or something about the additive police will get you. Sorry but if someone wants to try an additive at there own risk so be it they are no less educated than someone who doesn't use them. And I am sure some of the oil companies that make additives have solid science to back there claims. Some may be bogus but that is the gamble.
Last edited:
I think it worked pretty well for Slick 50. I remember when it came out a buddy of mine worked at Western Auto and I remember him saying they couldn't keep it in stock. He even talked me into using it a couple times but only because it was free.If we are going to use equivocal or undefined defined tribological terms such as slippery, then why not "Slick" or "Slickery?"
a: having a smooth surface : slick wet leaves
b: having surface plausibility or appeal : slick advertising
Wow, those marketing guys sure do use some slick advertising!
Did it keep sliding off the shelf?
I'm not trying to sound like a bully, or even dissuade you from experimenting. But I'm pretty sure most of the additives you're talking about 'feeling' require some sort of a surface reaction to take place for their frictional characteristics to, for lack of a better word, 'activate'. You are not causing that reaction between your fingers. What you are feeling is carrier oil in these products.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
My intention was not to bully, simply educate. We are having a debate here, I've presented factual data that explains why, from a formulation standpoint, using additives that claim to enhance performance, are more likely to negatively impact some characteristic or characteristics elsewhere in the product.
I think you are offended at this juncture and are looking to dismiss me by categorizing/labelling me and how I come across; essentially, you are jaded based on this interaction and are using that to broad-brush, define, and undermine my character because you don't like what I have to say. This is a technical forum, we discuss technical topics, I'm not making judgements of your character, commenting on your posting style nor making remarks about your communication skills and I would appreciate the same in return.
It's not a philosophy, it's a fact on blending that oils are fully formulated products with each component selected and the amount determined based on methodic testing with the final product tested to ensure it meets both the intended and required performance targets.
Most problems have nothing to do with the oil, it is almost universally mechanical issues with the equipment.
Just because an oil is fully formulated doesn't mean that it's a top-shelf formulation. Some oils are blended only to meet the basic bare bones requirement of the API approval process, which can be inadequate to prevent varnish, sludge and coking in more demanding applications. That doesn't mean the product isn't performing as intended, nor does it mean that you will improve the product by putting something else in it.
Think about this logically for a minute. You have say Supertech 5W-20 that's blended with cheap 4cSt base oils and 15% VII (just making up a formula here) and the cheapest cookie-cutter API SP additive package purchased from Lubrizol. It's a product formulated to a price point. In a higher power density application, this oil causes oil control ring coking. You add MOS2 to the oil thinking you are making it better. What part of the MOS2 additive is going to improve the quality of the base oil blend or reduce the Noack? What part will improve its TEOST score?
If you need a more robust oil for your application, you are best served by purchasing a better oil in the first place. Oils that use AN's and esters in their formulation are going to be able to keep things far cleaner, and even clean-up existing deposits, vs the oil above. Yes, you can use a cleaning additive like AutoRX or HPL Engine Cleaner, which I mentioned in my previous post, but it won't be as effective as just using a better oil out of the gate.
The fallacy here appears to be that you can turn a cheaply formulated oil into a better oil by dosing it with something, but if you understand how oils are formulated, you realize that this is naive. This is what I was trying to explain in my previous post with regards to what I discussed with Dave at HPL on FM chemistry.
This has nothing to do with additives making an oil better, this is a strawman. Honda not properly testing their product and it fuel diluting like crazy isn't fixed with Lucas or MOS2. GM buggering up their timing chain design on their HF V6 isn't fixed by Motor Oil Saver or STP. These are engineering and design problems that are resolved through updated parts and designs. If the OLM is too optimistic for the approved lubricant, it should be revised. But it doesn't mean you can turn Kirkland into Mobil 1 0W-40 by putting an additive in it.
Yes, I cite Mobil 1 as an example of a brand that doesn't sell additives. Castrol is another. The list is extensive.
Many of the small blenders are looking for additional revenue streams. Don't you find it to be a bit of a paradox for a blender to sell a premium fully formulated product and then advertise that you can make said product better; "more premium" by spending more money? Lucas sells oils, but their business is based on the whole coven of wizards which are basically pure profit because they consist of cheap garbage sold at an obscene price with claims that would make a mythomaniac blush.
And of course we are talking about a spectrum here as well. HPL sells a concentrated ester product as a cleaner. This isn't to further improve their product, it's to help clean-up deposits left by cheap oils and poor maintenance practices. Valvoline and Mobil both sell "high mileage" oils with higher levels of seal conditioners to help people avoid or at least put-off expensive seal/gasket jobs. These are very specific things that don't interact with the rest of the oil's chemistry, they aren't impacting FM or AW chemistry for example, and, in the case of the HM oils, well, these are fully formulated products.
And that's fine, but subjects like these tend to produce extensive debate on this forum because we tend to like data, facts and figures. You might perceive that as excessive pedanticism, cynicism or even bullying, but that's not what it is and anything that would actually fall under the bullying category would result in a warning or even ban from the mods.
You seem to be confusing or conflating my commentary on specific additive claims with a disdain for additives in general and I had hoped to make it clear with the post you responded to that this is not my intention. There are additives where the efficacy is understood and the claims have merit. You just mentioned one of them with HPL's EC, which I also mentioned in the post you replied to. Lubeguard products are also generally looked on favourably, as their ester chemistry is understood to be effective for cleaning up deposits that can cause performance issues.
My criticism of FM additives was specific, as is my criticism of Lucas. There is a ton of nuance here that you appear to want to broad brush because it makes the conversation simpler. I'd greatly prefer if you tried to engage on the individual points in earnest, rather than labelling me and dismissing me as a pedant or curmudgeon.
But you can't gauge the performance of these products by how they feel on your fingers. That's why engine oils aren't developed or tested by the "finger test" either. That may be your experience, but that doesn't mean others can't see it as being inadequate or invalid in terms of qualifying performance, which is what was explained by both myself and @RDY4WAR. There are numerous extensive testing protocols available that can be used to prove effectiveness and if that data doesn't exist, or the mechanism that is claimed doesn't pass scrutiny, then it shouldn't be surprising to get push-back on the topic, which is what you received here because your anecdote wasn't sufficient. It isn't necessary to get offended by that, the intention isn't to chastise or undermine you, simply let you know that this isn't enough, and if you have more data, we'd like to see or hear it.
Last edited:
And that is probably what the slippery is, i just guessed at the additive in it. Then the carrier in the 16oz bottle even in a whole 5qt changes how it feels never experienced such and what I was tryingto share. Thanks for the input.
Similar threads
