synthetic with additive or lubro Moly Mos2?
- Thread starter Henry964
- Start date
- Status
I find the cost of LM mos2 reasonable for the amounts I use and the number of OCs I can squeeze out of a single bottle. Looking at VOAs of the engine oils I have stashed and used, most (except the new API SN PYB) contain very little to no moly. I find supplementing it with some mos2 a cost-effictive approach to providing supplemental moly to reduce friction and wear, and hopefully squeeze more useful longevity out of my engine.
In my reading of it it since I began using it, I'm inclined toward using it every other OC. I started with half a bottle (150 ml) into my 4 quart sump for my current OCI, but in future OCIs it'll be used at the level of one quarter bottle every other OC for maintenance levels of it. This works out to only a very marginal added cost for me.
-Spyder
In my reading of it it since I began using it, I'm inclined toward using it every other OC. I started with half a bottle (150 ml) into my 4 quart sump for my current OCI, but in future OCIs it'll be used at the level of one quarter bottle every other OC for maintenance levels of it. This works out to only a very marginal added cost for me.
-Spyder
Hi,
Spyder7 - For what benefit?
Spyder7 - For what benefit?
Originally Posted By: Doug Hillary
Hi,
Spyder7 - For what benefit?
I recall he recommended it to someone to "free stuck rings"
Hi,
Spyder7 - For what benefit?
I recall he recommended it to someone to "free stuck rings"
I note that Doug Hillary mentioned costs.
This has got to be a huge factor for oil companies. Multiply even a few cents by umpteen jillion qts of oil.
Lubro Moly has made my engines perceptibly freer, with more pep. Gas mileage has gone up a bit. The concept is very sound to me, on paper. Pretty cheap, too.
Need?
What is need?
This has got to be a huge factor for oil companies. Multiply even a few cents by umpteen jillion qts of oil.
Lubro Moly has made my engines perceptibly freer, with more pep. Gas mileage has gone up a bit. The concept is very sound to me, on paper. Pretty cheap, too.
Need?
What is need?
Originally Posted By: lipadj46
Originally Posted By: Doug Hillary
Hi,
Spyder7 - For what benefit?
I recall he recommended it to someone to "free stuck rings"
That's a little out of context. I think you took issue with one suggested route I mentioned to control oil consumption on certain Saturn and 8th gen Corollas. LM mos2 was one ingredient, their Motor Oil Saver another. I mentioned in that thread that it was one approach, and one based on being inexpensive, using products I've noted others achieving success with on the same issue with just the one product, and also based on the ease of the method for those who don't want to pull the plugs and do a more aggressive piston soak.
To Doug: I use it because its cheap and provides a moly supplement to the OTC oils I have which largely contain little to no moly. My engine also consumes 1 quart per 1,200 miles, and from reading up on the issue, once it begins, unless something other than simply changing the oil at reasonable intervals is done, consumption progresses on a downward spiral until it hits a level of a quart every 100-300 miles.
The problem begins with the oil control rings getting stuck down due to carbon buildup over time where the rings were designed with inadequate oil control holes. The 'ring stick' results in progressive wear and damage to them that becomes irreversible, short of a tear down and rebuild. I use mos2 to reduce the wear on the stuck rings, with the goal of halting or slowing the consumption trend until I hit on a method that begins to reverse it (assuming its still reversible).
Since buying the car in May, consumption has been steady. I've seen one brief upward tick where it slowed a bit, but then the pattern returned to its current level where its largely remained ever since. It hasn't gotten wose, and I'm currently doing a cleaning cycle as well using PP and a reduced OCI after replacing a gummed up PCV valve earlier this summer.
Edit: actually if its the post I'm thinking of, the remark quoted is completely out of context as it wasn't a 'recommendation' to anyone: it was a plan I had laid out to deal with my consumption if nothing I have in mind to try works in reversing it, and I'm left only with a goal of trying to prevent it from worsening, or at least slow the process. *My* approach, for *me*, that I elaborated on in that thread was the two products mentioned in that thread plus MMO in the fuel.
I suppose that's what I get for mentioning my own experiments: comments taken out of context and injected into threads where I've already posted what I had to say on it without someone taking it as an opportunity to twist my words and throw them in my face.
I'll take that as a lesson learned for future postings on any subject.
-Spyder
Originally Posted By: Doug Hillary
Hi,
Spyder7 - For what benefit?
I recall he recommended it to someone to "free stuck rings"
That's a little out of context. I think you took issue with one suggested route I mentioned to control oil consumption on certain Saturn and 8th gen Corollas. LM mos2 was one ingredient, their Motor Oil Saver another. I mentioned in that thread that it was one approach, and one based on being inexpensive, using products I've noted others achieving success with on the same issue with just the one product, and also based on the ease of the method for those who don't want to pull the plugs and do a more aggressive piston soak.
To Doug: I use it because its cheap and provides a moly supplement to the OTC oils I have which largely contain little to no moly. My engine also consumes 1 quart per 1,200 miles, and from reading up on the issue, once it begins, unless something other than simply changing the oil at reasonable intervals is done, consumption progresses on a downward spiral until it hits a level of a quart every 100-300 miles.
The problem begins with the oil control rings getting stuck down due to carbon buildup over time where the rings were designed with inadequate oil control holes. The 'ring stick' results in progressive wear and damage to them that becomes irreversible, short of a tear down and rebuild. I use mos2 to reduce the wear on the stuck rings, with the goal of halting or slowing the consumption trend until I hit on a method that begins to reverse it (assuming its still reversible).
Since buying the car in May, consumption has been steady. I've seen one brief upward tick where it slowed a bit, but then the pattern returned to its current level where its largely remained ever since. It hasn't gotten wose, and I'm currently doing a cleaning cycle as well using PP and a reduced OCI after replacing a gummed up PCV valve earlier this summer.
Edit: actually if its the post I'm thinking of, the remark quoted is completely out of context as it wasn't a 'recommendation' to anyone: it was a plan I had laid out to deal with my consumption if nothing I have in mind to try works in reversing it, and I'm left only with a goal of trying to prevent it from worsening, or at least slow the process. *My* approach, for *me*, that I elaborated on in that thread was the two products mentioned in that thread plus MMO in the fuel.
I suppose that's what I get for mentioning my own experiments: comments taken out of context and injected into threads where I've already posted what I had to say on it without someone taking it as an opportunity to twist my words and throw them in my face.
I'll take that as a lesson learned for future postings on any subject.
-Spyder
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: lipadj46
Originally Posted By: Doug Hillary
Hi,
Spyder7 - For what benefit?
I recall he recommended it to someone to "free stuck rings"
As an aside, the way you word that reply of yours leads me to believe that you're unaware that the same Toyota model year as the car in your sig is just as prone to developing the problem as mine was, or any other Corolla produced from 1998-2002. From your attitude, I'm guessing yours doesn't burn any - right now.
I hope you don't think that because you use whatever oil you use, change it at reasonable intervals, and already have 55k on the clock confers upon you an immunity card on the consumption problem. None of that remotely guarantees you won't go to do your next OC and suddenly find it a quart down, for the first time, with no leaks to be found and no symptoms to clue you in that it had developed the 8th gen oil thirst - which can begin at any mileage and shows zero correlation between the type of oil you use or how often you change it.
The consensus among those of us who are actually informed about the issue and have discussed it, is that there are no predictors and no method to insure it won't begin to consume it; nor has anyone hit upon a miracle cure that works for all. Some methods work for some but not others, other methods work for other people, and others have tried every method known with none of them succeeding.
After that little jab of yours, there is one thing you can be certain of: there will be no help coming your way from my direction.
-Spyder
Originally Posted By: Doug Hillary
Hi,
Spyder7 - For what benefit?
I recall he recommended it to someone to "free stuck rings"
As an aside, the way you word that reply of yours leads me to believe that you're unaware that the same Toyota model year as the car in your sig is just as prone to developing the problem as mine was, or any other Corolla produced from 1998-2002. From your attitude, I'm guessing yours doesn't burn any - right now.
I hope you don't think that because you use whatever oil you use, change it at reasonable intervals, and already have 55k on the clock confers upon you an immunity card on the consumption problem. None of that remotely guarantees you won't go to do your next OC and suddenly find it a quart down, for the first time, with no leaks to be found and no symptoms to clue you in that it had developed the 8th gen oil thirst - which can begin at any mileage and shows zero correlation between the type of oil you use or how often you change it.
The consensus among those of us who are actually informed about the issue and have discussed it, is that there are no predictors and no method to insure it won't begin to consume it; nor has anyone hit upon a miracle cure that works for all. Some methods work for some but not others, other methods work for other people, and others have tried every method known with none of them succeeding.
After that little jab of yours, there is one thing you can be certain of: there will be no help coming your way from my direction.
-Spyder
Last edited:
Doug, I noticed you said that it just wasn't "cost effective". Which kind of makes my brain lend it some credence, as I guess the thought line would be perhaps this is the reason oil companies aren't adding it, despite it having some benefits. What I mean is, if you had just said you tested it and it flat out didn't work, I would just stay away from it. But it's interesting your paper said it wasn't "cost effective". That makes me think that it just cost too much to add to the oil for that product to remain competitive with other oils.
I am with you on the irony of most of their oils not containing it though... but perhaps that is just so they don't undercut their lucrative additive sales (?).
Also, Doug, I know you're well versed on all things oil so you maybe able to help point me to this... but I seem to remember awhile back reading some debate as to whether there was an amount to where moly actually became more detrimental to an oil than helpful. This was just a debate, but I thought it was from a couple of well thought of posters. If I'm remembering correctly, they said like 200 to 250ppm was optimal and they had read studies where at 300ppm the curve started going back downwards. This always stuck in my mind for some reason. It is curious a lot of popular oils stay under this mark and PYB new SN formula is right around 200ppm if I remember that VOA right. So that is kind of my questions... 1. have your read anything on this matter and could you comment yourself or link to some information in this regard and 2. Mobil 1 seems to think at least some is beneficial as I notice around 100ppm on many of their oils, so what do you think the optimal amount is and at what ppm in your opinion does it stop being beneficial? (not considering cost effectiveness of course)
I am with you on the irony of most of their oils not containing it though... but perhaps that is just so they don't undercut their lucrative additive sales (?).
Also, Doug, I know you're well versed on all things oil so you maybe able to help point me to this... but I seem to remember awhile back reading some debate as to whether there was an amount to where moly actually became more detrimental to an oil than helpful. This was just a debate, but I thought it was from a couple of well thought of posters. If I'm remembering correctly, they said like 200 to 250ppm was optimal and they had read studies where at 300ppm the curve started going back downwards. This always stuck in my mind for some reason. It is curious a lot of popular oils stay under this mark and PYB new SN formula is right around 200ppm if I remember that VOA right. So that is kind of my questions... 1. have your read anything on this matter and could you comment yourself or link to some information in this regard and 2. Mobil 1 seems to think at least some is beneficial as I notice around 100ppm on many of their oils, so what do you think the optimal amount is and at what ppm in your opinion does it stop being beneficial? (not considering cost effectiveness of course)
Since I am using the 10w-40 mos2 oil with nothing extra added I am trusting that Lubro Moly puts the right amount of Mos2 in it..
Also the engine in my Porsche has more than 102000 miles and the car is 18 years old If I had a new Porsche I will probably be using other oils (Synthetic) from them or Motul
Also the engine in my Porsche has more than 102000 miles and the car is 18 years old If I had a new Porsche I will probably be using other oils (Synthetic) from them or Motul
Something else to remember. Most oils that have moly in them is not of the MoS2 variety (and no, I don't know if that makes a difference or not). Oils blended with moly usually us a soluble moly.
Hello everybody,
I have read ( and puchased ) many SAE papers on graphite and MOS2 additives.
From these it emerge that the MINIMUM treat level for these additive to be effective is 0,1% solid content.
Since Lubro-Moly contains 3% solid, a 5% treat level will give you 0,15% solid. That's about the minimum.
Also from these papers, the optimum solid content to have a REAL benefit in fuel consumption ( mainly urban driving ) is between 0,5% and 1% solid. At this level, the fuel saving could be up to 5% ( urban driving ).
However, I don't think that's the main reason for using these additives.
I personnaly use them to reduce wear in my car.
I could then use it for a longer time before changing ( I usually keep them while 20 years or more...).
This save me money IN THE LONG TERM and is much more ecological.
Consequently, I use a solid content of 0,67% in my engine and 1% in my tranny
( this last one gives some real improvement in mpg, urban driving ).
I have been doing this for years in two cars and never experienced any problems.
If you take my father and me, we have been doing this for about 40 years, and it works !
So go on, use them!
PS: I don't use lubro-moly nor advocate the use of any PTFE additives and I'm not a SY...BE user.
I use another additive available here in europe and blend some myself ( for my own use, I didn't, don't, won't sell anything ).
I have read ( and puchased ) many SAE papers on graphite and MOS2 additives.
From these it emerge that the MINIMUM treat level for these additive to be effective is 0,1% solid content.
Since Lubro-Moly contains 3% solid, a 5% treat level will give you 0,15% solid. That's about the minimum.
Also from these papers, the optimum solid content to have a REAL benefit in fuel consumption ( mainly urban driving ) is between 0,5% and 1% solid. At this level, the fuel saving could be up to 5% ( urban driving ).
However, I don't think that's the main reason for using these additives.
I personnaly use them to reduce wear in my car.
I could then use it for a longer time before changing ( I usually keep them while 20 years or more...).
This save me money IN THE LONG TERM and is much more ecological.
Consequently, I use a solid content of 0,67% in my engine and 1% in my tranny
( this last one gives some real improvement in mpg, urban driving ).
I have been doing this for years in two cars and never experienced any problems.
If you take my father and me, we have been doing this for about 40 years, and it works !
So go on, use them!
PS: I don't use lubro-moly nor advocate the use of any PTFE additives and I'm not a SY...BE user.
I use another additive available here in europe and blend some myself ( for my own use, I didn't, don't, won't sell anything ).
- Status
