Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
They never mention moly in the product description. https://pim.liqui-moly.de/pidoc/P000017/3721-CeraTec-23.0-us.pdf I don't see any mention of moly in the composition. https://sichdatonline.chemical-check.de/Dokumente/566/3721_0013_21-08-2015_EN.pdf
I know, the LiquiMoly company markets Ceratec as a ceramic technology FM, yet it only has 359 ppm boron (HBN), which is OK, but not that much really for a concentrated product.
A VOA showed lots of moly, even though the marketing department thinks it would somehow overlap too much with their popular MOS2 product I guess.
Earlier MSDS's from a few years ago mentioned the ammonium molybdate in Ceratec. Current MSDS's don't mention it at all, hence the confusion. ... It can depend on what country an MSDS is intended for too, as some chemicals are on the "Must Be on an MSDS" list of chemicals in some countries and not in others.
Originally Posted by MolaKule
I am not that familiar with the design of the timing chain/guide system in that vehicle. But, ZRA might help with wear while reducing metallic components in your oil, so I think ZRA would be the better choice. I have found ZRA also reduces friction and helps with cleaning, in that order.
Its only a wild guess if ZRA would work for timing chains. The whole point of the Vanderbilt paper originally cited by the OP is to actually test ZDDP and moly, etc. (no polymer esters like ZRA though). Surprisingly, ZDDP actually made things worse. Therefore, due to tribochemistry being a little surprising at times, a wild guess isn't adequate here. ... If I had to guess, I would agree that HyperLube Zinc Replacement Additive (ZRA) would work. However, the Vanderbilt paper calls into direct question the protective film approach for reducing wear on timing chains, and ZRA does form protective films. Any claims that ZRA would work needs actual tests to back it up, not speculation.
They never mention moly in the product description. https://pim.liqui-moly.de/pidoc/P000017/3721-CeraTec-23.0-us.pdf I don't see any mention of moly in the composition. https://sichdatonline.chemical-check.de/Dokumente/566/3721_0013_21-08-2015_EN.pdf
I know, the LiquiMoly company markets Ceratec as a ceramic technology FM, yet it only has 359 ppm boron (HBN), which is OK, but not that much really for a concentrated product.
A VOA showed lots of moly, even though the marketing department thinks it would somehow overlap too much with their popular MOS2 product I guess.
Earlier MSDS's from a few years ago mentioned the ammonium molybdate in Ceratec. Current MSDS's don't mention it at all, hence the confusion. ... It can depend on what country an MSDS is intended for too, as some chemicals are on the "Must Be on an MSDS" list of chemicals in some countries and not in others.
Originally Posted by MolaKule
I am not that familiar with the design of the timing chain/guide system in that vehicle. But, ZRA might help with wear while reducing metallic components in your oil, so I think ZRA would be the better choice. I have found ZRA also reduces friction and helps with cleaning, in that order.
Its only a wild guess if ZRA would work for timing chains. The whole point of the Vanderbilt paper originally cited by the OP is to actually test ZDDP and moly, etc. (no polymer esters like ZRA though). Surprisingly, ZDDP actually made things worse. Therefore, due to tribochemistry being a little surprising at times, a wild guess isn't adequate here. ... If I had to guess, I would agree that HyperLube Zinc Replacement Additive (ZRA) would work. However, the Vanderbilt paper calls into direct question the protective film approach for reducing wear on timing chains, and ZRA does form protective films. Any claims that ZRA would work needs actual tests to back it up, not speculation.
