Why the huge obsession with adding MMO?

[Spyder7]

Originally Posted By: demarpaint

For those who are afraid, stand clear of it.


And that, indeed, cuts through the chase.

-Spyder

 

[Eddie]

Because we need some to believe in and focus on and this year it is MMO. Last year it was the Valvoline oil additive and the year before it was system cleaner and and and.

 

[Gary Allan]

Quote:
I didn't say they were. Just that they're obviously not all the same because each manufacturer chooses to leave something out, or to use less of it. Its not nitpicking. Its a simple refutation to the supposition that none of the manufacturers left anything out, therefore no justification to put anything in.


(I hope I'm not "butting in")

I wouldn't say that (and this , again, is not an indictment of what you're doing). Different blenders use different additives to accomplish the same thing. It's not that they "left out" anything, they chose to use something else. It may be cheaper. It may work better with the rest of the package they pulled out of their behinds

Now if you've got a high spring rate flat tappet setup ..then you might want to add some magic potion ..but there you're typically operating well outside the normal operational envelope.

 

[bigmike]

Originally Posted By: sxg6
If you want to use MMO on a neglected vehicle with known issues, fine. But you could not pay me to put that stuff in my 2009 that gets regular oil changes with quality oil. As for the fuel system, I use red line si-1 every 15k or so. I also fully admit that even if I did not use additives in my fuel system, the vehicle would probably have a very long, trouble-free life. My biggest concern with MMO is the long term effects on your engine if you leave it in for an extended period of time. You may have had great short term results, but what about the long run? You may not experience catastrophic damage such as a blown engine, but there may be other detrimental effects that you can not see.


Originally Posted By: Spyder7
They did though. Since they're blended differently (different base stocks, different add packs), each has chosen to leave out something the other chose to put in. Or to use different amounts of whatever. Else they'd all be identical - but they're not.

-Spyder


You're nitpicking. Of course different grades are blended differently, so what? That does not mean they're blended in a sub-par fashion.


I've run it long term in the following applications:

1986 B2000 Mazda for 202,000 miles.
1994 Honda Accord for ~190,000 miles.
1986 Chevy Nova for 211,000 miles.
2006 Chevy Silverado for 49,000 miles (still driving).

I sold 2 of those vehicles (Mazda and Honda) and gave the Nova away (everything else fell apart, but engine/transmission was great).

 

[StevieC]

In the engine & fuel or just one/other?

 

[Spyder7]

Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
Quote:
I didn't say they were. Just that they're obviously not all the same because each manufacturer chooses to leave something out, or to use less of it. Its not nitpicking. Its a simple refutation to the supposition that none of the manufacturers left anything out, therefore no justification to put anything in.


(I hope I'm not "butting in")

I wouldn't say that (and this , again, is not an indictment of what you're doing). Different blenders use different additives to accomplish the same thing. It's not that they "left out" anything, they chose to use something else. It may be cheaper. It may work better with the rest of the package they pulled out of their behinds

I think beyond meeting a given spec, though, whether or not the goal is to achieve the same thing, the end result is not quite the same. Maybe very similar. Similar enough that not only are there no detrimental effects, but most won't even notice any differences (or that there are differences, or even what an additive package is). That is a reference to the average guy on the street, though, not the average poster here.

I'll fall back here on a simple point I've made before: too many variables in the oil's application. Engines are different, and often very different. As are driving styles and climates. Picking the right viscosity offsets the last variable, but with the others, I think certain oils do a specific task (as in run in a particular engine, or for a particular OCI) better than others.

Simple example: both Supertech dino and Mobil 1 EP are API SM & Energy Conserving oils. But if you were picking one to do a 15,000 mile OCI on, which one would you pick. I think that's an easy answer.

Likewise, if I owned a car with 300,000 miles on it and some leaks that were simply due to age, would I pick GTX, or MaxLife. My choice would be MaxLife, even though they are both API SM.

And I could do this all day, but that should make the point clear that there are enough differences to make the point non-trivial.

-Spyder

 

[Gary Allan]

Sure, there are differing formulations that are specifically blended for specific purposes, but none of them are to "prevent wear" ..or "protect" an engine, generally speaking, any better than the other. Some are blended to last longer service..some are blended to cope with aging seals ..etc.

So your average user ..running SuperTech and M1EP for 3-5k miles won't benefit anyone except XOM.

..and yes, we can do this all day long

 

[bigmike]

Originally Posted By: StevieC
In the engine & fuel or just one/other?


Both.

 

[c3po]

Originally Posted By: bigmike
I've run it long term in the following applications:

1986 B2000 Mazda for 202,000 miles.
1994 Honda Accord for ~190,000 miles.
1986 Chevy Nova for 211,000 miles.
2006 Chevy Silverado for 49,000 miles (still driving).

I sold 2 of those vehicles (Mazda and Honda) and gave the Nova away (everything else fell apart, but engine/transmission was great).


If my MATH is correct then you have driven 652,000 miles with MMO in your fuel and oil on these 4 vehicles, did MMO ever cause any problems.

 

[gfh77665]

Originally Posted By: Spyder7
Originally Posted By: demarpaint

For those who are afraid, stand clear of it.


And that, indeed, cuts through the chase.

-Spyder


Not afraid of it. I just don't give a flyin' flip about it.

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: gfh77665
Originally Posted By: Spyder7
Originally Posted By: demarpaint

For those who are afraid, stand clear of it.


And that, indeed, cuts through the chase.

-Spyder


Not afraid of it. I just don't give a flyin' flip about it.


Sounds good. No point in using it then, and no results good or bad to post about.

 

[bigmike]

Originally Posted By: c3po
Originally Posted By: bigmike
I've run it long term in the following applications:

1986 B2000 Mazda for 202,000 miles.
1994 Honda Accord for ~190,000 miles.
1986 Chevy Nova for 211,000 miles.
2006 Chevy Silverado for 49,000 miles (still driving).

I sold 2 of those vehicles (Mazda and Honda) and gave the Nova away (everything else fell apart, but engine/transmission was great).


If my MATH is correct then you have driven 652,000 miles with MMO in your fuel and oil on these 4 vehicles, did MMO ever cause any problems.


None that I'm aware of or could contribute to the use of MMO.

Never had an engine problem on the Accord or Nova. I replaced the fuel float at 184,000 miles on the Accord.

The Mazda, well, that truck gave me more grief than I care to think about. It had alot of cooling problems, differential seized on me once, etc. I got alot of use out of it though.

Current truck is running fine, aside from the transmission grenading on me (fixed under warranty)! Some of you might recall that thread.

I used to buy it in the 1 gallon metal cans. Wish they'd bring back those.

I don't see how MMO has such polarizing aspects - either people really don't like it or they do. Not sure why that is. I've been fairly neutral on it - my grandfather got me started using it due to his use with it on tractors. I took his word on it and used it ever since. My choices in oil have changed since then (Castrol 10w40 and Kendall 20w50!), but I still use MMO in all my dino applications.

As far as synthetics go, I haven't used MMO in those applications except in the fuel. Could be because I've not used synthetics very long (Feb, 09), but I don't plan to use MMO in the oil in anything that I use synthetic in religiously.

 

[Familyguy]

Originally Posted By: gfh77665
Originally Posted By: Spyder7
Originally Posted By: demarpaint

For those who are afraid, stand clear of it.


And that, indeed, cuts through the chase.

-Spyder


Not afraid of it. I just don't give a flyin' flip about it.


But you still felt motivated enough to read this long thread and grouse about it. LOL

 

[gfh77665]

Originally Posted By: Familyguy

But you still felt motivated enough to read this long thread and grouse about it. LOL


Incorrect. I read a total of two pages, just to kill time. Also, I wasn't "grousing" In any way. I just decided to throw out my thoughts on it in a one line post. LOL.

 

[Gary Allan]

Using "lack of harm found" is hardly a reason for a practice ..just to make a point..

 

[bigmike]

Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
Using "lack of harm found" is hardly a reason for a practice ..just to make a point..


This is true. However, we all do this to some degree on many different topics of interest, including things that we do for health reasons. A slight paranoia might be a good thing when it comes to decision making.

 

[Spyder7]

Originally Posted By: gfh77665
Originally Posted By: Familyguy

But you still felt motivated enough to read this long thread and grouse about it. LOL


Incorrect. I read a total of two pages, just to kill time. Also, I wasn't "grousing" In any way. I just decided to throw out my thoughts on it in a one line post. LOL.


Thanks for that contribution. Contributed immensely to the current debate.

-Spyder

 

[Gary Allan]

Originally Posted By: bigmike
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
Using "lack of harm found" is hardly a reason for a practice ..just to make a point..


This is true. However, we all do this to some degree on many different topics of interest, including things that we do for health reasons. A slight paranoia might be a good thing when it comes to decision making.


Oh, absolutely.

It's hard to measure things of benefit when "nothing happens". Can Amsoil's Al attribute his great long life and heath to vitamins that he takes ..or is it just a good deal from the genetic deck and clean living? Hard to say beyond that he took his own brand of vitamins and is in good apparent health for a relatively advanced age.

 

[Capa]

Another silly argument that we consistently see from the MMO believers, besides the one that it has never caused any harm (as if that translates that it causes good), is that those who criticize MMO have never used it. We see this argument over and over and over again and yet many people in this forum who have actually used MMO have stated that it has done nothing for them. I admit that there are many who have seen a benefit, but lets not pretend that all who have used it have.

 

[Familyguy]

Originally Posted By: Capa
Another silly argument that we consistently see from the MMO believers, besides the one that it has never caused any harm (as if that translates that it causes good), is that those who criticize MMO have never used it. We see this argument over and over and over again and yet many people in this forum who have actually used MMO have stated that it has done nothing for them. I admit that there are many who have seen a benefit, but lets not pretend that all who have used it have.


*yawn*

One could make that statement about practically any product out there. I think some folks like to argue for the sake of arguing. If "many have seen a benefit" and the worst outcome you can come up with is "it has done nothing" for others, then what is the motivation for complaining? The stuff costs practically nothing. Sheesh...