MoS2 testing - sound levels

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: nleksan
Curious as to how it affects VANOS operation and life in the M52B28...


Been a while since I've thought a lot about the motor. It's a single stage VANOS and operates on just the intake valves (I believe). Its operation was said to generate that "on cam" feeling at around 3500 RPMs and that rush is still there.

Not real long ago, a compression test on this engine showed all cylinders to still be above "as-new" specifications. I'm sure that's due to a lifetime of Mobil 1 oil, and despite that this car has spent several thousand miles lapping on road courses. It's one of the reasons why I'm reluctant to put oil additives in where a service history is well known and there is no apparent need, but the amount of improvement I saw in the Miata has gotten me to at least try it in these two other cars.
 
Injured_Again, check your PM!
thumbsup2.gif
 
Originally Posted By: Turk
Excellent.

Ok, naysayers, what say you??

Crickets, Chickets...



Can't hear the engine over the SSS Terminator axle backs before or after using mos2.
 
Originally Posted By: Trajan
Originally Posted By: Turk
Excellent.

Ok, naysayers, what say you??

Crickets, Chickets...



Can't hear the engine over the SSS Terminator axle backs before or after using mos2.


Same with my Corvette, but with the hood open, it is noticeable that the mechanical noise has decreased. I know that modern engines are designed for low noise outputs, but this is a 6.2 liter motor and you can have a quiet conversation across the open engine bay when it is idling.

An updated version of the sound level meter I used is now for sale at Radio Shack for less than $50. A can of MoS2 is $8. A foot long ruler is a buck. So, it's not expensive for anyone to repeat the testing I have done.
 
Originally Posted By: Injured_Again
Originally Posted By: Trajan
Originally Posted By: Turk
Excellent.

Ok, naysayers, what say you??

Crickets, Chickets...



Can't hear the engine over the SSS Terminator axle backs before or after using mos2.


Same with my Corvette, but with the hood open, it is noticeable that the mechanical noise has decreased.




Which is good. I never measured the sound on mine. But being partially deaf, I doubt I could tell the difference anyway
smile.gif
 
Could it be that Molybdenum Disulfide thickens the oil and acts as a sound dampener, because SPL devices won't lie if they are used properly. The tester certainly did what he could to eliminate random errors.

Brings to mind the "crank the gear train" display for Motor Honey (Lucas?) on your favorite auto parts counters all across the country, with the thick vs thin oil display. The natural assumption would be that thicker is better. But - for what? Dragging the oil up the plastic walls and over then gears? That takes energy, guys. Translated - money out of your pocket.

The problem with this display is the increase in viscosity has little to do with the film strength of the oil. On the negative side, it increases the viscosity and viscous friction, wasting energy. Today's motor oils are very very good at what they do. Notice that the newer cars are using 0-W20 oil to increase mileage? How long did it take us to accept the shift from 10w40 to 5W30, and now, to 0w20 in some engines? It took me years to accept this. And Costco still doesn't get it! (Racing is a different ballgame than street driving).

What they are NOT using in the crankcase is high film strength 80W90 gear oil or chassis grease which is loaded with MOS2 (just smell it!). It's thick enough to solidify your hair. I'm sure it would cut engine noise - if you could turn it over and start it, that is.

I wonder - I don't have a sound pressure level measuring device, but I'd like to know if the newly-recommended 0-W20 oil (newer Honda's and others use it) is noisier than, say, a 10W40 oil of the same type. I'll bet it is!

Remember - the purpose of motor oil is to lubricate and preserve the metal parts - not to reduce engine noise and clatter.

Manufacturers of both oil and engines do NOT recommend additives, either for fuel or for oil. There is a reason for this - the negative usually outweighs whatever positive that may come with additives, and these aftermarket additives are probably not beneficial or useful. This is not necessarily an absolute, but in most cases the generalization is true. FYI, STP is made from soap!

I remember when changing the oil always made my engines run better and produce more power. That was surely my mind playing tricks with me.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: j14152
Could it be that Molybdenum Disulfide thickens the oil and acts as a sound dampener, because SPL devices won't lie if they are used properly. The tester certainly did what he could to eliminate random errors.


Almost certainly not thicker. The particles in MoS2 are very fine. The mineral oil carrier is quite thin. If anything, it would probably thin the oil.

Originally Posted By: j14152
Brings to mind the "crank the gear train" display for Motor Honey (Lucas?) on your favorite auto parts counters all across the country, with the thick vs thin oil display. The natural assumption would be that thicker is better. But - for what? Dragging the oil up the plastic walls and over then gears? That takes energy, guys. Translated - money out of your pocket.

The problem with this display is the increase in viscosity has little to do with the film strength of the oil. On the negative side, it increases the viscosity and viscous friction, wasting energy. Today's motor oils are very very good at what they do. Notice that the newer cars are using 0-W20 oil to increase mileage? How long did it take us to accept the shift from 10w40 to 5W30, and now, to 0w20 in some engines? It took me years to accept this. And Costco still doesn't get it! (Racing is a different ballgame than street driving).


Funny you mentioned this. I was at an O'Reilly's this morning and played with the Lucas version of this exact display. About all the Lucas additive did was make the oil a bit more 'sticky' - maybe thicker. It did not drain off the plastic gears as quicky... but it did drain off. When I first started cranking, both sets of gears were about the same. The O'Reilly's service was so incredibly slow that the thinner oil did drain off and I could tell the cranking difference. Remember this display when they start putting plastic gears in the engines ;-)

MoS2 doesn't drain off, although it can be washed off over time by a combination of friction and motor oil flow. MoS2 should provide excellent start-up lubrication, since it stays in the journals - sort of like assembly paste.

Originally Posted By: j14152
What they are NOT using in the crankcase is high film strength 80W90 gear oil or chassis grease which is loaded with MOS2 (just smell it!). It's thick enough to solidify your hair. I'm sure it would cut engine noise - if you could turn it over and start it, that is.


To me, gear oil all smells about the same. I don't think MoS2 adds much to the aroma. I don't know what gives gear oil the unique smell. Maybe someone else can jump in on that. I have handled dry MoS2 powder and it really doesn't have a smell - sort of like graphite doesn't really smell (or, at least, my nose can't detect it).

Originally Posted By: j14152
I wonder - I don't have a sound pressure level measuring device, but I'd like to know if the newly-recommended 0-W20 oil (newer Honda's and others use it) is noisier than, say, a 10W40 oil of the same type. I'll bet it is!


Thin oil makes for noisy engines.

Originally Posted By: j14152
Remember - the purpose of motor oil is to lubricate and preserve the metal parts - not to reduce engine noise and clatter. Manufacturers of both oil and engines do NOT recommend additives, either for fuel or for oil. There is a reason for this - the negative usually outweighs whatever positive that may come with additives, and these aftermarket additives are probably not beneficial or useful. This is not necessarily an absolute, but in most cases the generalization is true. FYI, STP is made from soap! I remember when changing the oil always made my engines run better and produce more power. That was surely my mind playing tricks with me.


Motor oil also has a significant cooling function. If that were unnecessary, then you could lubricate the bearings once and forget it - like an electric motor.

As for oil companies/auto makers recommending (or not) additives, we can really only guess. Let's see - the most sensitive nerve in the body is attached to the wallet. So, my guess is profits... and marketing pressures. Do you really want to include an additive that makes your oil look black and dirty... when it has just been changed?

As for your mind playing tricks, maybe not. Newly changed oil should be a bit thicker, so it might absorb more engine sounds. Why it might produce more power is not as clear.

Along this same line, does your car run better (or at least sound better) on a full tank of gas? Mine does. Actually, that applies to most cars I've owned. I've pondered this phenomenon and I am sure it is simply acoustics - the empty gas tank is like a sounding board for every creak, rattle and road noise, but a full tank of gas is a giant sound sponge.
 
Just some random thoughts. My experience is that an oil change seems to quiet down the motor. Oil typically thins as it is used, so it seems a thicker oil would result in a quieter, smoother engine.

My experience with MoS2 has been that because the engine is running smoother, I tend to drive with larger throttle openings and at higher RPMs, to enjoy the new smooth performance.

I also used Arco Graphite motor oil back in the early 80's. I remember my dad asking why I would put something that black into the crankcase. I went on and on about all of the supposed advantages, but never did get him to try it just from that perspective.
 
Originally Posted By: Injured_Again
...I also used Arco Graphite motor oil back in the early 80's. I remember my dad asking why I would put something that black into the crankcase. I went on and on about all of the supposed advantages, but never did get him to try it just from that perspective.


Perfect. What better reason to not use MoS2, or for an oil company to not include it in their additive mix?
 
This thread needs to be soluble Moly versus non soluble Mos2 Moly. If you think using Non Soluble Moly is great, try running a high moly oil that uses soluble.
 
Originally Posted By: sammy
This thread needs to be soluble Moly versus non soluble Mos2 Moly. If you think using Non Soluble Moly is great, try running a high moly oil that uses soluble.


Actually, there is another thread touching on that very subject here.

I've never seen or read much about soluble Moly. Who makes it? Where do you buy it? What do the makers (or others) claims as benefits of one form over another? Any drawbacks?

At least one disadvantage that comes to my mind is that may drain out of bearings and journals, just like motor oil. Is that a real concern, or simply that I don't understand the process?
 
Originally Posted By: KCJeep
Wow good testing. I had noticed it with my ears but good to see something less biased.


Absolutely.

Great work Injured_Again. Thank you for posting.
 
Originally Posted By: dave5358
Originally Posted By: sammy
This thread needs to be soluble Moly versus non soluble Mos2 Moly. If you think using Non Soluble Moly is great, try running a high moly oil that uses soluble.


Actually, there is another thread touching on that very subject here.

I've never seen or read much about soluble Moly. Who makes it? Where do you buy it? What do the makers (or others) claims as benefits of one form over another? Any drawbacks?


I think there are clear draw backs from having Moly in suspension, oil filtration seams to come to mind. I believe the soluble Moly is what they use in every engine oil. I use Redline and even at 900ppm Moly there is noting in the bottom of the oil container when you pour it into your engine. And same thing it makes your engine quieter and run smoother. I ran Mos2 and thought it was great at first, but then I got a weird sound and drained it. I may have used too much, I was trying to quiet a lifter tick so i used the entire bottle. But anyhow redline makes the engine run perfect, so I found what works for me.
 
It would not seem to me that a soluble form of MoS2 is possible. Other things with Mo in them; yes, but not MoS2. I do not believe it is soluble in anything useful.

MoS2 bonds to surfaces and evens out the minute surface imperfections not visible to the eye, but cause significant portions of friction. It works. It has been in industrial (and consumer) lubricant (including engines) for many years. Lower friction is why the engines get quieter. They also run cooler, and can get better gas mileage because friction losses are reduced. The amount of change depends on a bunch of factors. How you are measuring is a big factor. Then the size and internal condition/clearances will impact improvements. One of the main improvements is not readily measured standing in front of a car; longevity. Wear on internal surfaces will be significantly reduced.

It ain't magic; but it is a reasonable substitute.

There is however a better solution. Tungsten Disulphide is similar in lubrication mechanism, but has better specs in all interesting categories. MoS2 was cheaper way back when and it became the dominant product. Now WS2 is competitive and comes in superior forms.

See http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb...ant#Post2821786 for much more discussion.
 
This is why I like using Schaeffer oil in my vehicles. The seem to put MoS2 in just about every oil, lube, and grease they sell. I can't speak to other's experiences, but with biodiesel just about everywhere now, I got an up tic in fuel dilution from it. With the Schaeffer, the MoS2 does a great job in preventing some of the blow by and subsequent fuel dilution that it barely shows up now. I also noticed a major reduction in viscosity loss, which may be partially a result of the slight fuel dilution, but seemed also a product of some shearing. I am sold on moly in my oil.
 
Originally Posted By: j14152
Could it be that Molybdenum Disulfide thickens the oil and acts as a sound dampener, because SPL devices won't lie if they are used properly. The tester certainly did what he could to eliminate random errors.

Brings to mind the "crank the gear train" display for Motor Honey (Lucas?) on your favorite auto parts counters all across the country, with the thick vs thin oil display. The natural assumption would be that thicker is better. But - for what? Dragging the oil up the plastic walls and over then gears? That takes energy, guys. Translated - money out of your pocket.

The problem with this display is the increase in viscosity has little to do with the film strength of the oil. On the negative side, it increases the viscosity and viscous friction, wasting energy. Today's motor oils are very very good at what they do. Notice that the newer cars are using 0-W20 oil to increase mileage? How long did it take us to accept the shift from 10w40 to 5W30, and now, to 0w20 in some engines? It took me years to accept this. And Costco still doesn't get it! (Racing is a different ballgame than street driving).

What they are NOT using in the crankcase is high film strength 80W90 gear oil or chassis grease which is loaded with MOS2 (just smell it!). It's thick enough to solidify your hair. I'm sure it would cut engine noise - if you could turn it over and start it, that is.

I wonder - I don't have a sound pressure level measuring device, but I'd like to know if the newly-recommended 0-W20 oil (newer Honda's and others use it) is noisier than, say, a 10W40 oil of the same type. I'll bet it is!

Remember - the purpose of motor oil is to lubricate and preserve the metal parts - not to reduce engine noise and clatter.

Manufacturers of both oil and engines do NOT recommend additives, either for fuel or for oil. There is a reason for this - the negative usually outweighs whatever positive that may come with additives, and these aftermarket additives are probably not beneficial or useful. This is not necessarily an absolute, but in most cases the generalization is true. FYI, STP is made from soap!

I remember when changing the oil always made my engines run better and produce more power. That was surely my mind playing tricks with me.



Mos2 doesn't thicken the oil,which renders the rest of the post kinda moot.
Mos2 "plates" metal surfaces which I'm sure creates the sound dampening effect.
 
Originally Posted By: sammy
Originally Posted By: dave5358
Originally Posted By: sammy
This thread needs to be soluble Moly versus non soluble Mos2 Moly. If you think using Non Soluble Moly is great, try running a high moly oil that uses soluble.


Actually, there is another thread touching on that very subject here.

I've never seen or read much about soluble Moly. Who makes it? Where do you buy it? What do the makers (or others) claims as benefits of one form over another? Any drawbacks?


I think there are clear draw backs from having Moly in suspension, oil filtration seams to come to mind. I believe the soluble Moly is what they use in every engine oil. I use Redline and even at 900ppm Moly there is noting in the bottom of the oil container when you pour it into your engine. And same thing it makes your engine quieter and run smoother. I ran Mos2 and thought it was great at first, but then I got a weird sound and drained it. I may have used too much, I was trying to quiet a lifter tick so i used the entire bottle. But anyhow redline makes the engine run perfect, so I found what works for me.
Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker
This is why I like using Schaeffer oil in my vehicles. The seem to put MoS2 in just about every oil, lube, and grease they sell. I can't speak to other's experiences, but with biodiesel just about everywhere now, I got an up tic in fuel dilution from it. With the Schaeffer, the MoS2 does a great job in preventing some of the blow by and subsequent fuel dilution that it barely shows up now. I also noticed a major reduction in viscosity loss, which may be partially a result of the slight fuel dilution, but seemed also a product of some shearing. I am sold on moly in my oil.


Sheaffers uses mos2?
I'd have to actually see that since the only oil I've seen with mos2 actually in the oil is liqui-moly 10w-40.
Its likely organic moly and its different and works differently.
 
Originally Posted By: Clevy

Mos2 "plates" metal surfaces which I'm sure creates the sound dampening effect.


The attenuation of sound by solids suspended in another media; water droplets in air(fog), solids in liquids, or solids in solids is a well known physical phenomenon. The solid particles absorb the sound and do not conduct it as they are not touching.

The sound reduction observed by the addition of MoS2 to motor oil can be explained by this. The sound reduction is not proof of improved lubrication.

Here's a commercial product that uses the concept:
http://www.cisco-eagle.com/catalog/c-8117-sound-dampening-acoustic-curtains.aspx

Ed
 
Originally Posted By: Clevy
Sheaffers uses mos2? I'd have to actually see that since the only oil I've seen with mos2 actually in the oil is liqui-moly 10w-40.

I'm not sure if 'testing' is the same as 'seeing' but here are the test results from Petroleum Quality Institute. Shaeffers is loaded with moly - one of the highest levels in use, compared to other popular oils tested.

Originally Posted By: Clevy
It's likely organic moly and it's different and works differently.

Oil analysis doesn't reveal the type of molybdenum in use. Yes, organic moly is different. It's not clear what you mean by 'works differently'.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top