liqui moly mos2 additive?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Oct 8, 2013
Messages
518
Location
TX
Has anyone used this recently with a standard grade oil like Super Tech 5w20? The ST voa shows that it doesn't contain any moly as a form of anti wear. Would something like this help 'boost' the additive pack of the ST so that I could get a better performing oil? Or is this stuff snake oil like a lot of other additives?

thanks!
 
Mos2 does indeed work. Mos2 is NOT snake oil. Yes use half the bottle on your OCI. It takes 500-1000 (around 750-800) miles before it bonds to the internal part of your motor.
 
Originally Posted By: 285south
Mos2 does indeed work. Mos2 is NOT snake oil. Yes use half the bottle on your OCI. It takes 500-1000 (around 750-800) miles before it bonds to the internal part of your motor.


Wish we actually knew it worked! No real independent engineering tests to verify all the claims over the years. Only guesses.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hrv
I didn't like it with EDGE gold bottle W/TI, BUT IT SEEMED FINE WITH Synpower (that has no moly).
I would CAUTION to only put in a TBS at a time - no need for the whole batch. Just replenish as needed. 1 TBS is a TON of additive.
You could thin a 1/2 bottle into a litre of oil and mix it up and put in a cup of THAT. I would NOT toss in a 1/2 bottle on a small engine. This experiment Really screwed up my Fit that was running well on the Edge b4 I put this stuff in. Again, the VSP 0w20 im currently running likes the LiquiMoly.

And I will add my std reply, that no modern oils used a colloidal MoS2( suspended nano poweder) - they are all "soluble" sulfur carbamates moly Amines or the like _ FOR GOOD Reason.
 
I'm currently running a full bottle (300 ml per Liqui-Moly instructions for my sump capacity) and will decrease to 150 ml maintenance doses for subsequent changes.

Now that it has been in the car ~7k miles it is running smooth as silk and I've seen about a 1 mpg increase in my Fuelly averages.

Definitely not snake oil. Use it as recommended with confidence.
 
Originally Posted By: FetchFar
Originally Posted By: 285south
Mos2 does indeed work. Mos2 is NOT snake oil. Yes use half the bottle on your OCI. It takes 500-1000 (around 750-800) miles before it bonds to the internal part of your motor.


Wish we actually knew it worked! No real independent engineering tests to verify all the claims over the years. Only guesses.


Fetch:

Do you mean independent studies of a particular MoS2 product, such as Liqui-Moly MoS2 Anti Friction? Or do you mean independent studies of the principal ingredient molybdenum disulfide? If the latter, there are plenty of studies. MoS2 is the most common industrial lubricant in use today.

If you mean independent studies of a particular branded MoS2 product, then, no, probably none. But there are no independent studies of most proprietary products, such as Techron. That doesn't mean the products don't work or even work as claimed. It does mean that manufacturers tend to keep the research results and product details confidential.
 
Just changed oil in the E430 tonight, a total 8 quarts: 5 quarts M1 AFE 0W20, 2 quarts M1 0W40, 1 quart M1 5W20 HM plus half bottle Liqui Moly MoS2.

I used to add 1/2 ounces VSOT per quart, I'm running out VSOT.
 
Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR
Just changed oil in the E430 tonight, a total 8 quarts: 5 quarts M1 AFE 0W20, 2 quarts M1 0W40, 1 quart M1 5W20 HM plus half bottle Liqui Moly MoS2.

I used to add 1/2 ounces VSOT per quart, I'm running out VSOT.


LUVVIN' the Cocktail!

thumbsup2.gif
 
Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR
Just changed oil in the E430 tonight, a total 8 quarts: 5 quarts M1 AFE 0W20, 2 quarts M1 0W40, 1 quart M1 5W20 HM plus half bottle Liqui Moly MoS2.

I used to add 1/2 ounces VSOT per quart, I'm running out VSOT.


Oh yes, VSOT I still have about 15 bottles of it. I cleaned out Auto Barn's supply when they discontinued it.
 
I sorry you guys cant find a good oil where you don't need additives
smile.gif

Note that oil formulated with high PPM moly usually wont pass either TEOST. 0w20 gets an ILSAC "waiver" as its not used in turbo apps (yet).
I may forgo using PU 5w20 in the Fit and run another OCI with VSP as this oil seems like the real deal in 0w20's over M1 and QSUD run in the past. Clean running stuff that allows the engine to make advertised HP.
 
When it comes to engine longevity, ARCO is our resident expert. He knows his engines like nobody else around here. He certainly knows how to make engine last for 20,000 miles at a pop!
 
Originally Posted By: Vikas
When it comes to engine longevity, ARCO is our resident expert. He knows his engines like nobody else around here. He certainly knows how to make engine last for 20,000 miles at a pop!


LOL I thought he got them to last a little longer than that.
 
Originally Posted By: dave5358
Originally Posted By: FetchFar
Originally Posted By: 285south
Mos2 does indeed work. Mos2 is NOT snake oil. Yes use half the bottle on your OCI. It takes 500-1000 (around 750-800) miles before it bonds to the internal part of your motor.


Wish we actually knew it worked! No real independent engineering tests to verify all the claims over the years. Only guesses.


Fetch:

Do you mean independent studies of a particular MoS2 product, such as Liqui-Moly MoS2 Anti Friction? Or do you mean independent studies of the principal ingredient molybdenum disulfide? If the latter, there are plenty of studies. MoS2 is the most common industrial lubricant in use today.

If you mean independent studies of a particular branded MoS2 product, then, no, probably none. But there are no independent studies of most proprietary products, such as Techron. That doesn't mean the products don't work or even work as claimed. It does mean that manufacturers tend to keep the research results and product details confidential.


Since we are only talking about putting extra moly in engines, I was wondering if there are any actual field studies, one small fleet getting Mobil1 5w-30, compared to another small fleet with the same oil plus a can of LubroMoly MOS2. Any benefits, specifically in wear?

And what would LubroMoly have to be afraid of? The results probably. Yes I know moly is used to coat upper piston rings in many engines, and that moly in general is good stuff. For example, I do use Mazda Genuine Motor Oil (MGMO) because it does have 600 ppm dinuclear (aka dimer) moly, and I'm assuming they are doing something special, as they claim on the bottle that the extra moly helps when running cold. Its just my assumption that more moly is "good". No proof. Fleet study might help here. The companies can run and hide I guess....
 
Originally Posted By: dave5358
But there are no independent studies of most proprietary products, such as Techron. That doesn't mean the products don't work or even work as claimed. It does mean that manufacturers tend to keep the research results and product details confidential.


This is a misrepresentation.

The SAE requires technical papers to be peer reviewed by experts. So the available technical paper including research and testing results on Techron can be relied on.

But even more importantly, Techron has multiple VEHICLE manufacturer approval. This is clearly independent of the oil company and means Mercedes, BMW etc would have to stand behind any damage caused by the usage of an approved additive for unlimited mileage in the case of Mercedes CPO vehicles and 10 years for Hyundai vehicles.
 
I've been using Liqui moly for years. It will upgrade a weak add'v pack oil and you need only browse the UOA/VOA's to find there are plenty of oils that seem a bit weak in additive formula.

I consider half a bottle a full dose, and 1/4 or 1/5 a bottle as maintenance or add'v package upgrade.

Here's my current blend:
1.0 qts 10w40; Kendall Semi-Synth + 1.6 qts 5w30; Wally World Full Synth
+ 1.6 qts 10w30; store brand (O'reilly) High Mileage (conv?)
plus, additives: half a bottle of Lubro moly, and 1 to 2 oz of TB Zinc.
 
Originally Posted By: Sam2000
Originally Posted By: dave5358
But there are no independent studies of most proprietary products, such as Techron. That doesn't mean the products don't work or even work as claimed. It does mean that manufacturers tend to keep the research results and product details confidential.


This is a misrepresentation. The SAE requires technical papers to be peer reviewed by experts. So the available technical paper including research and testing results on Techron can be relied on. But even more importantly, Techron has multiple VEHICLE manufacturer approval. This is clearly independent of the oil company and means Mercedes, BMW etc would have to stand behind any damage caused by the usage of an approved additive for unlimited mileage in the case of Mercedes CPO vehicles and 10 years for Hyundai vehicles.

The SAE paper to which you are referring was written by Chevron employees. I'm sure it's good research and an interesting read, but the conclusions should not surprise anyone - they liked Techron (and they're still working at Chevron). It also costs $24 from SAE. You can spend your money if you want to hear what Chevron thinks about its own product.

Approved by vehicle manufacturers? Molykote (Dow Corning's trade name for MoS2 in oil suspension) complies with General Motors (Opel) spec B0401264, Volkswagen specification TL52112 and B7217, General Electric's specification TIL-1117-3Ri and Pratt & Whitney's specificition PWA-36246. And, one of the first spectacular uses of MoS2 in motor oil suspension was by Rolls-Royce in their Merlin engine. Granted, the Rolls Royce supercharged V-12 water cooled Merlin was only used in airplanes but the engine application seems appropriate. Pratt & Whitney is still using it.

Still in doubt? Here's a picture of the VW distributed MoS2 tubes. Look carefully at the image - second line from the bottom - and it says Volskwagen of America. :
3656438.jpg

Note that this product was intended by VW for use in motor oil - any motor oil - that you happened to be using in your Beetle. Vehicles with air-cooled engines suffered from serious heat issues and the motor oil took a real beating. And, speaking from personal experience, it was not unusual to find a VW dealer stocking this same product in yellow tubes with only the Dow-Corning name and logo.

Sam: The whole problem with your position is one of shifting standards:

On the one hand, you like Techron, so the standard you choose in support of Techron is that technical research done by Chevron employees is sufficient. But you are unwilling to apply this same standard to other additives which you do not favor. It is most unlikely that you will find independent technical research on the product Techron, simply because it is a proprietary product. Companies tend to keep the details of their research secret. Favorable summaries are public - details are secret.

The independent research that supports Techron is research actually done on PEA - the principal ingredient in Techron. But using that logic, there is a ton of independent research on molybdenum disulfide, going back for decades. MoS2 has been in widespread use for close to 100 years - with spectacular engine oil applications by Rolls Royce in the late 1930s and beyond. You seem to accept independent research supporting the utility of PEA, but for reasons of convenience, you are unwilling to accept independent research supporting the use of MoS2 (the chemical).

Still doubting? Go to SAE's research website and search for molybdenum. Plan on wading through 1,398 research papers. Why would you expect less? Molybdenum disulfide (and molybdenum in other forms) is the most common industrial lubricant in use today, and for a good reason. It is slippery. It resists pressure. It resists heat. And it does all of those things better than either mineral or synthetic motor oil.

Still at SAE's website, do a search for Techron. You will get 4 results - 2 of which deal with audio equipment and 1 deals with sunroofs. The only paper remotely relevant deals with diesel injectors. But if you search for polyether amine (PEA), the principal ingredient in Techron, you'll find much more research.

I appreciate that you like Techron. Actually, I like it too. It's a good product and does what it claims to do. But I am not so in love with Techron that it blinds me and overwhelms my thought processes so that I cannot conceive of another additive product which performs as claimed. If you want to carry on an intelligent discussion of additives such as MoS2 (or Techron), I suggest you do so on a level playing field:

1) If anecdotes and employee-run internal test results are adequate for one additive, they should be adequate for other additives.

2) If you decide to judge additives based on independent tests of their principal ingredients (and such tests results are frequently available), then independent tests of the principal ingredients in another additive should be equally acceptable.

3) Finally, you need to accept that companies simply don't reveal proprietary details about their products nor do they reveal details of internal testing... period. There are lots of reasons for this: legal, business competition, even marketing reasons. But it's simply a fact of life. That includes Techron and Molykote and Liqui-Moly MoS2 Anti Friction. Summaries are revealed but not the actual tests.

It would also be most unusual to have an independent study of a proprietary product (unless maybe it was paid for by the company). So, what is left? Anecdotes and endorsements. From a business marketing standpoint, this makes perfect sense - much easier to sell the image or the myth or the endorsement than to sell the hard technical details of the product.
 
Originally Posted By: dave5358
Originally Posted By: Sam2000
Originally Posted By: dave5358
But there are no independent studies of most proprietary products, such as Techron. That doesn't mean the products don't work or even work as claimed. It does mean that manufacturers tend to keep the research results and product details confidential.


This is a misrepresentation. The SAE requires technical papers to be peer reviewed by experts. So the available technical paper including research and testing results on Techron can be relied on. But even more importantly, Techron has multiple VEHICLE manufacturer approval. This is clearly independent of the oil company and means Mercedes, BMW etc would have to stand behind any damage caused by the usage of an approved additive for unlimited mileage in the case of Mercedes CPO vehicles and 10 years for Hyundai vehicles.

The SAE paper to which you are referring was written by Chevron employees. I'm sure it's good research and an interesting read, but the conclusions should not surprise anyone - they liked Techron (and they're still working at Chevron). It also costs $24 from SAE. You can spend your money if you want to hear what Chevron thinks about its own product.



You clearly missed the part about that paper being peer-reviewed before being accepted by SAE.
 
Originally Posted By: FetchFar
Since we are only talking about putting extra moly in engines, I was wondering if there are any actual field studies, one small fleet getting Mobil1 5w-30, compared to another small fleet with the same oil plus a can of LubroMoly MOS2. Any benefits, specifically in wear?

And what would LubroMoly have to be afraid of? The results probably. Yes I know moly is used to coat upper piston rings in many engines, and that moly in general is good stuff. For example, I do use Mazda Genuine Motor Oil (MGMO) because it does have 600 ppm dinuclear (aka dimer) moly, and I'm assuming they are doing something special, as they claim on the bottle that the extra moly helps when running cold. Its just my assumption that more moly is "good". No proof. Fleet study might help here. The companies can run and hide I guess....

Fetch: I've been following MoS2 additives since the 1970's and I don't know of a study that goes to your question. I just posted a rather lengthy response to Sam2000 regarding MoS2. If you follow the link in my reply to the SAE research paper website, you might find something of interest (but it will take a lot of looking because there's a lot of research on MoS2). If you are looking for research on a specific brand of MoS2, that may not be available, for reasons I explained in my reply.

Other than the automotive applications mentioned in the Sam2000 reply, there was an extensive study of Dow-Corning's Molykote done by Eazor Express - and OTR truck line - using Molykote in their hydraulic systems. The reseult of the test was that Eazor could extend the hydraulic OCI by 5% (or something of that magnitude) without adversely affecting parts life or system longevity. A 5% increase in hydraulic OCI may not sound like much, but this was a BIG DEAL to a fleet operator like Eazor. I have searched several times for a copy of this study but can't find it. I'm sure it's available somewhere, but we may have to wait until the 'net' expands.

If you go to this link you can see which motor oil makers like and include moly in their additive packages and which ones do not. The Schaeffer folks clearly like it. Liqui-Moly makes several motor with MoS2. Other oil companies can't seem to make up their minds. This is true of other additives as well.

I honestly don't think Liqui-Moly is afraid of any test results. MoS2 (regardless of who packages the stuff) works as claimed. I'm sure Liqui-Moly has tested their product extensively but companies tend to keep the details of their research confidential.

A final thought: from a company perspective, there are three 'negatives' regarding the use or inclusion of MoS2 in motor oil. First, it may settle out. And, I'm not sure you can depend on Walmart customers to 'shake well before using'.

Second, it turns your oil black (or dark gray). Don't laugh. There's an amusing story in another thread in which a poster recalled his father's objections to ARCO Graphite Motor Oil: 'This motor oil turns black!'.

Finally, remember that one on the first and most spectacular uses of MoS2 was to provide limp-home (or limp-down) protection for fighter planes that had lost their oil. MoS2 will really do this, and Liqui-Moly actually mentions this property. But, if you were an oil company, do you really want to be around when some poor slob destroys his engine from lack of oil? Probably not, regardless of how good your product may be.
 
Originally Posted By: simple_simon
Originally Posted By: dave5358
Originally Posted By: Sam2000
Originally Posted By: dave5358
But there are no independent studies of most proprietary products, such as Techron. That doesn't mean the products don't work or even work as claimed. It does mean that manufacturers tend to keep the research results and product details confidential.


This is a misrepresentation. The SAE requires technical papers to be peer reviewed by experts. So the available technical paper including research and testing results on Techron can be relied on. But even more importantly, Techron has multiple VEHICLE manufacturer approval. This is clearly independent of the oil company and means Mercedes, BMW etc would have to stand behind any damage caused by the usage of an approved additive for unlimited mileage in the case of Mercedes CPO vehicles and 10 years for Hyundai vehicles.

The SAE paper to which you are referring was written by Chevron employees. I'm sure it's good research and an interesting read, but the conclusions should not surprise anyone - they liked Techron (and they're still working at Chevron). It also costs $24 from SAE. You can spend your money if you want to hear what Chevron thinks about its own product.



You clearly missed the part about that paper being peer-reviewed before being accepted by SAE.


Simp: I think it was you who missed the point. Aside form the fact that this paper was done by Chevron employees, it was a study of PAE, not Techron.

So, are we all willing to accept the results of test studies of the principal ingredient in an additive?
 
Thank you Dave for finally providing the manufacturer approval information and some indication of the limited use cases for when to use MoS2 based additives.

Had you not been so emotional about this, you would have provided this far earlier rather than insulting members along the way.

The approved use of the MoS2 additive is clearly limited and not applicable or necessary for 99.99% of vehicle owners. No Liqui Moly oil that contains their MoS2 based additive is approved by any manufacturer.

Note, this is not doubting that it does something. All additives do something. The point is whether this something makes a positive difference or not.

Given that MoS2 is a proven and relatively easily available dry lubricant, if it were able to consistently improve fuel economy, you would think that given the CAFE incentives, vehicle manufacturers would have developed standards incorporating its use to get the official mpg up and claim the credits.

Lastly, I leave you with this quote:

Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Quote:
Do we know if MoS2 additive works in modern oil?


We don't.

Modern oils usually have a soluble moly of molybdenum Dithiocarbamate that works fine as a friction reducer.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top