Moly and VW approvals

[Pagophilus]

The current oil I'm using (Nulon 5W-30 Euro oil) meets or exceeds VW 504.00/507.00 spec but is not approved. It contains Moly, something which the manufacturer is proud of and states on the bottle and other media. However, the latest incarnation of this oil is now approved by VW, however seems to have lost the Moly.

I'm wondering if there is something in the VW spec which prevents Moly-containing oils being approved.

(I'm considering buying up old stock until to use until I find another oil I like for my vehicle, which is a SsangYong Stavic, which according to the manual requires MB 229.51 oil of 5W-30 grade, a spec which this particular oil also claims it meets but is not approved under.)

 

[ExMachina]

There were some technical articles out saying you get more deposit formation using excess moly. That might explain why Castrol Edge 0w-40 (LL-01, MB229.5 euro oil) has NO moly in it, and the competitive Mobil1 0w-40 doesn't use that much of it (trinuclear moly in M1 too).

 

[Kamele0N]

Despite LM claims that Moly does not harm catalyst converter and is therefore safe to use on modern cars (equiped with catalysts and DPFs....)....my opinion is that LM (AND its clones)is good product.......

.....for older cars (without DPFs and catalyst converters).....lawnmovers.....snowblovers (OPE engines without filters).

I put LM in my car for test purposes only......and oil was grey like.....for 2-3 days.....and than oil filter filtered thos MoS2 particles away....and now I have probably clogged oil filter wich is running on "Bypass" mode....and that is about it

I will stay away of that product in my car......but I will be using it in my OPE equipement....

 

[Pontual]

Nor graphite, neither moly fortified oils clogg the oil filters on the installations. I've oppened a series of filters on them and never seen a spec of those materials when used. Moly Dtc (trinuclear) as I understand, is in use for what, a decade or two and is having some ring deposits issues ... But Pure fine powder graphite or moly is from before the 40 and was phased out because it really works, reducing wear and fuel consumption.
The problem is that nobody likes blacky stainy oils ... I do!

 

[Kamele0N]

I dont have problem with "black stainy" either....but my oil went back to brown in just 3days...

Yes i didnt put 5% moly in it as suggested on the can...I went with 3%...and that was my first use of moly in my engine...

 

[Pontual]

Wouldn't be metal plating already? Was the first time in engine use?

 

[Kamele0N]

Maybe....but I dont belive in that at modern oils with detergents (cleaning efect)...

 

[Falcon_LS]

Originally Posted By: Kamele0N
Despite LM claims that Moly does not harm catalyst converter and is therefore safe to use on modern cars (equiped with catalysts and DPFs....)....my opinion is that LM (AND its clones)is good product.......

.....for older cars (without DPFs and catalyst converters).....lawnmovers.....snowblovers (OPE engines without filters).

I put LM in my car for test purposes only......and oil was grey like.....for 2-3 days.....and than oil filter filtered thos MoS2 particles away....and now I have probably clogged oil filter wich is running on "Bypass" mode....and that is about it

I will stay away of that product in my car......but I will be using it in my OPE equipement....


Not sure what you are on about - MoS2 particles are small enough to go through the filter without being trapped. Liqui Moly make this claim, and I have disected one of my own filters out of curiosity. Definitely was not clogged up.

 

[weasley]

Originally Posted By: Pagophilus
I'm wondering if there is something in the VW spec which prevents Moly-containing oils being approved.


There is nothing specifically preventing the use of Mo - generally OEM and industry specifications make performance requirements and leave it up to the oil manufacturer to determine how to reach them. The only chemistry limits come for elements or compounds that pose a health or environment risk, such as chlorine, or a risk to specific equipment within the engine or exhaust, such as phosphorus, sulfated ash etc.

I would also be careful with the assumption that an oil "meets or exceeds 504 00/507 00" if it isn't approved. The only entity that is qualified to say whether an oil meets or exceeds the VW spec, is VW. Anything outside of that is a judgement call. It is up to you to decide whether you trust the people trying to sell you the oil or the people who need the oil to work in their cars.

 

[Pagophilus]

Originally Posted By: weasley
I would also be careful with the assumption that an oil "meets or exceeds 504 00/507 00" if it isn't approved. The only entity that is qualified to say whether an oil meets or exceeds the VW spec, is VW. Anything outside of that is a judgement call. It is up to you to decide whether you trust the people trying to sell you the oil or the people who need the oil to work in their cars.


I also believe that the main reason behind 504.00/507.00 is emissions and not damaging DPFs etc, and not lubrication. I believe putting PD TDi's on 5W-30 low-zinc oils was a backward step. (I used to use Penrite HPR Diesel 5 5W-40 in my former Golf V TDi. It contains a lot of Zinc. It used to but no longer carries 505.01 on the bottle, so I was hesitant to recommend it to my friend who bought the car from me.)

I'm happy to use Nulon in my Stavic as I am wanting to believe their marketing (and their so-called independent testing showing that their 5W-30 Euro oil has a significantly lower friction coefficient - what really matters in lubrication - than the competition). I think my DPF will survive the extra MolyDTC in there whereas the moving components will love the extra lubrication. I would like to know the reasoning behind the removal of Moly from this oil, but I did buy another 6 litres today, so I have enough now for another 2 oil changes. That gives me approximately 2 years to find another oil.

 

[Falcon_LS]

Originally Posted By: Pagophilus
I also believe that the main reason behind 504.00/507.00 is emissions and not damaging DPFs etc, and not lubrication.


I suggest checking the Lubrizol Relative Performance Comparison Tool and comparing 504.00/507.00 to 502.00/505.00. You'll notice 504.00/507.00 has far superior wear, piston deposit and sludge protection, as well as better fuel economy.

 

[TiredTrucker]

The Schaeffer 5w30 I use in my pickup has over 300 ppm of moly according to virgin sample and used samples. Never had any issues with filters or harming downstream stuff.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker
The Schaeffer 5w30 I use in my pickup has over 300 ppm of moly according to virgin sample and used samples. Never had any issues with filters or harming downstream stuff.


How's it going in your VW ?

Does it have VW approvals ?

 

[Pagophilus]

Originally Posted By: Falcon_LS


I suggest checking the Lubrizol Relative Performance Comparison Tool and comparing 504.00/507.00 to 502.00/505.00. You'll notice 504.00/507.00 has far superior wear, piston deposit and sludge protection, as well as better fuel economy.


These are nice graphs which show, I believe, the aims of these specifications. However, the proof of the pudding is in the eating as they say. There is a lot of variability in base oils and additives among the various manufacturers. I would like to see lubricating performance measured (friction coefficient measurements under controlled conditions), rather than just reading viscosity and minimum/maximum additive and HTHS limits etc on spec sheets.

 

[Falcon_LS]

Originally Posted By: Pagophilus
These are nice graphs which show, I believe, the aims of these specifications. However, the proof of the pudding is in the eating as they say. There is a lot of variability in base oils and additives among the various manufacturers. I would like to see lubricating performance measured (friction coefficient measurements under controlled conditions), rather than just reading viscosity and minimum/maximum additive and HTHS limits etc on spec sheets.


At the end of the day, the manufacturer lays down the requirements a lubricant must meet at bare minimum to be approved for a certain specification for a given application. How the oil is formulated depends entirely on the blender, but certain specification requirements will require higher quality base oils - good luck meeting something like MB Sheet 229.5 using a Group II base oil.

Whether Shell acheives this using GTL or Mobil acheives it using SpectraSyn Plus is another matter altogether, so long as the end product (base oil combination and additive package) meets the target requirements. Whilst it would be nice to see friction coefficiency on paper, there are far too many variables in metals, etc. used in different engines by different manufacturers. What applies to one engine may not apply to another.

 

[weasley]

Originally Posted By: Pagophilus
I also believe that the main reason behind 504.00/507.00 is emissions and not damaging DPFs etc, and not lubrication.


To some extent, yes. But remember, this emissions reduction is not just done with exhaust treatment devices, it is also about how the engine runs, the pressures within, extracting more energy from the fuel etc. The 504 00/507 00 spec is one of the industry's toughest to achieve, with some strict wear requirements - and all this as well as the need to keep SAPS down.

Also, forget ye not that 505 01 is also a mid-SAPS specification.

Originally Posted By: Pagophilus
I'm happy to use Nulon in my Stavic as I am wanting to believe their marketing (and their so-called independent testing showing that their 5W-30 Euro oil has a significantly lower friction coefficient - what really matters in lubrication - than the competition).


Friction coefficient is an interesting but ultimately academic point. None of the specifications specify friction coefficient. What you need to know is how an oil prevents wear, reduces deposits, flows at various temperatures, impacts on fuel economy, disperses soot and myriad other factors that are combined in the numerous engine tests that the specifications mandate. Judging an oil purely on some friction coefficient measurement is a very blinkered approach, especially when this coefficient depends itself on lots of factors. An oil does not have "a" friction coefficient.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: weasley
Originally Posted By: Pagophilus
I'm happy to use Nulon in my Stavic as I am wanting to believe their marketing (and their so-called independent testing showing that their 5W-30 Euro oil has a significantly lower friction coefficient - what really matters in lubrication - than the competition).


Friction coefficient is an interesting but ultimately academic point. None of the specifications specify friction coefficient. What you need to know is how an oil prevents wear, reduces deposits, flows at various temperatures, impacts on fuel economy, disperses soot and myriad other factors that are combined in the numerous engine tests that the specifications mandate. Judging an oil purely on some friction coefficient measurement is a very blinkered approach, especially when this coefficient depends itself on lots of factors. An oil does not have "a" friction coefficient.


Pagophilus, don't believe the Nulon testing, as they are using a test that is not applicable to engine oils.

The testing that they use is a test for greases, which have extreme pressure requirements due to elastohydrodynamic, and boundary lubrication regimes.

http://www.astm.org/Standards/D5707.htm

Take the bearings, and pistons, and to a large part the rings, you have hydrodynamic lubrication, and the surfaces never touch. If they don't touch, the "fricton coefficient" of metal on metal contact is meaningless.

There are no engine oil standards, API, or ACEA that specify this type of testing.

Being a fairly low cost test, the typical users are snake oil salesmen, who want to put on a show. If it was relevent to engine oils, API and ACEA would be all over it like a rash, rather than expensive engine based tests.

 

[riggaz]

It's an off the peg additive package chap, probably designed by Lubrizol or one of the others. It's no big mystery, it just means that the add pack that the engineers came up with did not need moly to get the approval.