BG MOA

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Critic

The Critic

Joined
Aug 30, 2004
Messages
31,965
Location
CA
Has anyone researched this stuff lately?

Was thinking about buying a couple cans ($5-6/each) and adding them to the Prius for the 10k oil change intervals. Doubt it needs it, but for experimentation purposes...
 
Originally Posted By: The Critic
Was thinking about buying a couple cans ($5-6/each) and adding them to the Prius for the 10k oil change intervals. Doubt it needs it, but for experimentation purposes...


Hmmm. Aren't current API/ILSAC oils supposed to resist thickening to a certain degree as it is? What is BG's take on using their own branded engine oil? Is it so good that it doesn't need BG MOA, or would they be just as happy to sell it to a BG oil user anyway?

I think you're right when you're doubting it needs it.
 
I doubt your Prius needs it. Most people who use it like the extra zinc. Many GM dealers offer it for customers getting conventional oil changes. They might make $5 on the oil change and another $5 on the MOA.
 
Originally Posted By: The Critic
Has anyone researched this stuff lately?

....


Why do you say "lately"? Are you suggesting it has changed? It's been covered before.
 
bg moa does not mix well with todays new oils!!!tends to stay on the surface...wasting your money..bg moa was good in the older days not enough in it to raise anything(moly,zinc,phos.it does have a very high detergent package.
 
A few years back, I discovered my pcv system wasn't working properly. Signs were really black oil that wasn't that old, oil that reaked of gas, and a vac leak. Vehicle had ~ 165k mi.

I fixed the pcv system, added a can of BG109 to clean out the innards, drained, and refilled with synthetic & a can of MOA. MOA was recommended to use after a 109 flush to better 'protect' the engine, remove any residual 109, has a lot of detergents to 'clean' out the engine, etc. In hindsight, I think it's a waste to use it with syn oil. It may (emphasis on may) be more useful with dino oil, but I'm skeptical.

109 did wonders though for cleaning out the old stuff allowing the new oil to remain clean (as did fixing the vac leak in the pcv system...)
 
Originally Posted By: Garak

Hmmm. Aren't current API/ILSAC oils supposed to resist thickening to a certain degree as it is? What is BG's take on using their own branded engine oil? Is it so good that it doesn't need BG MOA, or would they be just as happy to sell it to a BG oil user anyway?

I think you're right when you're doubting it needs it.


I'm sure it doesn't need it, but I wouldn't mind experimenting either. BG MOA is $6.25/can from eBay, so it is inexpensive enough to try.

Originally Posted By: TooManyWheels


Why do you say "lately"? Are you suggesting it has changed? It's been covered before.


IIRC there was a thread at some point which stated that the formula had changed. I was wondering if anyone had any knowledge or data on the current formulation of MOA, and how long it has been in circulation.


Originally Posted By: Robenstein
It is good to clean out an older varnished or sludged engine.


BG109 is the cleaner, MOA is a supplement.

Originally Posted By: boxcartommie22
bg moa does not mix well with todays new oils!!!tends to stay on the surface...wasting your money..bg moa was good in the older days not enough in it to raise anything(moly,zinc,phos.it does have a very high detergent package.


True on the detergent package, I wouldn't mind it for the TBN boost since the new SN oils seem to have a fairly low starting TBN. Not sure if I agree on the inability for it to mix-- I don't see why this would be the case.
 
Won't do any harm.

There was a VOA on this stuff on here somewhere...or a UOA where it was used, and I remember it showed it helped.
 
Originally Posted By: addyguy
Won't do any harm.

There was a VOA on this stuff on here somewhere...or a UOA where it was used, and I remember it showed it helped.


I remember seeing the same. It definitely didn't hurt and one 'could' give some credit to it for the UOA, but I'm not sure if that can be conclusive, you know.
 
Originally Posted By: The Critic
True on the detergent package, I wouldn't mind it for the TBN boost since the new SN oils seem to have a fairly low starting TBN.


Is there boron and calcium in MOA, or is it other 'detergents'/TBN boosters??
 
Originally Posted By: The Critic
Originally Posted By: Garak

Hmmm. Aren't current API/ILSAC oils supposed to resist thickening to a certain degree as it is? What is BG's take on using their own branded engine oil? Is it so good that it doesn't need BG MOA, or would they be just as happy to sell it to a BG oil user anyway?

I think you're right when you're doubting it needs it.


I'm sure it doesn't need it, but I wouldn't mind experimenting either. BG MOA is $6.25/can from eBay, so it is inexpensive enough to try.

Originally Posted By: TooManyWheels


Why do you say "lately"? Are you suggesting it has changed? It's been covered before.


IIRC there was a thread at some point which stated that the formula had changed. I was wondering if anyone had any knowledge or data on the current formulation of MOA, and how long it has been in circulation.


Originally Posted By: Robenstein
It is good to clean out an older varnished or sludged engine.


BG109 is the cleaner, MOA is a supplement.

Originally Posted By: boxcartommie22
bg moa does not mix well with todays new oils!!!tends to stay on the surface...wasting your money..bg moa was good in the older days not enough in it to raise anything(moly,zinc,phos.it does have a very high detergent package.


True on the detergent package, I wouldn't mind it for the TBN boost since the new SN oils seem to have a fairly low starting TBN. Not sure if I agree on the inability for it to mix-- I don't see why this would be the case.



It boosts calcium, which is a detergent, and helps clean out the inside of the engine. That is why I said it helps clean out an engine.
 
Numbers from a VOA I had done awhile ago (Feb 2010).

Code:


ALUMINUM 2

CHROMIUM 0

IRON 5

COPPER 0

LEAD 1

TIN 0

MOLYBDENUM 120

NICKEL 0

MANGANESE 0

SILVER 0

TITANIUM 0

POTASSIUM 0

BORON 9

SILICON 8

SODIUM 3

CALCIUM 11390

MAGNESIUM 50

PHOSPHORUS 1323

ZINC 1429

BARIUM 0





cSt Viscosity @ 100°C 60.1

SUS Viscosity @ 210°F 10.25

Flashpoint in °F 340

Fuel % -

Antifreeze % -

Water % 0

Insolubles % 0.2

TBN 18.6

TAN

ISO Code
 
Originally Posted By: postjeeprcr
Numbers from a VOA I had done awhile ago (Feb 2010).

Code:


ALUMINUM 2

CHROMIUM 0

IRON 5

COPPER 0

LEAD 1

TIN 0

MOLYBDENUM 120

NICKEL 0

MANGANESE 0

SILVER 0

TITANIUM 0

POTASSIUM 0

BORON 9

SILICON 8

SODIUM 3

CALCIUM 11390

MAGNESIUM 50

PHOSPHORUS 1323

ZINC 1429

BARIUM 0





cSt Viscosity @ 100°C 60.1

SUS Viscosity @ 210°F 10.25

Flashpoint in °F 340

Fuel % -

Antifreeze % -

Water % 0

Insolubles % 0.2

TBN 18.6

TAN

ISO Code

Excellent, thanks.

Is there a way to calculate how much this will boost a typical 5 qt sump's zinc and calcium numbers?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

2226
BG MOA 110 vs 115; and EPR alternative?
Replies
8
Views
6K
2226
S
2013 Subaru 2.5L oil burn
2 3 4
Replies
60
Views
9K
Overfill
skaughtz
HPL EC treatment started. 2007 Camry 2AZ-FE 153k consumption.
4 5 6
Replies
106
Views
12K
MrQuackers
H
Fluids for 2016 Mustang GT
Replies
11
Views
573
pzev
C
Bestline oil additive
Replies
5
Views
1K
wlk
Back
Top