First Time Liqui Moly MoS2 Use

[ARCOgraphite]

Again NO reputable oil Co. producting producst that would meet ILSAC specs ever put this specific moly (colloidal suspenion aka: mud PUDDLE) into their formulation - and Manufacturers and Oil Co's are looking for any incremental fuel improvement to be found.

Silly BITOG Group hysteria over NOTHING and something that CAN cause harm in a filtered sump.

Answer this.

Now: Somebody show me at least 2000 miles comparison test during similar climate and fuel and oil blend/grade where they evidenced 0.5 mpg or better using this stuff.

I wouldnt hesistate to use it on house door hinges and as a penetrant or places where dry moly would benefit.

Silly Boyz.

TDS:

http://www.liqui-moly.de/liquimoly/mediendb.nsf/gfx2/1011%20Oil%20Additiv_EN.pdf/$file/1011%20Oil%20Additiv_EN.pdf

 

[Injured_Again]

Originally Posted By: Clevy
The sooner you add it the better. Your miata is reverting to like new because of the reduction of friction. Why not keep a new engine new longer,never losing any performance over time.
I put mos2 into my 106 right after break in. Those pistons are huge,ring seal is questionable at start up but no consumption whatsoever.
Keep a new engine like new forever.


Clevy, in general I've not been an additives guy unless there is some indication of an issue that needs fixing. The oil plume on startup was my reason for experimenting with MMO. And the oil consumption and unknown service history was my reason for trying MoS2. But in my other vehicles, I've experienced no problems with just plain Mobil 1. We have a 1996 BMW that my son now drives, that has seen thousands of miles on a racetrack and now has six-digit miles. It has never had any additives to the Mobil 1, yet when I tested compression a year or so ago, it was still within as-new specs, and it has zero oil consumption during normal driving. I expect no difference with our newer vehicles that have also seen Mobil 1 from their first miles and will continue to do so. That's why I don't know that MoS2 will help these engines stay "as new" because my experience has been they will stay "as new" with just Mobil 1 and good OCIs.

I'm very happy with both the results of MMO and MoS2, and I'd be more than willing to be convinced as to why, with my experiences, using MoS2 would be a benefit. It seems that wear is not an issue, so I await your findings on fuel economy testing, because that seems like it would be the primary benefit for me in these new vehicles.

 

[friendly_jacek]

Originally Posted By: Hollow
In my particular application, I can tell a difference in having running an oil with moly like PYB or QSGB versus oils without such as PP, G-Oil, and QSUD. In my case it is the smoothness of the engine at idle and the quickness of the classic Subaru tick and/or piston slap disappearing as the engine comes up to temp.


The only problem with that observation is PP, G-oil, and QSUD all contain soluble moly additives, albait in relatively low doses. The only popular oil with no moly of friction modifiers that I'm aware of is GC, but that could have changed too.

 

[friendly_jacek]

Originally Posted By: ARCOgraphite


Answer this.

Now: Somebody show me at least 2000 miles comparison test during similar climate and fuel and oil blend/grade where they evidenced 0.5 mpg or better using this stuff.



I posted that before in this forum:

Quote:
Adding either graphite or MoS2; to an SAE 5W-30 engine oil did not affect oil economy or oil performance, but oil filter plugging was increased in high-mileage cabs. Oil filter plugging increased with increasing engine oil viscosity, filter change interval, and cab mileage.


source here: http://papers.sae.org/821227/

However, it's not as black/white as some studies showed benefits:

Quote:
The paper provides details of dynamometer, track, fleet, and leased car tests sponsored or conducted during the period 1963-1974. The data show an average improvement of 4.4% in fuel consumption results from the proper dispersion of 1% weight molybdenum disulfide (MoS 2 ) in the engine oil.


Source: http://papers.sae.org/750674/

Notice the treat rate of 1% solids!
We know that the popular additive LM2009 gives only 0.15% solids at the full treat rate.

 

[Clevy]

Originally Posted By: ARCOgraphite
Again NO reputable oil Co. producting producst that would meet ILSAC specs ever put this specific moly (colloidal suspenion aka: mud PUDDLE) into their formulation - and Manufacturers and Oil Co's are looking for any incremental fuel improvement to be found.

Silly BITOG Group hysteria over NOTHING and something that CAN cause harm in a filtered sump.

Answer this.

Now: Somebody show me at least 2000 miles comparison test during similar climate and fuel and oil blend/grade where they evidenced 0.5 mpg or better using this stuff.

I wouldnt hesistate to use it on house door hinges and as a penetrant or places where dry moly would benefit.

Silly Boyz.

TDS:

http://www.liqui-moly.de/liquimoly/mediendb.nsf/gfx2/1011%20Oil%20Additiv_EN.pdf/$file/1011%20Oil%20Additiv_EN.pdf





I'm doing it right now arco.
I bought that charger. Tracked 3000 miles and the fuel economy for those 3000 miles using m1 5w-20 and a Bosch filter.
I changed the oil last weekend because I passed 3000 miles. New Bosch filter. M1 5w-20 and 1.5 cams of mos2.
Thus far I've definitely gained mileage. 2mpg at least,consistently on the highway and over 2mpg average.
I've put over 600 miles on the mos2 treated oil. I will be cutting the filter as well.


Originally Posted By: friendly_jacek
Originally Posted By: ARCOgraphite


Answer this.

Now: Somebody show me at least 2000 miles comparison test during similar climate and fuel and oil blend/grade where they evidenced 0.5 mpg or better using this stuff.



I posted that before in this forum:

Quote:
Adding either graphite or MoS2; to an SAE 5W-30 engine oil did not affect oil economy or oil performance, but oil filter plugging was increased in high-mileage cabs. Oil filter plugging increased with increasing engine oil viscosity, filter change interval, and cab mileage.


source here: http://papers.sae.org/821227/

However, it's not as black/white as some studies showed benefits:

Quote:
The paper provides details of dynamometer, track, fleet, and leased car tests sponsored or conducted during the period 1963-1974. The data show an average improvement of 4.4% in fuel consumption results from the proper dispersion of 1% weight molybdenum disulfide (MoS 2 ) in the engine oil.


Source: http://papers.sae.org/750674/

Notice the treat rate of 1% solids!
We know that the popular additive LM2009 gives only 0.15% solids at the full treat rate.


You know that study ended in the 70s right jacek.
If oil on its own has come light years since the 70s it stands to reason the additive has been fine tuned to work better.
Or do you think it's the same formula as in the 70s.

I'll keep the charger thread updated with my progress.
Just because its a solid lubricant why is that automatically bad. Ya think maybe these scientists know what they are doing.

I really couldn't care less about what you guys think or believe.
I've seen with my own eyes and I'm being honest in my tracking of data. I've got no agenda and I'm not selling anything. I'm just a guy who sees a product that works and can help anyone get better mileage and lessen the wear and tear on their vehicles which puts less hydrocarbons in the air,and that's something everyone on this planet can benefit from.

 

[Injured_Again]

Just wanted to post a quick message - more in a little bit. I just performed a compression test on my engine, and while I don't have the exact numbers (I'll post those later if anyone is interested), the numbers are consistently up 5-7 across the board, more so in the cylinders which had the higher compression numbers before. I did this across all cylinders three times and got variations less than that, and this is the same gauge I used before, and am using the same method to perform the compression test.

The previous test was after a couple of OCIs with MMO. I didn't take any compression readings prior to using MMO in an (seemingly successful) attempt to clean gummy oil control rings.

If I had to put my life savings on it, I'd say the numbers were interesting in the trend they show, but not that much above the background noise that I would unequivocally say that compression is better after this OCI in which I added MoS2. But I think they are better nonetheless. The engine seems to continue getting smoother with time.

A fill up this morning netted 28.4 MPG, so still better but not in the 29+ range I had gotten previously, but still above the 27-28 MPG range I got before MoS2 treatment.

 

[friendly_jacek]

What oil are you using now? Did you treat it again with MMO?

 

[dave5358]

Originally Posted By: Injured_Again
Just wanted to post a quick message - more in a little bit. I just performed a compression test on my engine, and while I don't have the exact numbers (I'll post those later if anyone is interested), the numbers are consistently up 5-7 across the board, more so in the cylinders which had the higher compression numbers before. I did this across all cylinders three times and got variations less than that, and this is the same gauge I used before, and am using the same method to perform the compression test.


MMO in your gas should raise your compression somewhat - maybe 5-7 psi per cylinder or maybe more. I don't have any experience with MMO in the oil. MMO is pretty thin - mostly solvent - so it may work its way above the rings into the upper cylinder or at least make the rings seal better.

If you put MMO into the upper cylinder or fuel stream with an oiler, then you can stop or start the MMO flow and measure the differences in cylinder pressures with or without MMO. The residual effect, if any, is easy to clear out. It's a bit harder to do this with MMO in the oil.

Other things being equal, an engine with higher compression is more efficient.

 

[Injured_Again]

To answer the questions, I am currently using Pennzoil Platinum in 5w-30. It replaced a fill of Rotella T6 mixed about 1:6 with MMO, but the before/after fuel economy comparisons were all done on this current oil change, before and after adding MoS2.

Dave, the MMO was used in the crankcase in a previous oil change, more than 1500 miles ago. I have never used MMO in this car in the fuel tank, only in the crankcase and it seemingly helped solve a problem with gummy oil control rings. But you are right in that the previous compression test was on the prior oil, so that puts further question into the validity of the small changes in compression numbers that I have seen.

 

[dave5358]

Originally Posted By: Injured_Again
... But you are right in that the previous compression test was on the prior oil, so that puts further question into the validity of the small changes in compression numbers that I have seen.


Changes in compression are best tested over time. Be patient, be consistent, record the results carefully, note any odd conditions on a particular test. A bona-fide 5 psi increase or decrease is significant.

On a well ordered engine, the difference between wet and dry compression is usually less than 10 psi per cylinder. Based on my experience some years ago, adding MMO to the fuel system could almost approximate wet compression under operation. Not too shabby.

 

[Injured_Again]

I plan on doing some more compression testing with the next oil change, in about 3500 miles. But because our weather will be changing pretty soon, the miles will be slower to rack up as a lot of just fun drives won't be taken. And next time, I'll squirt some oil in each cylinder too, to see what the compression numbers are when the rings should be fully sealing.

 

[Clevy]

Originally Posted By: dave5358
Originally Posted By: Injured_Again
... But you are right in that the previous compression test was on the prior oil, so that puts further question into the validity of the small changes in compression numbers that I have seen.


Changes in compression are best tested over time. Be patient, be consistent, record the results carefully, note any odd conditions on a particular test. A bona-fide 5 psi increase or decrease is significant.

On a well ordered engine, the difference between wet and dry compression is usually less than 10 psi per cylinder. Based on my experience some years ago, adding MMO to the fuel system could almost approximate wet compression under operation. Not too shabby.


Or maybe mos2 plated the cylinders and helped the ring seal.
Thanks injured again for your effort. The data may be from a scientist but its still data. I shoulda checked mine to see if any difference could be noted.
Hindsight.

 

[Injured_Again]

Clevy, it makes sense that if there were issues with wear, that the better cylinders, which had less wear issues, would have increased their compression more, and that seems to be what I found. Maybe over time, the lower compression cylinders will catch up.

But, if this were the case and if it seems so easy to actually increase compression in a worn engine, wouldn't Lubro Moly have had independent testing done to show this is a benefit of this product? It does not seem like it would be hard to prove or disprove one way or another.

 

[Clevy]

Originally Posted By: Injured_Again
Clevy, it makes sense that if there were issues with wear, that the better cylinders, which had less wear issues, would have increased their compression more, and that seems to be what I found. Maybe over time, the lower compression cylinders will catch up.

But, if this were the case and if it seems so easy to actually increase compression in a worn engine, wouldn't Lubro Moly have had independent testing done to show this is a benefit of this product? It does not seem like it would be hard to prove or disprove one way or another.


Perhaps it doesn't happen every time and instead of saying it will help and it doesn't they don't mention it and it becomes a bonus.
I can't say for sure. What I can say is the stuff works. It makes an engine run with less friction. That's just all there is to it.
In my case in the charger the first tank of fuel paid me back for buying the additive and every tank since is just return in investment.
My wallet likes it because its cheap and saves me fuel.
I'm sure wear has to be affected. Reduced friction has to mean reduced wear anywhere there is friction,since the metal parts no longer touch after the moly plates everything.
I don't sell the stuff but I should. I'm not much of a salesman though. I'm pretty mean. I think just my monthly fuel bills compared with before and after and figure out what it saves on a per mile basis and the stuff would sell itself.

 

[dave5358]

Originally Posted By: Injured_Again
Clevy, it makes sense that if there were issues with wear, that the better cylinders, which had less wear issues, would have increased their compression more, and that seems to be what I found. Maybe over time, the lower compression cylinders will catch up.

But, if this were the case and if it seems so easy to actually increase compression in a worn engine, wouldn't Lubro Moly have had independent testing done to show this is a benefit of this product? It does not seem like it would be hard to prove or disprove one way or another.


I don't recall MoS2 products being advertised for increased compression. Usually, the claim is for an improvement in oil control past the rings, or reduction in heat. As you suggest, it should not be hard to prove compression improvements, one way or another.

An old (1970's ?) study by Eazor Express dealt with the use of MoS2 in OTR truck hydraulic systems. The results suggested that using MoS2 increased the system service interval by 10% - something in that range. There were no downside issues. An increase of 10% or even 5% was a very big deal for a fleet operator. The same kinds of results might be true for using MoS2 in the engine oil or transmission oil - increased OCI. Stated another way, it's not that the vehicle itself was more efficient, but MoS2 was cost effective for the fleet operator.

For consumers, additives are rarely cost effective - maybe never. Reduced oil consumption might be an exception to that rule. Regardless, they're fun to mess with.

 

[demarpaint]

^I believe much like Restore it fills some scuffs and imperfections in the cylinder walls. At least that is my belief. The reason for I think that's the case is it has stopped my mower from smoking for a few years now, that might also explain why some users are experiencing a smoother idle in older vehicles.

 

[Injured_Again]

I haven't been on BITOG all that long, but has anyone torn apart an engine after using MoS2 and seen anything that looks like plating?

 

[ARB1977]

For this falls change I'll add some mos2.

 

[Clevy]

Originally Posted By: Injured_Again
I haven't been on BITOG all that long, but has anyone torn apart an engine after using MoS2 and seen anything that looks like plating?


Yes.
I have. There was nothing visible to the naked eye however the cams I removed(ford 4.6 2v) felt incredibly slick to the touch and they've been sitting on my shelf in my garage for at least a year now and they haven't begun to rust either.
I used mos2 for years in that engine and there were no deposits or sludge or anything of that nature. The insides were very clean.

 

[dave5358]

Originally Posted By: Injured_Again
I haven't been on BITOG all that long, but has anyone torn apart an engine after using MoS2 and seen anything that looks like plating?


Back in the early 1980's, I tore down a 1973 MGB engine that had been Moly-treated for a few oil changes - maybe for 10k miles. This was a used vehicle to me with 60k miles or so at the time I bought it. I put Moly in for a few of oil changes, then decided to rebuild the engine. The head gasket was bad, a 'head job' was needed and a variety of other problems existed that were beyond the realm of additives. I also replaced the 4-spd with a 4-speed OD transmission.

The engine looked very clean inside. When I wiped some of the crank journals they looked really smooth - not exactly shiny (as I expected) but very nice looking. As I recall, we used standard-sized bearings all around. The crank just needed minor touch-up - really a polish and not much more. There was some debate with the machine shop on this, but the crank was still just within original tolerances. I think we used 1st oversize rings and just honed the cylinders. The valves had to be replaced (not unusual for that engine). The rebuild went well - nothing bad to report. The BMC 'B' engine is cast iron, push-rod, with a cast iron head.

This was my second B-GT and some of the magic was gone. A year later I sold it to a local guy who does body work (really useful, because this vehicle had a bad case of termites). It was still running and still looking good in 2010 - and still a 'head turner'. The owner may have moved or something because I don't see it there anymore (actually, don't see any vehicles outside the place where he used to live).