MOS2 question.

[Hollow]

Gonna try MOS2 for my Subaru.

My experience with this engine is that it prefers oils with higher Moly levels. This is based upon engine smoothness and quietness (classic touch of Subaru piston slap and ticking until warmed up) with several different conventional and synthetic oils (PYB, QSAD, FS, VWB, VDB, Castrol GTX, PP, QSUD, G-OIL). Engine is smoothest on SN rated Pennzoil and Quaker State conventional and SM rated Formula Shell (before Moly removal for SN formula change).

My driving conditions are unusual at present based upon current class and work schedule, may change soon or may not. The car typically sits in the campus parking garage for 1-2 weeks at a time, then gets used for 30-50 miles (70/30 highway to city) on a weekend for errands. I have a 1,500 mile road trip planned in late December. Currently 2,500 miles into a Pennzoil conventional oil change.

Current OCI pattern is 5,000 miles conventional (Pennzoil or Quaker State) with a basic filter (Motorcraft, AC Delco, Purolater classic, etc) or 10,000 miles synthetic (PP or QSUD typically) and a better filter (PureOne, Fram Ultra, etc). These are likely rather conservative intervals, but it makes service intervals easy to manage and I really don't desire to spend $100 or more on 3-5 UOAs to get a baseline.

Desired outcomes are engine quietness and smoothness with hopeful MPG increase.

tl;dr
Will be adding MOS2 to next oil change. Any thoughts as to whether to go with conventional or synthetic for this experiment? Currently stash only has QSAD and QSUD, not buying any oil for this experiment.

 

[chubbs1]

If you want the experiment to work, it will work. It will be all in your head as Mos2 does nothing. I would run it with the QSAD.

 

[Hollow]

Thank you for your opinion. Any facts to back it up?

 

[dave5358]

I use LubroMoly in my 06 XT Forester. It works just fine - quiets the engine and keeps oil consumption to zero. I suspect it improves the gas mileage but only slightly. Some flat-4's develop piston slap - the MoS2 might help this as well. I don't know for sure, but then I don't have any piston slap. Be patient - the MoS2 takes a few hundred miles to get into the system. On subsequent oil changes, you could probably get by with 'half a can of LubroMoly.

MoS2 stays in the bearings and journals and gives good lubrication on cold starts. Your engine will like this after sitting idle for a few weeks, but the real benefit may not be apparent for months or years in the future - your engine may last forever ;-)

As for oil, I like Mobil-1 synthetic. It works fine, it is readily available and it keeps the turbo humming. But, I think any quality oil would work. Some Subaru turbo owners opt for heavier oil (10w-40) to keep the turbo happy, but that also makes the engine less efficient. Mobil-1 works just fine.

Subaru filters are cheap enough and readily available. Subaru wants turbo owners to change their oil every 3000 miles (or every week - whichever comes first ;-) so the filter is not that big of a deal.

 

[dave5358]

Originally Posted By: chubbs1
If you want the experiment to work, it will work. It will be all in your head as Mos2 does nothing.


What an amazing statement! MoS2 is a well known industrial lubricant - it is the most widely used form of solid film lubrication in use today. It has been in use for about 100 years - at least since WW1. It is used in high pressure greases and aircraft engines. The engineers at Volkswagen prescribed it to reduce heat in their air-cooled engines. From time to time, major oil companies have added it to their formulations. Was this 'all in their heads'?

Before making statements like this, you might want to do even the most basic research. Start here

 

[yesthatsteve]

In the xB in my sig, I'm just over 2k into a run of QSUD w/MoS2 and like it quite a bit. My mpgs are still above 40, but I don't think we've switched to winter-blend fuel yet. Without MoS2, I typically average around 37 mpg on winter fuel, so I'm interested to see if there's a difference.

If you're changing your oil before spring, go with the synthetic for slightly better start-up protection in cold weather.

 

[chubbs1]

Originally Posted By: dave5358
Originally Posted By: chubbs1
If you want the experiment to work, it will work. It will be all in your head as Mos2 does nothing.


What an amazing statement! MoS2 is a well known industrial lubricant - it is the most widely used form of solid film lubrication in use today. It has been in use for about 100 years - at least since WW1. It is used in high pressure greases and aircraft engines. The engineers at Volkswagen prescribed it to reduce heat in their air-cooled engines. From time to time, major oil companies have added it to their formulations. Was this 'all in their heads'?

Before making statements like this, you might want to do even the most basic research. Start here



molybdenum (mos2, Tri-nuclear moly, etc do have great lubrication uses and what is in most of the major brand API oils today is plenty. I should have been clearer when I made my statement, so here it goes... Lubro-Moly Mos2 does little to nothing. Too much of a good thing doesn't make something even more awesome. An overdose of Moly does not make for a better running engine. If it "feels" better to you by all means use it. All I was saying is that there really is no proof that over-loading moly works better in an ICE. Actually there is a point of diminishing returns and it can leave more deposits in your engine.

Let the additive companies do the work for you. They are making oils today that are excellent. Nothing needs to be added.

 

[dave5358]

Originally Posted By: chubbs1
Originally Posted By: dave5358
Originally Posted By: chubbs1
If you want the experiment to work, it will work. It will be all in your head as Mos2 does nothing.


What an amazing statement! MoS2 is a well known industrial lubricant - it is the most widely used form of solid film lubrication in use today. It has been in use for about 100 years - at least since WW1. It is used in high pressure greases and aircraft engines. The engineers at Volkswagen prescribed it to reduce heat in their air-cooled engines. From time to time, major oil companies have added it to their formulations. Was this 'all in their heads'?

Before making statements like this, you might want to do even the most basic research. Start here



molybdenum (mos2, Tri-nuclear moly, etc do have great lubrication uses and what is in most of the major brand API oils today is plenty


Actually not. Oil companies have added it from time to time. But, for a variety of reasons - cost, appearance, who-knows-why - it has not been popular. You can check for a particular brand of oil. It's fair to note that oils have improved and an oil company may not see any benefit to adding it - their oil works okay in consumer use without it.

Originally Posted By: chubbs1
I should have been clearer when I made my statement, so here it goes... Lubro-Moly Mos2 does little to nothing.


There you go again. You were painfully clear before. But what conceivable evidence do you have that Lubro-Moly "does little to nothing"? A more reasonable view might be that it does about what you would expect from MoS2 - reduce friction and heat, provide dry-film lubrication to bearings and journals, emergency lubrication, etc. You can debate claims of fuel savings (Lubro-Moly does make this claim), but their other claims are pretty much text-book benefits of MoS2 - not exactly 'does little to nothing'.

Originally Posted By: chubbs1
Too much of a good thing doesn't make something even more awesome. An overdose of Moly does not make for a better running engine. If it "feels" better to you by all means use it. All I was saying is that there really is no proof that over-loading moly works better in an ICE. Actually there is a point of diminishing returns and it can leave more deposits in your engine.


Too much? Overloading? Where do you get this stuff? VW packaged a 4 fluid ounce tube for use in a 2.6 quart sump, so Lubro-Moly's packaging seems to be in the ball-park. But, maybe it was 'all in the head' of the engineers at VW.

Originally Posted By: chubbs1
Let the additive companies do the work for you. They are making oils today that are excellent. Nothing needs to be added.


It is clear that you don't like this MoS2 - a 'religious' dislike not based on facts. But I don't recall anyone insisting that you use it or use any additive.

But please don't make claims about a product - all in their heads, does nothing, does little to nothing - for which you have absolutely no support and which claims pretty clearly go against a rather long engineering history for the product. Someone might take you seriously.

Before making statements like this, you might want to do even the most basic research. Start here

 

[Lapithes]

Originally Posted By: dave5358
Actually not. Oil companies have added it from time to time. But, for a variety of reasons - cost, appearance, who-knows-why - it has not been popular.


Must be a conspiracy!

 

[dave5358]

Originally Posted By: Lapithes
Originally Posted By: dave5358
Actually not. Oil companies have added it from time to time. But, for a variety of reasons - cost, appearance, who-knows-why - it has not been popular.


Must be a conspiracy!


Probably not a conspiracy. Modern oil is pretty good as is and oil research may be in other areas (synthetics, longer oil change intervals, etc). Plus, modern consumers don't keep their cars forever. If you were an oil company, are you going to spend a lot of time and effort on your product so that the consumer's engine will last 200,000 miles rather than 100,000 miles? Automakers are often faced with this same choice, and most do not select the 'last longer' option.

Adding MoS2 also makes your oil turn black or very dark gray. Maybe people don't like that? If you were looking at a used car and the oil was black, you might be concerned.

Finally, a principal benefit of MoS2 is emergency lubrication - on the TV ad, they drain the oil and drive off in the vehicle. The 'fact' portrayed in this TV spot is probably true - the relevance is less clear. How many times have you lost your oil? I've been driving a long time and I've never had it happen - I don't ever recall having an 'oil light' come on in my vehicle, but that's a lot more common. It happened once on my wife's Corolla, but it wasn't lack of oil - rather, some screwball thing with the variable valve timing. In that one aspect, using MoS2 in your engine is akin to buying meteorite insurance - not exactly the kind of 'feature' an oil company might want to advertise.

 

[chubbs1]

Originally Posted By: dave5358
Originally Posted By: Lapithes
Originally Posted By: dave5358
Actually not. Oil companies have added it from time to time. But, for a variety of reasons - cost, appearance, who-knows-why - it has not been popular.


Must be a conspiracy!




Finally, a principal benefit of MoS2 is emergency lubrication - on the TV ad, they drain the oil and drive off in the vehicle. The 'fact' portrayed in this TV spot is probably true - the relevance is less clear.


Ok you win, you saw it on a TV add so it must be true or "probably true" you just threw any credibility you had out the window. I bow out. Use Mos2!!! I am sure it wont hurt! I Just was just letting the OP know he has very good oil so why put anything into it?

I just don't like all the Lubro-Moly's outlandish claims over their products, it makes me feel like they are another snake oil maker.

 

[Trajan]

Originally Posted By: chubbs1
Originally Posted By: dave5358
Originally Posted By: Lapithes
Originally Posted By: dave5358
Actually not. Oil companies have added it from time to time. But, for a variety of reasons - cost, appearance, who-knows-why - it has not been popular.


Must be a conspiracy!




Finally, a principal benefit of MoS2 is emergency lubrication - on the TV ad, they drain the oil and drive off in the vehicle. The 'fact' portrayed in this TV spot is probably true - the relevance is less clear.


Ok you win, you saw it on a TV add so it must be true or "probably true" you just threw any credibility you had out the window. I bow out. Use Mos2!!! I am sure it wont hurt! I Just was just letting the OP know he has very good oil so why put anything into it?

I just don't like all the Lubro-Moly's outlandish claims over their products, it makes me feel like they are another snake oil maker.


But, but, outlandish claims, or any claim that is unsupported by anything other than "He's a "respected member", so he isn't to be questioned" (DSTr rule), is the norm here.

At least with those who don't like being challenged

I used MoS2, it did nothing for my mpg that I couldn't do by altering my driving style.

Can't say if it did anything for friction, I also can't say what effect it had with the add packs in the oil, if any.

Yeah, TV. Just like Duralube where they ran an engine without oil.

 

[dave5358]

Originally Posted By: chubbs1
Ok you win, you saw it on a TV add so it must be true or "probably true" you just threw any credibility you had out the window. I bow out. Use Mos2!!! I am sure it wont hurt! I Just was just letting the OP know he has very good oil so why put anything into it? I just don't like all the Lubro-Moly's outlandish claims over their products, it makes me feel like they are another snake oil maker.


You completely missed the point. The TV ad's depiction is probably accurate (well, it's TV so who really knows). MoS2 was used in airplanes because they sometimes lost oil pressure. It's better to land your plane with the engine running (you get hydraulics, electric power, slight maneuverability, etc) rather than just dropping out of the sky. The TV ad just apes this quality of MoS2, in a clever but irrelevant TV ad. If you could grasp even the basic Wikipedia article, you would already know this.

As for Lubro-Moly, their claims are not particulary 'outlandish'. There you go again. Add "outlandish" to "all in their heads", "does nothing", "does little to nothing".

With the exception of 'reduces fuel consumption', Lubro-Moly just repeats text-book uses for MoS2. You can read their 'outlandish' claims Liqui-Moly Anti-Friction oil treatment spec sheet here. But, you seem unwilling to burst out of your echo chamber bubble, so here are their outlandish claims repeated:

- Mixable with all commercially available motor oils
- Stable even under high thermal and dynamic permanent loads
- No deposits and absolutely compatible with all commonly used filter systems
- Reduces running-in and running wear
- Guarantees limp-home properties
- Reduces oil and fuel consumption
- Increases smooth operation

Their product description also includes information which might be construed as claims:

- Colloidal solid lubricant suspension based on molybdenum sulfide (MoS2) in
mineral oil. The product forms a high-load lubricating film on all rubbing and
sliding surfaces. This in turn reduces friction, providing for smoother operation of assemblies and greater engine economy. Tested for turbochargers and catalytic converters.

---

So, you don't like the stuff... I get it. But don't elevate your personal beliefs, totally devoid of facts or experience, into a disparagement of a product, particularly when your beliefs fly in the face of engineering information to the contrary.

I don't care if I 'win' or not. I do care if another person reading this forms his opinions based on the experience and reports of others - particularly engineers - and not the ravings of someone who simply dislikes a product for unknown reasons.

 

[Turk]

 

[MrQuackers]

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: Turk

+ 1

 

[Hollow]

I'm really enjoying the fact that this thread has pretty much nothing to do with my original post.

For background read my post.

Otherwise,
Does any one have a recommendation on whether to add MOS2 to a 10k QSUD run or a 5K QSAD run?

 

[Injured_Again]

Hollow, all I can say is that my experience with MoS2 is in a Miata that I purchased at 138k with apparently a good maintenance history, but had some evidence of gummy oil control rings and some oil burning.

I put the MoS2 in with Mobil 1, and the improvements have not only been significant over the first several hundred miles, but the engine continues to seem to get smooth in its operation. A compression test, I think about a thousand miles in, showed more even compression across all four cylinders whereas I had a 5-6% difference prior to that, and oil burning seems to have decreased by roughly a quarter. I guess I am unusual in that I have experienced fuel economy gains in steady state driving that can't be attributed to anything else because I haven't changed anything else.

But because this is an old motor with an unknown pattern of use, it may be there was pretty significant scoring to the metal surfaces, which continue to be filled in by the MoS2. As such, I'm going to run a 5K oil change interval and then do a full dosing of MoS2 again with the next oil change, and see if improvements continue.

So, if you're not experiencing oil degradation over 10k, I don't see why you don't give the MoS2 as much of a chance to work as you can. I'd be in favor of the longer OCI.

 

[Trajan]

Originally Posted By: Hollow
I'm really enjoying the fact that this thread has pretty much nothing to do with my original post.

For background read my post.

Otherwise,
Does any one have a recommendation on whether to add MOS2 to a 10k QSUD run or a 5K QSAD run?


Ok.

What did the oil formulators leave out that compels you to use an OTC?

What perceived problems are you trying to fix?

If you can't answer them, the recommendation is to not do it.

But feel free to do it if you're set on it.

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: Hollow

Otherwise,
Does any one have a recommendation on whether to add MOS2 to a 10k QSUD run or a 5K QSAD run?


I've never done a 10K run, but I see no problem using it the entire OCI. I questioned them via email about how long to run the product, and how long you can run the product. The answer was to run it the entire OCI. Based on that run it 10K if that's your planned interval.

As a side note it will work with either dino or synthetic oil, no special requirements regarding what kind of oil when using it.