Recent Topics
Got the Hi-Power
by john_pifer
10/01/14 12:03 AM
Upgraded Mobil Jet Oil 387
by syfi
09/30/14 11:40 PM
klotz super techniplate feed back
by mcn1970
09/30/14 10:58 PM
ISIS appears 5 miles from Baghdad
by dave1251
09/30/14 10:34 PM
ML-The Silent Danger of Abrupt Lubricant Failure
by wemay
09/30/14 10:15 PM
Apple releases important update
by Mystic
09/30/14 09:56 PM
Machinery Lubrication - 'GrpIII syn is mktng term'
by wemay
09/30/14 09:41 PM
The Paint is Peelin'!
by Nick1994
09/30/14 09:39 PM
Pennzoil Syn Blend Or Yellow Bottle 5w30 ?
by crazyoildude
09/30/14 09:29 PM
fram ultra, weird oil pressure
by bowhuuntr
09/30/14 09:27 PM
Electric dryer tripping breaker
by NateDN10
09/30/14 09:22 PM
Oil Recommendation - 1996 Grand Marquis
by AjsGarage
09/30/14 09:11 PM
Newest Members
mcn1970, KCChemist, bbuice, Hemingway, kcp
51459 Registered Users
Who's Online
38 registered (Bill_G, another Todd, babbittd, 901Memphis, berniedd, 3 invisible), 780 Guests and 155 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Stats
51459 Members
64 Forums
220059 Topics
3474849 Posts

Max Online: 2862 @ 07/07/14 03:10 PM
Donate to BITOG

Page 2 of 5 < 1 2 3 4 5 >
Topic Options
#3187994 - 11/14/13 08:11 PM Re: MoS2 testing - sound levels [Re: demarpaint]
Injured_Again Offline


Registered: 02/04/13
Posts: 66
Loc: Redmond, WA
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Good to know it isn't in the heads of the people making the claims of a quieter engine.


It's pretty noticeable in the Miata because the engine is noisy and there's so little sound insulation, but in the other cars, it's really not noticeable that the engine is quieter. Maybe this is why some users don't believe the product works.

I originally was thinking of using a torque wrench to rotate the engine to see how much force it would take, but thought that method was too dependent on things I couldn't control, even as simple as the speed at which I tried to initiate rotation of the engine.

I took some noise readings in the Miata when driving on the same roads, but there's so much other noise that the sound levels didn't change even if the engine note and engine smoothness have noticeably changed. So, this seemed like the best way to determine any kind of operational change from the MoS2.
_________________________
1995 Mazda Miata

Top
#3188032 - 11/14/13 08:40 PM Re: MoS2 testing - sound levels [Re: Injured_Again]
demarpaint Offline


Registered: 07/03/05
Posts: 21171
Loc: NY
Originally Posted By: Injured_Again
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Good to know it isn't in the heads of the people making the claims of a quieter engine.


It's pretty noticeable in the Miata because the engine is noisy and there's so little sound insulation, but in the other cars, it's really not noticeable that the engine is quieter. Maybe this is why some users don't believe the product works.

I originally was thinking of using a torque wrench to rotate the engine to see how much force it would take, but thought that method was too dependent on things I couldn't control, even as simple as the speed at which I tried to initiate rotation of the engine.

I took some noise readings in the Miata when driving on the same roads, but there's so much other noise that the sound levels didn't change even if the engine note and engine smoothness have noticeably changed. So, this seemed like the best way to determine any kind of operational change from the MoS2.


IMO it was a great idea and very hard to dispute.
_________________________
GOD Bless our Troops


Top
#3188114 - 11/14/13 10:16 PM Re: MoS2 testing - sound levels [Re: Injured_Again]
nleksan Offline


Registered: 11/20/08
Posts: 562
Loc: Cincinnati, OH
Curious as to how it affects VANOS operation and life in the M52B28...
_________________________
00 328Ci(419rwhp/392rwtq) RL/Motul/OS Giken
06 M3 ZCP/6MT - RL
01 325i - RL/RP
03 M5 - RL
88 M6 (Eu) - RL
95 M5 (Eu) - RL

Top
#3188383 - 11/15/13 09:04 AM Re: MoS2 testing - sound levels [Re: Injured_Again]
Turk Offline


Registered: 02/03/06
Posts: 8018
Loc: MN
Excellent.

Ok, naysayers, what say you??

Crickets, Chickets...
_________________________
03 GMC Sierra 4x4 200k, M1 TDT
00 Saturn SL2 89 YO Lady Car. 79k Miles! PU
98 Saturn SC2 "Red Hot" PYB + LubeGard + Kreen
97 Camry 207k Maxlife


Top
#3188384 - 11/15/13 09:05 AM Re: MoS2 testing - sound levels [Re: Turk]
demarpaint Offline


Registered: 07/03/05
Posts: 21171
Loc: NY
Originally Posted By: Turk
Excellent.

Ok, naysayers, what say you??

Crickets, Chickets...



Did you have to do that? Now they'll be sure to come out. LOL popcorn2
_________________________
GOD Bless our Troops


Top
#3188763 - 11/15/13 03:56 PM Re: MoS2 testing - sound levels [Re: nleksan]
Injured_Again Offline


Registered: 02/04/13
Posts: 66
Loc: Redmond, WA
Originally Posted By: nleksan
Curious as to how it affects VANOS operation and life in the M52B28...


Been a while since I've thought a lot about the motor. It's a single stage VANOS and operates on just the intake valves (I believe). Its operation was said to generate that "on cam" feeling at around 3500 RPMs and that rush is still there.

Not real long ago, a compression test on this engine showed all cylinders to still be above "as-new" specifications. I'm sure that's due to a lifetime of Mobil 1 oil, and despite that this car has spent several thousand miles lapping on road courses. It's one of the reasons why I'm reluctant to put oil additives in where a service history is well known and there is no apparent need, but the amount of improvement I saw in the Miata has gotten me to at least try it in these two other cars.
_________________________
1995 Mazda Miata

Top
#3193425 - 11/21/13 04:43 AM Re: MoS2 testing - sound levels [Re: Injured_Again]
Falcon_LS Online   content


Registered: 10/03/08
Posts: 3503
Loc: Kuwait
Injured_Again, check your PM! thumbsup
_________________________
00 Pajero: M1 0W-40/26300-35503
01 Marquis: M1 ESP Formula 5W-30/FL820S
05 Envoy: M1 ESP Formula 5W-30/51522XP

Top
#3194056 - 11/21/13 06:20 PM Re: MoS2 testing - sound levels [Re: Turk]
Trajan Offline


Registered: 07/16/05
Posts: 3314
Loc: SE PA
Originally Posted By: Turk
Excellent.

Ok, naysayers, what say you??

Crickets, Chickets...



Can't hear the engine over the SSS Terminator axle backs before or after using mos2.
_________________________

Lack of harm does not mean proof of benefit.

Top
#3194761 - 11/22/13 12:01 PM Re: MoS2 testing - sound levels [Re: Trajan]
Injured_Again Offline


Registered: 02/04/13
Posts: 66
Loc: Redmond, WA
Originally Posted By: Trajan
Originally Posted By: Turk
Excellent.

Ok, naysayers, what say you??

Crickets, Chickets...



Can't hear the engine over the SSS Terminator axle backs before or after using mos2.


Same with my Corvette, but with the hood open, it is noticeable that the mechanical noise has decreased. I know that modern engines are designed for low noise outputs, but this is a 6.2 liter motor and you can have a quiet conversation across the open engine bay when it is idling.

An updated version of the sound level meter I used is now for sale at Radio Shack for less than $50. A can of MoS2 is $8. A foot long ruler is a buck. So, it's not expensive for anyone to repeat the testing I have done.
_________________________
1995 Mazda Miata

Top
#3195062 - 11/22/13 05:48 PM Re: MoS2 testing - sound levels [Re: Injured_Again]
Trajan Offline


Registered: 07/16/05
Posts: 3314
Loc: SE PA
Originally Posted By: Injured_Again
Originally Posted By: Trajan
Originally Posted By: Turk
Excellent.

Ok, naysayers, what say you??

Crickets, Chickets...



Can't hear the engine over the SSS Terminator axle backs before or after using mos2.


Same with my Corvette, but with the hood open, it is noticeable that the mechanical noise has decreased.




Which is good. I never measured the sound on mine. But being partially deaf, I doubt I could tell the difference anyway smile
_________________________

Lack of harm does not mean proof of benefit.

Top
#3195624 - 11/23/13 11:09 AM Re: MoS2 testing - sound levels [Re: Injured_Again]
j14152 Offline


Registered: 11/23/13
Posts: 1
Loc: West Palm Beach FL
Could it be that Molybdenum Disulfide thickens the oil and acts as a sound dampener, because SPL devices won't lie if they are used properly. The tester certainly did what he could to eliminate random errors.

Brings to mind the "crank the gear train" display for Motor Honey (Lucas?) on your favorite auto parts counters all across the country, with the thick vs thin oil display. The natural assumption would be that thicker is better. But - for what? Dragging the oil up the plastic walls and over then gears? That takes energy, guys. Translated - money out of your pocket.

The problem with this display is the increase in viscosity has little to do with the film strength of the oil. On the negative side, it increases the viscosity and viscous friction, wasting energy. Today's motor oils are very very good at what they do. Notice that the newer cars are using 0-W20 oil to increase mileage? How long did it take us to accept the shift from 10w40 to 5W30, and now, to 0w20 in some engines? It took me years to accept this. And Costco still doesn't get it! (Racing is a different ballgame than street driving).

What they are NOT using in the crankcase is high film strength 80W90 gear oil or chassis grease which is loaded with MOS2 (just smell it!). It's thick enough to solidify your hair. I'm sure it would cut engine noise - if you could turn it over and start it, that is.

I wonder - I don't have a sound pressure level measuring device, but I'd like to know if the newly-recommended 0-W20 oil (newer Honda's and others use it) is noisier than, say, a 10W40 oil of the same type. I'll bet it is!

Remember - the purpose of motor oil is to lubricate and preserve the metal parts - not to reduce engine noise and clatter.

Manufacturers of both oil and engines do NOT recommend additives, either for fuel or for oil. There is a reason for this - the negative usually outweighs whatever positive that may come with additives, and these aftermarket additives are probably not beneficial or useful. This is not necessarily an absolute, but in most cases the generalization is true. FYI, STP is made from soap!

I remember when changing the oil always made my engines run better and produce more power. That was surely my mind playing tricks with me.


Edited by j14152 (11/23/13 11:12 AM)

Top
#3195772 - 11/23/13 02:35 PM Re: MoS2 testing - sound levels [Re: j14152]
dave5358 Offline


Registered: 04/25/13
Posts: 634
Loc: North Bend
Originally Posted By: j14152
Could it be that Molybdenum Disulfide thickens the oil and acts as a sound dampener, because SPL devices won't lie if they are used properly. The tester certainly did what he could to eliminate random errors.


Almost certainly not thicker. The particles in MoS2 are very fine. The mineral oil carrier is quite thin. If anything, it would probably thin the oil.

Originally Posted By: j14152
Brings to mind the "crank the gear train" display for Motor Honey (Lucas?) on your favorite auto parts counters all across the country, with the thick vs thin oil display. The natural assumption would be that thicker is better. But - for what? Dragging the oil up the plastic walls and over then gears? That takes energy, guys. Translated - money out of your pocket.

The problem with this display is the increase in viscosity has little to do with the film strength of the oil. On the negative side, it increases the viscosity and viscous friction, wasting energy. Today's motor oils are very very good at what they do. Notice that the newer cars are using 0-W20 oil to increase mileage? How long did it take us to accept the shift from 10w40 to 5W30, and now, to 0w20 in some engines? It took me years to accept this. And Costco still doesn't get it! (Racing is a different ballgame than street driving).


Funny you mentioned this. I was at an O'Reilly's this morning and played with the Lucas version of this exact display. About all the Lucas additive did was make the oil a bit more 'sticky' - maybe thicker. It did not drain off the plastic gears as quicky... but it did drain off. When I first started cranking, both sets of gears were about the same. The O'Reilly's service was so incredibly slow that the thinner oil did drain off and I could tell the cranking difference. Remember this display when they start putting plastic gears in the engines ;-)

MoS2 doesn't drain off, although it can be washed off over time by a combination of friction and motor oil flow. MoS2 should provide excellent start-up lubrication, since it stays in the journals - sort of like assembly paste.

Originally Posted By: j14152
What they are NOT using in the crankcase is high film strength 80W90 gear oil or chassis grease which is loaded with MOS2 (just smell it!). It's thick enough to solidify your hair. I'm sure it would cut engine noise - if you could turn it over and start it, that is.


To me, gear oil all smells about the same. I don't think MoS2 adds much to the aroma. I don't know what gives gear oil the unique smell. Maybe someone else can jump in on that. I have handled dry MoS2 powder and it really doesn't have a smell - sort of like graphite doesn't really smell (or, at least, my nose can't detect it).

Originally Posted By: j14152
I wonder - I don't have a sound pressure level measuring device, but I'd like to know if the newly-recommended 0-W20 oil (newer Honda's and others use it) is noisier than, say, a 10W40 oil of the same type. I'll bet it is!


Thin oil makes for noisy engines.

Originally Posted By: j14152
Remember - the purpose of motor oil is to lubricate and preserve the metal parts - not to reduce engine noise and clatter. Manufacturers of both oil and engines do NOT recommend additives, either for fuel or for oil. There is a reason for this - the negative usually outweighs whatever positive that may come with additives, and these aftermarket additives are probably not beneficial or useful. This is not necessarily an absolute, but in most cases the generalization is true. FYI, STP is made from soap! I remember when changing the oil always made my engines run better and produce more power. That was surely my mind playing tricks with me.


Motor oil also has a significant cooling function. If that were unnecessary, then you could lubricate the bearings once and forget it - like an electric motor.

As for oil companies/auto makers recommending (or not) additives, we can really only guess. Let's see - the most sensitive nerve in the body is attached to the wallet. So, my guess is profits... and marketing pressures. Do you really want to include an additive that makes your oil look black and dirty... when it has just been changed?

As for your mind playing tricks, maybe not. Newly changed oil should be a bit thicker, so it might absorb more engine sounds. Why it might produce more power is not as clear.

Along this same line, does your car run better (or at least sound better) on a full tank of gas? Mine does. Actually, that applies to most cars I've owned. I've pondered this phenomenon and I am sure it is simply acoustics - the empty gas tank is like a sounding board for every creak, rattle and road noise, but a full tank of gas is a giant sound sponge.
_________________________
2006 Forester XT
2008 Corolla LE

Top
#3196702 - 11/24/13 02:17 PM Re: MoS2 testing - sound levels [Re: Injured_Again]
Injured_Again Offline


Registered: 02/04/13
Posts: 66
Loc: Redmond, WA
Just some random thoughts. My experience is that an oil change seems to quiet down the motor. Oil typically thins as it is used, so it seems a thicker oil would result in a quieter, smoother engine.

My experience with MoS2 has been that because the engine is running smoother, I tend to drive with larger throttle openings and at higher RPMs, to enjoy the new smooth performance.

I also used Arco Graphite motor oil back in the early 80's. I remember my dad asking why I would put something that black into the crankcase. I went on and on about all of the supposed advantages, but never did get him to try it just from that perspective.
_________________________
1995 Mazda Miata

Top
#3196710 - 11/24/13 02:28 PM Re: MoS2 testing - sound levels [Re: Injured_Again]
dave5358 Offline


Registered: 04/25/13
Posts: 634
Loc: North Bend
Originally Posted By: Injured_Again
...I also used Arco Graphite motor oil back in the early 80's. I remember my dad asking why I would put something that black into the crankcase. I went on and on about all of the supposed advantages, but never did get him to try it just from that perspective.


Perfect. What better reason to not use MoS2, or for an oil company to not include it in their additive mix?
_________________________
2006 Forester XT
2008 Corolla LE

Top
#3196837 - 11/24/13 05:14 PM Re: MoS2 testing - sound levels [Re: Injured_Again]
sammy Offline


Registered: 07/13/06
Posts: 217
Loc: California
This thread needs to be soluble Moly versus non soluble Mos2 Moly. If you think using Non Soluble Moly is great, try running a high moly oil that uses soluble.

Top
Page 2 of 5 < 1 2 3 4 5 >