Recent Topics
Motorcraft SAE 75w90 Premium 4x4 Front Axle Lubric
by FordSUVTruck
09/02/14 06:00 AM
1997 Shell Product Data Book - XHVI Lubes
by Shannow
09/02/14 03:58 AM
Kohler engine likes to burn oil as much as gas.
by cwatkin
09/01/14 11:19 PM
Front wheel bearing issue
by JHZR2
09/01/14 11:13 PM
Preferences
by 01_celica_gt
09/01/14 10:49 PM
91 Civic Hatch 3dr Si coolant hose
by Gito
09/01/14 10:19 PM
Who rev matches their downshifts?
by Klutch9
09/01/14 09:41 PM
'08 BMW 328xi, BMW 5W30, 10.5k OCI, 57k vehicle
by grumpyoldman
09/01/14 09:35 PM
1 yr, 3 yr, 5yr or since inception?
by bustednutz
09/01/14 08:45 PM
2009 Mustang 4.0 Tremec fluid
by Skeet6
09/01/14 08:35 PM
where to order slip on rocker panels
by eljefino
09/01/14 07:56 PM
Accords MPG on recent trip...
by gregk24
09/01/14 07:27 PM
Newest Members
SparkSVT, grumpyoldman, jbl_91762, PapasGuy, fanie
51170 Registered Users
Who's Online
51 registered (BISCUT, Bob5150, Archtop_Picker, Best F100, 1foxracing, aimatdeer, 2 invisible), 863 Guests and 211 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Stats
51170 Members
64 Forums
218659 Topics
3447915 Posts

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

Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 >
Topic Options
#3185420 - 11/12/13 04:04 AM MoS2 testing - sound levels
Injured_Again Offline


Registered: 02/04/13
Posts: 66
Loc: Redmond, WA
After experiencing very good results with MoS2 in a 1995 Miata, including reduced engine noise, increased engine smoothness throughout the rev range, and steady state fuel economy increases of 5-8%, I decided to try it in a couple of other vehicles despite being relatively biased against using additives without a significant reason for doing so.

Due to lots of weather variability where I live, I decided to just measure sound pressure levels using an older Radio Shack 33-2050 sound level meter. The two vehicles are a 1996 BMW with a 2.8 liter inline 6 and 130k miles, and a 2011 Corvette with a 6.2 liter V8 and 20k miles. Tests were done in my garage, with all garage doors opened in every instance. Because I live in a cul-de-sac, I ensured that it was quiet outside when I did the meausrements, and made sure that nothing in the garage such as the HVAC, were on.

I conducted the measurements by having someone else start up the car during cold starts, and held the sound level meter one foot above the centerline of the engine using a ruler. The hood was open fully and held open by the built-in prop struts. On cold starts, I let the engine speed settle for 3-5 seconds until a steady fast idle speed was atttained. For hot measurements, I simply drove into the garage, opened all the garage doors, and did the measurements myself, again using the one foot ruler as a guide. I did several tests before adding the MoS2 on various days and gained a baseline that fluctuated by a maximum of 1-2 db in every instance.

After adding the MoS2, each of the vehicles have been driven between 300-500 miles, and I personally ensured that some of this was during high RPM and high throttle opening driving. This was probably the most fun part of this testing.

Anyhow, here's what I got (hot measurements are without electric cooling fans being activated):

BMW cold:

Baseline: 82-84 db
After MoS2: 77-79 db

BMW hot:

Baseline: 74-76 db
After MoS2: 70-72 db

Corvette cold:

Baseline: 79-81 db
After MoS2: 75-77 db

Crovette hot:

Baseline: 73-75 db
After MoS2: 69-70 db

Both vehicles are driven inconsistently enough so that any fuel economy measurements would be pretty meaningless. The BMW is most noticeably quieter during cold starts. There's a lot of mechanical noise that isn't present any more. The Corvette motor, when hot, was quiet before but is no so quiet that a nrmal speaking voice is clearly able to be heard from someone standing on the other side of the open engine bay.

The BMW is pretty well insulated and I honestly don't notice any difference in sound or smoothness when driving the vehicle. The Corvette makes a lot of exhaust and engine noise and it's also impossible to hear any engine noise changes over that, but it does feel smoother as it revs, though that may be a placebo effect thing.

No oil was changed during this time, and the same gas has been used throughout. Temps have generally been in the 40's and 50's, and nothing has changed within our garage that might absorb sound. The same one foot ruler was used, and A-weighting was used throughout.
_________________________
1995 Mazda Miata

Top
#3185429 - 11/12/13 04:54 AM Re: MoS2 testing - sound levels [Re: Injured_Again]
Phishin Offline


Registered: 05/01/12
Posts: 1451
Loc: Indiana
Very cool data. I applaud you for doing this.

Okay, so the engine is quieter. That is pretty obvious.

Any guesses on the "how or why" moly disulfide is making your engine quieter? For example, if the valve train is responsible for making a majority of the engine noise, because of moving metal parts coming in contact with eachother, or improper oil films being present at start-up, then how is moly plated onto these parts making the engine quieter at start-up and at normal operating temps?

I believe your data. I'm just curious that since we have data that clearly links the addition of MoS2 to decreased engine noise, is there any guesses as to how or why this is happening....
_________________________
2010 Accord-LX K24: PU 5w30
2009 Subaru Forester 2.5X: M1 5w40 TDT
1990 Chevy K1500 350TBI: Frankenbrew
2008 Ruckus 50ccGET: M1R Mix

Top
#3185430 - 11/12/13 04:58 AM Re: MoS2 testing - sound levels [Re: Injured_Again]
eljefino Offline


Registered: 06/15/03
Posts: 23785
Loc: ME
Cool!

Top
#3185444 - 11/12/13 06:11 AM Re: MoS2 testing - sound levels [Re: eljefino]
demarpaint Offline


Registered: 07/03/05
Posts: 20988
Loc: NY
Originally Posted By: eljefino
Cool!


And interesting.
_________________________
GOD Bless our Troops!


Top
#3185451 - 11/12/13 06:23 AM Re: MoS2 testing - sound levels [Re: Injured_Again]
racin4ds Offline


Registered: 05/07/10
Posts: 369
Loc: Winchester, VA
MoS2 simply works! I love the stuff and use it in everything I own with a ICE. Too bad I can't use it in my ATV or the kids dirt bikes tho...

I picked up a can the other day at NAPA and noticed the price has went up! $7.77 locally for a can! Still a deal for what it is!!
_________________________
2001 Ford F150 (217,000 miles!)
2013 Nissan Sentra S (Wifeys)
1994 Civic Hatch-Fully Built B18C-R! (track car)
1995 Civic Hatch-DD (173k miles)

Top
#3185471 - 11/12/13 06:57 AM Re: MoS2 testing - sound levels [Re: Injured_Again]
eagle23 Online   content


Registered: 01/11/08
Posts: 418
Loc: Roswell GA
The data I've seen in that for every 3dbA increase in SPL, the noise doubles. Some use a 5dbA doubling but 3dbA is, to my knowledge, the most accurate.

With those SPLs, the engines are about half as noisy as they were before MOS2. That would be noticeable, as shown by being able to have a conversation where it wasn't really possible before.

In both my vehicles, they seem quieter and smoother with MOS2 but I didn't go all technical with a sound level meter wink.

Thanks for taking the time to do this!

Top
#3185573 - 11/12/13 09:09 AM Re: MoS2 testing - sound levels [Re: Injured_Again]
Clevy Offline


Registered: 11/11/10
Posts: 7102
Loc: Saskatoon canada
Injured again,great idea and interesting method. Thanks for doing this. I know many here chirp(well maybe only a couple) about real world and scientific data and trying this with a sound level measuring instrument trying to maintain a consistent procedure is a great idea.
As far as why it lessens noise I think its because the mos2 plates the contacting metal parts insulating them from each other.

So this summer with mos2 in the sump I was getting up to 30mpg. Now I can't get it past 23 on the highway. I know winter gas costs a couple mpg but I've lost 7 since not adding any mos2 to this sump load of oil.
It's been a gradual decline. Didn't happen instantly. I'm about 5000 mikes into this interval with only cera tec in the oil.
I'm considering adding mos2 today just to see if it increases again.
Some people will never accept that an additive can help an engine in various ways and that's fine. I don't care what they believe nor do I care if they use it or not however of all the people I've turned in to mos2 not a single person has seen no benefit,whether it's mileage or ease of starting in -40 cold. Something improves.
Thanks for taking the time to do this injured again. Those of us who use it know it works,those who've chosen to bury their heads in the sand are missing out.
The 8 bucks a can it costs is recouped within the first tank or 2 of fuel.
I'll add some today and post here if I get any mpg back.
_________________________
2006 Charger RT
Miles x 2 per oil filter

Top
#3185645 - 11/12/13 10:34 AM Re: MoS2 testing - sound levels [Re: Injured_Again]
vo_marz Offline


Registered: 06/23/11
Posts: 118
Loc: UK
so... which mos2 product is it and what dose ?

Top
#3185749 - 11/12/13 12:58 PM Re: MoS2 testing - sound levels [Re: vo_marz]
HTSS_TR Offline


Registered: 04/17/06
Posts: 12901
Loc: Irvine, CA
Originally Posted By: vo_marz
so... which mos2 product is it and what dose ?

Liqui Moly 2009
http://www.amazon.com/Liqui-Moly-2009-An...Liqui+Moly+2009
_________________________
'94 LS400
'00 E430
'04 S2000
"Consumerism has accustomed us to waste. But throwing food away is like stealing it from the poor and hungry" Pop Francis

Top
#3185895 - 11/12/13 03:50 PM Re: MoS2 testing - sound levels [Re: Injured_Again]
KCJeep Offline


Registered: 06/30/11
Posts: 4505
Loc: Mahzurrah!
Wow good testing. I had noticed it with my ears but good to see something less biased.
_________________________
2004 Jeep Grand Cherokee 4.0 @ 121k Pennzoil HM 10w30
Napa Silver 31515
KIA Sedona 38k, Chevy Lumina 171k, Chrysler Sebring 171k, Ford Ranger 175k!

Top
#3186012 - 11/12/13 06:43 PM Re: MoS2 testing - sound levels [Re: Injured_Again]
Injured_Again Offline


Registered: 02/04/13
Posts: 66
Loc: Redmond, WA
To respond to some of the posts, it did seem like quite a bit of db reduction, and the A weighting is supposed to represent th sensitivity curve of human hearing. But then I thought of threads I've seen where someone puts sound insulation in their vehicle and achieves a 3-5 db reduction in noise. To my ear, this seems to not quite be that much, but it is possible there are mechanical harmonics that trigger the sound meter that are masked by other noise, or just inaudible due to some problem with my hearing. It may also be that this consumer grade sound level meter has a non-linear response.

But I did recruit both my son and my wife to do the cold starts and both notice a difference standing next to the open engine bay, but neither said they really could distinguish a difference from inside while driving or riiding.

The idle speed did not change in either vehicle.

I guess it is not that much of a stretch to corelate reduced noise with friction reduction in the absence of other factors that could reduce noise. It might be a further stretch to correlate reduced friction to measureable decreases in fuel consumption, but I don't have accurate fuel mileage records for the BMW and won't be driving the Corvette much until the spring, by which time it will be really close to needing new tires that would invalidate any comparison anyway.

I'll keep measuring the sound levels in another few hundred miles to see if there's further decrease.


Edited by Injured_Again (11/12/13 06:44 PM)
_________________________
1995 Mazda Miata

Top
#3186230 - 11/12/13 11:18 PM Re: MoS2 testing - sound levels [Re: Injured_Again]
Dominic Offline


Registered: 07/04/02
Posts: 1777
Loc: Alabama
Interesting, I noticed my Subaru got quieter and smoother on cold starts as well with the MoS2. This might confirm it. Very nice work!! I applaud your testing.
_________________________
2014 Mazda 6 GT - Mazda 0W-20 w/ Moly + OE Mazda Filter
2008 Nissan Versa SL - Valvoline 5W-30 Synpower + Purolator Filter

Top
#3186925 - 11/13/13 06:47 PM Re: MoS2 testing - sound levels [Re: Injured_Again]
wag123 Offline


Registered: 06/14/11
Posts: 547
Loc: Texas
Originally Posted By: Injured_Again
To respond to some of the posts, it did seem like quite a bit of db reduction, and the A weighting is supposed to represent th sensitivity curve of human hearing. But then I thought of threads I've seen where someone puts sound insulation in their vehicle and achieves a 3-5 db reduction in noise. To my ear, this seems to not quite be that much, but it is possible there are mechanical harmonics that trigger the sound meter that are masked by other noise, or just inaudible due to some problem with my hearing. It may also be that this consumer grade sound level meter has a non-linear response.

This is understandable given the fact that, subjectively, a 2-3 dB change in sound level is barely perceptible to most human ears.
Nice work and thank you once again for your efforts Injured_Again!


Edited by wag123 (11/13/13 06:47 PM)

Top
#3186996 - 11/13/13 07:51 PM Re: MoS2 testing - sound levels [Re: Injured_Again]
JAG Offline


Registered: 10/23/05
Posts: 4520
Loc: Fredericksburg, VA
I'm pleasantly surprised that significant sound reductions were measured. I always assumed that people who said this additive reduced noise were imagining it. Thank you for your testing and writing it up! It would be great if other people also do similar testing.

Top
#3187079 - 11/13/13 09:01 PM Re: MoS2 testing - sound levels [Re: Injured_Again]
demarpaint Offline


Registered: 07/03/05
Posts: 20988
Loc: NY
Good to know it isn't in the heads of the people making the claims of a quieter engine.
_________________________
GOD Bless our Troops!


Top
#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: 20988
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: 8017
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: 20988
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 Offline


Registered: 10/03/08
Posts: 3481
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: 614
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: 614
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
#3196855 - 11/24/13 05:30 PM Re: MoS2 testing - sound levels [Re: sammy]
dave5358 Offline


Registered: 04/25/13
Posts: 614
Loc: North Bend
Originally Posted By: sammy
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.


Actually, there is another thread touching on that very subject here.

I've never seen or read much about soluble Moly. Who makes it? Where do you buy it? What do the makers (or others) claims as benefits of one form over another? Any drawbacks?

At least one disadvantage that comes to my mind is that may drain out of bearings and journals, just like motor oil. Is that a real concern, or simply that I don't understand the process?
_________________________
2006 Forester XT
2008 Corolla LE

Top
#3196861 - 11/24/13 05:38 PM Re: MoS2 testing - sound levels [Re: KCJeep]
jrustles Offline


Registered: 02/24/13
Posts: 1905
Loc: Ontario, Canada
Originally Posted By: KCJeep
Wow good testing. I had noticed it with my ears but good to see something less biased.


Absolutely.

Great work Injured_Again. Thank you for posting.
_________________________
"No matter how paranoid or conspiracy-minded you are, what the government is actually doing is worse than you imagine" W.Blum

Top
#3196865 - 11/24/13 05:43 PM Re: MoS2 testing - sound levels [Re: dave5358]
sammy Offline


Registered: 07/13/06
Posts: 217
Loc: California
Originally Posted By: dave5358
Originally Posted By: sammy
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.


Actually, there is another thread touching on that very subject here.

I've never seen or read much about soluble Moly. Who makes it? Where do you buy it? What do the makers (or others) claims as benefits of one form over another? Any drawbacks?


I think there are clear draw backs from having Moly in suspension, oil filtration seams to come to mind. I believe the soluble Moly is what they use in every engine oil. I use Redline and even at 900ppm Moly there is noting in the bottom of the oil container when you pour it into your engine. And same thing it makes your engine quieter and run smoother. I ran Mos2 and thought it was great at first, but then I got a weird sound and drained it. I may have used too much, I was trying to quiet a lifter tick so i used the entire bottle. But anyhow redline makes the engine run perfect, so I found what works for me.

Top
#3205646 - 12/04/13 02:34 AM Re: MoS2 testing - sound levels [Re: Injured_Again]
alternety Offline


Registered: 01/15/09
Posts: 143
Loc: Pacific NW
It would not seem to me that a soluble form of MoS2 is possible. Other things with Mo in them; yes, but not MoS2. I do not believe it is soluble in anything useful.

MoS2 bonds to surfaces and evens out the minute surface imperfections not visible to the eye, but cause significant portions of friction. It works. It has been in industrial (and consumer) lubricant (including engines) for many years. Lower friction is why the engines get quieter. They also run cooler, and can get better gas mileage because friction losses are reduced. The amount of change depends on a bunch of factors. How you are measuring is a big factor. Then the size and internal condition/clearances will impact improvements. One of the main improvements is not readily measured standing in front of a car; longevity. Wear on internal surfaces will be significantly reduced.

It ain't magic; but it is a reasonable substitute.

There is however a better solution. Tungsten Disulphide is similar in lubrication mechanism, but has better specs in all interesting categories. MoS2 was cheaper way back when and it became the dominant product. Now WS2 is competitive and comes in superior forms.

See http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb...ant#Post2821786 for much more discussion.

Top
#3217411 - 12/15/13 01:23 PM Re: MoS2 testing - sound levels [Re: Injured_Again]
Nebroch Offline


Registered: 05/16/13
Posts: 129
Loc: Finland
I've done my own "MoS2" testing with 23 year old diesel. Results are rather nice as expected, valve tappet noise gone and overal noise level down. Not much fuel consumption difference though. Something has happened to cam surface:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/72044165/50km.jpg
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/72044165/350km.jpg
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/72044165/5500km.jpg

Product is from russian manufacturer, according to MSDS it has MoS2 and copper particles.

Top
#3224977 - 12/22/13 09:25 PM Re: MoS2 testing - sound levels [Re: Injured_Again]
TiredTrucker Offline


Registered: 01/04/08
Posts: 955
Loc: Kellogg, IA
This is why I like using Schaeffer oil in my vehicles. The seem to put MoS2 in just about every oil, lube, and grease they sell. I can't speak to other's experiences, but with biodiesel just about everywhere now, I got an up tic in fuel dilution from it. With the Schaeffer, the MoS2 does a great job in preventing some of the blow by and subsequent fuel dilution that it barely shows up now. I also noticed a major reduction in viscosity loss, which may be partially a result of the slight fuel dilution, but seemed also a product of some shearing. I am sold on moly in my oil.
_________________________
Hey there, VA, what do ya say? How many vets did you kill today?

Top
#3224988 - 12/22/13 09:40 PM Re: MoS2 testing - sound levels [Re: j14152]
Clevy Offline


Registered: 11/11/10
Posts: 7102
Loc: Saskatoon canada
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.

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.



Mos2 doesn't thicken the oil,which renders the rest of the post kinda moot.
Mos2 "plates" metal surfaces which I'm sure creates the sound dampening effect.
_________________________
2006 Charger RT
Miles x 2 per oil filter

Top
#3224990 - 12/22/13 09:42 PM Re: MoS2 testing - sound levels [Re: TiredTrucker]
Clevy Offline


Registered: 11/11/10
Posts: 7102
Loc: Saskatoon canada
Originally Posted By: sammy
Originally Posted By: dave5358
Originally Posted By: sammy
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.


Actually, there is another thread touching on that very subject here.

I've never seen or read much about soluble Moly. Who makes it? Where do you buy it? What do the makers (or others) claims as benefits of one form over another? Any drawbacks?


I think there are clear draw backs from having Moly in suspension, oil filtration seams to come to mind. I believe the soluble Moly is what they use in every engine oil. I use Redline and even at 900ppm Moly there is noting in the bottom of the oil container when you pour it into your engine. And same thing it makes your engine quieter and run smoother. I ran Mos2 and thought it was great at first, but then I got a weird sound and drained it. I may have used too much, I was trying to quiet a lifter tick so i used the entire bottle. But anyhow redline makes the engine run perfect, so I found what works for me.
Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker
This is why I like using Schaeffer oil in my vehicles. The seem to put MoS2 in just about every oil, lube, and grease they sell. I can't speak to other's experiences, but with biodiesel just about everywhere now, I got an up tic in fuel dilution from it. With the Schaeffer, the MoS2 does a great job in preventing some of the blow by and subsequent fuel dilution that it barely shows up now. I also noticed a major reduction in viscosity loss, which may be partially a result of the slight fuel dilution, but seemed also a product of some shearing. I am sold on moly in my oil.


Sheaffers uses mos2?
I'd have to actually see that since the only oil I've seen with mos2 actually in the oil is liqui-moly 10w-40.
Its likely organic moly and its different and works differently.
_________________________
2006 Charger RT
Miles x 2 per oil filter

Top
#3225058 - 12/22/13 11:50 PM Re: MoS2 testing - sound levels [Re: Clevy]
edhackett Offline


Registered: 06/09/03
Posts: 1527
Loc: Sequim, WA
Originally Posted By: Clevy

Mos2 "plates" metal surfaces which I'm sure creates the sound dampening effect.


The attenuation of sound by solids suspended in another media; water droplets in air(fog), solids in liquids, or solids in solids is a well known physical phenomenon. The solid particles absorb the sound and do not conduct it as they are not touching.

The sound reduction observed by the addition of MoS2 to motor oil can be explained by this. The sound reduction is not proof of improved lubrication.

Here's a commercial product that uses the concept:
http://www.cisco-eagle.com/catalog/c-8117-sound-dampening-acoustic-curtains.aspx

Ed
_________________________
Never attribute to engineers that into which politicians, lawyers, accountants, and marketeers have poked their fingers.

Top
#3225235 - 12/23/13 08:09 AM Re: MoS2 testing - sound levels [Re: Clevy]
dave5358 Offline


Registered: 04/25/13
Posts: 614
Loc: North Bend
Originally Posted By: Clevy
Sheaffers uses mos2? I'd have to actually see that since the only oil I've seen with mos2 actually in the oil is liqui-moly 10w-40.

I'm not sure if 'testing' is the same as 'seeing' but here are the test results from Petroleum Quality Institute. Shaeffers is loaded with moly - one of the highest levels in use, compared to other popular oils tested.

Originally Posted By: Clevy
It's likely organic moly and it's different and works differently.

Oil analysis doesn't reveal the type of molybdenum in use. Yes, organic moly is different. It's not clear what you mean by 'works differently'.
_________________________
2006 Forester XT
2008 Corolla LE

Top
#3225323 - 12/23/13 09:52 AM Re: MoS2 testing - sound levels [Re: Injured_Again]
Vikas Offline


Registered: 07/22/05
Posts: 8051
Loc: NorthEast
Can MoS2 be made in transparent color? Does anybody sells it that way?

Top
#3225408 - 12/23/13 11:45 AM Re: MoS2 testing - sound levels [Re: dave5358]
Clevy Offline


Registered: 11/11/10
Posts: 7102
Loc: Saskatoon canada
Originally Posted By: Vikas
Can MoS2 be made in transparent color? Does anybody sells it that way?


No. Its a mineral that's ground up into micron sized particles.

Originally Posted By: dave5358
Originally Posted By: Clevy
Sheaffers uses mos2? I'd have to actually see that since the only oil I've seen with mos2 actually in the oil is liqui-moly 10w-40.

I'm not sure if 'testing' is the same as 'seeing' but here are the test results from Petroleum Quality Institute. Shaeffers is loaded with moly - one of the highest levels in use, compared to other popular oils tested.

Originally Posted By: Clevy
It's likely organic moly and it's different and works differently.

Oil analysis doesn't reveal the type of molybdenum in use. Yes, organic moly is different. It's not clear what you mean by 'works differently'.


Organic moly and mos2 don't work the same way. Organic moly can only leave a layer 1 molecule thick which is quickly worn off at start up. Mos2 layers and once cooled becomes very hard so at start up the layer is more durable.
That's what I mean by different.
_________________________
2006 Charger RT
Miles x 2 per oil filter

Top
#3226087 - 12/24/13 01:08 AM Re: MoS2 testing - sound levels [Re: Injured_Again]
147_Grain Offline


Registered: 03/11/13
Posts: 1275
Loc: USA
Well said, Clevy!
_________________________
2013 Subaru Outback Limited H6 AWD
2013 Toyota Corolla LE
2012 Toyota Corolla LE
2005 Dodge Neon SXT

Top
#3226509 - 12/24/13 02:23 PM Re: MoS2 testing - sound levels [Re: Clevy]
TiredTrucker Offline


Registered: 01/04/08
Posts: 955
Loc: Kellogg, IA
Originally Posted By: Clevy

Sheaffers uses mos2?
I'd have to actually see that since the only oil I've seen with mos2 actually in the oil is liqui-moly 10w-40.
Its likely organic moly and its different and works differently.


According to the tech sheets readily available on their site, it is liquid soluble moly. And according to testing done by PQIA, the level of moly in Schaeffer's dwarfs anything else by a multiple of 5 times in most cases.
_________________________
Hey there, VA, what do ya say? How many vets did you kill today?

Top
#3227818 - 12/25/13 09:38 PM Re: MoS2 testing - sound levels [Re: TiredTrucker]
demarpaint Offline


Registered: 07/03/05
Posts: 20988
Loc: NY
Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker
Originally Posted By: Clevy

Sheaffers uses mos2?
I'd have to actually see that since the only oil I've seen with mos2 actually in the oil is liqui-moly 10w-40.
Its likely organic moly and its different and works differently.


According to the tech sheets readily available on their site, it is liquid soluble moly. And according to testing done by PQIA, the level of moly in Schaeffer's dwarfs anything else by a multiple of 5 times in most cases.


Good to know, they must load up their oil with moly for a good reason. I never used their oil, but I've only read and heard good things about it.
_________________________
GOD Bless our Troops!


Top
#3228083 - 12/26/13 08:28 AM Re: MoS2 testing - sound levels [Re: Clevy]
dave5358 Offline


Registered: 04/25/13
Posts: 614
Loc: North Bend
Originally Posted By: Clevy
Organic moly and mos2 don't work the same way. Organic moly can only leave a layer 1 molecule thick which is quickly worn off at start up. Mos2 layers and once cooled becomes very hard so at start up the layer is more durable.


That certainly makes an argument in favor of MoS2 over organic moly - more durable start-up lubrication.

Sadly, start-up lubrication may be a pretty low priority to the oil / automotive industry. Most engines easily last 100k+ miles with nothing extra done for start-up lubrication. Beyond that, the oil companies/car makers/etc. simply don't care.
_________________________
2006 Forester XT
2008 Corolla LE

Top
#3228436 - 12/26/13 03:52 PM Re: MoS2 testing - sound levels [Re: Injured_Again]
MrQuackers Offline


Registered: 08/17/12
Posts: 977
Loc: Oregon
LM2009 is $6.75 at my local Napa. Is there a cheaper source?
_________________________
The more you know, the less you don't know. YMMV!!!
coffee

Listen more, talk less


Top
#3228820 - 12/27/13 12:32 AM Re: MoS2 testing - sound levels [Re: Injured_Again]
147_Grain Offline


Registered: 03/11/13
Posts: 1275
Loc: USA
If you don't mind buying by the case, you can get the MoS2 for $5.70 per can (including delivery) from Amazon.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B...ler=&sr=8-1

Top
#3228972 - 12/27/13 08:09 AM Re: MoS2 testing - sound levels [Re: 147_Grain]
dave5358 Offline


Registered: 04/25/13
Posts: 614
Loc: North Bend
Originally Posted By: 147_Grain
If you don't mind buying by the case, you can get the MoS2 for $5.70 per can (including delivery) from Amazon.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B...ler=&sr=8-1


That's a good price at Amazon and the shipping is free. But you have to buy 20 cans - total $114.06. You will have enough MoS2 to weather the zombie apocalypse.

DubNutz has it for $5.75 per can. Shipping for 8 was $10.
_________________________
2006 Forester XT
2008 Corolla LE

Top
#3229150 - 12/27/13 01:09 PM Re: MoS2 testing - sound levels [Re: Injured_Again]
TurboJim Offline


Registered: 10/30/04
Posts: 829
Loc: Oregon
Discounts at some NAPA stores are available with you have AAA membership or are part of the NAPA Advantage program (which is free).

Top
#3229334 - 12/27/13 06:07 PM Re: MoS2 testing - sound levels [Re: Injured_Again]
HTSS_TR Offline


Registered: 04/17/06
Posts: 12901
Loc: Irvine, CA
MoS2 was $4.xx at Napa couple years ago, $6.xx isn't bad because it is more expensive on eBay.
_________________________
'94 LS400
'00 E430
'04 S2000
"Consumerism has accustomed us to waste. But throwing food away is like stealing it from the poor and hungry" Pop Francis

Top
#3229386 - 12/27/13 06:47 PM Re: MoS2 testing - sound levels [Re: Injured_Again]
MrQuackers Offline


Registered: 08/17/12
Posts: 977
Loc: Oregon
If I am using Mobil 1 products will there be any benefit by adding this supplement?
_________________________
The more you know, the less you don't know. YMMV!!!
coffee

Listen more, talk less


Top
#3229546 - 12/27/13 09:13 PM Re: MoS2 testing - sound levels [Re: MrQuackers]
dave5358 Offline


Registered: 04/25/13
Posts: 614
Loc: North Bend
Originally Posted By: MrQuackers
If I am using Mobil 1 products will there be any benefit by adding this supplement?

Mobil-1 already has about 85ppm of moly - probably soluble moly - in the mix, so someone at Mobil thought it was worthwhile: Mobil-1 Analysis.

A few messages above, in this same thread, Clevy opined...

Originally Posted By: Clevy
... <snip> Organic moly can only leave a layer 1 molecule thick which is quickly worn off at start up. Mos2 layers and once cooled becomes very hard so at start up the layer is more durable...

So, you should get better start-up lubrication with MoS2 in the soup.

Moly in any form reduces friction and heat. But, there already is some moly in Mobil-1, so adding more will not necessarily reduce friction more or reduce heat more. It might, but it might not.

If there's a chance of taking a bullet in your sump, then MoS2 might get you back home (or maybe back on the ground). MoS2 will probably do this better than soluble moly.
_________________________
2006 Forester XT
2008 Corolla LE

Top
#3229573 - 12/27/13 09:57 PM Re: MoS2 testing - sound levels [Re: Injured_Again]
Nebroch Offline


Registered: 05/16/13
Posts: 129
Loc: Finland
I'm running with Mobil 3000 X1 5W-40 in those pictures, propably it doesn't matter too much what oil you use.

There is one exception though:

http://www.liqui-moly.de/liquimoly/produktdb.nsf/id/en_1091.html?OpenDocument&land=DE

Top
#3229829 - 12/28/13 08:24 AM Re: MoS2 testing - sound levels [Re: Nebroch]
dave5358 Offline


Registered: 04/25/13
Posts: 614
Loc: North Bend
Originally Posted By: Nebroch
I'm running with Mobil 3000 X1 5W-40 in those pictures, propably it doesn't matter too much what oil you use. There is one exception though:

http://www.liqui-moly.de/liquimoly/produktdb.nsf/id/en_1091.html?OpenDocument&land=DE

It may not matter too much, since many popular motor oils contain soluble moly. The German LiquiMoly folks are seriously into MoS2. Perhaps the largest consumer use of MoS2 was also sponsored by a German company - Volkswagen. Maybe they know something. Or maybe German consumers pay better attention to engineers.

As for the other oil companies, there are many reasons why an oil company might use or not use a particular additive in a mass marketed oil. MoS2 is a suspended solid and the settling properties might be an issue. Personally, I think it is the color - it makes the oil turn black and the public simply does not like the appearance!

Also from this thread...

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.
_________________________
2006 Forester XT
2008 Corolla LE

Top
#3229935 - 12/28/13 10:53 AM Re: MoS2 testing - sound levels [Re: dave5358]
Nebroch Offline


Registered: 05/16/13
Posts: 129
Loc: Finland
Originally Posted By: dave5358

As for the other oil companies, there are many reasons why an oil company might use or not use a particular additive in a mass marketed oil. MoS2 is a suspended solid and the settling properties might be an issue. Personally, I think it is the color - it makes the oil turn black and the public simply does not like the appearance!


Settling is a problem, and user should know it. The additive that I used was asked to be shaken well before adding it to a warm engine. And after applying engine should run for a while to distribute stuff evenly. Obiviously some would not follow these instructions, and blame the manufacturer for possible damages..

Top
#3229962 - 12/28/13 11:17 AM Re: MoS2 testing - sound levels [Re: Nebroch]
dave5358 Offline


Registered: 04/25/13
Posts: 614
Loc: North Bend
Originally Posted By: Nebroch
Originally Posted By: dave5358

As for the other oil companies, there are many reasons why an oil company might use or not use a particular additive in a mass marketed oil. MoS2 is a suspended solid and the settling properties might be an issue. Personally, I think it is the color - it makes the oil turn black and the public simply does not like the appearance!


Settling is a problem, and user should know it. The additive that I used was asked to be shaken well before adding it to a warm engine. And after applying engine should run for a while to distribute stuff evenly. Obiviously some would not follow these instructions, and blame the manufacturer for possible damages.


I'm sure the Walmart shoppers would follow the instructions and shake well before using.
_________________________
2006 Forester XT
2008 Corolla LE

Top
#3230177 - 12/28/13 05:02 PM Re: MoS2 testing - sound levels [Re: dave5358]
Garak Offline


Registered: 12/05/09
Posts: 11182
Loc: Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
Originally Posted By: dave5358
It may not matter too much, since many popular motor oils contain soluble moly. The German LiquiMoly folks are seriously into MoS2.

Except that their oils don't have that additive. wink
_________________________
Plain, simple Garak.

2008 Infiniti G37 coupe - Mobil Delvac 1 ESP 5w-40, Hastings LF113
1984 F-150 4.9L six - Quaker State GB 10w-30, Wix 51515

Top
#3230202 - 12/28/13 06:15 PM Re: MoS2 testing - sound levels [Re: Garak]
dave5358 Offline


Registered: 04/25/13
Posts: 614
Loc: North Bend
Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: dave5358
...The German LiquiMoly folks are seriously into MoS2.

Except that their oils don't have that additive. wink

Don't have moly or don't have MoS2? Do you have some secret inside information on the LiquiMoly product line? Please share it with us.
_________________________
2006 Forester XT
2008 Corolla LE

Top
#3230280 - 12/28/13 08:05 PM Re: MoS2 testing - sound levels [Re: Injured_Again]
wrcsixeight Offline


Registered: 10/15/10
Posts: 1019
Loc: california
_________________________
LA 318 Roller Cam
M1 0w-30 AFE
M1-301 filter

Top
#3230301 - 12/28/13 08:27 PM Re: MoS2 testing - sound levels [Re: dave5358]
Garak Offline


Registered: 12/05/09
Posts: 11182
Loc: Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
Originally Posted By: dave5358
Don't have moly or don't have MoS2? Do you have some secret inside information on the LiquiMoly product line? Please share it with us.

No MoS2, and if I recall correctly, some even had no moly whatsoever. It's not inside information, at all. There are plenty of VOAs and UOAs posted here over the years. I came across that tidbit when researching oils for my old Audi.
_________________________
Plain, simple Garak.

2008 Infiniti G37 coupe - Mobil Delvac 1 ESP 5w-40, Hastings LF113
1984 F-150 4.9L six - Quaker State GB 10w-30, Wix 51515

Top
#3230302 - 12/28/13 08:28 PM Re: MoS2 testing - sound levels [Re: wrcsixeight]
Garak Offline


Registered: 12/05/09
Posts: 11182
Loc: Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
Originally Posted By: wrcsixeight
Secret inside info:

There, I got beaten to it. wink 1 ppm moly is essentially no moly, so it's clear that at least some of their oils have no moly at all.
_________________________
Plain, simple Garak.

2008 Infiniti G37 coupe - Mobil Delvac 1 ESP 5w-40, Hastings LF113
1984 F-150 4.9L six - Quaker State GB 10w-30, Wix 51515

Top
#3230305 - 12/28/13 08:35 PM Re: MoS2 testing - sound levels [Re: Injured_Again]
Clevy Offline


Registered: 11/11/10
Posts: 7102
Loc: Saskatoon canada
Liqui-moly has a 10w-40 grade that has mos2 as part of the additive package. I've seen and used the pruduct. The oil pours out just as black as the additive so I'm sure it's mos2.
The fact that the label also says mos2 is a dead give away as well.
As far as moly in their formulations I recall their hdeo's have little to no moly of any sort in them. The passenger car oils vary depending on the spec they meet.
_________________________
2006 Charger RT
Miles x 2 per oil filter

Top
#3230558 - 12/29/13 05:22 AM Re: MoS2 testing - sound levels [Re: Clevy]
Garak Offline


Registered: 12/05/09
Posts: 11182
Loc: Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
Originally Posted By: Clevy
Liqui-moly has a 10w-40 grade that has mos2 as part of the additive package.

There, that makes sense. Considering how many different oils they market and how many different specs they aim to meet, it wouldn't surprise me that additive levels and packages are all over the place.

I do recall that Bob Fout did a bunch of VOAs some time ago with various European grades. I knew I saw a VOA of one of their products once, but it was a while back. wink
_________________________
Plain, simple Garak.

2008 Infiniti G37 coupe - Mobil Delvac 1 ESP 5w-40, Hastings LF113
1984 F-150 4.9L six - Quaker State GB 10w-30, Wix 51515

Top
#3230697 - 12/29/13 09:22 AM Re: MoS2 testing - sound levels [Re: wrcsixeight]
dave5358 Offline


Registered: 04/25/13
Posts: 614
Loc: North Bend
Originally Posted By: wrcsixeight

And your point is?

Oil analysis does not disclose the form of molybdenum in use. Some companies reveal what they are using... others do not. For some of Liqui-Moly's products, they are quite clear as to the form of molybdenum in use. For example MoS2 Leichtlauf 10 W-40. For other products, you might contact the company, but they may consider the information proprietary.
_________________________
2006 Forester XT
2008 Corolla LE

Top
#3230701 - 12/29/13 09:25 AM Re: MoS2 testing - sound levels [Re: Garak]
dave5358 Offline


Registered: 04/25/13
Posts: 614
Loc: North Bend
Originally Posted By: Garak

There, I got beaten to it. wink 1 ppm moly is essentially no moly, so it's clear that at least some of their oils have no moly at all.


You might wish to clean your spectacles and re-read the oil analysis report. The molybdenum level was 221ppm, compared to a universal average of 57ppm.


Edited by dave5358 (12/29/13 09:28 AM)
_________________________
2006 Forester XT
2008 Corolla LE

Top
#3231068 - 12/29/13 04:17 PM Re: MoS2 testing - sound levels [Re: dave5358]
Garak Offline


Registered: 12/05/09
Posts: 11182
Loc: Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
Originally Posted By: dave5358
You might wish to clean your spectacles and re-read the oil analysis report. The molybdenum level was 221ppm, compared to a universal average of 57ppm.

You might wish to read the column titles again, discern the difference between how Blackstone prints off a VOA versus a UOA, and read the entire thread. On the molybdenum row, in the left column, there is a 1. The next column is Unit/Location Averages, which are based (if I recall correctly) on the data from all of Bob Fout's VOAs that he submitted.

There is no moly in this oil. If you wish to believe there is, go ahead. The odds of me using this oil are between 0 and 1 chances in a million, so I don't care if it's got moly or if it's actually an SE rated monograde.

You're free to call Blackstone if you need advice on how to read their reports. Or, you send in a sample yourself to another lab if you don't see the results you like.
_________________________
Plain, simple Garak.

2008 Infiniti G37 coupe - Mobil Delvac 1 ESP 5w-40, Hastings LF113
1984 F-150 4.9L six - Quaker State GB 10w-30, Wix 51515

Top
#3231758 - 12/30/13 10:38 AM Re: MoS2 testing - sound levels [Re: Injured_Again]
Nebroch Offline


Registered: 05/16/13
Posts: 129
Loc: Finland
Tested oil was "Synthoil Energy SAE 0W-40". What it has to do with LiquiMoly's 10W-40 MoS2?

Top
#3232230 - 12/30/13 07:19 PM Re: MoS2 testing - sound levels [Re: Nebroch]
Garak Offline


Registered: 12/05/09
Posts: 11182
Loc: Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
The point was not all their oils had moly.
_________________________
Plain, simple Garak.

2008 Infiniti G37 coupe - Mobil Delvac 1 ESP 5w-40, Hastings LF113
1984 F-150 4.9L six - Quaker State GB 10w-30, Wix 51515

Top
#3232492 - 12/31/13 05:02 AM Re: MoS2 testing - sound levels [Re: Injured_Again]
Nebroch Offline


Registered: 05/16/13
Posts: 129
Loc: Finland
Someone had done UOA LubroMoly branded Mos2 oil:

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/2023463/Re:_Lubro_Moly_10w40_MOS2_5453#Post2023463

Looks very nice actually. Moly content could be high, if there is 500 pm left of it after 8700 km? (it has had plenty of time to attach friction surfaces and settle around)


Edited by Nebroch (12/31/13 05:13 AM)

Top
Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 >