Recent Topics
Would there be any negative effects?
by 268i
11/23/14 01:22 AM
How to kill a Leprechaun
by 285south
11/22/14 11:46 PM
This just made me laugh
by Shannow
11/22/14 11:19 PM
88-02 or so Chevrolet/GMC 1500
by mjoekingz28
11/22/14 11:15 PM
Cincinnati Style Chili with Yak
by JHZR2
11/22/14 11:12 PM
Fine tooth ratchet 3/8"
by mjoekingz28
11/22/14 11:10 PM
Just watched an old movie named _____
by 285south
11/22/14 11:08 PM
Hot OSB?
by mrsilv04
11/22/14 11:07 PM
Congrats to aquariuscsm
by 285south
11/22/14 10:57 PM
DIY - Odometer Gear Replacement
by JHZR2
11/22/14 10:47 PM
Lubrizol paper on oil trends in Europe
by Shannow
11/22/14 10:08 PM
Rotella Ultra ELC??
by WillB
11/22/14 09:25 PM
Newest Members
dg370, Shuskey4, Student_Mike_77, Stanimal, Sharon
51979 Registered Users
Who's Online
41 registered (01rangerxl, 268i, aa1986, 13Tacoma, 147_Grain, 7 invisible), 702 Guests and 167 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Stats
51979 Members
66 Forums
222504 Topics
3521536 Posts

Max Online: 2862 @ 07/07/14 03:10 PM
Donate to BITOG
Page 2 of 8 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 >
Topic Options
#3373954 - 05/17/14 09:40 AM Re: liqui moly mos2 additive? [Re: Sam2000]
dave5358 Offline


Registered: 04/25/13
Posts: 669
Loc: North Bend
Originally Posted By: Sam2000
Originally Posted By: dave5358
But there are no independent studies of most proprietary products, such as Techron. That doesn't mean the products don't work or even work as claimed. It does mean that manufacturers tend to keep the research results and product details confidential.


This is a misrepresentation. The SAE requires technical papers to be peer reviewed by experts. So the available technical paper including research and testing results on Techron can be relied on. But even more importantly, Techron has multiple VEHICLE manufacturer approval. This is clearly independent of the oil company and means Mercedes, BMW etc would have to stand behind any damage caused by the usage of an approved additive for unlimited mileage in the case of Mercedes CPO vehicles and 10 years for Hyundai vehicles.

The SAE paper to which you are referring was written by Chevron employees. I'm sure it's good research and an interesting read, but the conclusions should not surprise anyone - they liked Techron (and they're still working at Chevron). It also costs $24 from SAE. You can spend your money if you want to hear what Chevron thinks about its own product.

Approved by vehicle manufacturers? Molykote (Dow Corning's trade name for MoS2 in oil suspension) complies with General Motors (Opel) spec B0401264, Volkswagen specification TL52112 and B7217, General Electric's specification TIL-1117-3Ri and Pratt & Whitney's specificition PWA-36246. And, one of the first spectacular uses of MoS2 in motor oil suspension was by Rolls-Royce in their Merlin engine. Granted, the Rolls Royce supercharged V-12 water cooled Merlin was only used in airplanes but the engine application seems appropriate. Pratt & Whitney is still using it.

Still in doubt? Here's a picture of the VW distributed MoS2 tubes. Look carefully at the image - second line from the bottom - and it says Volskwagen of America. :

Note that this product was intended by VW for use in motor oil - any motor oil - that you happened to be using in your Beetle. Vehicles with air-cooled engines suffered from serious heat issues and the motor oil took a real beating. And, speaking from personal experience, it was not unusual to find a VW dealer stocking this same product in yellow tubes with only the Dow-Corning name and logo.

Sam: The whole problem with your position is one of shifting standards:

On the one hand, you like Techron, so the standard you choose in support of Techron is that technical research done by Chevron employees is sufficient. But you are unwilling to apply this same standard to other additives which you do not favor. It is most unlikely that you will find independent technical research on the product Techron, simply because it is a proprietary product. Companies tend to keep the details of their research secret. Favorable summaries are public - details are secret.

The independent research that supports Techron is research actually done on PEA - the principal ingredient in Techron. But using that logic, there is a ton of independent research on molybdenum disulfide, going back for decades. MoS2 has been in widespread use for close to 100 years - with spectacular engine oil applications by Rolls Royce in the late 1930s and beyond. You seem to accept independent research supporting the utility of PEA, but for reasons of convenience, you are unwilling to accept independent research supporting the use of MoS2 (the chemical).

Still doubting? Go to SAE's research website and search for molybdenum. Plan on wading through 1,398 research papers. Why would you expect less? Molybdenum disulfide (and molybdenum in other forms) is the most common industrial lubricant in use today, and for a good reason. It is slippery. It resists pressure. It resists heat. And it does all of those things better than either mineral or synthetic motor oil.

Still at SAE's website, do a search for Techron. You will get 4 results - 2 of which deal with audio equipment and 1 deals with sunroofs. The only paper remotely relevant deals with diesel injectors. But if you search for polyether amine (PEA), the principal ingredient in Techron, you'll find much more research.

I appreciate that you like Techron. Actually, I like it too. It's a good product and does what it claims to do. But I am not so in love with Techron that it blinds me and overwhelms my thought processes so that I cannot conceive of another additive product which performs as claimed. If you want to carry on an intelligent discussion of additives such as MoS2 (or Techron), I suggest you do so on a level playing field:

1) If anecdotes and employee-run internal test results are adequate for one additive, they should be adequate for other additives.

2) If you decide to judge additives based on independent tests of their principal ingredients (and such tests results are frequently available), then independent tests of the principal ingredients in another additive should be equally acceptable.

3) Finally, you need to accept that companies simply don't reveal proprietary details about their products nor do they reveal details of internal testing... period. There are lots of reasons for this: legal, business competition, even marketing reasons. But it's simply a fact of life. That includes Techron and Molykote and Liqui-Moly MoS2 Anti Friction. Summaries are revealed but not the actual tests.

It would also be most unusual to have an independent study of a proprietary product (unless maybe it was paid for by the company). So, what is left? Anecdotes and endorsements. From a business marketing standpoint, this makes perfect sense - much easier to sell the image or the myth or the endorsement than to sell the hard technical details of the product.
_________________________
2006 Forester XT
2008 Corolla LE

Top
#3373971 - 05/17/14 10:10 AM Re: liqui moly mos2 additive? [Re: dave5358]
simple_simon Offline


Registered: 01/26/11
Posts: 106
Loc: Indianapolis, IN
Originally Posted By: dave5358
Originally Posted By: Sam2000
Originally Posted By: dave5358
But there are no independent studies of most proprietary products, such as Techron. That doesn't mean the products don't work or even work as claimed. It does mean that manufacturers tend to keep the research results and product details confidential.


This is a misrepresentation. The SAE requires technical papers to be peer reviewed by experts. So the available technical paper including research and testing results on Techron can be relied on. But even more importantly, Techron has multiple VEHICLE manufacturer approval. This is clearly independent of the oil company and means Mercedes, BMW etc would have to stand behind any damage caused by the usage of an approved additive for unlimited mileage in the case of Mercedes CPO vehicles and 10 years for Hyundai vehicles.

The SAE paper to which you are referring was written by Chevron employees. I'm sure it's good research and an interesting read, but the conclusions should not surprise anyone - they liked Techron (and they're still working at Chevron). It also costs $24 from SAE. You can spend your money if you want to hear what Chevron thinks about its own product.



You clearly missed the part about that paper being peer-reviewed before being accepted by SAE.

Top
#3373977 - 05/17/14 10:21 AM Re: liqui moly mos2 additive? [Re: FetchFar]
dave5358 Offline


Registered: 04/25/13
Posts: 669
Loc: North Bend
Originally Posted By: FetchFar
Since we are only talking about putting extra moly in engines, I was wondering if there are any actual field studies, one small fleet getting Mobil1 5w-30, compared to another small fleet with the same oil plus a can of LubroMoly MOS2. Any benefits, specifically in wear?

And what would LubroMoly have to be afraid of? The results probably. Yes I know moly is used to coat upper piston rings in many engines, and that moly in general is good stuff. For example, I do use Mazda Genuine Motor Oil (MGMO) because it does have 600 ppm dinuclear (aka dimer) moly, and I'm assuming they are doing something special, as they claim on the bottle that the extra moly helps when running cold. Its just my assumption that more moly is "good". No proof. Fleet study might help here. The companies can run and hide I guess....

Fetch: I've been following MoS2 additives since the 1970's and I don't know of a study that goes to your question. I just posted a rather lengthy response to Sam2000 regarding MoS2. If you follow the link in my reply to the SAE research paper website, you might find something of interest (but it will take a lot of looking because there's a lot of research on MoS2). If you are looking for research on a specific brand of MoS2, that may not be available, for reasons I explained in my reply.

Other than the automotive applications mentioned in the Sam2000 reply, there was an extensive study of Dow-Corning's Molykote done by Eazor Express - and OTR truck line - using Molykote in their hydraulic systems. The reseult of the test was that Eazor could extend the hydraulic OCI by 5% (or something of that magnitude) without adversely affecting parts life or system longevity. A 5% increase in hydraulic OCI may not sound like much, but this was a BIG DEAL to a fleet operator like Eazor. I have searched several times for a copy of this study but can't find it. I'm sure it's available somewhere, but we may have to wait until the 'net' expands.

If you go to this link you can see which motor oil makers like and include moly in their additive packages and which ones do not. The Schaeffer folks clearly like it. Liqui-Moly makes several motor with MoS2. Other oil companies can't seem to make up their minds. This is true of other additives as well.

I honestly don't think Liqui-Moly is afraid of any test results. MoS2 (regardless of who packages the stuff) works as claimed. I'm sure Liqui-Moly has tested their product extensively but companies tend to keep the details of their research confidential.

A final thought: from a company perspective, there are three 'negatives' regarding the use or inclusion of MoS2 in motor oil. First, it may settle out. And, I'm not sure you can depend on Walmart customers to 'shake well before using'.

Second, it turns your oil black (or dark gray). Don't laugh. There's an amusing story in another thread in which a poster recalled his father's objections to ARCO Graphite Motor Oil: 'This motor oil turns black!'.

Finally, remember that one on the first and most spectacular uses of MoS2 was to provide limp-home (or limp-down) protection for fighter planes that had lost their oil. MoS2 will really do this, and Liqui-Moly actually mentions this property. But, if you were an oil company, do you really want to be around when some poor slob destroys his engine from lack of oil? Probably not, regardless of how good your product may be.
_________________________
2006 Forester XT
2008 Corolla LE

Top
#3373982 - 05/17/14 10:27 AM Re: liqui moly mos2 additive? [Re: simple_simon]
dave5358 Offline


Registered: 04/25/13
Posts: 669
Loc: North Bend
Originally Posted By: simple_simon
Originally Posted By: dave5358
Originally Posted By: Sam2000
Originally Posted By: dave5358
But there are no independent studies of most proprietary products, such as Techron. That doesn't mean the products don't work or even work as claimed. It does mean that manufacturers tend to keep the research results and product details confidential.


This is a misrepresentation. The SAE requires technical papers to be peer reviewed by experts. So the available technical paper including research and testing results on Techron can be relied on. But even more importantly, Techron has multiple VEHICLE manufacturer approval. This is clearly independent of the oil company and means Mercedes, BMW etc would have to stand behind any damage caused by the usage of an approved additive for unlimited mileage in the case of Mercedes CPO vehicles and 10 years for Hyundai vehicles.

The SAE paper to which you are referring was written by Chevron employees. I'm sure it's good research and an interesting read, but the conclusions should not surprise anyone - they liked Techron (and they're still working at Chevron). It also costs $24 from SAE. You can spend your money if you want to hear what Chevron thinks about its own product.



You clearly missed the part about that paper being peer-reviewed before being accepted by SAE.


Simp: I think it was you who missed the point. Aside form the fact that this paper was done by Chevron employees, it was a study of PAE, not Techron.

So, are we all willing to accept the results of test studies of the principal ingredient in an additive?
_________________________
2006 Forester XT
2008 Corolla LE

Top
#3374014 - 05/17/14 11:24 AM Re: liqui moly mos2 additive? [Re: 2012AccentSE]
Sam2000 Offline


Registered: 03/25/14
Posts: 400
Loc: Nevada
Thank you Dave for finally providing the manufacturer approval information and some indication of the limited use cases for when to use MoS2 based additives.

Had you not been so emotional about this, you would have provided this far earlier rather than insulting members along the way.

The approved use of the MoS2 additive is clearly limited and not applicable or necessary for 99.99% of vehicle owners. No Liqui Moly oil that contains their MoS2 based additive is approved by any manufacturer.

Note, this is not doubting that it does something. All additives do something. The point is whether this something makes a positive difference or not.

Given that MoS2 is a proven and relatively easily available dry lubricant, if it were able to consistently improve fuel economy, you would think that given the CAFE incentives, vehicle manufacturers would have developed standards incorporating its use to get the official mpg up and claim the credits.

Lastly, I leave you with this quote:

Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Quote:
Do we know if MoS2 additive works in modern oil?


We don't.

Modern oils usually have a soluble moly of molybdenum Dithiocarbamate that works fine as a friction reducer.


Top
#3374035 - 05/17/14 12:24 PM Re: liqui moly mos2 additive? [Re: Sam2000]
dave5358 Offline


Registered: 04/25/13
Posts: 669
Loc: North Bend
Originally Posted By: Sam2000
Thank you Dave for finally providing the manufacturer approval information and some indication of the limited use cases for when to use MoS2 based additives.

Had you not been so emotional about this, you would have provided this far earlier rather than insulting members along the way.

The approved use of the MoS2 additive is clearly limited and not applicable or necessary for 99.99% of vehicle owners.

Thank you Sam. Where do you get this stuff? 99.99%?? Volkswagens only constitute 1/1000th of all the vehicles in use? At least on planet earth, there are slightly more VW's in use, the last time I checked.

Originally Posted By: Sam2000
No Liqui Moly oil that contains their MoS2 based additive is approved by any manufacturer.

So much hot air. You do not know the composition of Liqui-Moly's oil products. As I noted above, companies tend to keep that kind of information confidential.

Originally Posted By: Sam2000
Note, this is not doubting that it does something. All additives do something. The point is whether this something makes a positive difference or not.

Ask Volkswagen. Or GM. Or Pratt & Whitney.

Originally Posted By: Sam2000
Given that MoS2 is a proven and relatively easily available dry lubricant, if it were able to consistently improve fuel economy, you would think that given the CAFE incentives, vehicle manufacturers would have developed standards incorporating its use to get the official mpg up and claim the credits.

'Trust the big oil companies - they will take care of you'. You are welcome to do so.

Originally Posted By: Sam2000
Lastly, I leave you with this quote:

Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Quote:
Do we know if MoS2 additive works in modern oil?

We don't.

Modern oils usually have a soluble moly of molybdenum Dithiocarbamate that works fine as a friction reducer.


Okay, so he doesn't know. What exactly is that supposed to prove?

Here are two more quotes of interest:

Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Originally Posted By: dave5358
<snip>Will oil analysis reveal the form of the additive in use? For example MoS2 versus soluble moly?

Oil analysis will not reveal the exact type of moly used.


And regarding Liqui-Moly products:

Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Quote:
Does Lubro Moly's [Liqui Moly's] version fully activate at about the same oil temperature range as the Infineum product?

Since we don't know the form of moly they are using no one can make an educated comment.

I'm not questioning Molakule's words but simply noting that many of his answers are "we don't know". At least he's honest on this. As I have suggested, companies keep their cards close to the vest.

BTW. if Molakule doesn't know, and he's in the business, where do you get your detailed information? 99.99%??

---

1) If anecdotes and employee-run internal test results are adequate for one additive, they should be adequate for other additives.

2) If you decide to judge additives based on independent tests of their principal ingredients (and such tests results are frequently available), then independent tests of the principal ingredients in another additive should be equally acceptable.

3) Finally, you need to accept that companies simply don't reveal proprietary details about their products nor do they reveal details of internal testing... period. There are lots of reasons for this: legal, business competition, marketing reasons. But it's simply a fact of life. That includes Techron and Molykote and Liqui-Moly MoS2 Anti Friction. Summaries are revealed but not the actual tests.
_________________________
2006 Forester XT
2008 Corolla LE

Top
#3374066 - 05/17/14 01:08 PM Re: liqui moly mos2 additive? [Re: Sam2000]
Trajan Offline


Registered: 07/16/05
Posts: 3381
Loc: SE PA
Originally Posted By: Sam2000

Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Quote:
Do we know if MoS2 additive works in modern oil?


We don't.

Modern oils usually have a soluble moly of molybdenum Dithiocarbamate that works fine as a friction reducer.




Good enough for me.



Edited by Trajan (05/17/14 01:09 PM)
_________________________

Lack of harm does not mean proof of benefit.

Top
#3374084 - 05/17/14 01:47 PM Re: liqui moly mos2 additive? [Re: dave5358]
simple_simon Offline


Registered: 01/26/11
Posts: 106
Loc: Indianapolis, IN
Originally Posted By: dave5358

Simp: I think it was you who missed the point. Aside form the fact that this paper was done by Chevron employees, it was a study of PAE, not Techron.

So, are we all willing to accept the results of test studies of the principal ingredient in an additive?


DB, it's simple logic unless you're claiming that Chevron might be putting something into Techron that negates the effectiveness of PAE. That sure sounds likely. LOL

Top
#3374087 - 05/17/14 01:55 PM Re: liqui moly mos2 additive? [Re: simple_simon]
dave5358 Offline


Registered: 04/25/13
Posts: 669
Loc: North Bend
Originally Posted By: simple_simon
Originally Posted By: dave5358

Simp: I think it was you who missed the point. Aside form the fact that this paper was done by Chevron employees, it was a study of PAE, not Techron.

So, are we all willing to accept the results of test studies of the principal ingredient in an additive?


DB, it's simple logic unless you're claiming that Chevron might be putting something into Techron that negates the effectiveness of PAE. That sure sounds likely. LOL


So, we're all willing to accept the results of test studies of the principal ingredient in an additive?
_________________________
2006 Forester XT
2008 Corolla LE

Top
#3374093 - 05/17/14 02:03 PM Re: liqui moly mos2 additive? [Re: 2012AccentSE]
Sam2000 Offline


Registered: 03/25/14
Posts: 400
Loc: Nevada
Dave, can you provide details about VW's approval beyond the original air cooled Beetle? Or Rolls Royce use beyond the 1930's? And exactly which motor vehicles use Pratt and Whitney engines?

I'll change my 99.99% comment as soon as you can explain how many vehicles these manufacturer approvals cover and in which circumstances they are to be used. Liqui Moly themselves make no mention of any approvals for their MoS2 additive.

While you are off doing research, also check Liqui Moly's website and their oils. They state that two oils, 10w40 and 20w50 contain the MoS2 additive. These oils have no direct manufacturer approval.

I think it is reasonable to presume their other oils, which do have manufacturer approvals, don't contain the same additive. If this additive had properties that made it useful for the majority of users, then it would be in their mainstream oils, proudly proclaimed, with the benefits stated as fact.

Top
#3374095 - 05/17/14 02:07 PM Re: liqui moly mos2 additive? [Re: dave5358]
Sam2000 Offline


Registered: 03/25/14
Posts: 400
Loc: Nevada
Originally Posted By: dave5358
Originally Posted By: simple_simon
Originally Posted By: dave5358

Simp: I think it was you who missed the point. Aside form the fact that this paper was done by Chevron employees, it was a study of PAE, not Techron.

So, are we all willing to accept the results of test studies of the principal ingredient in an additive?


DB, it's simple logic unless you're claiming that Chevron might be putting something into Techron that negates the effectiveness of PAE. That sure sounds likely. LOL


So, we're all willing to accept the results of test studies of the principal ingredient in an additive?


Spreading misinformation again. You haven't read the study yet claim they tested PEA not Techron. If you'd bothered to even read the (free) abstract, you'd realize you were wrong.

Also, are you advocating the usage of MoS2 in its basic form? I hope not.

Top
#3374107 - 05/17/14 02:24 PM Re: liqui moly mos2 additive? [Re: Sam2000]
dave5358 Offline


Registered: 04/25/13
Posts: 669
Loc: North Bend
Originally Posted By: Sam2000
And exactly which motor vehicles use Pratt and Whitney engines?

I apologize. They make airplane engines, but I thought most readers would know that. The Merlin is an airplane engines as well.

Originally Posted By: Sam2000
While you are off doing research...

Sam, you should do your own research, since you only accept research results which agree with your preconceived ideas.

Originally Posted By: Sam2000
... If this additive had properties that made it useful for the majority of users, then it would be in their mainstream oils, proudly proclaimed, with the benefits stated as fact.

Molakule indicates that it can't be determined by testing. I'll accept that, even if you know better.

'Trust big oil companies - they will take care of you'. You are welcome to do that.

---

1) If anecdotes and employee-run internal test results are adequate for one additive, they should be adequate for other additives.

2) If you decide to judge additives based on independent tests of their principal ingredients (and such tests results are frequently available), then independent tests of the principal ingredients in another additive should be equally acceptable.

3) Finally, you need to accept that companies simply don't reveal proprietary details about their products nor do they reveal details of internal testing... period. There are lots of reasons for this: legal, business competition, marketing reasons. But it's simply a fact of life. That includes Techron and Molykote and Liqui-Moly MoS2 Anti Friction. Summaries are revealed but not the actual tests.
_________________________
2006 Forester XT
2008 Corolla LE

Top
#3374128 - 05/17/14 02:59 PM Re: liqui moly mos2 additive? [Re: Sam2000]
dave5358 Offline


Registered: 04/25/13
Posts: 669
Loc: North Bend
Originally Posted By: Sam2000
Spreading misinformation again. You haven't read the study yet claim they tested PEA not Techron. If you'd bothered to even read the (free) abstract, you'd realize you were wrong.

Sam: You are being untruthful. Here's the complete abstract, word for word:

---

"Combustion chamber deposits accumulate in a new gasoline engine and can result in an octane requirement increase (ORI) of as much as 8 to 10 octane numbers. In some cases, a higher octane fuel is required to prevent engine knock (detonation).

A unique new additive concentrate has been developed which reduces combustion chamber deposits and lowers the engine's octane requirement. This new additive is an ashless dispersant based on polyether amine chemistry. Laboratory and fleet test results show that after using one tankful of gasoline treated with additive, the engine's octane requirement is typically reduced by 30% to 40% of the original engine ORI. This benefit lasts for several thousand kilometers until the deposits reestablish themselves in the combustion chamber.

In addition to the octane requirement decrease (ORD) effect, other benefits from the use of this additive include engine run-on reduction and intake system deposit cleanup."

---

I see a reference to PEA (polyether amine), but none to Techron. This is a study of PEA.

Originally Posted By: Sam2000
Also, are you advocating the usage of MoS2 in its basic form? I hope not.

I'm not advocating anything.

Since you mentioned it, MoS2 is simply a chemical. It's mined in the US as well a many other countries - Climax Molybdenum is the largest US producer. You can buy MoS2 on eBay in various grades or particle sizes - the finest grade I've seen was ~1-2 micron size particles.

In the US, Dow Corning is the principal re-packager of this product under the name Molykote. Liqui-Moly appears to be the largest German supplier. Liqui-Moly's varios MoS2 products are popular in the US at least in part because Dow-Corning stopped selling engine oil additive in the US. They still sell Molykote oil additive in other parts of the world, like Brazil - celebrating 60 years of sales!



Both companies are simply selling ultra-fine power (.2-.3 micron size) in a mineral oil suspension. Since a typical oil filter has little effect on particles less than ~10 microns, particle sizes below that size should work. So, yes, you could use the fine powder with a couple of caveats: First, it's messy stuff - truly MESSY. Second, the larger the particle size, the more likely it is to settle out of suspension. By the time you get to sub-micron size particles, it stays in suspension.

Usage in basic form? Is there some other form?

----

Sam: You're entitled to your own beliefs, however removed from reality they may be. But, when, as above, you deliberately misrepresent a fact - an abstract which you were trumpeting - it doesn't encourage the continuation of debate.

If this were an isolated instance, I would probably overlook it, but it seems to be part and parcel of your style:

Originally Posted By: Sam2000
MoS2 is a dry lubricant and no oil manufacturer or vehicle manufacturer approves the addition of it to oil...

Except VW and GM and...

Originally Posted By: Sam2000
You need to cease this false equivalence about PEA and MoS2 as well as this made up idea that PEA has been tested and not Techron.

Nope, it was PEA.

It's clear I'm not going to change your mind. Not remotely possible. But I'm concerned that some other person who reads this BITOG thread might take you seriously. You might consider that as you spread misinformation.
_________________________
2006 Forester XT
2008 Corolla LE

Top
#3374129 - 05/17/14 03:03 PM Re: liqui moly mos2 additive? [Re: 2012AccentSE]
Sam2000 Offline


Registered: 03/25/14
Posts: 400
Loc: Nevada
You are full of contradictions Dave.

I am asking you for VEHICLE manufacturer approvals for the MoS2 dry lubricant or additive that you recommend others use. But you keep on saying that I am trusting the oil companies. And you have not provided anything beyond VW approval for air cooled VW Beetles and 1930s Rolls Royce usage.

But you want others to use MoS2, in whatever form, for engines in whatever condition, because an oil company, Liqui Moly, have tested their own additive, an additive which puts raw MoS2 through a special process.

You also claim that the MoS2 dry lubricant is the same as an additive. But Liqui Moly point out that they put MoS2 through a special process to make it compatible with oil.

And for some reason you bring up Techron and claim that the Chevron study can not be trusted despite it being peer reviewed and published by the SAE.

And then you ignore that it is multiple manufacturer approved for usage every 3000 miles in engines of any type of any age.

And that unlike Liqui Moly, you can find evidence of the approval and usage intervals in various manufacturer publications.

Its interesting to watch the progression of your logic, slowly twisting and contorting. Please continue.

Top
#3374133 - 05/17/14 03:10 PM Re: liqui moly mos2 additive? [Re: 2012AccentSE]
Sam2000 Offline


Registered: 03/25/14
Posts: 400
Loc: Nevada
Dave, good to see you've finally read the paper.

They say they tested an additive.

From Wikipedia:

"Techron is a patented fuel additive developed by the Chevron Corporation, usually consisting of gasoline mixed with 400ppm of polyetheramine"

If you continued reading the entire paper, you would have seen where they tested different concentrations of the additive, establishing a concentrated level suitable for one tank clean up and the corresponding interval.

And levels of additive required to keep clean have also been established by Chevron and others most notably all top tier retailers who are approved by all major manufacturers.

Do you really want to continue claiming there is a difference between testing of PEA and Techron and that those who believe the study are wrongly trusting big oil companies?

Top
Page 2 of 8 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 >