liqui moly mos2 additive?

Status
Not open for further replies.
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
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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!

molykote-fc-maxima-proteco-cmbio-e-diferencial-13981-MLB4563069792_062013-F.jpg

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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
Originally Posted By: Sam2000
... that you recommend others use.

I never recommend things. But you knew that, didn't you.

Making deliberate misstatements does not encourage debate.

You should continue this discussion with Simple_simon or Trajan. They seem to share the same echo chamber.
 
Ok this is Hillarious.

In Dave's attempt to say MoS2 is approved as an engine oil additive by manufacturers, he said this:

Originally Posted By: dave5358
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.


ALL those manufacturer approvals are for Molykote P74 Super Anti Seize.

This is not an OIL ADDITIVE!!!!!!

I hope you're not using Molykote anti seize in your oil Dave because you found out it has GM and VW approval.

Talk about misstatements! You actually had to gall to claim Molykote is manufacturer approved as an oil additive based on manufacturer approval for Molykote anti seize.
 
Trajan, would you agree that oil additive fanatics seem to lose touch with reality?

Here we have a case of someone so enamoured with MoS2 that he tries to tell us that Anti Seize containing MoS2 is approved by VW and GM as an oil additive.

And that it is ok to use the MoS2 powder or powder in mineral oil because Liqui Moly did testing on their additive that contains MoS2 even though Liqui Moly themselves state they have a special process to ensure it doesn't drop out of suspension.

Apart from the false statements on approvals, he's also saying that usage of MoS2 in the 1930s on aircraft engines is the same use case as for modern engines and that the use in the old air cooled VW Beetles is another reason we should supplement modern oils with this secret magic powder that time forgot.
 
Originally Posted By: Sam2000
Trajan, would you agree that oil additive fanatics seem to lose touch with reality?


Well, I'd rather not get into that. And you shouldn't either
Making it about posters, like was done in the locked thread, gets locked threads.

I just want evidence to back the claims. Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

And stories/anecdotes are not evidence.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Sam2000
he's also saying that usage of MoS2 in the 1930s on aircraft engines is the same use case as for modern engines and that the use in the old air cooled VW Beetles is another reason we should supplement modern oils with this secret magic powder that time forgot.


Whether it's WW2 era engines or not, modern infernal combustion technology hasn't done away with bearings, cams, pistons, cylinders, and crankshafts. They are far more similar than different; the mechanics are all the same. You add some refinements of our times, such as different methods of fuel injection, better materials, timing, cooling, compuer contol and diagnostics, etc, but all in all it's still more or less the same.

The degree to which this thread is nitpicking is somewhat amazing---and I would think, actually not very important to those who are more practical minded. (Nobody is asking you to use it Sam.)
 
Not all oil supplements and motor oils that contain moly are the same. There are differing chemical formulas that contain moly.

Not so long ago a lot of oil companies were putting moly in their motor oils. But the moly was in proper chemical combination and would not drop out of the motor oil after the engine was shut off. But if the moly is in a powder form and not in chemical combination with the oil it can drop out of the oil and potentially cause problems.

A lot of the oil companies seem to have turned to other friction reducers instead of moly. They may be doing this because they have found more effective friction reducers or maybe they are doing it because of cost.

I would not hesitate to put a high moly Pennzoil motor oil into my car engine. It was developed by Pennzoil Corporation. But I would not put some moly powder in my engine that was unknown in quality and from some mysterious company nobody had ever heard of.

I don't think moly is the last word when it comes to friction reducers. If an oil company finds something better to add to their oil I don't care. As long as it works, reduces friction, and does not cause any problems who really cares?

A lot of guys here are very happy with this LM moly product that can be ordered through NAPA. And LM makes motor oils. That company is a name brand. But some mysterious powder that comes from some unknown company? I would be willing to use the LM product but not some moly powder that came from who knows where.
 
Originally Posted By: Trajan
Originally Posted By: Sam2000
Trajan, would you agree that oil additive fanatics seem to lose touch with reality?


Well, I'd rather not get into that. And you shouldn't either
Making it about posters, like was done in the locked thread, gets locked threads.

I just want evidence to back the claims. Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

And stories/anecdotes are not evidence.




You make a good point.

I guess I am just amazed that someone who jumped on me for saying I used the cheapest oil that met manufacturer specs after he asked me what oil I used and then expressed a concern that others would see the word "cheapest" and make poor choices, then proceeds to quote approvals for anti seize lubricants as evidence that manufacturers approve powdered moly as an oil additive.
 
Originally Posted By: ueberooo
The degree to which this thread is nitpicking is somewhat amazing---and I would think, actually not very important to those who are more practical minded. (Nobody is asking you to use it Sam.)



Sure but there was a huge false equivalence being stated.

Namely that if a component is tested or approved in any engine at any point in time, anything that bears a similarity to it, even if the similarity is in the name, is perfectly ok to use.

And to prove the false equivalence, facts were being made up about another product and the product in question.

When we have posters stating that approvals for an anti seize lubricant are approvals for oil additives from GM and VW, there is a huge danger of misunderstanding for people who may find the post and take it as written.

You may think its nitpicking, I see it as a threat to the credibility of this forum.
 
Originally Posted By: Sam2000
Ok this is Hillarious.

In Dave's attempt to say MoS2 is approved as an engine oil additive by manufacturers, he said this:

Originally Posted By: dave5358
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.


ALL those manufacturer approvals are for Molykote P74 Super Anti Seize.

This is not an OIL ADDITIVE!!!!!!

I hope you're not using Molykote anti seize in your oil Dave because you found out it has GM and VW approval.

Talk about misstatements! You actually had to gall to claim Molykote is manufacturer approved as an oil additive based on manufacturer approval for Molykote anti seize.


ROTFLMAO
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top