What does Liqui-Moly CERATEC do?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: GaleHawkins
Any use in WWII would at best been experimental at best.

Thats almost a certainty. I mean its qualities as a dry lube were well established by that time and they had been using it in the formulation of armor plate since WWI.
I don't think anyone is disputing the lubrication properties of MoS2 or its effectiveness as a lubricant.

I prefer Moly fortified greases and special dry lubes for a host of things, nothing works better (except maybe WS2 but where are you getting that?), in CV joints its mandatory for long life.

In my own situation and that of many owners that use their vehicles seasonally there are questions that remain.
The main question is.. Even if does stay in suspension in new oil is it attracted to dissolved solids that fall out of suspension over a longer period taking the MoS2 with it?

This is a real problem and we have all seen it, change the oil, pour the used oil into a gallon jug only to see a few months later a lot of the deposits that were in the oil are now on the bottom of the jug.

The longer it sits the more falls out. I cant see this being an issue in a daily driver that is in use 365 but it is certainly a real concern for some of us.
For that reason i don't use anything anymore in the oil as i don't own a daily driver per se. They are either summer or winter vehicles and sit off season.

Is MoS2 snake oil? Definitely not. Does it provide any real benefit in modern engine oil? IMHO no but to each his own, it is harmless so for those that do use it no harm no foul.
I definitely wouldn't recommend it for seasonal vehicles.
 
Originally Posted By: GregGA
Got to love the font in the MB manual:). I went to the diagram of the conn rod bearings. I have never seen needle bearings used in this application. What other engines used this? Advantages?

Honda S600, S800. There were some aftermarket VW cranks made which used needle bearings for the crank and big-ends.
 
Originally Posted By: Trav
The RR Merlin specs 2472 oil with no mention of moly by the name MoS2 or any other. These are copies of the original manuals not some company marketing. I looked though DB, BMW, RR, and still come up with just plain old engine oil, it not even mentioned for the big radials.

I personally i think this myth is pretty much "busted" just by the amount of data that is not present to prove otherwise.

The manuals you referred to are from May, 1938. What wasn't happening in May, 1938?
 
Really?
33.gif
 
Originally Posted By: dave5358
Originally Posted By: Trav
The RR Merlin specs 2472 oil with no mention of moly by the name MoS2 or any other. These are copies of the original manuals not some company marketing. I looked though DB, BMW, RR, and still come up with just plain old engine oil, it not even mentioned for the big radials.

I personally i think this myth is pretty much "busted" just by the amount of data that is not present to prove otherwise.

The manuals you referred to are from May, 1938. What wasn't happening in May, 1938?


We were discussing the claim MoS2 was used in WII aircraft engine oil to provide a margin of safety in the event of total oil loss.

The manuals Trav provided were for two of the most widely used aircraft engines in WWII, DB-601 and Merlin. In both manuals, no mention was made of any oil additives, only mineral oil.

Hope that shows the manual's relevance.
 
Originally Posted By: Clevy
Originally Posted By: GaleHawkins
The oldest info that I can find on MoS2 in motor oil indicates the first successful usage (did not settle out on shut down) was POST WWII. Any use in WWII would at best been experimental at best.

I have to say from all the reading and the cost I think I am more sold on using the MoS2 additive than the Ceratec nano technology.




You have a point there.
When I use mos2 there is always a measurable benefit,in fuel economy and so on.
But cera-tec thus far hasn't done anything that I have noticed to anything as far as the engine is concerned.
Now I'm not saying cera-tec isn't a good product. I'm sure it's having a positive effect as far as wear and so on it's just that I haven't done a tear down since I've started using it.
Mos2 always delivers a noticeable fuel consumption reduction,which leads me to believe that mos2 might be a better product as far as friction reduction is concerned,it's just that it doesn't last like cera-tec is supposed to.
I've got a few cans left in stock and likely won't buy anymore.
But I'm sticking with my mos2.


I'd be curious to see the TBN retention/boosting properties (if any) of this in a VOA sample with it installed, vs. a 10K+ mile OCI UOA sample, as far as TBN/TAN numbers go.

I tend to think it does more in this area (due to it's high boron content) than in the anti-wear/anti-friction dept., like where most think MOS2 shines (or am I looking at this product {Ceratec} ALL wrong??).
 
Originally Posted By: GregGA
The manuals Trav provided were for two of the most widely used aircraft engines in WWII, DB-601 and Merlin. In both manuals, no mention was made of any oil additives, only mineral oil. Hope that shows the manual's relevance.

Not really relevant in 1938... even less beyond that. (Let's assume, without the usual stupid BITOG arguments, that by 1938 Rolls-Royce knew how to build an engine that would hold its oil. Trav may wish to dispute that as well).

In 1938 Germany annexed Austria... no air power involved... and not much need for MoS2. Germany was also busy rounding up some of it's own citizens for concentration camps... not much need for MoS2 there, either. Alfred Sonntag, the Molykote inventor, who was also Jewish, fled Germany in the mid-1930's for just that reason. Germany's loss, since Sonntag was busily working on MoS2 applications for aircraft lubrication and he continued to do so in the US (in Philadelphia and later in Stamford). In September, 1939 Germany invaded Poland but the Polish army and air force were no challenge for the German military. So, again, not much need for MoS2.

The air war over the England, frequently referred to as the Battle of Britain, did not start until July, 1940 and it would be several months before crash loss data or failure information would start coming in... and engineers start scrambling to find quick solutions.

This air campaign would end by November, 1940, with Germany losing roughly 47% of its single-engine fleet, 66% of its twin-engine fleet and 45% of its bombers. By the numbers for Germany: 2,698 aircrew killed, 967 captured, 638 missing bodies identified by British authorities, 1,887 aircraft destroyed. And for the Allies, 544 aircrew killed, 422 aircrew wounded, 1,547 aircraft destroyed. While Trav is busily re-writing the story of molybdenum usage, he might as well re-write the rest of WWII history as well.

Does anyone you think the Brits (or the Germans) would re-write their engine tech manuals in the middle of WWII? Maybe during the period July to November, 1940? There might be tech bulletins or similar engineering pronouncements - maybe marked "urgent" or even a frantic phone call. But not much beyond that.

As for the Packard V-1650, many of engines that went to England had 2-stage superchargers, for high-altitude bombing service... so maybe not as much need for MoS2 in that type of service. Regardless, the Brits were dealing with problems, perhaps a bit better than the Germans.

V-1650 engines destined for American planes, mostly the Curtis P-40, lacked the 2-stage supercharger, thereby limiting their high altitude capability. They would mostly be used in North Africa, Southwest Pacific and China, where limited high altitude capability was not important. Limp-home protection was also not significant in those theaters. Basically, there was no 'home' to limp to... there's no there there.

After WWII? With no one shooting at the airplanes, the need for limp-home protection was significantly reduced.
 
Quote:
While Trav is busily re-writing the story of molybdenum usage, he might as well re-write the rest of WWII history as well.

What did i rewrite? Just because it might go against your claims does not mean i am rewriting anything.

Fun history lesson, i provided proof that anyone can access. Wheres yours?
Your statement..
Originally Posted By: dave5358
Does anyone you think the Brits (or the Germans) would re-write their engine tech manuals in the middle of WWII? Maybe during the period July to November, 1940? There might be tech bulletins or similar engineering pronouncements - maybe marked "urgent" or even a frantic phone call.

Is nothing more than your unsubstantiated hot air trying to discredit written factual documentation, that is as lame as it comes chief.
The German manuals are from during the war or did you even bother to look?

Would you prefer one from 1942? Written when they would bother changing anything. LOL

http://www.avialogs.com/index.php/engine...or-db-603a.html
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: dailydriver
Originally Posted By: Clevy
Originally Posted By: GaleHawkins
The oldest info that I can find on MoS2 in motor oil indicates the first successful usage (did not settle out on shut down) was POST WWII. Any use in WWII would at best been experimental at best.

I have to say from all the reading and the cost I think I am more sold on using the MoS2 additive than the Ceratec nano technology.




You have a point there.
When I use mos2 there is always a measurable benefit,in fuel economy and so on.
But cera-tec thus far hasn't done anything that I have noticed to anything as far as the engine is concerned.
Now I'm not saying cera-tec isn't a good product. I'm sure it's having a positive effect as far as wear and so on it's just that I haven't done a tear down since I've started using it.
Mos2 always delivers a noticeable fuel consumption reduction,which leads me to believe that mos2 might be a better product as far as friction reduction is concerned,it's just that it doesn't last like cera-tec is supposed to.
I've got a few cans left in stock and likely won't buy anymore.
But I'm sticking with my mos2.


I'd be curious to see the TBN retention/boosting properties (if any) of this in a VOA sample with it installed, vs. a 10K+ mile OCI UOA sample, as far as TBN/TAN numbers go.

I tend to think it does more in this area (due to it's high boron content) than in the anti-wear/anti-friction dept., like where most think MOS2 shines (or am I looking at this product {Ceratec} ALL wrong??).


Dailydriver I know from reading about using Ceratec/MoS2/etc it is hard for me to keep my thoughts straight. It has been less than a year since I even learned about nano technology use in motor oil.
smile.gif


Archoil has been selling in to the large engine equipment industry like 1800 HP dump trucks, trains, ships, ect but are now getting into the consumer market. They seem to have a new generation of AR 9300 which sounds to be ahead of Ceratec in a technical sense based on their marketing materials.

Since we have 20+ engines around the place I am looking at buying a gallon of Archoil AR9300 ($200) that will treat like 140 quarts of gas/diesel engine oil and permits tripling the OCI. The how they 3X it is easy to understand if their claims of .003 coefficient of friction is for read for one year.

$6 per year would be the cost to keep the TownCar treated (one use is good for 1 year in engines and 6 years in gear boxes). $120 per year in oil changes if I went to 10K OCI vs the 5K average we now do. Read the 21 slides in the link and see if you think based on their promo materials if AR9300 does not sound more advanced than the current version of Ceratec?

AR9300 from Archoil slide show.
 
Originally Posted By: GaleHawkins
Originally Posted By: dailydriver
Originally Posted By: Clevy
Originally Posted By: GaleHawkins
The oldest info that I can find on MoS2 in motor oil indicates the first successful usage (did not settle out on shut down) was POST WWII. Any use in WWII would at best been experimental at best.

I have to say from all the reading and the cost I think I am more sold on using the MoS2 additive than the Ceratec nano technology.










You have a point there.
When I use mos2 there is always a measurable benefit,in fuel economy and so on.
But cera-tec thus far hasn't done anything that I have noticed to anything as far as the engine is concerned.
Now I'm not saying cera-tec isn't a good product. I'm sure it's having a positive effect as far as wear and so on it's just that I haven't done a tear down since I've started using it.
Mos2 always delivers a noticeable fuel consumption reduction,which leads me to believe that mos2 might be a better product as far as friction reduction is concerned,it's just that it doesn't last like cera-tec is supposed to.
I've got a few cans left in stock and likely won't buy anymore.
But I'm sticking with my mos2.


I'd be curious to see the TBN retention/boosting properties (if any) of this in a VOA sample with it installed, vs. a 10K+ mile OCI UOA sample, as far as TBN/TAN numbers go.

I tend to think it does more in this area (due to it's high boron content) than in the anti-wear/anti-friction dept., like where most think MOS2 shines (or am I looking at this product {Ceratec} ALL wrong??).


Dailydriver I know from reading about using Ceratec/MoS2/etc it is hard for me to keep my thoughts straight. It has been less than a year since I even learned about nano technology use in motor oil.
smile.gif


Archoil has been selling in to the large engine equipment industry like 1800 HP dump trucks, trains, ships, ect but are now getting into the consumer market. They seem to have a new generation of AR 9300 which sounds to be ahead of Ceratec in a technical sense based on their marketing materials.

Since we have 20+ engines around the place I am looking at buying a gallon of Archoil AR9300 ($200) that will treat like 140 quarts of gas/diesel engine oil and permits tripling the OCI. The how they 3X it is easy to understand if their claims of .003 coefficient of friction is for read for one year.

$6 per year would be the cost to keep the TownCar treated (one use is good for 1 year in engines and 6 years in gear boxes). $120 per year in oil changes if I went to 10K OCI vs the 5K average we now do. Read the 21 slides in the link and see if you think based on their promo materials if AR9300 does not sound more advanced than the current version of Ceratec?

AR9300 from Archoil slide show.



Slide number 8 is incorrect.
 
What would do different on slide 8 Molaklue?

Do you agree Archoil AR9300 based on marketing materials may be the best additive out there if one is bend on using additives?
 
Last edited:
Additives are not squeezed out.

Surface protection additives are film forming additives.

For example, the anti-wear additives form plastic films to protect against wear.

As far as marketing, it's marketing hype.

For example, the COF is measured under what conditions using what materials?

It almost appears they are using the 'kitchen sink' approach in that they are using many different kinds of nano particles.

And what pray tell is this "magnetic' material they are using?

Again, as far as marketing, it's marketing hype.
 
For you slightly older members isn't that Magnetic Module from China very similar to devices advertised in Hot Rod magazine back in the 1960's and 1970's?
 
Of course.

Any time you read "magnetic" and that it does things like "align" or "re-arrange" the fuel molecules, you can always exit the building, screaming.

Originally Posted By: demarpaint
For you slightly older members isn't that Magnetic Module from China very similar to devices advertised in Hot Rod magazine back in the 1960's and 1970's?
 
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Item location:
Hongkong, Hong Kong
Wholesale chqhq fuel magnetizer from China chqhq fuel magnetizer Wholesalers
....
That thing is about as German as David Suzuki

Okay, this was for Hondas, so I shouldn't run out and buy a Honda just so I could use this.

Here's another useful magnet, which also rearranges things - like the money in your wallet:

712d34cVWdL._SL1500_.jpg


No, it's not some weird ball-bearing. It's a weird bracelet to treat arthritis. But, the best part is that it is regularly $65, but now you can buy it on Amazon for only $2.79 - a savings of $62.21 or 96%. Amazing!

It looks like it could double as a caged bearing set - maybe for a bicycle crank?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

H
Aeroshell 4/41 vs. Liqui Moly Top Tec 1800
Replies
3
Views
549
Cujet
3
  • Locked
Oil additive from a can? What benefits?
Replies
2
Views
1K
dnewton3
T
Liqui Moly in a PowerStroke?
Replies
1
Views
2K
CleverUserName
P
st with mos2 or pup
Replies
6
Views
453
kschachn
I
Liqui Moly Brake Anti-Squeal
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
Jetronic
Back
Top