Moly in Engine Oils

[TooSlick]

Molecule,

I think this test helps explain the high lead/copper levels I've seen in most - but not all - of the Redline analyses, where the additive chemistry contains 600-700 ppm of moly ....Under certain conditions I do think it is aggressive towards the softer metals.

TS

 

[The_Oz]

quote:

---

Originally posted by MolaKule:
The last sentence is false. Full synthetic bases have an average of 5 times the film strength of petroleum bases.

---

MolaKule,

When you say "Petroleum bases", are you also referring to Group III basestocks?

Regards,

Oz

 

[MolaKule]

TooSlick,

OK, what mechanism in the chemistry of MoTDC would cause this additive to be
aggressive?

 

[MolaKule]

TooSlick,

Are you referring to this one or do you see a trend with the aggregate?

"jeff

result- redline, M1
Copper- 6, 5
Iron- 10, 7
chrome- 2, 1
lead- 12, 3
aluminum- 6, 3
silicon- 10, 7
moly- 569, 47"

Recall that Jeff had two racing events with the Redline.

[ December 09, 2002, 05:00 PM: Message edited by: MolaKule ]

 

[MolaKule]

Oz,

Yes I'm including the Group III's in this category as well, since they are still dinos.

 

[TooSlick]

Bob,

I would consider 42 ppm to be a heck of a lot of lead! ....I have seen SAE data using Delvac 1, 5w-40 in this same test and it had about 1 ppm of lead. So I'd say you do have some high temp corrosion going on with the moly bond. Technically it may pass the Cummins test limits, but I would not call that a very good result at all.

The results from the Supreme 7000, 15w-40 look fine to me ....

TooSlick

 

[BOBISTHEOILGUY]

Hey, who am I to argue?

Of course, evidently the cummins engine company must not agree with you as they approved these tests for use in their engines. Both were signed by J.P graham of the fuels and lubricants div of cummins.

 

[68redlines73]

I e-mailed one of my main Lubrizol contacts and he made the following observations:

Q: In your opinion, are these additives (I specifically mentioned Molyvan 855 by RT Vanderbilt) significant in terms of engine oil performance, or are they just a lot of hype?

A: Organic molybdenum compounds definitely have been shown to enhance performance of engine oils. They not only act as friction modifiers (improving fuel efficiency), but also may behave as oxidation inhibitors.

Using organic molybdenum compounds in engine oils offers some formulating challenges. First of all, they are costly. More important, they may pose some unique performance challenges; i.e., corrosion problems, particularly for yellow metal engine components. Thus, the lubricant formulation must be tailored around the molybdenum component to insure that all performance features are properly addressed. If one just plops a molybdenum component into an existing motor oil formulation, without rechecking performance, field service problems could crop up. This has happened many times in the past when oil marketers supplemented their existing motor oil products to add extra claims; i.e., fuel economy.

I didn't get a reply that included any AW/EP so I asked the following:

Q: Is Molyvan 855 any more effective in the AW/EP area than ZDDP?

A: Unfortunately, I don't have any relative numbers for comparing Molyvan 855 to ZDDP. Materials like Molyvan 855 do have EP properties, but generally these compound types are much less effective on AW/EP in motor oils than are the ZDDP compounds. The main performance pluses for soluble organic molybdenum are friction reduction and oxidation control.

The plot thickens...

 

[TooSlick]

Molekule,

I don't claim to understand the exact mechanism by which this is occurring, but the general trend of the data is there. The new Redline 5w-40 does not seem to have this problem - based on very limited oil analysis data - so they may have played with the formulation chemistry to address this issue.

I also don't understand adding 700 ppm of moly to any fully formulated oil not used for competitive racing. If you throw a gallon of paint on a wall, does it really improve things over using a brush?

 

[Terry]

Slick, I used to hold to the paradigm you are positing here, but I believe it is incorrect. Based on UOA I personally interpret.

Of the Redline samples we see the soft metals wear is lower than most of similar engines using other brands. Note also that Redline oil is used in raced or very hard driven engines.

I know you do not buy my theory of the residual cleaning Redline accomplishes causing a bump temporarily of the softer wear metals, but that bears out in trended analysis.

 

[TooSlick]

Terry,

Even if the engine has previously used Mobil 1 for an extended period and then switches to Redline, I still see this trend.

So what exactly is being cleaned in those engines that look perfectly clean to me ...?

 

[Terry]

That is a great question and one that prompted the creation of Auto-RX.

It was found that a strong well formulated ester based cleaner could strip away residual carbonacous deposits. Much like you posted after using Amsoil series 2000 0w-30 and a Auto-RX cleaning.

My premise is that the Redline is one of a a very few oils that can actually clean deeply enough to strip away soft metals residuals from the engine internals, much like a vegetable based oil does. Similar acting esters, different sources.

You were surpised at how much Rx cleaned after running a high end Amsoil IV,V based oil. Redline's chemistry seems to do the same.

Back to my basic premise that motor oils can lubricate or clean but not do both, well. After the cleaning the Redline lubricated engine will demonsrate lower wear values in soft metals consistant with the virgin levels of Redline that we have recently discussed.

So yes M1 will NOT clean effectively enough to strip away residual soft metals at the levels we see with the Redline product. M1 is however a great hydrodynamic lubricant in its current formulation, moly included.

 

[MolaKule]

Redlines;

So when did your paper-hate relationship start with Moly?

 

[68redlines73]

Actually, I don't have any feelings for Moly at all. I'm just trying to understand the facts as I see them and compare apples with apples. Thus far, IMHO, there have been some interesting and potentially beneficial statements made about Moly and especially those that are used in the Scheaffer products, as a for instance. However, the testing methodologies, the results obtained and their relative significance don't jive just yet in my mind.

 

[satterfi]

I am preparing to test Terry’s hypothesis. I have 2 cars that have been using M1 15w50 for most of their lives.

My wife’s ’95 Ford Exploder has 125K miles and has run M1 since 5k miles.

My ’88 CRX has 202K and has run M1 since 40K miles.

Both get oil changes every 7.5K miles or 6 months which ever comes first with the M1. I used 5K mile intervals with the GTX that I used before going to M1.

I just received a case of Redline 10w-40 so in the next week I’ll change the oil in the Ford to Redline. My CRX isn’t due for an oil change for several more months.
This test will take 2 years before I draw any conclusions. I’d like to see at least 4 oil changes with the Redline to see any trends. I’ll probably split samples on the M1 for duplicate testing. I don’t have 99% confidence in $25 tests.

I do see small amount of sludge in the corners of the head under the valve cover in my CRX. It’s thin and soft, and if you touch it with your finger it comes off.

BTW, my cost for the Redline is $7.13/qt delivered to my door. Yep, that’s 2X the cost of Schaeffers but not that much different from M1.

 

[The_Oz]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Terry:
That is a great question and one that prompted the creation of Auto-RX.

It was found that a strong well formulated ester based cleaner could strip away residual carbonacous deposits. Much like you posted after using Amsoil series 2000 0w-30 and a Auto-RX cleaning.

My premise is that the Redline is one of a a very few oils that can actually clean deeply enough to strip away soft metals residuals from the engine internals, much like a vegetable based oil does. Similar acting esters, different sources.

You were surpised at how much Rx cleaned after running a high end Amsoil IV,V based oil. Redline's chemistry seems to do the same.

Back to my basic premise that motor oils can lubricate or clean but not do both, well. After the cleaning the Redline lubricated engine will demonsrate lower wear values in soft metals consistant with the virgin levels of Redline that we have recently discussed.

So yes M1 will NOT clean effectively enough to strip away residual soft metals at the levels we see with the Redline product. M1 is however a great hydrodynamic lubricant in its current formulation, moly included.

---

Terry,

Is there a chemical process that I'm not aware of here?

If Redline is eating away at the soft metals as a way of "cleaning", shouldn't the wear levels stay relatively high or increase, rather than decrease over a period of time?

OR

Could it be that the initial high soft metal count with a decrease over a period time would be more of a deterioration effect....where oil analysis would seem to indicate an improvemet, but rather the soft metal in question has already degraded to the point where it's causing a leak, crack, etc. because there is not much soft metal left to be "eaten up."? (Yes, I need work on my grammar. I'm half asleep right now

).

Anyway, I can understand normal wear-and-tear appearing on oil analysis, but an oil eating away at a certain metal should be consistent throughout a trend analysis, no?

Regards,

Oz

 

[Terry]

OZ, the chemistry is cleaning "RESIDUAL" soft metals that have been trapped in the crooks and crannies of the oil galleries in carbonacous deposits. These are metals that have been trapped in the "ice" so to speak under the carbon covering left by the lighter end of the oils used.

That caramel looking glaze left by even the most expensive motor oils.

These are not values from the metals still attached to the bearings,bushings, etc.

 

[TooSlick]

Terry,

I have been running AutoRX in combination with the 5w-40, Group III Petro Canada product, not with Amsoil. I recently did an oil analysis @ 10,500 miles and will post the results. The AutoRX did clean some varnish of non-wearing parts of the cam, but really didn't touch the stuff that condenses where the oil never flows.

The most noticable effect of running AutoRX was the significant reduction in an oil pan gasket leak. I am very surprised by that ....

 

[Terry]

Slick, I was speaking to your initial use of Auto-RX in, I believe it was a Saab that had been on a steady diet of Amsoil 0w-30.

I didn't recall what oil you were using during the cleaning. I may be incorrect, memory is the first thing to go.

Terry

 

[jason07-1zzfe]

quote:

---

Originally posted by satterfi:
[QB]I am preparing to test Terry’s hypothesis. I have 2 cars that have been using M1 15w50 for most of their lives.
...QB]

---

Great. Although I do feel it is correct and no reason to "test" it, will be interesting. Do you have any analysis with M1? Or at least analyzing that last run before RL?
I am planning to do a similar thing as well. Except that it will be with Auto-RX, hopefully it speeds up the cleaning process. The main reason I was using the Rx was for leaks and then figured I could get the cleanup done too. So the RL analysis after the RX should have "better" soft metal numbers. We shall see. It doesn't seem to have done anything for my leaks yet, 500mi after treatment. (said it can take up to 3k

)