Motorkote oil additive

Originally Posted By: Turtle268
I had a massive Cummins engine failure due to Motorkote oil additive. Warrantee relief was denied by Cummins and Amsoil. In depth tests confirmed an additive, Motorkote. It is a CHLORINE based additive that is extremely harmful to an engine. A separate test (Chlorine content, bomb method, ASTM D808) done on a virgin sample of Motorkote confirmed over 28% CHLORINE content!!!!!

I have proof of tests upon request with return email address.


That would make for an interesting law suit. I decided to look over the MotorKote information and they claim no Chlorine at all in the product. If it had 28% as you say, then an average lawyer could have a field day raking them over the coals. I listen in on several trucking shows (I don't have time to stay up all hours and listen... I podcast them). One is always talking about MotorKote and it is a sponsor. No one has ever called in and said a bad word. Could be that the calls are screened out. You ought to give Steve Sommers and his America's Trucking Network a call some night and state what you have here. That would be a real show!
 
MMO contains only a tiny fraction of chlorine, way less than the 28% suggested here. Volume and supporting ingredients are important.

There are plenty of web claims that Motorkote does and does not contain chlorine. I know who invented Motorkote so I can just call when I get the time.
 
Originally Posted By: Turtle268
I had a massive Cummins engine failure due to Motorkote oil additive. Warrantee relief was denied by Cummins and Amsoil. In depth tests confirmed an additive, Motorkote. It is a CHLORINE based additive that is extremely harmful to an engine. A separate test (Chlorine content, bomb method, ASTM D808) done on a virgin sample of Motorkote confirmed over 28% CHLORINE content!!!!!

I have proof of tests upon request with return email address.


And these inaccurate claims, is what makes it very hard for people to decide what is a good additive, or not.
I don't believe MK contain this amount of chlorine, since they would have been sued out of business, a long time ago, if this were true.
Still haven't tried MK, but it looks better and better, now.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: djlinux64
I have destroyed two camshafts with high anti-wear additive levels over 20,000 miles. Don't do it!!!!! I wish I could erase the thought from your memory somehow. Mark my words. Do not use oil additives!


I'm very curious. I got flamed for pointing out that over treatment with ZDDP products can damage tappets and camshafts. I now have a reference in a reference book on lube oils to this effect.
I'd like to know what your Zn/P levels were.

Charlie
 
I wrote an email to MotorKote just to ask if there was chlorine in the product. Also attached a link to this discussion. Been over a week and no response. May mean nothing, but there is a maxim in law that states "silence implies consent".
 
Originally Posted By: Turtle268
I had a massive Cummins engine failure due to Motorkote oil additive. Warrantee relief was denied by Cummins and Amsoil. In depth tests confirmed an additive, Motorkote. It is a CHLORINE based additive that is extremely harmful to an engine. A separate test (Chlorine content, bomb method, ASTM D808) done on a virgin sample of Motorkote confirmed over 28% CHLORINE content!!!!!

I have proof of tests upon request with return email address.

What broke?

And how did they know it was Motorkote and not another add?

MSDS shows:
Specific Gravity (H2O=1): 0.95 - 1.10 @ 25ºC

Appearance & Odor: Clear brown / yellowish liquid, hydrocarbon odor

Sounds a LOT like chlorinated products.
 
Last edited:
Interesting I e-mailed this guy around over a week ago and never got this test from him. IF MOTORKOTE contained 28% chlorine as he claims. It would have to be listed on the MSDS data sheets,these sheets are right on the company's website for anyone to view. Just out of curiosity I phoned CUMMINS at head office in Columbus,Ohio and asked them what their position was on additives and warranty. Cummins informed me they don't deny warranty if you use additives. The only way they deny warranty based on lubrication ,is if you bring your engine in and you have not changed oil and your oil is completley spent and you cannot prove any maintenance then warranty will be denied ,for you failing to maintain your engine.I have a buddy that has used Motorkote in his CAT for over 8 years .He bought the truck used with 500,000 on it and motokoted it. At around 1,200,000 miles he developed a ticking noise in the engine and when he pulled the dipstick he had steam coming out. He backed the rad cap off and drove it home 450 miles and added over ten gallons of water,when thay drained the oil out it looked like chocalate pudding,they tore the engine down and it turned out a little piece of valve had broken off and the piston punched it into the head and cracked it. His engine was overhauled by one of the best CAT guys around and when they got it cleaned up he said he never seen such a lack of wear in an engine with that many miles on it the parts were excellent. They inframed it put a new head on and reused the old cam and valvetrain. I got lots of friends with Cats,Cummins,Detroits and Volvos that use this product and they are all happy with it I've got 2,300,000 on my CAT with an original cam in it and two overhauls due to liner seals cracking with age and letting antifreeze into the coolant ,as for the internals the parts looked mint. The best thing I can say is do your homework. Ask your engine manufacturer yourself. This product has served me well for years and I enjoy the fuel savings.
 
I have four positive lab results, very expensive and detailed reports, which confirms it is indeed Motorkote in the engine oil. The oil I was using at the time was Amsoil synthetic. Amsoil also confirmed in their own (two independent) detailed tests that Motorkote was the culprit and causitive factor in my major Cummins engine failure. Cummins sent me a 19 page report also confirming same. Another independet lab did a very expensive and extensive advanced chlorine test on a virgin sample of Motorkote and confirmed that it is in fact over 28% CHLORINE!!!! I still have samples of the oil I used in question and I also have the failed engine in my shop, to be used for future litigation against Motorkote.

I challenge Motorkote to deny my accusations!!

Users beware!
 
Perhaps you'd like a copy of FOUR independent oil analysis confirming that Motorkote is over 28% CHLORINE? Send me your email address and I'll attach a copy of the confirmation tests. Ed.
 
Originally Posted By: nickthetrucker
Interesting I e-mailed this guy around over a week ago and never got this test from him. IF MOTORKOTE contained 28% chlorine as he claims. It would have to be listed on the MSDS data sheets,these sheets are right on the company's website for anyone to view. Just out of curiosity I phoned CUMMINS at head office in Columbus,Ohio and asked them what their position was on additives and warranty. Cummins informed me they don't deny warranty if you use additives. The only way they deny warranty based on lubrication ,is if you bring your engine in and you have not changed oil and your oil is completley spent and you cannot prove any maintenance then warranty will be denied ,for you failing to maintain your engine.I have a buddy that has used Motorkote in his CAT for over 8 years .He bought the truck used with 500,000 on it and motokoted it. At around 1,200,000 miles he developed a ticking noise in the engine and when he pulled the dipstick he had steam coming out. He backed the rad cap off and drove it home 450 miles and added over ten gallons of water,when thay drained the oil out it looked like chocalate pudding,they tore the engine down and it turned out a little piece of valve had broken off and the piston punched it into the head and cracked it. His engine was overhauled by one of the best CAT guys around and when they got it cleaned up he said he never seen such a lack of wear in an engine with that many miles on it the parts were excellent. They inframed it put a new head on and reused the old cam and valvetrain. I got lots of friends with Cats,Cummins,Detroits and Volvos that use this product and they are all happy with it I've got 2,300,000 on my CAT with an original cam in it and two overhauls due to liner seals cracking with age and letting antifreeze into the coolant ,as for the internals the parts looked mint. The best thing I can say is do your homework. Ask your engine manufacturer yourself. This product has served me well for years and I enjoy the fuel savings.



I have NOT received any emails from you, or anyone else, wanting a copy of my lab results. I have absolute proof that Motorkote does indeed have over 28% CHLORINE and I'm currently in a litigation procees against Motorkote, their distributors and Flying 'J' truckstops.
 
Originally Posted By: Turtle268

I challenge Motorkote to deny my accusations!!



Motorkote is denying your accusations and is winning. I'll believe you when I see their money. Nothing personal but I don't think you are going to win.
 
I really have no idea what is in MK, but I do know a few guys that have used it in their Cummins ISX engines with no problems. Not sure if it actually did things better than just using a high quality oil. I did see 1 UOA from one owner that showed a slight decrease in wear metals, but not really enough to make any wild claims. Did not see any reference that there was any amount of chlorine in the sample. Maybe that would have to be done special beyond a typical UOA sample. None of them has had an engine failure.

Not only would a truckstop stock this stuff to increase their bottom line, but there would have to be a good enough market in sales to justify putting it on the shelf. There are one heck of a lot of trucker related products that would love to be positioned on a truckstop shelf, but of course, only the stuff that moves is going to make it there. If a truck stop is carrying MK, it is probably because they have had a large request to carry it. Has nothing to do whether the product is good or bad.
 
Originally Posted By: Turtle268
Originally Posted By: nickthetrucker
Interesting I e-mailed this guy around over a week ago and never got this test from him. IF MOTORKOTE contained 28% chlorine as he claims. It would have to be listed on the MSDS data sheets,these sheets are right on the company's website for anyone to view. Just out of curiosity I phoned CUMMINS at head office in Columbus,Ohio and asked them what their position was on additives and warranty. Cummins informed me they don't deny warranty if you use additives. The only way they deny warranty based on lubrication ,is if you bring your engine in and you have not changed oil and your oil is completley spent and you cannot prove any maintenance then warranty will be denied ,for you failing to maintain your engine.I have a buddy that has used Motorkote in his CAT for over 8 years .He bought the truck used with 500,000 on it and motokoted it. At around 1,200,000 miles he developed a ticking noise in the engine and when he pulled the dipstick he had steam coming out. He backed the rad cap off and drove it home 450 miles and added over ten gallons of water,when thay drained the oil out it looked like chocalate pudding,they tore the engine down and it turned out a little piece of valve had broken off and the piston punched it into the head and cracked it. His engine was overhauled by one of the best CAT guys around and when they got it cleaned up he said he never seen such a lack of wear in an engine with that many miles on it the parts were excellent. They inframed it put a new head on and reused the old cam and valvetrain. I got lots of friends with Cats,Cummins,Detroits and Volvos that use this product and they are all happy with it I've got 2,300,000 on my CAT with an original cam in it and two overhauls due to liner seals cracking with age and letting antifreeze into the coolant ,as for the internals the parts looked mint. The best thing I can say is do your homework. Ask your engine manufacturer yourself. This product has served me well for years and I enjoy the fuel savings.



I have NOT received any emails from you, or anyone else, wanting a copy of my lab results. I have absolute proof that Motorkote does indeed have over 28% CHLORINE and I'm currently in a litigation procees against Motorkote, their distributors and Flying 'J' truckstops.


I really wasn't interested in emailing you for any sample reports, I just stated that I had emailed MotorKote and provided a link to this discussion, but had not received anything back from them so, I am following a maxim in law that silence implies consent, or in this case, silence implies that the accusations are true. You chewed on me when I was not disputing you.

That being said, you can file a lawsuit against a ham sandwich. Doesn't mean it will go anywhere. Vast majority of lawsuits get thrown out or go nowhere. If what you say is true, then a good lawyer will be able to work with that. Let us know how it works out. I have to admit though, I really see no need to go after the truckstop and whomever else. Just seems like a lawsuit that is like a shotgun blast. Just suing everyone in sight and see what sticks. If your claim is valid, I would see no reason to sue all those you listed and just concentrate your efforts on MK.
 
Originally Posted By: Turtle268
I have four positive lab results, very expensive and detailed reports, which confirms it is indeed Motorkote in the engine oil. The oil I was using at the time was Amsoil synthetic. Amsoil also confirmed in their own (two independent) detailed tests that Motorkote was the culprit and causitive factor in my major Cummins engine failure. Cummins sent me a 19 page report also confirming same. Another independet lab did a very expensive and extensive advanced chlorine test on a virgin sample of Motorkote and confirmed that it is in fact over 28% CHLORINE!!!! I still have samples of the oil I used in question and I also have the failed engine in my shop, to be used for future litigation against Motorkote.

I challenge Motorkote to deny my accusations!!

Users beware!

Then you should be able to post EXACTLY what the MK did to the engine to make it fail, which you have not.

Most chlorine treatments are about 2oz for every quart of motor oil. That 28% gets SERIOUSLY diluted at that rate.
 
Originally Posted By: ZZman
Doesn't this contain Teflon which is not recommended for engines?


I am not sure any of the major additives, even Slick 50, have Teflon or PTFE anymore because of previous lawsuits. I looked over MK's website and they make claims of not having any Teflon. Who really knows for sure. MK is not posting any real data on the product. I listen in to some of the the late night trucking shows that I podcast, and one of them has had the MK guy on the show. Several questions have come up whether MK has chlorine, Teflon, or PTFE. The guy on the show has categorically stated that MK does not have that in its product. That is all I have to go on. I guess unless someone shows us a virgin sample analysis, we will never really be sure.

One thing that seems clear on the shows though, there is a lot of people that seem to like the product. They do ask a lot of technical questions.
 
ANALYSIS REPORT
WEAR
CONTAMINATION
OIL CONDITION
NORMAL
NORMAL
NORMAL





MOTORKOTE - New (Unused) Oil
Unit Make : {n/a} Date Rec'd : Dec 7, 2009 Sample Date : Dec 6, 2009
Unit Model : {n/a} Serial No: : {n/a} Time on Unit : 0 cyc
Comp Make : {n/a} Cust. Ref No. : {n/a} Time on Oil : 0 cyc
Comp Model : {n/a} Stub No. : WC-806723 Time on Filter : 0 cyc



RECOMMENDATION

This is a baseline read-out on the submitted sample.

Sample Date Current UOM
Time on Unit 0 cyc
Time on Oil 0 cyc
Time on Fltr 0 cyc
Oil Maint. n/a ---
Filter Maint. n/a ---



CONTAMINATION

{not applicable}

Sample Date Current Abn
Silicon --- ---
Potassium --- ---
Water (%) >4µm(c) --- 5000
>6µm(c) --- 1300
>14µm(c) --- 160
>21µm(c) ---
>38µm(c) ---
>70µm(c) ---
ISO 4406(c) 19/17/14



OIL CONDITION


Total Chlorine content (ASTM D808): 28.37% (283,700 ppm).

Sample Date Current Base
Boron ---
Barium ---
Calcium ---
Magnesium ---
Molybdenum ---
Sodium ---
Phosphorus ---
Sulfur ---
Zinc ---
Visc@40°C ---
Visc@100°C ---
Oxidation --- ---
TAN ---
TBN ---



WEAR

{not applicable}

Sample Date Current Abn
Iron --- 20
Nickel --- 20
Chromium --- 20
Titanium --- ---
Copper --- 20
Aluminum --- 20
Tin --- 20
Lead --- 20
Silver --- ---


Report ID - WES660GUE [WCAMIS] 01577737 - Pg. 1 © 1996-2000 WearCheck Canada Inc. - All Rights Reserved. WCCF1160

*
Graphs






Viscosity @ 40°C

Particle Count Graph

TAN Level





If you have any questions concerning this sample report (work order no 01577737 ) please call 1-800-268-2131.
The leader in oil analysis

WearCheck International
Africa, Asia, Australia, Europe, North America ATTN: ED WESSELIUS
ED WESSELIUS
[email protected]
FAX ()-

Report ID - WES660GUE [WCAMIS] 01577737 - Pg. 2 © 1996-2000 WearCheck Canada Inc. - All Rights Reserved. WCCF1160

*
 
The only problem I have with that report regarding the 28.37% chlorine content: MK in their recommended application rate, shows on a class 8 style engine adding 1 gallon. Now since we all know that 14L DD, CAT C15's, Cummins ISX, etc all hold around 10 gallons of oil in the sump (give or take), how did the chlorine level rise to over a 1/4 of the volume of the sample? Makes me wonder if that lame idea that "if a little does a good thing, then a lot will do better!" Or maybe you decided to add a gallon of Chlorox to see if that would clean out the engine! (sorry, just letting my simple mind wander)

So, even if MK was 100% chlorine, then that would still equate to only 10% of the volume in the sump. Something just plain doesn't seem right, but I am not sure that MK is at total fault.

Good luck with the lawsuit, but this is one area that any opposing lawyer is going to pick apart.
 
Back
Top