I use BG 44k fuel additive every 10k miles.
I wanted to know if anyone uses BG MOA oil additive?
I wanted to know if anyone uses BG MOA oil additive?
BG products
- Thread starter Bagger_Matt
- Start date
- Status
I've got BG MOA in my car right now, only because the shop who services my Saab threw it in during a major tune-up and oil change.
This is the second time that MOA has been in my car. I keep forgetting to tell my Saab shop not to use it whenever I have my 900S in for a major service interval (all of the fluids in the car get flushed and replaced every 30K miles.)
I have no real problem with MOA; it's just that I use Saab 0W30 Turbo Oil. I think that the lubricating being done by this oil is sufficient, and I really don't need MOA (which stands for Molybdenum Oil Additive.)
This is the second time that MOA has been in my car. I keep forgetting to tell my Saab shop not to use it whenever I have my 900S in for a major service interval (all of the fluids in the car get flushed and replaced every 30K miles.)
I have no real problem with MOA; it's just that I use Saab 0W30 Turbo Oil. I think that the lubricating being done by this oil is sufficient, and I really don't need MOA (which stands for Molybdenum Oil Additive.)
i use moa for several years now its got tons of zinc and phos..1900/1800 and 800 mag. tons of cal. its a great additive
MolaKule
Staff member
And what happens to your oil (via UOA's) after you use this additive?
This may have been true in the past, but a quick check of the contents of a current can of MOA show no moly whatsoever.
MY biggest complaint, they market BG products as a cure all for everything, especially if they sponsor a radio or tc call in show. Push the products for everythng.
I really don't know how effective BG products are, but I do know one thing-they seem to have BG44K fuel system cleaner at Toyota and Honda dealerships. It is expensive and it is supposed to be powerful. If you had a really plugged up system it might be good to use. But maybe one tank of gasoline before the next oil change.
One of the things BG MOA is supposed to do is reduce oxidation of oil. But the LC we hear about here is supposed to do the same thing.
One of the things BG MOA is supposed to do is reduce oxidation of oil. But the LC we hear about here is supposed to do the same thing.
Thank you all for your anwsers, look at that, 6 replies and 4 are from Virginia. I'm from Fairfax
and almost all dealerships aroung here use and sell BG products. When I worked at a Ford dealer,
we used MOA at major services like 30k,60k,90k.
and almost all dealerships aroung here use and sell BG products. When I worked at a Ford dealer,
we used MOA at major services like 30k,60k,90k.
With respect to BG 44K, there was mention on a thread here about 6 months ago that the formula for this had changed.
I've done a search and couldn't locate the original post. The author mentioned the new ingredients, and then disparaged them quite a bit.
Does anyone know anything about this?
I've done a search and couldn't locate the original post. The author mentioned the new ingredients, and then disparaged them quite a bit.
Does anyone know anything about this?
Yeah, that was me, and I'm still miffed at BG for what I feel is a general "cheapening" of what was once the best fuel system cleaner on the market.
The original post can be seen here:
http://theoildrop.server101.com/cgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=5;t=002452
Mike, thanks so much for posting and joining the BITOG fray !
The fact that you feel comfortable enough and willing to address issues that honest , value conscious automotive products consumers post here is admirable. Also a sign that BITOG is getting the attention of many in the business.
My concern is not that your products are strong enough but that in used oil analysis posted here at BITOG, your products seem to be associated with increases in soft metals elemental values when the engine fuel side has employed the BG44K formula.
What have you changed without revealing proprietary issues) to address what happens with the formula if and when it gets past the combustion chamber into the motor oil and POSSIBLE residual bearing overlay elemental increases ?
What has your in - house testing shown and can you share that for our no spin website ?
Again thanks for the forthright explanation above and I look forward to you shedding more light on the BG44K products and others used for cleaning the top end of our carboned up engines.
We need more participation from companies and professionals in the business like yours.
Sincerely, Terry
The fact that you feel comfortable enough and willing to address issues that honest , value conscious automotive products consumers post here is admirable. Also a sign that BITOG is getting the attention of many in the business.
My concern is not that your products are strong enough but that in used oil analysis posted here at BITOG, your products seem to be associated with increases in soft metals elemental values when the engine fuel side has employed the BG44K formula.
What have you changed without revealing proprietary issues) to address what happens with the formula if and when it gets past the combustion chamber into the motor oil and POSSIBLE residual bearing overlay elemental increases ?
What has your in - house testing shown and can you share that for our no spin website ?
Again thanks for the forthright explanation above and I look forward to you shedding more light on the BG44K products and others used for cleaning the top end of our carboned up engines.
We need more participation from companies and professionals in the business like yours.
Sincerely, Terry
Absolutely THANK YOU Mike!!! So are you saying that 44K still contains the polyetheramine and all of the other secret "goodies"? If so, that is terrific news, as now I won't have to try and find another fuel system cleaner.
Could you pass along something to those in charge of what is printed on your cans? Tell them that people like myself who sell BG products where they work, take what's printed on the cans literally, sometimes too much so. When the contents list change without any explanation from BG or its reps, what are we supposed to think? I think you already have my answer to that question.
Thanks again for the reply, and feel free to contribute more, as myself and many others would really value your input.
Could you pass along something to those in charge of what is printed on your cans? Tell them that people like myself who sell BG products where they work, take what's printed on the cans literally, sometimes too much so. When the contents list change without any explanation from BG or its reps, what are we supposed to think? I think you already have my answer to that question.
Thanks again for the reply, and feel free to contribute more, as myself and many others would really value your input.
My Hyundai dealership suggests BG MI3000 & BG Advanced Formula MOA every 7500 miles. $99.10 including an oil change.
Anyone know where I can get the BG products for a good price? Online or here in NJ.
Thanks all.
Anyone know where I can get the BG products for a good price? Online or here in NJ.
Thanks all.
Terry,
What I can tell you is that with periodic use of BG44K, we have seen absolutely no statistically significant trend as you have described with increased wear metals or other detriments to the motor oil or engine. It is simply not an issue, as BG44K is a selective hydrocarbon activated detergent/disspersant, and is not harmful to metal or plastic surfaces at all.
Something that I want you all to understand is that when you quote your results from UOA analysis, you do not always seem to understand that ANY data you present should really reflect a high enough sampling to rule out mere coincidence or unrepeatable results. Any specialized analytical lab test or official published report you read today will be based on a either a high sampling number, or a very CONTROLLED smaller sampling pool. (As opposed to just looking at a few data points taken randomly from here and there, as most typical but-well-meaning "Do It Yourself-er will do").
In essence this is what I am trying to say to you as a chat group: As a lab professional trained to review valid data, I often see that your individual results more-often-than-not only represent random information because you have failed to show a statistically significant (repeatable) trend. Coming to conclusions as you do with individual UOA's from different sources, is more apt to throw you off the track and less apt to help you obtain truly valid results and trends. For instance, we take great pains to insure that all our data passes the stringent mathmatical formula for statistical significance. This means that with our products, we look at large group studies, or other rigidly controlled industry accepted tests. We then carefully review the conclusions of all our tests, so that we do not overstate or understate what we see as a repeatable trend.
If you could all imagine with me for a moment, I will try to give you an example of what I mean.
Let's say that doing research and sorting through information is much like looking at a Monet painting. Monet as you recall, employed a style that involved painting with a series of small dots, which quite frankly looked like nothing more than small dots when you looked up close at his work. But lo and behold, when you stepped back and viewed the whole group of dots together from a distance...well you saw an entirely different image, you saw a whole painting!
That in a nutshell is how we look at all research data. We rarely just take one "dot" of information and profess to expound great reams of knowledge about what we thnk we see, and why we think something happened. Instead, we look at many different tests and many different results, and weight their sum together, evaluating how they worked as a whole to produce an entire "image" of performance.
With regard to UOA's and other data that you feel is important, all I ask of you is to all "step back" and be more objective about how you interpret your specific information. Try not to over-analyze and dwell on one piece or set of results too much, unless you have the luxury of having an indisputably large wealth of testing to draw from. You are actually robbing yourselves of true scientific objectivity when you try to draw a conclusion from something that may be an insignificant or unexplained "spike" of information, or by simply not taking into account some unrelated influences that helped produce the result you saw (which you may have overlooked or ignored.)
Let's face it, whether it comes to digesting information about the published dangers of cigarette smoking, or the future probability of developing heart disease from eating oil-fried french fries...all this information is only valid and relevent if it passes the test of STATSTICAL SIGNIFICANCE. It if isn't significant...it isn't to be treated as a predictable result...period.
In my world I have to insure that we produce, market and stand behind a very successful product that many people stake their reputations and livelyhoods on. If I had to market and rely on only one piece of information, taken from from only one OEM car, that used BG 44K only one time...well let me tell you, I wouldn't stake my reputation on the sum of THAT result if my life depended on it.
But the fact is that we at BG Products, Inc. have compiled internal and confidential data that represents many different cars, from many different makes and models, driven many thousands of miles, for many of our lube and fuel products and services. And with that kind of information to draw from, we've derived a comprehensive overview of the claims we stand behind and promote. As I said earlier, we believe in the BG44K product and will stand behind what we claim it will do. And if the issue was ever legally challenged...we certainly could and would back it up.
Well again, I thank you for your time here and the forum questions you've asked of me. As I do not always have enough minutes in my day to drop in here often to read your chat, I leave you now to discuss among yourselves the merits of what I've said. I hope that I have left you all as friends (and not foes) in the world of general maintenance and ultimate car care! Best wishes always, Mike Belluomo
What I can tell you is that with periodic use of BG44K, we have seen absolutely no statistically significant trend as you have described with increased wear metals or other detriments to the motor oil or engine. It is simply not an issue, as BG44K is a selective hydrocarbon activated detergent/disspersant, and is not harmful to metal or plastic surfaces at all.
Something that I want you all to understand is that when you quote your results from UOA analysis, you do not always seem to understand that ANY data you present should really reflect a high enough sampling to rule out mere coincidence or unrepeatable results. Any specialized analytical lab test or official published report you read today will be based on a either a high sampling number, or a very CONTROLLED smaller sampling pool. (As opposed to just looking at a few data points taken randomly from here and there, as most typical but-well-meaning "Do It Yourself-er will do").
In essence this is what I am trying to say to you as a chat group: As a lab professional trained to review valid data, I often see that your individual results more-often-than-not only represent random information because you have failed to show a statistically significant (repeatable) trend. Coming to conclusions as you do with individual UOA's from different sources, is more apt to throw you off the track and less apt to help you obtain truly valid results and trends. For instance, we take great pains to insure that all our data passes the stringent mathmatical formula for statistical significance. This means that with our products, we look at large group studies, or other rigidly controlled industry accepted tests. We then carefully review the conclusions of all our tests, so that we do not overstate or understate what we see as a repeatable trend.
If you could all imagine with me for a moment, I will try to give you an example of what I mean.
Let's say that doing research and sorting through information is much like looking at a Monet painting. Monet as you recall, employed a style that involved painting with a series of small dots, which quite frankly looked like nothing more than small dots when you looked up close at his work. But lo and behold, when you stepped back and viewed the whole group of dots together from a distance...well you saw an entirely different image, you saw a whole painting!
That in a nutshell is how we look at all research data. We rarely just take one "dot" of information and profess to expound great reams of knowledge about what we thnk we see, and why we think something happened. Instead, we look at many different tests and many different results, and weight their sum together, evaluating how they worked as a whole to produce an entire "image" of performance.
With regard to UOA's and other data that you feel is important, all I ask of you is to all "step back" and be more objective about how you interpret your specific information. Try not to over-analyze and dwell on one piece or set of results too much, unless you have the luxury of having an indisputably large wealth of testing to draw from. You are actually robbing yourselves of true scientific objectivity when you try to draw a conclusion from something that may be an insignificant or unexplained "spike" of information, or by simply not taking into account some unrelated influences that helped produce the result you saw (which you may have overlooked or ignored.)
Let's face it, whether it comes to digesting information about the published dangers of cigarette smoking, or the future probability of developing heart disease from eating oil-fried french fries...all this information is only valid and relevent if it passes the test of STATSTICAL SIGNIFICANCE. It if isn't significant...it isn't to be treated as a predictable result...period.
In my world I have to insure that we produce, market and stand behind a very successful product that many people stake their reputations and livelyhoods on. If I had to market and rely on only one piece of information, taken from from only one OEM car, that used BG 44K only one time...well let me tell you, I wouldn't stake my reputation on the sum of THAT result if my life depended on it.
But the fact is that we at BG Products, Inc. have compiled internal and confidential data that represents many different cars, from many different makes and models, driven many thousands of miles, for many of our lube and fuel products and services. And with that kind of information to draw from, we've derived a comprehensive overview of the claims we stand behind and promote. As I said earlier, we believe in the BG44K product and will stand behind what we claim it will do. And if the issue was ever legally challenged...we certainly could and would back it up.
Well again, I thank you for your time here and the forum questions you've asked of me. As I do not always have enough minutes in my day to drop in here often to read your chat, I leave you now to discuss among yourselves the merits of what I've said. I hope that I have left you all as friends (and not foes) in the world of general maintenance and ultimate car care! Best wishes always, Mike Belluomo
Excellent post Mike. Could you do me a favour and let me know if BG44K and any other BG products are available 'Downunder'? We have Redline SI-1, Techron, Lucas UCL etc but I have had no luck finding BG product. Thanks...Stephen
Good post!
Hello everyone. I just couldn't resist adding my 2 cents worth to your BG 44K discussion, as I see you have alot of theories and opinions on what BG44K is, and what it isn't. Since I am the Technical Service Manager for BG Products, Inc. I thought I would respond to you all this one time to set the record straight and inform you on what exactly you are seeing on the label contents of 44K.
First, I want to let you know that the contents on any product label do not necessarily reflect the proprietary formula for a product. Label contents are by and large grouped in general chemical categories so that proper handling and transportation issues can be determined. This information is only relevent to the transportation or service professional, and is not a clue to the average guy on what makes up a products' effectiveness. It is obvious that many of you here are not truly familiar with the intended function of label information or MDSD's. (Material Safety Data Sheets) If you were, then you'd know that this information has very little to do with proprietary formulations or active ingredients. Most of the time what you are reading on the label of a can or bottle is the major diluent (petroleum distillates, kerosene, mineral spirits, ect.) used to suspend the active ingredients. The active ingredients, in fact, may not be a regulated compound per se, and hence they may not be required to list. Now obviously some chemical companies do not necessarily provide ample of accurate information on their labels, nor care about regulatory compliance issues, as this area of enforcement is rarely monitored for accuracy. See this link for an example of a recent regulatory issue involving such a company:
http://www.caprep.com/0105003.htm
However, BG Products is and has always been concerned with providing all lawful and relative information on their product labels and MSDS's, and we will continue to do so. With regard to BG 44K, I must admit that in the past we listed polyether amine as a major component of BG 44K, but this was actually not required by law. (This sure made the product sound powerful though...didn't it!) But, as we moved into the future, we sought to improve our consistency and compliance to relevent content information, and by doing so we revised a number of our product labels. During this revision period, we discovered it was unnecessary to list our unique, patented polyether amine compound (among other chemicals) as it was not regulated nor applicable to disclose. Since we are not interested in providing our competition with formulation secrets, we opted to cease label information that reflected any of the non-regulated but active chemistries to which you all frequently refer. Instead, we are now more consistent and uniform in providing the necessary label and MSDS information for regulatory purposes, even though this does not translate into good marketing (like you guys like to see).
Anyway in conclusion we still have the strongest and most effective fuel cleaner on the market today with BG 44K, and have not lessened or "cheapened" the performance of it. If you ever care to refer to our literature about it's performance, you will see that is well documented and extensive. In contrast to other companies who market products in this category, we are probably the only company you will find that has actual test data and fleet or vehicle information to back up it's proven claims. Anything you find pictured or stated in our literature would be actually grounded in real objective test data. For instance, we list combustion chamber cleaning, catalytic converter restoration, and synergistic valve deposit cleaning as some of the hallmarks to BG 44K use. All of these attributes have been proven in controlled tests performed by independent (and internationally recognized) research organizations. However, this same standard for quality can not often times be said of other products that make claims similar to ours. In short, BG enjoys the stellar reputation that it has because it has always been a performance-based company, and not one concerned with manufacturing marginal products or promoting unclaimed hype. Anyway I will conclude by saying that you are each entitled to your opinions and choices in this market of performance products, and I encourage you to continue to do so. Finally let me just add that, sometimes (well meaning though you may be), a little information in the hands of someone who doesn't fully know how to use it, is sometimes a more dangerous thing that not knowing anything at all. I trust that we all understand how important it is to remember what radio talk show host Paul Harvey always says.."and now....for the REST of the story!".
For those of you that are currently using our products and services, I want to thank you for your ongoing support, and for those of you who don't...well, I wish you the best with what you choose to use. That's all I have to say. Thank you for allowing me the chance to correct the misinformation stated here in the past about our products. You all are a faithful bunch of interested consumers and I greatly enjoy the efforts you've taken in doing the best that you can to maintain your vehicles. I wish you all many safe miles of driving ahead. Sincerely, Michael D. Belluomo, BG Products, Inc., Technical Service Manager, Wichita, KS.
[ February 24, 2005, 01:21 PM: Message edited by: Spiritusantu ]
First, I want to let you know that the contents on any product label do not necessarily reflect the proprietary formula for a product. Label contents are by and large grouped in general chemical categories so that proper handling and transportation issues can be determined. This information is only relevent to the transportation or service professional, and is not a clue to the average guy on what makes up a products' effectiveness. It is obvious that many of you here are not truly familiar with the intended function of label information or MDSD's. (Material Safety Data Sheets) If you were, then you'd know that this information has very little to do with proprietary formulations or active ingredients. Most of the time what you are reading on the label of a can or bottle is the major diluent (petroleum distillates, kerosene, mineral spirits, ect.) used to suspend the active ingredients. The active ingredients, in fact, may not be a regulated compound per se, and hence they may not be required to list. Now obviously some chemical companies do not necessarily provide ample of accurate information on their labels, nor care about regulatory compliance issues, as this area of enforcement is rarely monitored for accuracy. See this link for an example of a recent regulatory issue involving such a company:
http://www.caprep.com/0105003.htm
However, BG Products is and has always been concerned with providing all lawful and relative information on their product labels and MSDS's, and we will continue to do so. With regard to BG 44K, I must admit that in the past we listed polyether amine as a major component of BG 44K, but this was actually not required by law. (This sure made the product sound powerful though...didn't it!) But, as we moved into the future, we sought to improve our consistency and compliance to relevent content information, and by doing so we revised a number of our product labels. During this revision period, we discovered it was unnecessary to list our unique, patented polyether amine compound (among other chemicals) as it was not regulated nor applicable to disclose. Since we are not interested in providing our competition with formulation secrets, we opted to cease label information that reflected any of the non-regulated but active chemistries to which you all frequently refer. Instead, we are now more consistent and uniform in providing the necessary label and MSDS information for regulatory purposes, even though this does not translate into good marketing (like you guys like to see).
Anyway in conclusion we still have the strongest and most effective fuel cleaner on the market today with BG 44K, and have not lessened or "cheapened" the performance of it. If you ever care to refer to our literature about it's performance, you will see that is well documented and extensive. In contrast to other companies who market products in this category, we are probably the only company you will find that has actual test data and fleet or vehicle information to back up it's proven claims. Anything you find pictured or stated in our literature would be actually grounded in real objective test data. For instance, we list combustion chamber cleaning, catalytic converter restoration, and synergistic valve deposit cleaning as some of the hallmarks to BG 44K use. All of these attributes have been proven in controlled tests performed by independent (and internationally recognized) research organizations. However, this same standard for quality can not often times be said of other products that make claims similar to ours. In short, BG enjoys the stellar reputation that it has because it has always been a performance-based company, and not one concerned with manufacturing marginal products or promoting unclaimed hype. Anyway I will conclude by saying that you are each entitled to your opinions and choices in this market of performance products, and I encourage you to continue to do so. Finally let me just add that, sometimes (well meaning though you may be), a little information in the hands of someone who doesn't fully know how to use it, is sometimes a more dangerous thing that not knowing anything at all. I trust that we all understand how important it is to remember what radio talk show host Paul Harvey always says.."and now....for the REST of the story!".
For those of you that are currently using our products and services, I want to thank you for your ongoing support, and for those of you who don't...well, I wish you the best with what you choose to use. That's all I have to say. Thank you for allowing me the chance to correct the misinformation stated here in the past about our products. You all are a faithful bunch of interested consumers and I greatly enjoy the efforts you've taken in doing the best that you can to maintain your vehicles. I wish you all many safe miles of driving ahead. Sincerely, Michael D. Belluomo, BG Products, Inc., Technical Service Manager, Wichita, KS.
[ February 24, 2005, 01:21 PM: Message edited by: Spiritusantu ]
Outstanding posts.
Actually Georges Seurat developed the style called pointillism. It used primary colors painted in dots to blend colors into the minds eye. Pointillism predated the sony triniton television by oh about a 100 years even though the concepts are similar in scope. Monet painted in broad brushstrokes frequently used in impressionism. Monet received a lot of acclaim after practically inventing impressionism after an art critic visciously panned one of his paintings titled Impression: Sunrise.
Anyway, art lesson aside some really good points are made here. A single UOA does not prove that an oil is good or bad. Larger sample sizes give more accurate pictures. One reason that I pay special attention to what Terry Dyson has to say is because he has a larger sample size of reference to back up his opinions. Now if I could get my family to quit dumping oil before I send in for a UOA .... I could actually pay the guy for once.... HeH .....
I think that opinions about popular products like Mobil 1 and Lube Control showcase their value because weve seen the benefit over a large amount of samples. However, boutique products like Redline, Royal Purple, Schaeffers and SX Up are less proven. A couple guys had fuel dilution issues with RP and their oil sheared and its received a thumbs down on these boards for months. Vetteman uses RP and being that hes the head honcho around here I think his example is worth following. The thing about a boutique oil like RP, Redline or perhaps even Amsoil is that the guys that will benefit most from their qualities are also the guys most likely to abuse oil. I remember the guy towing monster loads in and around dirt filled construction sites had a less than ideal Redline report and got bashed to pieces all around here for it ........ well no kidding.
Anyway, slowly our knowledge will grow and develop and I appreciate and thank Mike for his contributions.
The problem that I have is that there are a lot of additives that I both use and / or want to use and additive overkill doesnt seem beneficial.
Id buy some SX up right now if I wasnt already adding overkill amounts of LC, ARX, and a few others to my happy little crankcase.
Happy Motoring All,
Bugshu
Actually Georges Seurat developed the style called pointillism. It used primary colors painted in dots to blend colors into the minds eye. Pointillism predated the sony triniton television by oh about a 100 years even though the concepts are similar in scope. Monet painted in broad brushstrokes frequently used in impressionism. Monet received a lot of acclaim after practically inventing impressionism after an art critic visciously panned one of his paintings titled Impression: Sunrise.
Anyway, art lesson aside some really good points are made here. A single UOA does not prove that an oil is good or bad. Larger sample sizes give more accurate pictures. One reason that I pay special attention to what Terry Dyson has to say is because he has a larger sample size of reference to back up his opinions. Now if I could get my family to quit dumping oil before I send in for a UOA .... I could actually pay the guy for once.... HeH .....
I think that opinions about popular products like Mobil 1 and Lube Control showcase their value because weve seen the benefit over a large amount of samples. However, boutique products like Redline, Royal Purple, Schaeffers and SX Up are less proven. A couple guys had fuel dilution issues with RP and their oil sheared and its received a thumbs down on these boards for months. Vetteman uses RP and being that hes the head honcho around here I think his example is worth following. The thing about a boutique oil like RP, Redline or perhaps even Amsoil is that the guys that will benefit most from their qualities are also the guys most likely to abuse oil. I remember the guy towing monster loads in and around dirt filled construction sites had a less than ideal Redline report and got bashed to pieces all around here for it ........ well no kidding.
Anyway, slowly our knowledge will grow and develop and I appreciate and thank Mike for his contributions.
The problem that I have is that there are a lot of additives that I both use and / or want to use and additive overkill doesnt seem beneficial.
Id buy some SX up right now if I wasnt already adding overkill amounts of LC, ARX, and a few others to my happy little crankcase.
Happy Motoring All,
Bugshu
Thank you Mike, I now fell even better about having 44K in my tank. You just earned a customer for life.
- Status
