'10 Accord 2.4L Maxlife 5w30 FS + Torco MPZ 02 10k miles

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
2,918
Location
Indiana
2010 Honda Accord. 2.4L with AT. 175,461 miles on the odometer when the sample was taken.
This oil was run for 9,941 miles. A Fram Ultra (XG7317) was used doing this OCI. Oil and filter was changed at that time, and a sample was taken and sent to Blackstone for analysis.

The oil was Valvoline Maxlife 5w30 Full Synthetic with about 10 oz of Torco's MPZ 02 oil additive. Here is a link to their product: Torco MPZ 02 Additive

I have an email to Torco to see if the sodium and titanium came from their product. Maxlife doesn't have sodium and titanium in it, does it??

Here is a link to the 2015 UOA that you see on the report (old school PU + Lubegard BioTech): UOA from 2015

Here's the report:
 

Attachments

  • 0 bytes · Views: 141
Last edited:
That's probably the best 10k oci I've ever seen! Looks great! Is the Torco additive a moly based product,like MOS2? As to the sodium,I was thinking that's Valvoline's trademark,a sodium antiwear add when they dropped the moly from Maxlife,right?
 
Older Maxlife formulations contained sodium. The new batch (2019) is different. That latest UOA is real nice. Add-pack strong as a bull.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by aquariuscsm
That's probably the best 10k oci I've ever seen! Looks great! Is the Torco additive a moly based product,like MOS2? As to the sodium,I was thinking that's Valvoline's trademark,a sodium antiwear add when they dropped the moly from Maxlife,right?


Thanks aquariuscsm. I was impressed with the UOA.

The Torco additive doesn't use colloidal moly. It's tri-nuclear.

For some reason, I thought Valvoline always used sodium but then they dropped it and went with now common Ca/Mg blend. But I could be wrong. I don't look at a ton of UOA's on here.
 
Now run 10k without the additive. I'm always curious to know if these additives really help anything or if it's all in our heads.
 
Originally Posted by Chris142
MPZ stands for Moly,Phosphorus, zinc.

Yep. But this is O2 sensor safe.... So no Phosphorus or Zinc.
 
Last edited:
Phishin, was your reason for using the additive, an increase in MPG or simply reduced wear? Have you noticed that UOAs are better with the additive, or your MPG has increased? I am a bit curious, I have already poured in Liquimoly MOS2 into both of my vehicles. Unfortunately, I have started to run the A/C so comparing MPG is going to be tough.
 
Originally Posted by JoelB
Now run 10k without the additive. I'm always curious to know if these additives really help anything or if it's all in our heads.


I'm not really interested in doing that. Sure, it might give me insight if the Torco additive is doing anything. But 2/3 of a bottle of this stuff per OCI is $10. I'm not really worried about "saving" $10 2-3 times a year.
What I am concerned with is boosting my oil with an additional helping of AW chemistries, which includes a healthy dose of Moly, which Maxlife now has none.

At the VERY worst, it's doing nothing. But I consider that highly unlikely. The benefit may be TINY, but it's there. And the added "cushion" of protection I get gives me a good feeling. This Honda Accord is driving cross country to National BMX races several times a month. It's loaded down with tons of gear, a hitch-attached 2 position bike rack, and me and my boy. It travels at high rates of speed, and often times, as merge onto the highways/freeways/toll roads, I get my foot into it and it reaches 5-5.5k RPM's several times a weekend.

Originally Posted by paulri
Phishin, was your reason for using the additive, an increase in MPG or simply reduced wear? Have you noticed that UOAs are better with the additive, or your MPG has increased? I am a bit curious, I have already poured in Liquimoly MOS2 into both of my vehicles. Unfortunately, I have started to run the A/C so comparing MPG is going to be tough.


As I said above....I like the added cushion of AW and AF capabilities because of the nature of my driving habits. I've only had 2 UOA's done....as seen on this report. The prior was with Lubegard BioTech on board. I don't really like LM MOS2....I'm a bit skeptical of the settle issues it may have. Plus, my Honda can sit for a few weeks between starts....and that settling isn't very settling to me. LOL!!
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by Phishin
2010 Honda Accord. 2.4L with AT. 175,461 miles on the odometer when the sample was taken.
This oil was run for 9,941 miles. A Fram Ultra (XG7317) was used doing this OCI. Oil and filter was changed at that time, and a sample was taken and sent to Blackstone for analysis.

The oil was Valvoline Maxlife 5w30 Full Synthetic with about 10 oz of Torco's MPZ 02 oil additive. Here is a link to their product: Torco MPZ 02 Additive

I have an email to Torco to see if the sodium and titanium came from their product. Maxlife doesn't have sodium and titanium in it, does it??

Here is a link to the 2015 UOA that you see on the report (old school PU + Lubegard BioTech): UOA from 2015

Here's the report:




I'll repeat, unless there are separate VOA's of:

1) Additive by itself,

2) PCMO by itself,

3) The Additive + the PCMO mix

There is no way to determine cause and effect or which component contributed to what effect in a UOA.
 
VML syn is a solid oil. Very quiet and has greatly reduced the leaks and weeps on my Accord.
 
Originally Posted by derass
That engine calls for 5W20. Why are you running 5W30?


Because I don't care to follow the CAFE suggestions/recommendations. I think a 30 weight, or even a light 40 weight, is optimal for most gasoline engines. Probably doesn't matter either way, but that's OK. I think a 30 weight is just better.

I imagine, when this engine hits 300K miles, I might start running M1 0w40....that's that's gonna be in another 4 years or so.
 
Phishin: great minds think alike
smile.gif
 
I tend to agree as well. Although there is much more going on than just the oil grade. A 5w-20 with a high pressure-viscosity coefficient may offer a greater protective barrier in the bearings than a 5w-30 with a lower P-V coefficient. At that same time, that low P-V coefficient 5w-30 may offer better fuel economy than the high P-V coefficient 5w-20. This is rather difficult to predict though without knowing the exact base oil composition of the oil.
 
Originally Posted by RDY4WAR
I tend to agree as well. Although there is much more going on than just the oil grade. A 5w-20 with a high pressure-viscosity coefficient may offer a greater protective barrier in the bearings than a 5w-30 with a lower P-V coefficient. At that same time, that low P-V coefficient 5w-30 may offer better fuel economy than the high P-V coefficient 5w-20. This is rather difficult to predict though without knowing the exact base oil composition of the oil.

I don't understand that, how is it different than the HTHS? A 30 grade must have a higher HTHS than a 20 grade, it can't be the other way around. Is it different for the "P-V coefficient"? Does P-V coefficient apply to the type of bearings in an automobile engine?
 
Originally Posted by kschachn
Originally Posted by RDY4WAR
I tend to agree as well. Although there is much more going on than just the oil grade. A 5w-20 with a high pressure-viscosity coefficient may offer a greater protective barrier in the bearings than a 5w-30 with a lower P-V coefficient. At that same time, that low P-V coefficient 5w-30 may offer better fuel economy than the high P-V coefficient 5w-20. This is rather difficult to predict though without knowing the exact base oil composition of the oil.

I don't understand that, how is it different than the HTHS? A 30 grade must have a higher HTHS than a 20 grade, it can't be the other way around. Is it different for the "P-V coefficient"? Does P-V coefficient apply to the type of bearings in an automobile engine?


The HTHS is only set by minimums, not maximums, and P-V coefficient is not the same as HTHS. The 0w-20 oil used in our race engines has an HTHS of 3.1 cP.

The pressure-viscosity coefficient is the relationship between the load placed on the oil film and the thickness of that oil film at that load. Lower group number mineral oils tend to have a higher P-V coefficient than their synthetic counterparts up until a certain temperature when they can no longer take the heat.
 
Originally Posted by RDY4WAR
The pressure-viscosity coefficient is the relationship between the load placed on the oil film and the thickness of that oil film at that load. Lower group number mineral oils tend to have a higher P-V coefficient than their synthetic counterparts up until a certain temperature when they can no longer take the heat.

So should the manufacturers be reporting those values instead of HTHS? Do they?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top