My farewell post to this thread
V6----I felt that I would respond to your comments one more time------I am not a triboligist and even with the little that I know I can clearly see that you are not one either-------for the two of us to continue to argue about a subject that neither of are experts at is not only comical, it is moronic and I choose to end it with this final post----I have way more important things to keep me busy---------feel free to trump me and impress everyone
“Moly builds up in microscopic crevices...and it doesnt require ALOT of moly to do so. It can really mess things up if you go overboard.
It fills in honing cross hatches to some degree, fills in grooves in bearings, etc… Look up the moly content in Valvoline SYN oil treament, or GM's EOS or any good additive. They all have TONS of moly.”
By this description it sounds as if you are referring to a colloidal form of Molybdenum Disulfide. A suspension of insoluble MoS2 has been used as a friction modifier in greases for many years, and is effective in this application. There is little published research supporting it’s efficacy in engine oils as an EP agent. There are other forms of “moly”, which are organic and oil soluble and used as EP agents in engine oil:
Molybdenum dithiophosphate is the most common, and it works in a manner similar to ZDDP; it is an organic molecule which decomposes thermally and releases molybdenum, phosphorus, and sulfur which combine to form a glassy matrix which serves as a wear surface in a manner similar to ZDDP. There is some published research showing the applicability of this form of molybdenum as an EP oil additive1
1“Antifriction action of engine oil additives”, A. Vipper, I. Zadko, A. Karaulov, M. Ermolaev, Scientific and Engineering Centre, LUKOIL Oil Company, Moscow, Russia, Wiley Interscience, Volume 14, Issue 1 , Pages 43 – 56
One reason why MDDP has not found as much applicability in engine oils may have to do with the fact that it does not exhibit the same anti-corrosive characteristics as ZDDP produced using an overbased ZnO. MDDP is soluble in oil therefore it does not have a characteristic of filling in microscopic crevices or any other gap filling action like some forms of MoS2.
In the concentrations which EP additives are used in engine oils, it is easy to determine what form of the Molybdenum is used. MoS2 is a dark solid, and when held in suspension turns oil very dark at low concentrations. If the oil is close to normal straw color, the molybdenum is the MDDS or other form such as Molybdenum carbamate.
“There isnt a bunch of sludge in the gas that the oil is cleaning out. If you need detergent, the engine has bigger problems....like maybe needing an air filter.”
The detergent package in oil is not there to hold dirt that enters the engine through the intake air in suspension. The detergent chemistry is designed to create a molecule which has both oliophilic and polar characteristics, that is it is soluble in oil, yet enters into polar reactions with carbon and metal oxides among other elements. Its main purpose is to react with and hold in suspension byproducts of both combustion and oil decomposition. The primary component of complete gasoline combustion is H2O. Since the engine parts exposed to combustion typically (after warm-up) operate close to or above 100C (212 F), little overt condensation occurs inside the cylinder itself, but consider the conditions immediately after the combustion: The cylinder pressure and temperature is extremely high, and a there is a thin film of oil on the cylinder walls. Due to the relatively low concentration of H2O in the oil, and the extreme vapor pressure of the H2O in the combustion gases, some of the H2O in the combustion gases diffuse into the oil, and as a result are returned to the sump. There most H2O evaporates, but some enters into reactions with both the detergent and sulfur, some of it forming H2SO4 (sulfuric acid). In the same way, carbon in the form of CO2, CO, and C enter the sump and also react with the oil components. If the carbon and high carbon-bearing decomposed oil were to not be chemically scavenged, they would form sludge. The detergent package helps keep sludging minimized by reacting with this carbon as well as carbon formed by the thermal decomposition of the oil itself in the cylinder as well as internally in the engine, which as you point out, occurs in “hot-spots” in the block and heads.
“What is blow-by? by-products of burning gasoline? NO. Its burning oil vapor. This burning oil vapor...the vapor that the PCV doesnt recycle...this vapor precipitates all over the ceiling of the motor's internals and re-condenses into oil again, but this oil is damaged and acidic...and eventually, 100% of that oil has been vaporized at one point in its life. Hook up a catch can setup and do a Ph test on the accumulated oil vs. new or used oil the the crankcase.”
Blow-by is the sum of evaporated substances from the sump charge and combustion gases that have passed by the rings and gasses that diffused into the oil and outgas in the sump. A simple check of crankcase pressure in a sealed crankcase engine will show that it is rapidly pressurized by combustion blow-by, not from oil evaporation. If there were no blow-by the rings, and your oil did not decompose, there would be no reason to scavenge or vent the crankcase. In order to understand why, remember that the primary mode by which oil prevents metal-to-metal contact is a hydrodynamic film. This means that the film itself provides the spacing of the ring from the cylinder wall. In one ASTM paper the author notes: “The differences in blow-by control observed with multigraded oils appear to correlate with their viscosities at temperatures well above 210°F (98.9°C). Other factors such as temporary shear loss may play a part as indicated by qualitative observations. The same general trends were also confirmed in an unmodified multicylinder gasoline engine.”2
2 ”A Study of the Significance of Lubricant Viscosity in Blow-By Control”, Neveu C, ASTM publications #STP34805S, Jan 1977
There is enough documentation to show the relationship between engine wear, oil viscosity, and amount of blow-by to conclude that with a given engine, the amount of blow-by is proportional to oil viscosity. We have seen no documentation which supports the contention that two different types of oil which have similar flash or autoignition points and of the same viscosity allow different amounts of blow-by. If the Royal Purple company has data from a test performed to ASTM or other reputable test methods showing otherwise, I would like to see them. The assertion that moly “fills in crosshatch and more completely seals the combustion chamber” has been made by many molybdenum, Teflon, and graphite oil additives, but no study we have found supports this.
“As for federal involvement...Saving gas isnt the number 1 priority with congress. Not even priority number 1,000,000. If they cared, we'd all be driving hydrogen cars by now. The technology to convert water to hydrogen in sufficient quantities to power a car has been around for quite awhile. My uncle made one of these machines in 8th grade and mounted it to a remote controlled car. This was 1965. Trust me, gas prices arent so high because of "peak", they're high because of greedy scum.”
LOLOL – I agree that oil prices are high due to greed, but that is beside the point I was trying to make, which was: Due to the US Gov’t establishing fuel economy guidelines via the CAFÉ standards, there is a H.U.G.E. financial incentive for automotive manufacturers to increase the fuel economy of their fleets each year. They pay enormous penalties for each point below target MPG. With this in mind, any inexpensive measure that a manufacturer could make to increase the fuel economy of their fleet would pay itself back in spades; especially since they could charge whatever it cost back to the customer! This pressure on CAFÉ is what has made the automotive manufacturers turn to the oil companies and DEMAND that they find a way to lower parasitic frictional losses in the engine via oil technology. With all of the resources that the oil and automotive companies have at their disposal, the best they have been able to come up with is two categories of API “Energy Saving” oils: Energy Conserving, which has to show a 1.5% (that is percent, not MPG) increase, and Energy Conserving II, which must show a 2.7% increase in order to merit the certification. If there was an ingredient that would save even a small amount of frictional loss in the oil, it would be in there from the factory! Consider that your claim for your magic oil is 2 MPG better than the 16 MPG without. That would be a 12.5% increase! If you truly believe that you have seen this, the only reasonable explanation is changes in driving conditions or speeds.
“Ok....zinc and phosphorous are a sacrificial layer that the lifter wipes away with every rotation of the cam...instead of the lifter wiping off a layer of metal from the lobe..right? If moly cannot perform the duty of ZDDP (zinc and phosphorous basically), then why does every cam manufacturer hand you a tube of moly paste to coat the lifters and lobes in? Because you cant coat the lobes with a sacrificial layer of zinc and phosphorous by hand, but you CAN add moly, which works just as well if not better...its just that your oil pump would have a hard time pumping moly paste through your engine. Dont forget, molybdenum is a mineral as well...and acts as a sacrifical layer.”
A lot of misinformation is on the net and elsewhere regarding how ZDDP works. It is not surprising after some thought that most of the significant research into how ZDDP works has been performed in recent years. Prior to this, the prevailing thought is that it just plain works. Until the industry was forced to look for an alternative, there was not as much pressure to fully understand how it worked. Most current research states that after a short period of rubbing at a frictional interface, the ZDDP begins to chemically interact with the base Iron of the cam and lifter, and builds “pads” of Zinc, Phosphorus and Sulfur glass-like compound which gradually increase in thickness until they reach about 120nM in thickness. This film does NOT get wiped off easily, indeed, after reaching the 120nM thickness, if one substitutes oil without ZDDP, the pad of glassy deposit will stay for a long period of time, depending on contact pressure and other variables. Since the material does continue to deposit, yet the overall pad thickness does not appreciably increase, speculation is that the additional elements are held in suspension. Since a primary function of ZDDP is acid neutralizing, this means that the decomposed ZDDP, although no longer involved as an EP agent, still serves a function in the oil. As stated earlier, the molybdenum version MDDP which is in transparent “moly” oils does not exhibit this same behavior.
Manufacturers coat new cams with moly paste for one reason: ZDDP is a relatively low viscosity oil-like substance that creates a reaction film which takes a little while to form. From the time a cam is installed in an engine until the time that it is initially started, ZDDP would have dripped off. This situation calls for a grease, and moly grease is a good initial lubricant until the ZDDP in the oil makes its way to the cam and begins to build a film. This is the ONLY reason that moly grease is used at assembly. We have researched this area of automotive engine tribiology extensively, and have found NO impartial, believable research that concludes that moly can perform even satisfactorily as an EP agent in a flat lifter engine without ZDDP present as well.
It is difficult for lay people such as you and me to adequately support viewpoints that are not in turn supported by believable, peer-reviewed research. One point you bring up is true, there is a large amount of greed at corporate levels, which drives them to maximize profits. If you fully accept this maxim, then you will agree with the fact that they will do whatever they can to minimize losses due to Government fines for CAFÉ violations, Emission violations, equipment failure in warranty, and any other loss.
From this it is essential to realize that:
1) If there was an oil that gave a CAFÉ gain, car manufacturers would test their cars with it, and at least provide it in the initial fill to validate their claims.
2) Automotive manufacturers are demanding oils without phosphorus ONLY in an effort to not pay fines for violating emissions mandates. If this pressure was not existent, we would not even be having a discussion as to what EP agent can replace ZDDP.
3) This same greed which guides the actions above also make additive manufacturers claim whatever they can for their product. Any claim only becomes believable when substantiated by controlled tests following accepted ASTM or other methodology. It is this adherence to testing methodology which has given us the very vehicles we drive, not a bunch of “claims”, or “testimonials” which are suspect at best.
Even with the emission standards pressure, car manufacturers are STILL putting large amounts in the initial fill at the factory. In a report from 2004, well into the era of diminishing ZDDP in oil, author H. Spikes states:
“Two out of three of the major United States automobile manufacturers either require zinc dithiophosphate at about 1% of an 80% concentrate in the initial fill in new automobiles or require qualification tests which only zinc dithiophosphate can pass.”
2 The history and mechanisms of ZDDP, H. Spikes, Tribology Letters, Vol. 17, No. 3, October 2004, 471
I doubt that anything I say will sway you from your dedication to your moly oil. If you made your decisions based on fact supported by research and concluding data, we would not even be having this debate. It is more important to me that other people reading this exchange pay close attention to the method by which they form their own opinions. I am not putting forth any idea of my own; I am merely bringing to light established facts in automotive engineering, some of which unfortunately conflict with your unsubstantiated beliefs. My involvement regarding this issue should be clear to all. When something surfaced that appeared to threaten the continued enjoyment of the cars we all love I felt compelled to take action. I did not see anyone else step up to the plate on this issue. I had the knowledge, concern and resources to do it, and I did what I felt needed to be done. Sorry if you disagree with my course of action and sorry if i have crossed you. I have never intended to defraud or mislead anyone with ZddPlus and the few members of this board that know me I am sure would testify to that. Certainly everyone else is free to make their own decision about this as well and hopefully they will make the right one.......................RC
