One more liqui moly cera-tick

[GT Pony]

Lion is the Cera Tec ok to use in the factory motorcraft semi synthetic? I don't think I have room for a full bottle and planned only using half tomorrow. I am at the top of the cross pattern on dipstick.

Cera Tec should be fine with the Motorcraft synthetec blend oil.

Is your oil level at the top of the cross hatch when the oil is hot or cold? The full hot mark is the hole above the cross hatched area.

Sponsored

 

[GT Pony]

Is this the product on amazon? I'm thinking of giving it go myself.
https://www.amazon.com/Liqui-Moly-20002-Friction-Modifier/dp/B001CZODH8

Yes, that's the Cera Tec product people are using to get rid of the BBQ tick.

 

[HermanGerman]

Is this the product on amazon? I'm thinking of giving it go myself.
https://www.amazon.com/Liqui-Moly-20002-Friction-Modifier/dp/B001CZODH8

Thats the stuff I used. it worked out for me.

 

[CEHollier]

Is this the product on amazon? I'm thinking of giving it go myself.
https://www.amazon.com/Liqui-Moly-20002-Friction-Modifier/dp/B001CZODH8

Yes. I bought mine from Amazon. Very happy with the results. I didn't have a tick but because I just got a new short block. Quietens the engine noises.

 

[88lx50]

Yes. I bought mine from Amazon. Very happy with the results. I didn't have a tick but because I just got a new short block. Quietens the engine noises.

I just purchased. Going to do an oil change with 5w30 and add this. My tick is very slight, but who knows. Mine will probably get worse lol.

 

[TheLion]

Lion is the Cera Tec ok to use in the factory motorcraft semi synthetic? I don't think I have room for a full bottle and planned only using half tomorrow. I am at the top of the cross pattern on dipstick.

There's no reason it won't work with MC Semi-syn. Cera Tec is suspended in a Group III base oil. MC I believe is actually 50% group IV base oil, so technically your diluting your oil very slightly with a lesser base oil, however most off-the-shelf "synthetics" are actually primarily comprised of Group III's even though purists don't consider anything below Group IV as a "true synthetic". Archoil is suspended in a Group V Ester base oil, very high quality base, but it's also a little more pricey than Cera Tec.

I'm not 100% sure what chemical friction modifier is used in Cera Tec, but I suspect is Molybdenum given that Liqui Moly uses Mo in other additives and Cera Tech is their 2 in 1 that has both chemical and solid lubricant friction modifiers.

I'm not aware of any Moly in the MC semi-syn 5W-20 and I do NOT believe to the best of my knowledge that a little more Moly is going to increase friction and wear unlike ZDDP which can be destructive to your engine if it's not in the right proportions.

ZDDP isn't really a very good friction reducer, it's actually quite poor at reducing friction over what just a base oil can do in boundary layer lubrication conditions. It's primarily used as an anti-wear additive with mild friction reducing properties and requires a careful balance of proportions to work properly so I would high discourage anyone from using any type of ZDDP additives as they screw up your oils formula.

Also if anyone sees an a-C aka Amorphous Hydrogenated Carbon additive on the market, STAY AWAY! a-C is another Diamond like Coating (DLC) that has been studied as a friction reducer and anti-wear additive. However a-C reacts with ZDDP and actually increases wear rates by 4x over just running ZDDP or a-C by itself. They don't play nice together and it's a sure way to wear out your motor in 50k miles instead of 200k+.

Another anti-wear and friction reducing additive being explored is IL or an Ionic Liquid (there are several types) that is intended to enhance ZDDP's friction reducing properties while preserving it's anti-wear properties. Anti-wear does NOT necessarily correlate to friction reduction. There are even some cases where you can reduce friction while increasing wear rates! The trick is to achieve BOTH anti-wear properties (sacrificial layer) and reduce friction (low shear). We don't want a low shear in motor oils because they need to remain their hydrodynamic lubrication qualities which is dependent on their viscosity / flow properties. We DO want low shear in solid lubricants, that's how they work, by sliding against one another. Low shear solid lubricants form a sacrificial layer that is also low friction. ZDDP has a relatively high shear, so while it protects against wear by forming a sacrificial tribo-film, it does NOT reduce friction very well due to a relatively high shear aka resistance of opposing films sliding against one another.

Thus far I have not found any lubrication compatibility issues between ZDDP and hBN or MSH in any testing I've seen, they appear to play nice together and in fact the hBN and MSH extend the service life of the ZDDP in your oil by reducing it's need to be consumed to prevent wear as hBN or MSH are now performing that primary function. Assuming there's enough reduction in friction, there's less waste heat, too much heat is the enemy of ZDDP and the base oil, so there are benefits there as well.

hBn and MSH also provide an ultra low friction coefficient in a PAO base oil of around just 0.02 to 0.01 where ZDDP is around 0.05 to 0.04 in a PAO base oil in the testing I've seen with just the base oil at around 0.10~0.12. ZDDP also is consumed much more rapidly, hence why it needs to be replenished during each oil change as opposed to a separate treatment that lasts through several oil changes. ZDDP tribo films perform well at reducing wear and do a decent job at reducing friction, but are quite inferior to some of the newer nano particle tribo films like hBN or MSH.

Now there's another issue with ZDDP in street cars (not so much in race cars). ZDDP reduces the catalytic converter's efficiencies, so the API in response to EPA regulations limited ZDDP content in oil to 0.08% wt in 2004, further reducing ZDDP anti-wear additives from the previous limit 0.10 in 1996, currently it's the primary tribo-film mechanism in modern oils and hence why all this R&D has been funded over the past decade and a half to find an alternative.

Racing oils provide better protection because they can contain more optimal amounts of ZDDP, in testing I've seen the best results are around 1% to 1.5% wt. Once you exceed those percentages you begin to increase friction and wear and the curves reverse their direction. Finding an alternative anti-wear additive for motor oils is critical, especially one that doesn't affect catalyst efficiency, so it can be used in higher concentrations for optimized lubrication. So technically it's the EPA's fault and that explains why the Driven Racing Oil rep told one OP that he believes most "abnormal" or "excessive" ticking is more to due with oil formulas than oil weights or even engine design as it tends to occur more and more frequently across a vast number of engine designs and manufacturers, both regular grocery getters and high performance street cars.

 

[TheLion]

BTW here's a list of snake oil additives courtesy of Bell Performance: https://cdn2.hubspot.net/hub/68152/file-15279904-pdf/docs/white papers/comparison_testing_of_aftermarket_oil_products_bell_performance_xtra_lube_four_ball_0709.pdf

Most of them actually reduced the performance of the Mobil 1 15W-40 base oil and it's additive package in certain areas, however a few of them did marginally increase it's performance, but not enough to justify the cost or risk messing with the base oils performance in a negative way. You'd be better off buying a higher quality oil with a more ideal additive package from the supplier. hBN and especially MSH are relatively new, in fact MSH was just made available over the past couple of years after a decade of R&D development courtesy of funding from NASA, DOE, NSF and I believe the US Army funded a few of the ASTM tests for anti-wear in their search to reduce maintenance costs of military vehicles.

The primary goal of the funding is due to the energy crisis that is growing. There's an immense amount of energy loss in machinery of all types due to friction. That is turned into heat and wear of metal contact surfaces, so there's no upside to the losses. Only in a few cases do we want some friction, like in syncros in manual transmissions etc. Inside your engine, it's all waste energy. Cam phasors operate hydraulically and also off of the cam torque generated by the valve springs, so there's no "need" for controlled friction there, they account for 16% of friction losses. Pistons generate heat and wear due to friction and account for a whopping 36% of losses! Rod bearings, main bearings and wrist pin bearings are all hydrodynamic and operate best with the least friction. The only places we want friction is in bolt threads or on pressed together / pressure fittings like rod bearings on the big end. Otherwise if we can reduce it, we can reduce wear and thus increase service life / fuel economy but also generate more power as your getting more of the potential energy of the fuel.

If we can solve the power storage issue, electric cars are the way to go. EM's are far more simple and reliable and EM's can reach efficiencies up to 97% unlike piston engines. Although there are still substantial gains in piston engines by reducing friction and developing "free valve" technologies to reduce valve spring losses and further optimize valve timing.

One last thought, then I'll stop posting, I promise . I'm not sure if MSH has thermal and electrical properties that are favorable or problematic. hBN is a good thermal conductor, so that's a positive for it's use in combustion engines. However it's also an electrical insulator, which is a negative for use in combustion engines due to possibility of plug fouling, although I'm not aware of any wide spread in-practice issues as such. With MSH, I have no idea if it's a good thermal conductor or electrical insulator. I cannot find any testing related to those two properties, so just keep that in mind that it's an unkown presently.

 

[TheLion]

Ok, I lied. Here's an example of DLC "hard coatings" that are applied through a complex and lengthy process: http://www.hefusa.net/pvd_coating/DLC-coatings-valve-train-components.html

These types of coatings were referenced in the R&D paper presented to Tribology International during the R&D phase of TriboTEX. The problem with DLC "hard" coatings is that they have a finite life, once they wear away they are gone for good. They also tend to de-laminate under more extreme loads.

So they do provide friction reducing and wear enhancing properties, however they have limited applications, espensive, complex and time consuming to apply. In order to service them once worn, obviously you would have to replace the part or disassemble it and re-apply the coating assuming the part is not out of tolerance. Based on the images of the Ford 5.0L Roller Finger Follower assemblies, I believe Ford may already be using DLC coated rocker arm pins interestingly enough. There's a good chance you already have DLC coatings in your engine before ever even trying Cera Tech, Archoil or TriboTEX....

hBN (Cera Tec / Archoil) and MSH (TriboTEX) are self-repairing DLC coatings that dynamically self-repair and can be replenished without disassembly of the engine just like ZDDP anti-wear / friction reducer additives are replenished when you change your oil. Also just for reference, I've seen some ignorant posts with something to the effect of "why would you want to put diamonds in your engine? That would wear it out faster, just more snake oil" because they don't understand that Diamond Like Coatings (DLC) means the molecular structure resembles that of a crystalline structure, it does not mean your pouring diamond powder into your engine as that would be excessively abrasive and cause rapid seizure. There is always a lot of ignorance on the net and because many oil additives in the past have had little to no benefit, and in some cases may even decrease the performance of the base oil, it is assumed that every conceivable additive is "snake oil" when in reality your oil has always come with "additives", they are just chosen by the oil supplier based on their own testing and optimization.

I just wanted to clear that up as I'm interested in the reality of it, it either works or it doesn't and I really don't care how others perceive it. No technology is perfect, DLC additives don't reduce friction to zero, it don't last forever, won't cure major mechanical issues. However it can enhance engine operation in many ways on a properly running engine and extend the service life of any engine that's still in reasonable mechanical condition by more or less reconditioning worn surface's and providing significant protection from further wear while ALSO reducing friction. In some cases, it can provide some improvement to major mechanical issues such as excessive oil consumption by significantly reducing it, even if it doesn't eliminate it. These are not "snake oil" additives, they are based on extensive R&D with many very sharp minds at work. Some are inherently more ideal than others and of the three mentioned, the higher the price, the better the overall performance. You do actually get what you pay for in this case.

So when TriboTEX, Cera Tec or Archoil claim it self-repairs your engine, it actually does, but not in a literal sense. It doesn't "grow back" lost / separated carbon steel molecules that were sheared off over time by pressure and friction due to metal on metal contact, it can't unbend a bent rod or "unfatigue" a worn out valve spring....but it can fill in wear scars and generate a tribo film that becomes a sacrificial layer, thus significantly reducing further wear, reducing friction and restoring the surface uniformity to enhance the seal in areas like cylinders / pistons or reduce resistance in sticky lash adjusters or roller finger followers etc.

It can compensate to some degree for skirt coating wear, or wear on rings, reduce friction and further wear etc. It accomplishes this during the decomposition phase just like ZDDP, which also decomposes into a tribo film under heat and pressure. So run it hard and build up those coatings! The best performance is achieved with nano sized particles of hBN or MSH and at specific concentrations. ZDDP however is limited at present to micrometer sized particles and I'm not aware of any existing process to generate smaller ZDDP particles in the nano meter size, which COULD potentially enhance it's tirbo film properties in a similar way that it does with hBN and MSH. Size matters!

So these are all viable technologies and based on already existing concepts that have been used for well over 50 years, we are just building on them and searching out new variations with more ideal properties that technology has now aloud us to produce en-mass and at a reasonable cost.

Cera Tech / Archoil contain an hBN based anti-wear additive while TriboTEX contains an MSH based anti-wear additive. Cera Tech / Archoil also require a substantial amount of carrier oil (Group III for Cera Tec and Group V Ester for Achoil) and also contain chemical friction modifiers (possibly Moly) whose benefits you do loose after an oil change despite the fact that their DLC components do remain if aloud sufficient time to decompose and bond. TriboTEX on the other hand has a very minimal amount of carrier oil (Group V Ester) for suspension and the requisite catalysts only. There is more or less no "carrier oil" and no chemical friction modifiers. It is a singularly focused DLC additive that performs the best at it's intended purpose, but also has the highest price tag.

 

[TheLion]

See attachments. The Tribology International pdf goes through their final R&D paper for 2017, the R&D was funded by NASA, DOE and NSF along with a few other sources. The UNL Baja Team - Engine Testing Paper was a co-test where TriobTEX was tested on a cyro-treated engine where the Baja team was trying to determine the advantages, if any, of cyro-treating engine parts to enhance operation. Ironically the cryo treatment provided marginal benefits but the TriboTEX provided substantial benefits.

The Weaveden test is for hypoid gears and was paid for by the US military for reducing fleet maintenance costs of military vehicles and is a very well know "go to" test for drive train lubrication. It's the defacto standard. It's also used extensively by trucking companies for the same reasons. Lastly I attached a study of yet another competing DLC coating WS2, but the reason for that is that in the introduction they go over ZDDP's strengths and weaknesses which I referenced below.

More or less ZDDP, the primary anti-wear additive in oils has two draw backs and one benefit.

Benefit - 1. substantially reduces wear by rapidly producing a thick iron and zinc phosphate-based tribofilm on hot rubbed ferrous surfaces characterized by a relatively low shear strength.

Draw Back - 1. ZDDP is toxic to the catalytic converter = not good for emissions (if you care, which the EPA does and they happen to have a stangle hold on the auto industry)
2. ZDDP has a relatively high friction value of it's generated tribofilm. Hence why motor oils also contain friction modifier additives to help reduce or offset ZDDP's high friction value.

In current oil formulas, I've seen ZDDP perform at BEST in the 0.06 to 0.05 range in the coefficient of friction where hBN and MSH perform in the 0.02 and 0.01 range, 2.5x to 5x better with similar or superior anti-wear capabilities to ZDDP + it's friction modifier.

 

[OneFordGT]

Excellent research TheLion, my Tribotex arrives today and i'll report back once I put some miles on the car.

 

[Catax]

I just purchased. Going to do an oil change with 5w30 and add this. My tick is very slight, but who knows. Mine will probably get worse lol.

My tick was slight at the beginning too so.... fingers crossed for you!

 

[Kong76]

Alright Cera Tec is in, I didnt seem to here any ticks this a.m going to work. Ill post back after a few days. Maybe Ill got Tribotex diesel after this.

 

[abbeynormal]

Another Cera Tec believer here. 17 GT PP, tick/rattle started at about 3k miles. Changed the oil at 4500 miles. Tick went away, maybe, for the first day after the oil change.

Yesterday; shook the bottle well, put Cera Tec in (at 5600 miles), let her warm up 'til she came off high idle. Pulled out on the street... no tick. It's like a different car when you aren't rattling as you drive down the street.

BTW, I thought I read it here long ago that the tick is some sort of cavitation in the oiling system and the stuff Ford puts in (as well as Cera Tec) changes the surface tension of the oil or something similar which stops the 'pops' you hear as ticking.

 

[accel]

Another Cera Tec believer here. 17 GT PP, tick/rattle started at about 3k miles. Changed the oil at 4500 miles. Tick went away, maybe, for the first day after the oil change.

Yesterday; shook the bottle well, put Cera Tec in (at 5600 miles), let her warm up 'til she came off high idle. Pulled out on the street... no tick. It's like a different car when you aren't rattling as you drive down the street.

BTW, I thought I read it here long ago that the tick is some sort of cavitation in the oiling system and the stuff Ford puts in (as well as Cera Tec) changes the surface tension of the oil or something similar which stops the 'pops' you hear as ticking.

I replaced ceratec'd 5w20 with 5w30 with no ceratec. Hoping higher viscosity would help.

5w20 was in the car for less than 1000 miles. Old oil looked a little scary. Light brown and not transparent liquid. Also, it is not very homogeneous/uniform.
If I did not know I added ceratec in it, I'd be very scared.

And the tick is back.

Either I'll try 5w40 or show it to the dealer....

 

[Kong76]

Drive home from work and zero ticking. I would say it works. If it takes a bottle every oil change or 6 months for me not a problem. Engine seems to run smoother with less vibration at least visually.

Sponsored