Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 33 of 33

Thread: MT10 Metal Treatment by Muscle Products

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    CA
    Posts
    13,573

    Thumbs down

    I have to agree with george morrison. The advertised effect of MT10 is that it electrically/magnetically "alligns" the polarity of the metal, making it more resistant to wear. This in itself could be a VERY bad thing for the Duramax. The cylinders of the Duramax engine are "induction hardened". This means that the polarity of the metal is already "alligned". I don't think it would be a good idea to add anything that claims it messes with this process, whether or not it can actually do this.
    1985 Blazer 6.2
    2001 GMC 2500HD D/A
    dmaxmaverick@thedieselpage.com

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    Homestead Florida(South of Myammi)
    Posts
    212

    Post

    Man--between the "electrochemical ionization" of the iron and slappin a couple of magnets on the fuel line plus a catalyst tablet or two in the tank! Geez just think of the money i'll save by not havin to buy a "Juice box"

    C'mon guys, save your money and listen to some of the rational posts here. Stick to premium oils of the correct rating with regular filter changes and you certainly wont have any oil related warranty issues to deal with.

    To Ionize an Iron atom I believe you would have to vaporize it first. Definately a warranty killer

    Doc Lee--any input?
    <B>Member# 5723</B><P><A HREF=\"http://www.picturetrail.com/spankster\" TARGET=_blank>PICTURES</A><P>Onyx Black, Graphite Leather, All the goodies! \'01 cc D/A LS 2wd order # Since 02/19 TPW 3/19 VIN 3/20<BR><B>Arrived 03/29</B> <P><B>DRIVING IT</B>

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Posts
    281

    Post

    I have no experience with this product, but I do know that no oil additive will "realign the ions in the metal", and no oil additive is capable of "Electrochemical ionization". That is simple BS no matter what else they may claim. They have made up terms which should be a big wake up call to any prospective customers.

    Southwest Research Institute is a first class testing lab. These guys (MT-10)have pulled a very small part from a very large project. The conclusion of the project was that none of the tested oil additives were of any value, and may actually do harm under certain circumstances. That study was the basis of the famous "snake oil" reports. The study did NOT indicate anything remotely similar to what this company is leading you to believe other than that one single four ball test.

    Use a good quality dino or synthetic CH-4 rated oil. Your engine will be happy and your warranty will be safe.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    256

    Post

    I do know this, iron and aluminum and babbit have no magnetic attraction and neither does moly (which your rings are coated with). This is my 2 bits worth.
    Joe

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Fenton, MI
    Posts
    465

    Post

    Originally posted by george morrision,

    "MT10 (or other additive) simply not needed... In other words, a complete waste of money..."

    Spoken like a true oil salesman (www.avlube.com). Of course you can't admit that your products can be improved upon. That would mean that you are not producing the best product possible.

    I am not suggesting that your oil (or any one else's) is a bad product. There are many great oils out there that work very well for their intended applications. But to say, "it is a total waste of money" is not true. I have seen substantial fuel mileage increases (2-3 mpg) in several vehicles and for an extra $9.00 per oil change, the cost is easily off set by fuel savings. This doesn't even take into account the extended life of the engines due to less wear from the use of MT-10.

    Do we need an additive in the engine? Of course we don't need it, but to say it is a total waste of money is not accurate. Until you have had some actual experience with this particular product, it is best if you don't make such comments.

    AndrewF was asking for info. from people who have actually used MT-10?

    MT-10 has been used by CSX and other railroads on their axles (Which use babbit bearings just like your engine) for years. I am pretty sure that those axles see more stress than your crankshaft does.

    [ 04-24-2002: Message edited by: D-max Man ]</p>
    Member #4883
    My diesels
    97 Chevy C-3500 Dually, 6.5TD
    85 VW Jetta 1.6L N/A
    85 Mercedes Benz 190D 2.2 N/A
    85 Surburban 2500 4x4 6.2 N/A
    83 Chevy G-30 Van 6.2 N/A

  6. #26
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Holmen, WI, USA
    Posts
    328

    Post

    I guess the point I was trying to make,without so many words, was the same things that Mr. Morrison put into words so eloquently.
    I won't say that MT-10 doesn't work. But because of it's chemistry, you don't know how it will react with the additive package in your oil. You'd have to have the chemical make up of MT-10 and the additive package make up of the type of oil you are using. Both of which I would think are proprietary. So adding stuff like this to your oil adds a huge unknown to the performance of your oil.
    If MT-10 polarizes metal, then it should polarize your oil. This seems bad to me because if the metals are like charged, then parts of the oil would be the same. So only certain components of the oil would be able to do the job they were intended.
    Now, I'm not a chemical engineer, lube engineer, or ME. But I know a little about each of these things to know that I don't want to risk my engine for experimentation. Actually, I'd be risking the wife's engine for that. You married guys should know what I mean.
    \'99 2500 ISB QC SLT (No Leather!),4x4,5sp w/McLeod,4:10,BP8x11\'s,B-1,FMS,EZ,PE4200,LPG,H2O/CH4O,4\"exh.,Pac-Brake,OBA,more switches than you,Line-X,V-1,lts,siren,lic. plt. frm says \"<b><i>Diesel Fumes Make Me Horny!</i></b>\",and much more goofy stuff.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Fenton, MI
    Posts
    465

    Post

    I don’t know exactly how it works either but it only affects the metals. You can use MT-10 in your automatic transmission and it won’t affect the gripping ability of the clutch plates because it has no affect on the friction material.

    Testing was done on this at Raymark, a division of Raybestos who makes friction plates for transmissions and they said that MT-10 did not affect the friction material or cause slippage in any way.

    A guy that I used to work with bought a 16 oz. Bottle of mT-10 and used half of it in the transmission on his 1985 Corvette and he told me that his fuel mileage jumped 2 mpg. He was waiting on treating his engine until he got the oil changed and I haven’t talked to him sense.


    My point is that although these engines/transmissions were designed to work without additional additives, that doesn’t mean that they do not offer benefits or as George claimed “a total waste of money”. My experience with MT-10 has been very good and I run it in every engine/transmission I own (Cars, trucks, lawn mowers etc.). I have also told many of my friends about MT-10 and they have all had similar results to mine. Fuel mileage increases vary but in every case the engines ran smoother/quieter and operating temps dropped 10-20 degrees.
    Member #4883
    My diesels
    97 Chevy C-3500 Dually, 6.5TD
    85 VW Jetta 1.6L N/A
    85 Mercedes Benz 190D 2.2 N/A
    85 Surburban 2500 4x4 6.2 N/A
    83 Chevy G-30 Van 6.2 N/A

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    columbus, ohio
    Posts
    327

    Post

    MT-10, Continued: my comments regarding MT10 and other additives are from a lube engineer perspective and not that of a 'true salesman' as frankly there is nothing to 'sell' on my part. My only intent is to share lubricant knowledge both from a theoretical and practical expereience knowledge base.
    As competetive as the commercial engine oil field is *any* real, competetive edge that exists to make an engine oil better, have a marketing advantage over the next companies' oil will be used in formulation. Every additive that exists has been persued, tested to the nth degree and if it indeed works, *has no down side*, is used in current formulations.
    And no, I have never seen any form of supplemental oil additization that offered a complete win/win to the end user. In every single case there is a negative performance or chemistry aspect lurking somewhere in the additive formulation.
    As for practical experience with MT10. I participated in the disassmebly of a helicopter tail rotor gearbox (!) in which MT10 was used. The gearbox case interior surfaces were covered with varnish and a significant amount of sludge had formed in the gearbox. Prior to teardown the gearbox temperature was running at a higher than normal temperature. The oil used in the gearbox was a standard 30W automotive engine oil, which was the oil recommended by the helicopter manufacturer for use in the transmission and was totally adequate for the application.
    The oil viscosity had increased appreciably and was moderately oxidized. There was no visible damage to the gears; however, the gearbox required extensive cleaning prior to returning to service.
    With the use of a 30W oil only this gearbox is normally very clean, without sludge and varnish. As to why the operator chose to use MT10, he indicated that 'it would make it run better'...
    Had the operator continued to use the MT10 in this application, the life of the gearbox would have been shortened due to the accelerated oil oxidation which would occurr, causing increased gearbox operating temperatures, acid formation, bearing and gear accelerated wear, etc..

    This is but one case, but indeed one involving the use of MT10, with real world, hands on experience. Not laboratory....
    George Morrison, STLE CLS
    George Morrison, STLE CLS<br />www.avlube.com e-mail avlube@netwalk.com<br />2002 Chev Duramax 2500HD, Delvac 1, Mobil 1 syn ATF, 75W-90<br />1998 Chev 3500HD 6.5TD, Delvac 1, Harvard 750S by-pass oil filter

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Fenton, MI
    Posts
    465

    Post

    George,
    Was the MT-10 used from day one or had the operator possibly used another additive prior to using the MT-10 "to make it run better".

    I have serviced my engine (Chevy 350) for leaking valve cover gaskets and the engine was very clean with no build up at all. This engine had over 100,000 miles on it and I had used the MT-10 for the last 40,000 miles with every oil change. I use only Sunoco 10w-30 in that truck and change the oil at 4,000 to 5,000 intervals.

    Again, I am not claiming that the oil companies are making inferior products. I am simply suggesting that there are advantages to using some kinds of additives. You claim that if it were any good, the oil companies would already be using it in their formulas, but the formula used in MT-10 is kept as a trade secret and therefore it would be impossible to get the exact formula. Reverse engineering can come close but just like in your cake example, it wouldn’t be the same thing.
    Member #4883
    My diesels
    97 Chevy C-3500 Dually, 6.5TD
    85 VW Jetta 1.6L N/A
    85 Mercedes Benz 190D 2.2 N/A
    85 Surburban 2500 4x4 6.2 N/A
    83 Chevy G-30 Van 6.2 N/A

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    columbus, ohio
    Posts
    327

    Post

    Regarding the "trade secret" aspect... The purchase of the 'trade secret' would be of little consequence to companies the size of an ExxonMobil, Shell, or Chevron.. The chemistries of all of the aftermarket additives are well known, have been disected and in some cases the formulations are patented and thus all of the components completely public. It really is not rocket science but in nearly every case a chemical interraction, environmental, or cost vs. reward issue.
    On the helicopter tail rotor gearbox. No other additives were run in the gearbox. On the previous inspection running the 30W, the gearbox was in good condition according to the aircraft logs. The previous owner used only spec products. The new owner of the helicopter was an MT10 advocate and it was only then that the MT10 or any additive was added.
    People who fly helicopters are normally not additive users as there are liability issues; one must use only the lubricants specified and approved by the manufacturer. That is why I was called in to check just what had happened to the 30W oil in the tail rotor gearbox as the shop had never seen this before. On contacting the new owner, he freely offered that he had added the MT10 to the tail rotor gearbox and that he used MT10 in everything he owned and that it was the greatest stuff since sliced bread. Thus, the addition to his $8,000 tail rotor gearbox!
    Thank goodness he could not easily reach the main rotor gearbox as he said he was going to put it in there next!
    George Morrison
    George Morrison, STLE CLS<br />www.avlube.com e-mail avlube@netwalk.com<br />2002 Chev Duramax 2500HD, Delvac 1, Mobil 1 syn ATF, 75W-90<br />1998 Chev 3500HD 6.5TD, Delvac 1, Harvard 750S by-pass oil filter

  11. #31
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Lexington Park, Md
    Posts
    137

    Post

    George,
    Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't any oil/additive require FAA approval? and if someone puts a non-FAA approved additive in any component is in violation of the FAA rules?

    Is MT10 approved?

    If it isn't and the rotor failed and he killed someone, he could be in a world of doo.

    Several years ago, Mobil's Av 1 synthetic lost it's approval because it was found it did not disperse lead. Everyone was notified to take it out.

    Joe
    02 GMC 2500HD D/A EC LB SLT
    FLAME RED! Charcoal Leather Buckets
    Pacer 16x8.5 Chrome Split Rims W/285R16 Goodyear MT/R'
    Weston Nerf Bars
    Fold-A-Cover
    Lund Bug Deflector
    Air lift Air Springs
    Gabriel HiJacker Air Shocks-all 4
    JUICED
    Elkhorn 11X slide-in
    Rinker 212 Captiva

  12. #32
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Fenton, MI
    Posts
    465

    Post

    MT-10 is not FAA approved. It does meat the FAA requirements but the manufacturer decided not to seek FAA approval because of the liability aspect.

    If an aircraft goes down, it is common practice for attorneys to sue everyone and then the companies have to prove that their product did not cause the failure. The manufacturer determined that the cost to defend themselves for something that their product did not do wasn't worth the potential profit for this market, therefore they did not continue to seek FAA approval.

  13. #33
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    columbus, ohio
    Posts
    327

    Post

    No, MT10 was not FAA approved; the character with the helicpter did the additization totally on his own and should not have. I only share this instance as a 'real world' experience I had with MT10 performance in a gearbox. However, there was nothing extraordinary in the gearbox operationally; the 30W engine oil performed just fine on its own without additization. For whatever reason the MT10 created an operational problem in this gearbox. After the MT10 was removed and the gearbox cleaned, the gearbox went on to run fine for several more years that I was associated with its operation.
    I have also run into aircraft/helicopter owners that used Slick 50 and various other additives in their engines, gearboxes through the years that would give you chills!
    This was just one instance..
    George Morrison
    George Morrison, STLE CLS<br />www.avlube.com e-mail avlube@netwalk.com<br />2002 Chev Duramax 2500HD, Delvac 1, Mobil 1 syn ATF, 75W-90<br />1998 Chev 3500HD 6.5TD, Delvac 1, Harvard 750S by-pass oil filter

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •