MT10 Metal Treatment by Muscle Products

[AndrewF]

Can any of our experts comment knowledgeably on the MT10 Metal Treatment additive produced by Muscle Products ??
This has been highly recommended by various users, and I would appreciate any thoughts re pro's and con's.

[Amianthus]

DON'T USE IT!!!
It's just wrong on so many levels.

How's that?

[AndrewF]

Can you provide some factual support for why it is an all round bad product ? Before I decide to use or not use something , I like to know why .
Anyone else care to comment.

[James S]

Hey Andrew,

I do not know anything about it, however I have a question for you. What truck do you have, and what fuel milage are you getting, in town and on the highway? I ask this, because there are no reports of fuel milage from Canadian Duramax owners. Also the Canadian gallon is 4.55 litres compared with the American gallon at 3.78 litres. Therefor, there is a twenty percent difference in milage numbers. Please let us know.

James

[AndrewF]

I have a Duramax CC ZF6 speed, short box with 12,000 miles on the clock ( 19,000km ). Last time I checked I was getting 16.7m/g in town equivalent and 19.3 on the open road.
OK now guys, let's not take this off topic , I want info on MT 10 ! Some say its great , others seem sceptical. What I need are facts.
As we all know contributors to this site can answer anything !!

[HotShot]

Hi AndrewF,

I calculate my average fuel economy at the end of the month and if I seem to have got noticeably higher or lower than normal. I average about 18.5 in the winter and 19.5 in the summer. I have had I high of 22 and a worst of 17 at break in. I don't tow but have had over 5000lbs onboard. I have a '01 dually 6 speed.

MT10 IIRC is an oil additive? Spend your money on a better oil, it would be a much better investment. To many oil additives are snake oil and worse yet even a legit additive will likely react adversly with your oil and kill some of the important properties that keep your engine alive. Try a search here on oil additives, there have been countless discussions already with some great links to some excellent articles.

[D-max Man]

There is a great article on oil additives at: http://www.vtr.org/maintain/oil-additives.html

This being said, MT-10 Metal Treatment (don't know about MT-10 IIRC) doesn't contain the PTFE's or Teflon that most of the others do. It uses a totally different process called "Electrochemical ionization" to reduce friction and engine wear.

Before comment on it, Please do some research on how MT-10 works. I have been using MT-10 for years and so have many of my friends with great results. The engine runs smoother, quieter and the engine temps have dropped 10-15 degrees. I have also seen up to 3 MPG increases on some of my vehicles using MT-10.

You can start your research here: http://www.cjdistributing.com/mt-10.htm

Click the link called - BOUNDARY FILM PROTECTION

This too is good reading.

[ 04-18-2002: Message edited by: D-max Man ]</p>

[AndrewF]

Thanks Hotshot & DMax Man. While I appreciate that many oil additives can legitimately be described as 'snake oil' , there are a few excellent products around as evidenced by their use and success in high revving race motors and heavy duty machine applications around the world.
DMax-Man , knowing the Duramax motor as well as you do, and given your indepth knowledge of what works and what doesn't , can you verify the positive advantages and maintenance cost savings that some very happy users of MT-10 have claimed in many high stress engine and machine applications. As mentioned above , I tend not to denigrate any product as 'garbage' , until I know the facts. The facts on MT-10 seem to be pursuasive It has also been around for a long time , which means something.

[Amianthus]

Okay, okay. I was feeling smug. Here's the reason I don't like oil additives.

Yes, some oil additives do exactly what they claim. Others do more damage. For example, PTFE in our engines can be devistating (if it even works at all). That application was never intended for the engine stresses and teperatures that we run at. Not even close. Not to mention, the possible damage (loss of performance) to injector tips from fouling. Just one example.

Then there is the possiblity of using some products that may actually interfere with the additive packages in some oils. The problem is that it is impossible to tell if you will be safe because there are so many oils out there.

Your safest bet is to use a quality oil and a good filter.
MT10 may work just fine (it is impressive stuff), but is the extra cost worth the benefit (and the potential damage)?
I understand how MT10 works, but I believe that the gain will be marginal, if detectable at all, for this application. I don't believe that enough history exists to make a reasonable judgement for this application. That's why I said, "Don't use it!!!"

[AndrewF]

D-Max Man, given your experience and expertize on the Duramax engine , perhaps you could advise whether in your view there would be ANY downside at all ( apart from cost ) in using MT - 10 in this engine particularly given that the jury is still out concerning oil additives generally. The website article your referred us to i.e. Snakeoil
would suggest this is not an adviseable route to take, particularly as in virtually every case the research is subjective and most of the promotional literature is in the form of letters from 'satisfied customers'. In other words if you had a Duramax , would you use it ??

[D-max Man]

Yes,
I would use it in my own Duramax (if I had one). I am currently using it in all of my vehicles, including my Mercedes diesel.

MT-10 is not an oil additive; it is a metal treatment. MT-10 doesn't just coat the metal surfaces to make them slippery. The process it uses is called Electrochemical ionization. How it works (in laymen's terms) is that it realigns the ions in the metal. All materials have both positive and negative ions in them, which are in no real order. MT-10 causes the negative ions to go to the center of the metal and brings the positives to the surface creating a totally positive surface.

If you have ever played with magnets, you know what happens when you put two like poles together, They repel one another. This is the basic theory of how MT-10 works. It causes the moving metal parts of your engine to repel each other, not as strongly as magnets do but enough to reduce friction and its related heat by 90%.

MT-10 has been around sense the early 80's, before all those "Snake oils" started to appear on your TV screen. It was originally designed as a bearing lubricant for extreme pressure, industrial applications. One of the employees at MPC had an automotive background and thought that it would work well in automotive applications (Which it does) and he had it tested with great results for such use. The owners of MPC however, decided to concentrate mostly on the industrial market in which they had a great reputation and many satisfied customers. That is why it has been around so long but it is not well known in the automotive world.

Also MPC has a perfect liability record. No one has ever filed a claim against them for damages as a result of the use of MT-10.

[AndrewF]

D-Max-Man, many thanks for your input and comments. I think that's all I need to hear.
I have had very good experience using it in my ride-on mower and other farm machinery. Now for the ultimate test !!!!

[AndrewF]

Hey D-Max-Man , just by way of an after thought, maybe MT-10 is the cure everyone has been waiting for, for the infamous 'tick' !!!!!! ;) :D

[AndrewF]

Any one else on this 'site' apart from D-Max Man using MT-10 metal treatment ?? Would appreciate your feedback/results. Thanks guys.

[SoCalDMAX]

Hi Guys,

I went over to the Muscle Power site and read the tech info on MT-10. I have no experience with the stuff, and I don't personally know anyone who does. I believe D-max man uses and likes it, but to be honest, the way the mfr presented the info and showed the test results from an unnamed "independent laboratory" gave me an uneasy feeling.

Can anyone point me to truly independent tests run on the stuff, not marketing info from the mfr or distributor? Any phone numbers to fleet maintenance people who've used it? I'd love to get reduced friction and increased mileage.

Regards, Steve

[coolslug]

AndrewF, how long have you been working for the MT-10 company?

[D-max Man]

SoCalDMAX,

The testing was done at Southwest Research Institute in San Antonio, Texas.

coolslug,

Take it easy on Andrew F, he doesn't work for MPC. I am the one who turned him on to MT-10. He is just looking for more imput from others who have used it.

[ 04-19-2002: Message edited by: D-max Man ]</p>

[AndrewF]

Hey Coolslug ...fortunately I don't wound easily.
Like everyone else on this site, just trying to get the best info I can before plunging into things. Like everyone else I guess. Thanks D-Max Man for your input. Based on your feedback , I am now satisfied. Many thanks and I will let you know how I make out .

[Wally]

Yeesh! Did anyone actually try and read the technical paper on this stuff? Asperities,oxiranes, microrheodynamic, elastohydrodynamic,organo-metallic, oxirane rings, protonic reagents, saponification.
I'm not always the sharpest tool in the tool shed but I do know bad science fiction writing when I see it! Any Chem Es in the group want to evaluate their (MPC's) "technical paper".

[george morrison]

From a lube engineer's standpoint, absolutely, postively, NO, do NOT use MT10 metal treatment in your Duramax engine. I can site several hundred reasons why not, but let me share just a few.
1. MT10 (or other addtive) Simply not needed... In other words, a complete waste of money...
2. When MT10 or any other additive is added to your CH-4 rated engine oil, it is no longer the same chemical, no longer a CH-4 rated oil, no longer backed by manufacturer of the oil or the engine. Period... You have created a new chemical with the MT-10 (or other additive)
3. The formulation of a diesel engine oil is very much like that of a cake mix. Say a cake mix calls for 2 eggs. Now, add 10 eggs to the cake mix.. No longer will this make a cake. Same goes for engine oils.. Engine formulations are a finely balanced ratio of additives to provide the highest level of oil and engine performance. No one knows exactly what is in MT10, nor do the manufacturers of MT10 know exactly what is in every diesel engine oil formulation..
4. Our engines do NOT stress the engine oil. The oil function for most of our engine internals is similar to the TV commercial Goodyear Aqua Tred commercial where the fellow is riding on a surf-board on a thin water cushion. Same with our Duramax engines..
The turbocharger does put temperature stress on the engine oil but a full synthetic like Delvac 1 or other CH-4 rated oil lives with those temperature challenges just fine..

We just do not need any additive supplementation in our Duramax engines. One opens a whole host of potential problems by mixing unknown chemistries.
Why take a chance????
George Morrison, STLE CLS

[DmaxMaverick]

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.

[Blacktruck-1]

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" :rolleyes:

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 :eek:

Doc Lee--any input?

[csimo]

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.

[Joe.G]

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.

[D-max Man]

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>

[Amianthus]

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.

[D-max Man]

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.

[george morrison]

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

[D-max Man]

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.

[george morrison]

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

[Allison Jettester]

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

[D-max Man]

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.

[george morrison]

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