microBlue Front wheel bearings

Dice you forgot to post Paul's last update on his MicroBlue test:

 

And this one after that changing his response to the oringinal one....

 

An entire thread from one user:

 

Here is test I found for Microblue...

A solid film lubricant coating that has proven to be very effective in preliminary tests is the MicroBlue® tungsten disulfide coating. This coating is patented by Material Technologies, Inc. and is provided by the same company. This coating is applied by a low-cost atmospheric pressure particle impingement process. The coating produces almost no dimensional change (less than 1 micrometer) and is applied at ambient temperature. The MicroBlue® coating provides a low friction surface via two mechanisms. One mechanism is the inherent lubricity of the tungsten disulfide thin film on the surface.4 The other mechanism, which is perhaps more important, is that the tungsten disulfide acts as a wetting agent for hydrocarbon-based lubricants because of their affinity for the coated surface which causes the lubricant to more effectively wet the surface. The high durability of the coating is most likely due to the patented application process in which the tungsten disulfide is mechanically bonded to the surface by filling in micron-scale depressions in the surface.
To evaluate the coating durability, Aerodyne Research, Inc. (ARI) recently had block-onring tribological wear tests performed on standard and MicroBlue®-coated test specimens (Figures 1 and 2).

These tests dramatically illustrated the ability of the coating to provide low wear and friction, and in particular, demonstrate its ability to maintain a lubricant layer between surfaces under very high stress conditions. The tests were performed by Falex Corporation using their Blockon-Ring test apparatus. The test conditions were selected to be somewhat representative of a diesel engine crankshaft bearing under very high load. The test conditions were: 2000 rpm, 100°C, 150 lb force, and 100000 cycles (40 min). The Falex H60 block (SAE 01 Tool Steel, Rc 58-63 Hardness, Ra= 4-8 roughness) and S10 ring (SAE 4620 steel, Rc 58-63 Hardness, Ra= 6-12 roughness) were selected for the test. High quality diesel engine oil, Castrol GTX 20W-50, was used for the test in which the ring was partially submerged in the lubricant. Tests were performed for the standard H60 block and S10 ring as the control test, and for the same block/ring combination after being treated with the MicroBlue® surface treatment. Images of the specimens are presented above in Figures 1 and 2. The data sheets for these tests are presented in Figure 3 for the control test and Figure 4 for the MicroBlue® treated test.



A solid film lubricant coating that has proven to be very effective in preliminary tests is the MicroBlue® tungsten disulfide coating. This coating is patented by Material Technologies, Inc. and is provided by the same company. This coating is applied by a low-cost atmospheric pressure particle impingement process. The coating produces almost no dimensional change (less than 1 micrometer) and is applied at ambient temperature. The MicroBlue® coating provides a low friction surface via two mechanisms. One mechanism is the inherent lubricity of the tungsten disulfide thin film on the surface.4 The other mechanism, which is perhaps more important, is that the tungsten disulfide acts as a wetting agent for hydrocarbon-based lubricants because of their affinity for the coated surface which causes the lubricant to more effectively wet the surface. The high durability of the coating is most likely due to the patented application process in which the tungsten disulfide is mechanically bonded to the surface by filling in micron-scale depressions in the surface.
To evaluate the coating durability, Aerodyne Research, Inc. (ARI) recently had block-onring tribological wear tests performed on standard and MicroBlue®-coated test specimens (Figures 1 and 2).

These tests dramatically illustrated the ability of the coating to provide low wear and friction, and in particular, demonstrate its ability to maintain a lubricant layer between surfaces under very high stress conditions. The tests were performed by Falex Corporation using their Blockon-Ring test apparatus. The test conditions were selected to be somewhat representative of a diesel engine crankshaft bearing under very high load. The test conditions were: 2000 rpm, 100°C, 150 lb force, and 100000 cycles (40 min). The Falex H60 block (SAE 01 Tool Steel, Rc 58-63 Hardness, Ra= 4-8 roughness) and S10 ring (SAE 4620 steel, Rc 58-63 Hardness, Ra= 6-12 roughness) were selected for the test. High quality diesel engine oil, Castrol GTX 20W-50, was used for the test in which the ring was partially submerged in the lubricant. Tests were performed for the standard H60 block and S10 ring as the control test, and for the same block/ring combination after being treated with the MicroBlue® surface treatment. Images of the specimens are presented above in Figures 1 and 2. The data sheets for these tests are presented in Figure 3 for the control test and Figure 4 for the MicroBlue® treated test.

 

Dice how is your fuel milage trending?

It would be really great if MB coating works out!

What I am concerned about is how long the coating lasts?
Paul M's fuel milage returned to average winter fuel to blame?
could it be that what you are calling your bad bio fuel could actually be coating wearing off?
I am thinking about doing a differential after I gave MB a call and was told it would give me a bigger bang for my buck.
I am a one truck operation and would be willing to do my complete truck if it works out to be a good thing.

 

Paul runs the Southeast like I do and we had a bad rash of poor quality fuel in the South during September, October and November. We are having another discussion about fuel quality in Rutherford's forum that several us agree on this poor quality fuel issue. The fuel quality has been horrible the last quarter of this year for some reason?

My fuel mileage is coming back now with the last 2 runs I did were over 9 mpg and my December average is currently at 8.74 mpg even with the OS loads I do that always hurts my average.

I have 5 OS loads to move next week (short runs) that will start off the year lower than usual even though I will have the new MB treated tranny.

If I believed MicroBlue did not work, I would not be doing my tranny with that investment will payback in the long run many times over.

I like having a CAT powered truck that can get 9 mpg.

 

From a mechanics and engineering point of view, Micro blue is a waste of time and money. Especially int he trucking industry were we don't see the types of shaft speeds etc that you see in cars etc.

We are talking about a high wear item hear. The fine machining and coating will quickly wear off and you will be back to normal wear in a short time which will mean that the benefit of the work will be gone.

If you know what you are doing, then you can possibly replace your bearings and still have a nice free rolling assembly and not spend the extra on the high priced bearings.

Another thing to take into account is that when people install fuel saving types of products, they usually change their driving behavior somewhat.

What I would like to see is a test done to a non suspecting driver. Someone that doesn't know what is going on etc so that he/she won't change his/her driving behavior.

Let them run 100K stock, bring in the truck for a service job and "updates" then send them out for another 100K and see what happens. I am betting that we will quickly find out that this micro blueing thing is nothing more then snake oil tactics to sell a product. Kind of like telling people that you will get better performance and milage if you burn 92 oct premuim gas rather then the 87 oct regular gas.

 

I will disagree with you about gasoline fact that you've posted. Every time my wife fills any of my cars with regular 87 fuel vs 93, can feel the diff. Automobile accelerates slower, sluggish, lower mpg as well. Sometimes pinning occurs as well. I've been using premium 93 fuel for almost 200k miles in one of my cars, with synthetic oils. Car drives better then new, my wife does not want another unless it's a Lexus.

Everytime I take my f150 on a trip, I get better mpg with the 93 octane fuel then 87 octane.

It is easy for you to try as well.

 

Dissagree all you want but oct is there to reduce pinging and nothing more. I turned wrenches for close to 20 years and also did some RV recreational racing in the past. Unless I had bumped the compression greatly and bumped the timing greatly, I was always faster running 87 oct then running the expensive stuff. I get exactally 1 mpg better running 87 oct in my 05 Harley Twin cam engine then I do running the recomended 91 or better oct. That and the bike feels peppier and will reach a slightly higher top speed. On GPS my scooter will run 115 on 87 oct and it will only hit 112 on non eth 91 oct.

I used to do some short work with my pickup hauling snowmobiles and atvs and my pickup always got a slightly better economy running 87 oct. This is a 98 dodge 1500 quad cab 4x4 with the 5.9 (360) magnum. Even my old toy pickup (74 chev, slightly warmed over 355 just under 400 hp with timing pushed to the edge etc) ran just as good if not better on 87 oct then it did on 91 premium.

Higher oct fuels only benefit engines that are designed to burn the higher oct. These engines have higher compression ratios and tighter timing setups.

 

This is off the topic.


I do not own, f150 is an exception, no automobile that is American made. Japanese and German only. In them , I always get better mpg with the higher octane. The non moded Jap car will
Always run better/stronger on the higher octane. - last longer as well. As far as Harley is concerned - if it ain't Honda, quality and reliability is not there. Show me a Harley with 175k miles on it with original drive train, not replaced or rebuilt. Then, I might buy one, otherwise, my Honda costs cheaper to buy, runs longer, can be sold faster. I've literally seen how the Harley dealership was converted into the dollar store. That was funny. My $ .02