# worst oil additives i used



## funny guy

STP 

engine honey

slick 50

super tech oil treatment

bars leak oil treatment

and CD2 oil stop leak

motor up

bardal


what is your most hated brand i need a good quality product and cant find one


----------



## magfarm

If you used a good quality oil such as a synthetic then you don't need an oil additive. If you think you need an additive then you must think that your oil is not adequate to perform the job it should...which is typically not true.

I'm not sure about off-road manufacturers but most automotive manufacturers actually state NOT to use oil additives.

Bottom line, use a good quality motor oil, gear oil, etc. and stay away from additives.


----------



## Live Oak

> _Originally posted by funny guy _
> *STP
> 
> engine honey
> 
> slick 50
> 
> super tech oil treatment
> 
> bars leak oil treatment
> 
> and CD2 oil stop leak
> 
> motor up
> 
> bardal
> 
> 
> what is your most hated brand i need a good quality product and cant find one *


If you use a good quality oil and oil filter and keep up the services to change them out on a regular basis, properly warm up the engine prior to working it, and allow it a few minute idle time to cool off after working it, your engine should out last you.


----------



## Morgan

*Re: Re: worst oil additives i used*



> _Originally posted by TF Admin _
> *If you use a good quality oil and oil filter and keep up the services to change them out on a regular basis, properly warm up the engine prior to working it, and allow it a few minute idle time to cool off after working it, your engine should out last you. *


I second that, most additives are wasted money.


----------



## rocking 416

Ive used Sea Foam And Lucas oil addtives and cannot complain But you cant expect a cure from a can or bottle. If i have a healthy engine i use mobil 1 or Vavoline max life synthtic Blend:jumpropeb


----------



## Hoyte_Clagwell

Back in the 70s, our family raced go karts and we used Wynn's friction proofing additive in the gas/oil mix. White gas, Valvoline 2 stroke oil, Wynn's. Our engines (McCulloch kart) never wore out. I sold my old kart with the Mac 49c engine back in '91 and it still had as much compression as the day it was new. I don't know if Wynn's still makes that stuff, but it sure worked.


----------



## flman

I have used Restore in an abused engine (not by me) and it actually helped alot. Was not really too worried about hurting a worn out engine with an additive


----------



## mikeeemo

I also used RESTORE on my old M-F TO-35, it stopped most of the oil burning. 
That was 7 years ago...
Before I used it, I code not see behind me due to all of the blue smoke.

True story... I still cut grass & garden with it today...


----------



## twentynine

No oil additives here.

I have used Engine Restorer but not as a regular additive.


----------



## flman

mikeeemo said:


> I also used RESTORE on my old M-F TO-35, it stopped most of the oil burning.
> That was 7 years ago...
> Before I used it, I code not see behind me due to all of the blue smoke.
> 
> True story... I still cut grass & garden with it today...


Supposedly the polymers fill in the scratches on a worn out engine. :fineprint


----------



## Eastexan

I bought an old Ford Jubilee years ago that smoked like a locomotive. I bought it from a smooth talking guy that said it didn't use any oil, and it didn't when it was idling. But when I brought it home and started working it hard then it would almost envelope me in smoke. :argh:

I'm not much of a mechanic and was too poor to have it overhauled so I looked around for an oil additive that might slow down the smoke.
I tryed a lot of different products from Smoke Stop to STP and didn't make much difference. I even tryed Engine Restore, but I may have not put enough in it.

Then one day a guy told me to try Morey's Oil Stabilizer. He said he used to be a trucker and it was a popular among truckers back then.
I started using it and the smoke never completely went away, but it cut it way down. I used it for about 10 years, until I sold the tractor. You can add just about as much to the oil as you need. I had an old worn out 5hp B&S one time that I put almost half & half before it quit smoking, and expected it to burn up. But it worked all through the mowing season, and I finally traded it off on a new Snapper Rider.

I don't ever see Morey's Oil Stabilizer any more, but see Lucas Oil Stabilizer instead. It looks like Morey's, but I don't know if it's the same stuff or not.

I personally wouldn't use an oil additive it in good engines, because oil additives will probably change the oil chemistry and shorten the life of the engine, IMO. 
But when an engine is already worn out but runs pretty good, then the Morey's or other oil additive that helps compression and stops oil burning, serves a useful purpose.:cheers:


----------



## wjjones

Lucas oil is the worst i have ever used.


----------



## ironhat

wjjones said:


> Lucas oil is the worst i have ever used.


How do you determine this? No flame intended.


----------



## 2003_PSD

I think you will find that oil no mater how crude they are made it is chemistry. When you add an other chemicals it changes the intend chemistry of that oil.
In Amsoils case we do not want our chemistry changed. It can case real issues as I have attached a file that helps you understand it a little more.
I have change many engines to Amsoil and with in the oil drain interval the problems has been solved.
Bill


----------



## Down-Under

Amsoil is sweetness and light... but SO horrifically expensive down here (in NZ). I had to fork out US$125 (about) for 5 liters of Amsoil AME 15W-40 (US$25a liter!!)for an old Citroen CX diesel that I have here, that had an Amsoil bypass oil system on it. Um... which is now in the rubbish skip! That oil was just too expensive, so I restored the engine back to the original oil filter and have changed oil to a very high quality European semi-synthetic doped for diesel, with very high ACEA specifications... $9 a liter!
The bypass system filters down to one, one hundredth micron... fine enough to trap water and fine enough to trap viscosity index improver.
Every oil (except Amsoil, which has it's viscosity engineered into it at manufacture... apparently) contains a reasonably large dose of viscosity index improver, which consists of large molecules that straighten out when they are cold, which makes the oil thin and coil-up when they are hot, which makes the oil thick. STP and Wynnes for oil and so on, are their respective takes on viscosity index improver... mostly. So the oil is thin when cold to allow easy starting and thick when it's hot to give some lubrication when it's hot. Unfortunately, these very large molecules get chopped up by the shearing action of the piston rings and otherwise destroyed by the high heat found in an engine. The residue of these molecules forms black sludge and varnishes which discolour the oil and if not removed, will in time destroy an engine. And the viscosity index improver can disappear within 100 miles!
I bought a new Mahindra for mowing grass and ran it in on semi-synthetic and now have 5W-40 full synthetic in the sump at 150 hours service. It is worth noting, that it is not a cunning plan to run-in a new engine on full synthetic lubricant. The oil is so good, that the lapping and polishing of the metal mating surfaces doesn't occur and necessary bedding in, might be hindered. Run it in on good quality mineral oil and the first oil change service interval and then full synthetic thereafter.
Here's a plan... because full synthetic is more expensive than mineral oils, double it's service duty and change the oil filter when you would normally change the oil. So you run the oil for say 5,000 Km and change the oil filter and top up and then at 10,000 Km, change the oil and filter. I don't care what Amsoil and others say, running oil in an engine for extended oil drain intervals is not a good idea. Oil is cheap. Re-building an engine isn't!
I should probably disclose, that I'm an industrial chemist, with an interest in synthetic lubricants and work for a European Oil Company.
I do not believe in oil additives... if they worked and did what the manufacturer says the do, the oil additive companies (Lubrizol, Athlon and so on), that supply the oil additive packages used by the oil companies, would be incorporating their chemistry in their additive blends. Except for viscosity index improver, largely, they don't.
I know and understand that taking an engine down, to re-ring it is an absolute mission and a pain, but at the end of the day, it is the only answer.
Air cooled engines of any kind, need full synthetic oil. The oil system, is also the cooling system. In the Kohler/B & S engine on the ride-on, use full synthetic engine oil and a Kohler/B & S filter... change the oil and filter once a year and the engine will outlast you!


----------



## 2003_PSD

I can see some of your points and being from the NZ the cost would be a big leap for anyone.

But not being a chemist but a believer I know it works. In the extended drain application and in racing we have been doing it since 1972.

I am going to give you a link to read and here is a link. They were going 980hr on a oil change, tore down at 8k the pictures tells the story in my world.

The sad fact is were you are the cost may be out of range for most folks. I went 38k on my last oil change I have 87k on the meter and 4 oil changes runs awesome oil samples come back for continued use.

I am not big on long post so I do hope you understand that I am not going to go on and on. BUT IT DOES WORK.
Bill


----------



## Down-Under

The only point of difference between Amsoil and other manufacturers of quality synthetic oils is the viscosity index improver. They all use additive packages manufactured one one or other of the big four additive blenders (in Amsoil's case, Lubrizol) and these additive packages by their nature, are consumed over a period of time. This is what the oil analysis is all about.
The fact is, Amsoil do not claim their product to last for thousands and thousands of kilometers... they say "up to three times the oil drain interval", conservatively, that amounts to 15,000 Km, or 25,000 Km if you push it! 
My daily transport is a Range Rover and Land Rover recommend only synthetic lubricants drained and changed at regular intervals. Land Rover engineers know the importance of regular servicing to get maximum life out of the engine... as do every other automobile manufacturer.
It is true, that some manufacturers have "service" lights on the dash, which come on when the filter goes into bypass, others like Land Rover, have a light which comes on after a set distance and some like Opel and VW have a little computer which looks at the type of running the engine has been subjected to and the light comes on when set conditions have been met or exceeded. But all agree that regular servicing is vitally important for the durability of their engines.
Modern engines, in particular, run at elevated temperatures because of cramped engine compartments and lean burning, to extract every bit of energy out of every drop of fuel, with ever increasing power output and smaller engine blocks and less and less coolant. These conditions are very arduous on any lubricating oil.
Some engines are unsuitable for synthetics of any kind (some high power Saab engines, for example) and some engines cannot be run for any kind of extended oil drain (Some Toyota and some Subaru engines) which will result in the likely destruction of the engine if you try it. (as admitted to me, by an Amsoil Platinum Dealer Direct in Duluth)
I have yet to find any car manufacturer that will say 'if you use Amsoil and do as they say and run the lubricating oil for three times our recommended service intervals, we will continue to warrant your car'. 
Whilst one might be able to use Amsoil product (because it meets API SL or SM) one needs to change the oil in accordance with the manufacturers recommendations for warranty provisions to apply.
I have used Amsoil in my own cars (and had an engine failure when 20W50 AMO racing oil deposited thick black sludge, because of extreme heat and blocked the oil-pump pick-up screen) but I absolutely disagree with their extended oil drain interval in respect to modern passenger cars. Maybe in a truck where oil temperature isn't such an issue because of the volume of oil. But never in a modern car with the elevated under bonnet temperatures.
Never the less, I can see no merit what so ever for engine oil additives, but I can understand the use of oil system cleaner and fuel system cleaner.
If you ever need technical assistance, I invite you to correspond directly with me at [email protected]


----------



## 2003_PSD

Down-Under said:


> The only point of difference between Amsoil and other manufacturers of quality synthetic oils is the viscosity index improver. They all use additive packages manufactured one one or other of the big four additive blenders (in Amsoil's case, Lubrizol) and these additive packages by their nature, are consumed over a period of time. This is what the oil analysis is all about.
> The fact is, Amsoil do not claim their product to last for thousands and thousands of kilometers... they say "up to three times the oil drain interval", conservatively, that amounts to 15,000 Km, or 25,000 Km if you push it!
> My daily transport is a Range Rover and Land Rover recommend only synthetic lubricants drained and changed at regular intervals. Land Rover engineers know the importance of regular servicing to get maximum life out of the engine... as do every other automobile manufacturer.
> It is true, that some manufacturers have "service" lights on the dash, which come on when the filter goes into bypass, others like Land Rover, have a light which comes on after a set distance and some like Opel and VW have a little computer which looks at the type of running the engine has been subjected to and the light comes on when set conditions have been met or exceeded. But all agree that regular servicing is vitally important for the durability of their engines.
> Modern engines, in particular, run at elevated temperatures because of cramped engine compartments and lean burning, to extract every bit of energy out of every drop of fuel, with ever increasing power output and smaller engine blocks and less and less coolant. These conditions are very arduous on any lubricating oil.
> Some engines are unsuitable for synthetics of any kind (some high power Saab engines, for example) and some engines cannot be run for any kind of extended oil drain (Some Toyota and some Subaru engines) which will result in the likely destruction of the engine if you try it. (as admitted to me, by an Amsoil Platinum Dealer Direct in Duluth)
> I have yet to find any car manufacturer that will say 'if you use Amsoil and do as they say and run the lubricating oil for three times our recommended service intervals, we will continue to warrant your car'.
> Whilst one might be able to use Amsoil product (because it meets API SL or SM) one needs to change the oil in accordance with the manufacturers recommendations for warranty provisions to apply.
> I have used Amsoil in my own cars (and had an engine failure when 20W50 AMO racing oil deposited thick black sludge, because of extreme heat and blocked the oil-pump pick-up screen) but I absolutely disagree with their extended oil drain interval in respect to modern passenger cars. Maybe in a truck where oil temperature isn't such an issue because of the volume of oil. But never in a modern car with the elevated under bonnet temperatures.
> Never the less, I can see no merit what so ever for engine oil additives, but I can understand the use of oil system cleaner and fuel system cleaner.
> If you ever need technical assistance, I invite you to correspond directly with me at [email protected]


I see no point of arguing with you on our extended oil drain intervals as I have provided many examples and you dismissed them. 
I also don't agree with some car engines are not suitable for synthetics. The Corvette is a good example they had engine failures before the use of synthetics. 
Synthetics resist heat and is a perfect fit in the modern engines. 
I do agree that the cookie cuter approach on some engines are not expendable only a *few* would apply. 
My daughter has a 2006 Honda doing 25k oil changes with complete success.

My son has a Escort with 300k doing 35k oil change intervals.

Bill


----------



## wjjones

ironhat said:


> How do you determine this? No flame intended.


 It was told by a mechanic i know to use it for a mild engine lifter tap and he thought it would quiet it down. The tap was just barely audible but it didnt work at all, and i know its not a miracle cure for engine wear. But i tried Slick 50 after the Lucas and i havent heard the lifter since.


----------



## 2003_PSD

The only point of difference between Amsoil and other manufacturers of quality synthetic oils is the viscosity index improver. They all use additive packages manufactured one one or other of the big four additive blenders (in Amsoil's case, Lubrizol) and these additive packages by their nature, are consumed over a period of time. 

*1 This is not actuate Quality sets us apart.*

The fact is, Amsoil do not claim their product to last for thousands and thousands of kilometers... they say "up to three times the oil drain interval", conservatively, that amounts to 15,000 Km, or 25,000 Km if you push it! 
My daily transport is a Range Rover and Land Rover recommend only synthetic lubricants drained and changed at regular intervals. Land Rover engineers know the importance of regular servicing to get maximum life out of the engine... as do every other automobile manufacturer.

*2 This has to do with the fact the Europeans have all ready adapted a extended oil drain already. This does not mean you can go only with what they say as they are not using Amsoil to established there findings.*

Modern engines, in particular, run at elevated temperatures because of cramped engine compartments and lean burning, to extract every bit of energy out of every drop of fuel, with ever increasing power output and smaller engine blocks and less and less coolant.

*3 This is true that is why Synthetics is a advantage.*

(as admitted to me, by an Amsoil Platinum Dealer Direct in Duluth)
*
4 This I find hard to believe.
*
I have used Amsoil in my own cars (and had an engine failure when 20W50 AMO racing oil deposited thick black sludge, because of extreme heat and blocked the oil-pump pick-up screen) but I absolutely disagree with their extended oil drain interval in respect to modern passenger cars. 
*
5 There could be many reasons other than Amsoil causing this issue.*

Bill


----------



## Down-Under

1. I suppose you mean accurate?

Everything I had to say is accurate. The only real difference between Q8 Excel and Amsoil is the viscosity index improver. Higher quality than Q8; I don't think so! Better than Q8; that's not right either. Just because it's made in America doesn't make it the worlds best! And before you claim that American Chemists invented polyalphaoliofin... well they didn't. It was actually invented in Germany!

2. The Europeans doubled the size of their vehicle's sumps. The greater volume of oil allows it to run cooler, thereby extending it's durability. I specifically invite you to point to ONE motor vehicle manufacturer that will honour the guarantee on it's vehicles if one does what Amsoil says you can do (extend the oil change interval to three times the manufacturers recommendation). 

3. you quote out of context. What I said was regular servicing is vital to the life of the engine, because....

4. His name and the name of his MLM enterprise is on another hard disk drive which I have in storage. When I have time, I'll get it out and run it and I'll E-mail you his contact details. I'm very far from happy about you questioning the veracity of my statement. I was writing to him, because I'd been told by Judy Sivert, the local Amsoil Distribution Centre Manger, that in the 12 years She had been Manager there, Amsoil had never once paid a claim under their warranty in New Zealand. The Duluth dealer said, that 'not all engines are suitable for extended oil drain interval' and said 'a number of Toyota's had experienced engine failure because of this'.

5. The engine failure in my Subaru was caused by the Amsoil TRO overheating and breaking down because of heat and extended service. Amsoil said it was caused by failure of the vehicle emissions system... which was sweetness and light... except in New Zealand, there was no requirement for such a system and being a New Zealand new vehicle, this car had no emissions control equipment at all. The crankcase was vented to the atmosphere and that was found to be open and free of obstruction. This was confirmed by Robin Barkley, Chief Engineer for Subaru New Zealand and also Neil Curle, Australasian Service Engineer for Cummins Engines. Both inspected the engine after it had been stripped down by Neil Curle. Their written opinion was engine failure caused by lubricant degradation because of heat and caused by extended oil drain intervals. Amsoil declined the claim under their warranty and invited me to sue them in Duluth. I happen live some 15,000 Km from Duluth.

Amsoil is as slippery as the lubricant they peddle. The warranty they pretend to extend, is utter rubbish, not worth the price of the paper it's written on. 

My advice...(an an Industrial Chemist working for a widely respected European Oil Company)... if the engine is properly designed for flexible oil change intervals, then run it according to the service light and the owners manual. This will involve using expensive oil from the selling dealers service department and an OEM oil filter. Failing that, then run the best full synthetic oil you can buy and run it for not more than 10,000 Km (6,000 miles) and change the filter mid way (at 5,000 Km or 3,000 miles) and top up and use nothing other than OEM filters from your dealers parts department. Unless you have a Saab.

Eurotaxolyslager (the widely respected and recognised service bible, for European cars, trucks, buses, vans & motorcycles) says 'Saab 900 2.0, 2.3 16V 1993 to 1998, Saab 2.0 Turbo 16V 1993 to 1998 and Saab 2.5V6 24V 1993 to 1998... Do not use synthetic oil, or, if you prefer... Kein synyhetisches Oi verwenden, No pas utiliser d'huile synthetique, or Geen synthetische olie gebruiken.

Amsoil is sold by way of multi level marketing and there are all these people 'clipping the ticket' as the product percolates down to the end user. This makes it prohibitively expensive and to justify the outrageous cost, they have come up with this extended oil drain cunning plan. The corporate sing-along is compelling, but misleading. When you grizzle about the cost, they invite you to 'come clip the ticket too'. Amway resellers are 'wide-eyed and sing the company chorus with passion and gusto' and Amsoil dealers, in my experience, are of the same mettle.


----------



## poncho62

Never had any luck with aditives.....My dad said that Rislone would quiet down lifters......Tried it on a couple of engines with no luck........

I figure if a part is shot, its shot......no miracle cures


----------



## Down-Under

Well... there is... unless they are compleatly stuffed!
The knocking lifter is caused by being at the end of a "blind" oil gallery and over time, the valve lifters get filled with engine oil deposits, like gum, varnish and combustion by-products that are in suspension with the oil.
To clean them out, next oil change, buy any high quality diesel engine oil, with an additive package for both diesel and petrol (gasoline) engines... API CF/SL or API CF/SM, for example.
The very high levels of detergents in the diesel doping, will clear out the deposits in the lifters.
It works about 90% of the time!


----------



## Fordfarm

I have used Lucas in my tractors - WONDERFUL stuff!


----------



## magfarm

Down-Under said:


> 2. The Europeans doubled the size of their vehicle's sumps. The greater volume of oil allows it to run cooler, thereby extending it's durability. I specifically invite you to point to ONE motor vehicle manufacturer that will honour the guarantee on it's vehicles if one does what Amsoil says you can do (extend the oil change interval to three times the manufacturers recommendation).


Actually, I can point to all. There is a U.S. federal law called the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. As far as automotive manufacturers are concerned, by law, they CANNOT specify a certain brand of oil or drain interval to use, they can only RECOMMEND, and that it meets their specifications. They cannot void any warranty based on these either, unless it is proven that the oil or extended drain actually caused the failure as proven with oil analysis.

I'm sorry to hear that you had a bad experience with one of the products...which I would bet there were other factors involved. Just because of your personal experiences doesn't mean you can slander the company or it's business practices...since you obviously don't know much about it in the first place. 

Extended drain intervals are not new. Mobil1 tried it with their standard synthetic (Group III) oil years ago but couldn't back it up. AMSOIL cost is at par or less than Mobil1 EP in the U.S. (Mobil1 for wholesale accounts)...is Mobil 'clipping the ticket'? Mobil states that Mobil1 EP is "Guaranteed performance and protection for up to 15,000 miles." A cunning plan? Will you also slam Mobil for stating this? Guaranteed? Wow, that's a pretty bold gaurantee...utter rubbish? Was oil analysis performed on your Subaru failure or just an engine inspection? Can you prove that break down of the oil caused the failure or was it from another cause? Until then, it's opinion...not fact.

I apologize to all for hijacking this thread about oil additives but I had to respond.


----------



## 2003_PSD

magfarm said:


> Actually, I can point to all. There is a U.S. federal law called the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. As far as automotive manufacturers are concerned, by law, they CANNOT specify a certain brand of oil or drain interval to use, they can only RECOMMEND, and that it meets their specifications. They cannot void any warranty based on these either, unless it is proven that the oil or extended drain actually caused the failure as proven with oil analysis.
> 
> I'm sorry to hear that you had a bad experience with one of the products...which I would bet there were other factors involved. Just because of your personal experiences doesn't mean you can slander the company or it's business practices...since you obviously don't know much about it in the first place.
> 
> Extended drain intervals are not new. Mobil1 tried it with their standard synthetic (Group III) oil years ago but couldn't back it up. AMSOIL cost is at par or less than Mobil1 EP in the U.S. (Mobil1 for wholesale accounts)...is Mobil 'clipping the ticket'? Mobil states that Mobil1 EP is "Guaranteed performance and protection for up to 15,000 miles." A cunning plan? Will you also slam Mobil for stating this? Guaranteed? Wow, that's a pretty bold gaurantee...utter rubbish? Was oil analysis performed on your Subaru failure or just an engine inspection? Can you prove that break down of the oil caused the failure or was it from another cause? Until then, it's opinion...not fact.
> 
> I apologize to all for hijacking this thread about oil additives but I had to respond.


Thanks Allan Now that is straight talk and to the point.:headclap:


----------



## wjjones

The part about the engine deposits is what the mechanic had told me, have you ever tried the engine flush?


----------



## magfarm

wjjones said:


> The part about the engine deposits is what the mechanic had told me, have you ever tried the engine flush?


Yes, on every vehicle that I've switched to synthetic. It helps remove any deposits, sludge, etc. that may have built up over time.


----------



## dangeroustoys56

I swear by Lucas oil additives - every junk tractor i drag home gets PB blaster in the spark plug hole, and a couple ounces of lucas oil in the motor oil after a fresh oil change- also found lucas makes grease- both for a grease gun and wheel berings - bot some of that stuff too.

Cant beat marvel mystery oil either.

Royal purple oil is awsome- but at $8 a quart it isnt a normal oil to use- i planned on putting that in my 18HP twin briggs on my modifed lawntractor ( when i build it). I cant see using synthetic oil in my lawntractors.

I use a good quality oil - either valvaline or quaker state, mobil , shell - sae 30 to 10w30/40 to 5w20/30 - never had any issues with any of these oils - i used to use castrol, but since the BP oil issue- im done with that brand- cant find havoline anymore . 

As for air filters i use K&N in the vehicles and wix oil filters.


----------



## Paul5388

> The Europeans doubled the size of their vehicle's sumps. The greater volume of oil allows it to run cooler, thereby extending it's durability.


 I have a couple of Mercedes 300 D and they both have 2 gallon sumps. Both qualify for High Mileage Awards, having over 170,000 miles on them. My newest one, a 1996 300D, has oil cooling with coolant around the filter housing to help keep it cool.

I do have a hard time accepting the concept of rings shearing molecules. There are 6.023X10^23 molecules in one mole of any substance (depending on when one took chemistry and was introduced to Avogadro's number). That means a large molecule is still extremely small, even if it has a molecular weight of 20,000 (2X10^4). 

With a ring end gap of .010", it is highly unlikely that any shearing is taking place. Degradation of oil is normally a function of heat exposure over a certain length of time that causes a chemical break down. If shearing was a possibility, we could take Carbowax 20,000 (a form of polyethylene glycol that is also commonly used as a polar stationary phase for gas chromatography) and run it through a machine and make Carbowax 10,000 or any other molecular weight we wanted. Polymerization just doesn't work the same way as ADI cutting extruded tubes of gun powder to the approximate length and weight they want. Polymerization depends on adding molecules together to form the desired molecular weight.


----------



## Down-Under

It's very sad to see this has been hi-jacked by persons trying to sell Amsoil and I rather think I've rattled their cage. Mind you, I suppose they have to push their barrow somewhere. I note their weasel words never-the-less.

I was an Amsoil Dealer 15 years ago and I'm still involved in the oil industry. Amsoil's warranty isn't worth the paper it's written on (from personal experience) and I stand by my statement, that the only point of difference between their product and other quality lubricants out of, shall we say, Europe... is the exclusion of Index Viscosity Index Improver in the Amsoil produce. 

Oil Analyzers Inc which I understand to be part of Amsoil, did an oil analysis on the Subaru engine oil (TRO) and reported that the emissions system had not been maintained. Which is really interesting, because this particular vehicle never ever had an emissions system that one could maintain. The crankcase breather want back to the air cleaner... an Amsoil air cleaner and the pipework was clean and clear of obstruction. This was noted by the Service Manager for Subaru New Zealand and the then Service Engineer for Cummins Engines for Australasia, a friend of mine who removed and dismantled the engine and the facts of the matter and photographic evidence, was reported to Amsoil. But, their response was an invitation for me to sue them in Duluth... which was sweetness and light because I happen to live in New Zealand. In respect to 'slandering the Company and it's business practices' well, telling the truth is an absolute defence against slander. The Manager at the Amsoil Distrubition Centre in Auckland (Judy Siverton... or maybe Sivert, it was a long time ago) stated that "Amsoil had never paid a warranty claim in New Zealand". She said "you waste your time, because you will have to sue them in Duluth for compensation". That's cool... because for 15 years, I've done everything I can to shaft them in this market.

The good news is, that their produce is so expensive in New Zealand, that they hardly sell any of it. Amsoil came here and gave-up, then they appointed a distributor who went to the wall and now there is another agent. I know of only one retail outlet selling the stuff in Auckland (and I go and harass him about it every month) and because it's so expensive, most of his oil sales is Elf product, from France.

Now, in respect to Mobil 1... the Mobil 1 made for the US market is compleatly different to the Mobil 1 sold here and in Europe. Only in the US, can oil blenders call grade three, four and five base stock 'synthetic lubricant'. Here and in Europe, only four and five base stocks are synthetics. Here, Mobil 1 is Polyalpha-Olefin and additives, which makes it grade four base stock synthetic, as far as I'm concerned. Here, Mobil 1 is retailed at NZ$75 for 4 litres at Repco and SCA and Amsoil AMO sells at AutoFrance Limited in Auckland at NZ$150 for 5 litres. I go to AutoFrance and fall about with laughter! I note also, that the original Mobil 1, 5W-20 in 1974, was made from API grade IV PAO base stock.

We wholesale Q8 Excel 5W-40, API SM (ready to go SN, 1 October), full synthetic (Q8's near equivalent to European Mobil 1) at NZ$6 a litre, representing it's landed cost and a significant margin. This, of course, brings Amsoil and Mobils margins into somewhat sharp focus. Don't you think?

In respect to extended oil drain intervals, just for the Hell of it, I went to Auckland today and asked the National Service managers for both Toyota and Subaru what their thoughts were on Amsoils claims. Both were horrified at the notion. I was told by Toyota, that "servicing costs for three years, is built into the warranty and if a customer neglects the warranty obligation to service, any claim for engine damage would probably be declined". Subaru said "regular oil changes are vital for reliability and engine durability; consequently, we pay for three years or 100,000 Km of service". Nissan declined to talk about it on the very good grounds, that "such nonsense isn't suggested for Nissan". I've just called General Motors Holden's Engine Plant management in Melbourne (Victoria) and they said, "servicing at our recommended intervals, is vital for the life of any engine manufactured by us". What about Ferrari? What would they think about extending the oil drain interval to three times their usual service recommendation? So I called them (+39 0536 949111) and was told that "Ferrari use only approved by Ferrari synthetic oil, changed at the service interval nominated in the service book". I believe that product, is presently Shell Ultra, Full Synthetic lubricant that was developed by Shell, in collaboration with Ferrari Engine Engineers, changed at 5,000Km. 

So... the engine engineers and service Managers, who represent the interests of the various car engine manufacturers that I approached, don't like service intervals of up to three times their suggested service intervals, even using synthetic lubricants... and would "likely decline a warranty claim under those circumstances". And Amsoils "guarantee" isn't worth the paper it's written on... which leaves the unlucky consumer that falls for Amsoil's weasel-words... somewhere between a rock and a hard place when it all goes 'tits-up'.

Going down the "flexible service interval" route, in vehicles not designed for it, is done at your peril.

Getting back to Amsoil; there is no end to their duplicity. They say they were 'the first in synthetics' which is misleading. They were first to the market with a synthetic lubricant with an API rating in 1972, but it was actually made by Hatco Corporation and merely marketed by Amzoil (as they were then). Before them, in 1969 was SynLube's 'Original Syn' and NEO's dibasic acide esters (or diesters if you want) and polyol ester (API group five base stock) products in 1970 and All-Proof's similar effort in 1971.


----------



## Down-Under

For Paul5388

Piston Ring Shear of Viscosity Index Improver, is a well recognised issue in the lubrication industry... Chopped-up VI can cause oils to darken and can cause the lubricant to go out of viscosity. I'll have a look at Lubrizol's web site over the weekend and see if I can get their explanation to assist you. When the VI goes, the oil reverts to it's base viscosity which is often the W rating. This will cause oil burning and rapid oil consumption. STP, Moreys and Wynnes (for Oil), for example, is nothing more than their brand of viscosity index improver

Have a look at... books. google.co.nz/books?id=ZWj4eqyS6boC
which should open Ross M Stewarts 1978 book "The relationship between oil viscosity and engine performance".
It's somewhat heavy going... but it's all in there. I tried to attach the relevant pages with this, but it won't let me.

If it doesn't open, please let me know and I'll forward a scan of the appropriate pages.


----------



## magfarm

> It's very sad to see this has been hi-jacked by persons trying to sell Amsoil and I rather think I've rattled their cage. Mind you, I suppose they have to push their barrow somewhere. I note their weasel words never-the-less.


Down-Under, it's great that you've stated your opinions...and my opinion is they are a bunch of rubbish. Keep slandering them 'down under' because it makes no difference here. I was just responding to your initial hi-jacking of this thread...Bill was only responding to the posted question and stating what he uses and why and providing information for those who chose to take a look. I don't think this venue is the place to vent your personal vendettas which is the real sad part...IMHO. Keep your flames to yourself and hopefully this thread can get back on track.

Have a nice day


----------



## Paul5388

I suppose it's good to know about MLM offerings that contain "secret ingredients" that magically extend the life of your product. So, I extend my thanks Down-Under!

I haven't had the opportunity to read the book Down-Under mentioned, The relationship between engine oil ... - Google Books, but I'm working on it.

I have only used synthetic oil one time, in the '96 300D, and certainly didn't see an improvement in fuel economy. On a 1300 mile trip, with an advertised 25 mpg town/35 mpg highway, I averaged 29.5 mpg on mostly interstate driving. That's not what I would call an impressive number that would make me want to always use synthetic oil. In fact, my 1987 300D got 28.5 mpg using 15W-40 Delvac, so I find synthetics to be dubious in benefit.


----------



## Down-Under

For Magfarm

Of course, you are entitled to your opinion and I'm entitled to mine. I think I've clearly stated my position and qualifications and reasons for being critical of Amsoil's extended oil drain regime. I haven't slandered anyone; I have merely told the truth and my point of view has been formed by education and unfortunate personal experience.

I merely point out, that everything doesn't have to be as it appears to be and I caution users about a very average product that is selling at a very inflated price. The justification for the extreme cost, because it's sold by way of MLM, is that it will last three times longer in the crankcase than other similar products; which is sweetness and light, but the manufacturers of the engines disagree and go to lengths to point out that doing as the oil manufacturer suggests, would invalidate their warranty. And Amsoil's warranty is all smoke and mirrors, written around out clauses and exclusions. So where does that leave the consumer?

Regular oil changes, at the engine manufacturers recommendation are vital for the life of the engine. In the overall scheme of things, lubricating oil is cheap! I invited you to point to one automobile engine manufacturer that will endorse Amsoil's extended oil drain regime. I can't find any, although I've had some very interesting conversations with some very interesting people! A number of European engine manufacturers have specifically engineered their car engines for flexible oil drain intervals, by increasing the capacity of the sump and including oil coolers and high volume oil filters with other modifications to allow this. This has come about for no other reason, than long motorway miles are regarded as being very easy on the lubricant. Other engine manufacturers, especially the Asians, are horrified that anyone would even want to go there. 

Yesterday, I spoke to Toyota, Subaru, Nissan, GM, VW, BMW, Mercedes-Benz and Ferrari. Today, I have spoken to NZ Motor Corp (Range Rover, Land Rover, Jaguar), Suzuki, Hyundai, Peugeot and Citroen, Fiat and Alfa Romeo... even Great-Wall and not one of them supported the concept of extended oil drain intervals, except where the engine is designed for it (some VW, BMW & Mercedes-Benz). So why would Amsoil think they are right and the actual manufacturers of the engines, are absolutely wrong?

Going back to my original point, I disagree with any lubricant additive being added to engine oil. They are a waste of money and their benefit will be negligible and could upset and inter-react with the additives already in the lubricant. If they were any good, and actually did what they say they will do, then very soon the additive chemistry would be included in the additive package supplied to the oil blenders by the likes of Lubrizol.

The key to long engine life, is regular servicing at the engine manufacturers intervals, especially oil and air and oil filter changes and insist that oil meeting the latest API specification be used (currently SM, but SN after October 01, 2010). Synthetic oil will further extend the life of the engine and is vital in engines that are turbo-charged or under high stress. Oils doped for both petrol and diesel applications, will help extend the life of the engine because it will keep the internal parts of the engine cleaner, because of the increased detergent in the diesel package.

Be aware, that Diesel Particulate Filter equipped cars and commercial vehicles usually require very special synthetic lubricants to cope with the high temperatures generated when the DPF regenerates itself. Euro 5 specification engines also require the very specialised, synthetic oils developed for them.

For air-cooled engines, it is a good idea to use synthetic lubricants (synthetic lubricants are less affected by heat), because the lubricant is also the coolant!


----------



## Paul5388

The packaging will usually tell who has approved the product for use in their engines. I used Rotella T6 in my MB and checked the approvals.










It should probably be noted the comparison charts provided by most brands may or may not actually represent fact.


----------



## Down-Under

Absolutely! You are onto it! 
Rotella T6's API standards are up with the very best of lubricants
ACEA E9 is a European specification, technically very close to CJ-4 and suitable for vehicles with a Diesel Particulate Filter and Euro IV engines. It is suitable for the latest gas or diesel engines. JASO DH-2MA is the current Japanese standard for diesel engines.
This oil is PAO Grade IV base stock, probably with a Lubrizol additive package by the look of the references. It's been relatively recently developed by Shell and every bit as good as (and better than most) other very high quality lubricants you can buy.
Use this product with confidence!


----------



## rschwing

Just my 2 cents. I have an 05 Silverado with the 5.3 V8 engine and have used Amsoil since the first oil change. I started with Amsoil ALS 5w30. The oil was changed every 10,000 miles and the filter changed every 5,000 miles. Then i was using a Delco or Fram long life filter. In October of 07 at about 75,000 miles I began using Amsoil SSO 0w30 oil and their Eo filter. I now change both the oil and the filter at 25,000 mile intervals. Currently at 148,000 miles. I should note that summers I pull about 6500 lbs of boat to the lake on the weekends, a 120 mile round trip. Also, I am using Amsoil ARO 20w50 in the boat engine - 502 cuin, 500hp, efi. All with no issues. It is also Amsoil in the JD210 L&G tractor and Amsoil grease for all. I am a believer!!!


----------



## magfarm

rschwing, appreciate the testimonial. I guess there's no sweetness and light there...


----------



## Down-Under

Let me see... a couple of Amsoil MLM Dealers still pushing their wares? 
Amsoil is not the best lubricant money can buy, very far from it. It can only ever be as good as the additive manufacturer (Lubrizol Inc.) allows it to be. Amsoil make only the seed oil based basestock and blend it with Lubrizol additive packages to make a finished product.
Amsoil were not the first in synthetics... In brief, the first synthetic oil basestock was developed by Standard Oil in Indiana more than 70 years ago. Then the Germans & Italians improved on the idea to allow their equipment to operate on the Russian front in WW2. Towards the end of WW2, it was realised that the recently developed gas turbines needed special oils to withstand the extreme operating environment encountered with those engines. 
Amsoil were not even the first on the block with synthetic automobile lubricant. That particular accolade belongs to SynLube who released OriginalSyn about 1968 or maybe 1969; whereas Amsoil came into being in 1972. Which comes first... 69 or 72?
My point is, that the rest of the rubbish written on their bottle needs to be bought into sharp focus as well. I have personal experience of an engine failure caused by this miserable product and those rat-bags in Duluth walked away from their warranty obligation with a Gallic shrug of their collective shoulders.
I'm still furious about it... and I'll never let those Duluth based tossers forget it!
Returning to the thread... There is no place for after blending additives in modern lubricating oil. If the additive was any good, it would already be incorporated into the additive package as supplied to the lubricant blender. It costs millions of dollars to develop a lubricating oil and get it through API certification... much less the much tougher European Standards. So why would one add an additive, containing unknown chemistry, which might or might not be compatible with the oil chemistry already there? And if it all goes wrong, who picks up the repair bill?


----------



## kbowley

Down Under,
A lubrication engineer? Really? Tell me, what group 4 or 5 syn uses a VI? Which company? Since a 10w30 grp 4/5 syn is a base 30 oil, none. I am not defending Amsoil, just some of the foolish statements you made. Each company engineers their own base stocks and specifies what they want in the add pack which is then made by Lubrizol or some such. Mobil One uses Lubrizol as does Shell...Are they the same oil? do they have the same ppm of ZI? No. You are correct about the first syn to market is synlube (A.K.A. Amsoil). Do you ever do UOA's? that’s how to determine the proper change interval, not some random mileage pulled out of your hat. My last oil change was at 12,000 miles on Mobil One 0w40 ACEA a3/ b4 in an Audi A4 1.8T AEB, with a huge 4 1/2 qt sump, with 150k. The Blackstone report showed the oil still serviceable with a TBN of 2.1 remaining and 100c vis of 13.4. What are you talking about...shearing causes oil to turn black? Are you drunk? Combustion byproducts and excessive temps cause discoloration...when i changed the petroleum based transmission/differential fluids at 75,000k, it was still a nice amber color yet it had sheared dramatically. Wow, your some engineer.


----------



## 2003_PSD

I think you are at least thinking not just reacting. 
IMO you would find the UOA to be much better than Mobil.

I am not sure what you meant by "not some random mileage pulled out of your hat" Amsoil does a lot of RD to come up with the mileage they recommend. 
Here is a link to our oil drain interval chart

Just so you know I do use UOA and here is some of what I have. The most I have went was 29k sample is posted.

Bill
www.FreeOilHelp.com - Nationwide Independent Amsoil Dealer


----------



## Down-Under

Another sad Amsoil dealer.

Stay with the thread, sunshine... worst oil additives I used.

Your whole canting rant, was stupid, uninformed, inaccurate and a gross misrepresentation of what I have actually said.

Synlube, for example, has nothing to do with Amsoil and never has. Their product is a lubricating colloid and has nothing to do with additives in base-stock and they were about years before Amsoil. They were the first with a synthetic lubricant. Call them on 0800 796 5823 and talk to them.

Grade 5 base stock is never used as a lubricant base, except in refrigeration; but is used in additive packages to impart certain desirable qualities in the finished product. The rest of your statements are without basis and just silly.

All multi-grade oil, except Amsoil, uses VI to make it thick when it's hot and thin when it's cold. Thats what makes it multi-grade. The shearing of VI is a huge problem and it is widely known and accepted that is one of the main causes of the discolouration of the oil. Pick up the phone and call Lubrizol on 440 943 4200 or API at 202 682 8233 and run your uneducated ignorance past them.

I am am an Industrial Chemist, and I have never claimed to be a 'lubrication engineer'. I have a Perkin-Elmer spectrophotometer in the back of my Lab doing oil analysis day in day out. What might the likes of you want to tell me about analysis of lubricants: and why would I want to listen?

For the rest of your unwarranted attack on my integrity... well, The Washington Post recently coined a new word: Ignoranus, defined as,  one who is both ignorant and an ass-hole. kinda fits, don't you think?

Now; getting back to the thread... I can see no useful purpose for after market oil additives and I compleatly disagree with them.


----------



## moe7404

in 1999 the epa made the automotive oil makers take the zinc out of automotive oil. so to make up for this i use red line, "engine oil break-in additive" a 16 oz is what i use bar code no 8352281403. Red Line Synthetic Oil. been using it in 3 dif engines over about 7 years. an other product i have used is zddplus, ZDDPlus Classic Car Engine Oil Additive - Flat-tappet and High-performance engines. both do good job of putting zinc back in your oil. and/or use valvoline premium blue diesel oil, 1 gal w70509 i dont know if that no is syn of dino. the dino is 15-40. go to your cummins deler and get brochure no.cf-2134, cf-2272. this oil meets API CI-4plus spec. and cj-4 the latest and tuffest spec out.


----------



## Down-Under

Yes, this is true. Zinc was getting the same bad press as lead in petrol (gasoline) received years ago. I am aware that the vintage car owners have been concerned and I'm pleased to hear that someone has done something about it.

I live in New Zealand and to the best of my knowledge, these products are not available here; consequently, I'm not prepared to comment.

By and large, however, products from the likes of Wynnes and STP (to name only two) are a waste of money and the user would be much better off, putting the money towards an oil change. The oil additive package manufacturers (such as Lubrizol), spend millions of dollars developing packages that meet ever more demanding specifications from engine manufacturers and adding unknown chemistry is never a good idea. That said, I suppose with vintage engines, that are largely unstressed and use mono grade oil... and need additives from a bygone age to run with any certainty, an alternative source of chemistry required by them would have to be acceptable. I'll need to look into this further.

Now, if the moderator will allow it...

I notice that most of the readers and correspondents on this site come from United States. You will see above, I come from New Zealand and recently our second largest city was devastated by two large earthquakes. The first happened in early November in the middle of the night and while there were many buildings damaged, there was no loss of life.

The second, occurred at lunchtime February 22 when the downtown area was crowded and subsequently flattened by the tremor. That has resulted in many deaths. The shock-waves from the second earthquake traveled at 90 degrees to the first which collapsed many buildings that had been damaged by the prior event. Everything was lifted by a meter and flung back down creating enormous G forces which wrecked the place.

The Australians (our near neighbors) came running and so did search and rescue personal from The United States. We truly appreciate your help and assistance and I would like to take this opportunity to thank the people of The United States for that assistance.

Of course, many other nationalities are here as well; but the US Servicemen and Women, from the Deep Freeze Base in Christchurch immediately came running, followed by SAR people from all over the US. This is a small country with a small population (but with millions of cows and sheep) and most everyone here is in shock and beside themselves with worry.


----------



## kbowley

I am not an Amsoil dealer nor promoter of any product. And you are way off,

_"Synlube, for example, has nothing to do with Amsoil and never has. Their product is a lubricating colloid and has nothing to do with additives in base-stock and they were about years before Amsoil. They were the first with a synthetic lubricant. Call them on 0800 796 5823 and talk to them."_"
"
Mario is an Idiot, lost his business license in 1997 for false claims...now a two person operation with his wife "synlube for life" Sure.

my quotations linking synlube with Amsoil was only meant for the likeness of both being a grp 5 base. Amsoil was the first synthetic oil to be API certified in 1972. Synlube is an ester and has no certifications.

Synthetic lubricants were first synthesized, or man-made, in significant quantities as replacements for mineral lubricants (and fuels) by German scientists in the late 1930s and early 1940s because of their lack of sufficient quantities of crude for their (primarily military) needs. A significant factor in its gain in popularity was the ability of synthetic-based lubricants to remain fluid in the sub-zero temperatures of the Eastern front in wintertime, temperatures which caused petroleum-based lubricants to solidify owing to their higher wax content. The use of synthetic lubricants widened through the 1950s and 1960s owing to a property at the other end of the temperature spectrum, the ability to lubricate aviation engines at temperatures that caused mineral-based lubricants to break down. In the mid 1970s, synthetic motor oils were formulated and commercially applied for the first time in automotive applications. The same SAE system for designating motor oil viscosity also applies to synthetic oils.

Instead of making motor oil with the conventional petroleum base, "true" synthetic oil base stocks are artificially synthesized. Synthetic oils are derived from either Group III mineral base oils, Group IV, or Group V non-mineral bases. True synthetics include classes of lubricants like synthetic esters as well as "others" like GTL (Methane Gas-to-Liquid) (Group V) and polyalpha-olefins (Group IV). Higher purity and therefore better property control theoretically means synthetic oil has good mechanical properties at extremes of high and low temperatures. The molecules are made large and "soft" enough to retain good viscosity at higher temperatures, yet branched molecular structures interfere with solidification and therefore allow flow at lower temperatures. Thus, although the viscosity still decreases as temperature increases, these synthetic motor oils have a much improved viscosity index over the traditional petroleum base. Their specially designed properties allow a wider temperature range at higher and lower temperatures and often include a lower pour point.* With their improved viscosity index, true synthetic oils need little or no viscosity index improvers, which are the oil components most vulnerable to thermal and mechanical degradation as the oil ages, and thus they do not degrade as quickly as traditional motor oils. *However, they still fill up with particulate matter, although at a lower rate compared to conventional oils, and the oil filter still fills and clogs up over time. So, periodic oil and filter changes should still be done with synthetic oil; but some synthetic oil suppliers suggest that the intervals between oil changes can be longer, sometimes as long as 16,000-24,000 km (10,000–15,000 mi) primarily due to reduced degredation by oxidation.

In the early 1960s, Chevron U.S.A integrated the first commercial utilization of hydrocracking technology at its Richmond California refinery [8]. By 1993 the company introduced lubricant Isodewaxing [9] technology making Chevron one of the world's largest manufacturers of API (category II and III) base oils. Today, API (category III) base oils are marketed to the general public as fully synthetic motor oil. On July 1, 2000, Chevron Corp. combined efforts with Phillips Petroleum Co., now ConocoPhillips, to become Chevron Phillips Chemical Company, LLC. The Chevron Phillips venture is one of the top producers of polyolefin (PAO) Group IV base stocks, some of which are used for automotive synthetic motor oils.
Although used in the aviation and aerospace industries beginning in the early 1950s, *the first synthetic oil developed for automotive combustion engines and fully recognized by the American Petroleum Institute (API) was produced by the Hatco Corp.[10] in 1972 as per specific specification requirements by Albert J. Amatuzio, current President and CEO of Amsoil Inc. This first API-rated synthetic motor oil was distributed exclusively through Amsoil Inc., meeting API (SE/CC) specifications and was based on a 10W-40 grade Diester API (category V) formulation. Today Amsoil Inc. markets a full line of API (category IV) licensed synthetic motor oil [11] and many other API (category IV) PAO-base oil formulations that are claimed by Amsoil to meet or exceed current API requirements.*
Other early synthetic motor oils marketed included "The Original Syn!" by SynLube in 1969, NEO Oil Company (formally EON) in 1970; they were dibasic acide esters, or diesters, and polyol ester-based synthetic lubricants. In 1971 All-Proof and Mobil 1, introduced to North America in 1974 a 5W-20 grade(category IV) PAO-base oil [12].






Down-Under said:


> Another sad Amsoil dealer.
> 
> Stay with the thread, sunshine... worst oil additives I used.
> 
> Your whole canting rant, was stupid, uninformed, inaccurate and a gross misrepresentation of what I have actually said.
> 
> Synlube, for example, has nothing to do with Amsoil and never has. Their product is a lubricating colloid and has nothing to do with additives in base-stock and they were about years before Amsoil. They were the first with a synthetic lubricant. Call them on 0800 796 5823 and talk to them.
> 
> Grade 5 base stock is never used as a lubricant base, except in refrigeration; but is used in additive packages to impart certain desirable qualities in the finished product. The rest of your statements are without basis and just silly.
> 
> All multi-grade oil, except Amsoil, uses VI to make it thick when it's hot and thin when it's cold. Thats what makes it multi-grade. The shearing of VI is a huge problem and it is widely known and accepted that is one of the main causes of the discolouration of the oil. Pick up the phone and call Lubrizol on 440 943 4200 or API at 202 682 8233 and run your uneducated ignorance past them.
> 
> I am am an Industrial Chemist, and I have never claimed to be a 'lubrication engineer'. I have a Perkin-Elmer spectrophotometer in the back of my Lab doing oil analysis day in day out. What might the likes of you want to tell me about analysis of lubricants: and why would I want to listen?
> 
> For the rest of your unwarranted attack on my integrity... well, The Washington Post recently coined a new word: Ignoranus, defined as,  one who is both ignorant and an ass-hole. kinda fits, don't you think?
> 
> Now; getting back to the thread... I can see no useful purpose for after market oil additives and I compleatly disagree with them.


----------



## kbowley

So Redline group 5 oils can only be used in refrigerators?

*Red Line was founded in 1979 by Tim Kerrigan and Peter Filice in Benicia, California.

In 1986, Roy Howell, a Cornell graduate and chemist working for Lubrizol, was appointed as Chief Chemist at Red Line Synthetic Oil Corporation and is currently Vice President of the company.

[edit] Products
Red Line started as a company producing oils for the racing industry, later expanding their business to the more mainstream high performance, enthusiast, and passenger car markets.

They have a full line up of high quality multigrade and monograde polyol ester base stock (Group V) engine and gear lubricants*


----------



## Down-Under

Yes, I have seen all of that. I know how to Google too.

Why did you say Synlube is Amsoil, when you now admit it isn't?

Amsoil is not a group V base; absolutely none of it! It is is PAO, group IV base, derived from cotton seed oil, containing a unique and proprietary additive package supplied by Lubrizol.

Amsoil's dealers continuously misrepresent their product. If you are not one of them, why are your tits in a tangle?

PAG, a group V base, is used in refrigeration compressors. Group V base is so expensive, why would you use it in engine oil when group IV PAO is more than adequate? My European principals sell huge quantities of group V base stock out of Europort, to Lubrizol, who use it in their additive packages. Why would one use such an expensive base to carry an additive package? I cannot understand the logic? I think you are getting confused by American terminology versus European. Only in the US can you call top end group III base "synthetic". Europeans call it 'severely refined mineral oil' and synthetics start at Group IV base.

As far as I'm aware, Red line is not sold in my market, which is dominated mostly, by High Specification European produce and unlike you, I'm not prepared to comment on something about which I have yet to encounter.

The thread is 'the worst oil additives I used' and I contest that there is no place in the market place for them. Even Amsoil agree with that!


----------



## kbowley

ahh. I see...


----------



## moe7404

well i have to admit i havent read ALL the posts, and a lot of the talk is above my head. but something happened to me that taught me something. i had a 1977 dodge truck 318 2bdl stock. i put a extension on the oil fill tube. the cap started having water on. next oil change i put a pcv valve on. after that no more water. so i fugered that crankcase ventilation is important.


----------



## Down-Under

You are absolutely right... the PCV valve needs to function correctly. It needs to be cleaned (or replaced) at every service. Water in the crankcase, specifically in cars using high ethanol blends of fuel have a particular issue with water vapor going into the sump past the engine rings and in vehicles that are used for short journeys and not really getting hot, there is a problem with water laying on the bottom of the sump, beneath the oil and freezing in cold weather.

This can result in the oil sump pick-up being blocked by the ice and starvation of oil on start-up. API have recently (October 01, 2010) released API rating SN, which addresses this by adding something akin to antifreeze, to the fuel saving qualities of lubricants rated API SM.


----------



## kbowley

I concur, the crankcase ventilation is very important device in the proper lubrication of, in particular, splash lubed systems. Particularly the pushrods and valve guides. 

I wasnt aware of a water dispersant being added to the new SN rating, however, it is a leap forward from the failed SM. ZDDP is reintroduced because of high wear of cam lobes in direct injected engines, lower NOAK volatility (evaporation causing sludge) and an increased HTHS (High temp high shear) as well as lower tolerances (less buildup) for piston skirt varnish, and varnish buildup overall internally. It is certainly an outstanding oil on paper. Most oils will also meet ISAAC GL5 specs which is yet more demanding than API. Not sure on the Euro yet. Interested to find out how it does on the VW502 rating and ACEA A3/B4. Flash point is also increased as will as fire point.

This will be an excellent oil. Most certainly excellent for the flathead splashed lube small engines were SM was unacceptable. Sl was/is still a good oil for use in small air cooled engines and SN appears even better. Strangely, the only synthetic I have seen that meets SN so far is Wal-Marts Super-Tech and Mobil One 0w40. So until you can find an SN oil, use SL. Alternately, there are many fossil oils with the SN rating which is fine for 25 hr changes in the 5w-30 grade or straight 30 (most straight 30 is SL rated for use in air cooled engines). However, I would choose an SL syn over an SN fossil. I have a 1991 WheelHorse 212-H with a Briggs 12 hp I/C flathead with 1800 hrs and still going strong. It has had a diet of Mobil One 10w-30 since new, regardless of the rating. I do not think it would still be mowing 5 acres every week plus other tasks (averages 100 hrs per year) if it had fossil oils. I think of it as my test machine. It shows no signs of wear, burns no oil and runs quiet so i see no reason why another 1k hrs is unreasonable. granted, the Briggs 10-12 hp I/C flathead is among the finest Briggs ever built. They normally dont run 2k hours.


----------



## Down-Under

The Europeans are working on it right now. As soon as I hear something, I'll post here.

API SM seemed to result from a fuel economy fixation within API and I think it was rushed out into the market. Many of the big Europeans have simply ignored it and continue with API SL.

I have yet to see any product in my market meeting API SN. Mobil 1 0W-40 isn't sold here... we have a Mobil 1 blending out of Singapore rated API 5W-50, API SM, which isn't that wonderful.

You are right to run your air cooled engine with synthetic oil. I recommend that always, because the engine oil is part of the cooling medium in an air cooled engine and synthetic copes with heat much better than mineral.

I have a 10 year old MTD Yardman with a Kohler engine and have run it with Q8 Excel 5W-40 since running it in. I change the oil and filter annually, which I suppose equates with about 100 hours service. Like your mower, the Kohler runs perfectly, uses no oil between service and the oil remains remarkably clean for the year. 

I plan to retire at the end of the year and I had planned to replace the mower with a new one... but frankly, I can't see the point


----------



## pauldeere

If you have a mechanical problem it's very unlikely that anything from a bottle will cure your problem.


----------



## Down-Under

I agree.
Wynn's & STP made their fortunes furiously promoting the notion that it might...
Can't and won't; however.


----------



## SVanDee

*Lucas oil additive helps more over several years?*

This post is just to suggest that, if you try oil additives, be patient. You may see more improvement over several years than you do initially.

My old, beat up IH484 puffed blue smoke a lot while cold and some whenever it accelerated when I inherited it 12 years ago. I didn't have much experience with farm equipment. My brother-in-law who does told me I should try Lucas oil treatment. I'd always thought fuel and oil additives were a scam and ignored him. However, by 4 years ago the smoking got so bad it nearly choked me unless I was moving fast enough to leave the cloud behind and my wife accused me of trying to fog mosquitoes so I decided to give Lucas a try. It reduced the smoking enough right away to keep using it. The surprise has been that it's continued to reduce the smoking more and more every year. This year, the tractor hardly ever smokes at all. Sounds better too - less like metal parts are slapping against each other.

I haven't had the engine apart so I can't say what it looks like inside. I do still wonder if additives may do some harm over the long haul. I doubt if I'd put them in a newer engine that's not using oil or showing other signs of wear but I hope the worst they might do to my old tractor is require an overhaul which it would have needed before now anyway.

I've never tried any other additives and can't comment on how they compare to Lucas.

The tractor's always had plain 30 wt oil as recommended in the Operator's Manual. I've heard that it's a bad idea to switch from regular oil to synthetic in a old engine so I haven't tried them.

I started adding Lucas hydraulic oil treatment to the tractor's hydraulic oil a couple of years ago. Seems to have reduced some 3pt hitch hunting and drooping but the improvement is not so clear as it is with the engine.

My 15 year old John Deere riding lawnmower started smoking a little bit last year. I added a couple of ounces of Lucas oil treatment to its oil this Spring. Seems to have stopped the smoke.


----------



## Country Boy

Just be extremely careful when using additives in an air-cooled engine. We had a customer use something in his snowblower engine a few years ago, and the product baked in the crankcase and damaged the governor. When I pulled the engine apart to fix it, I found what looked like spray in bedliner coating everything in the engine about 1/8" thick. Took almost an hour to scrape most of it out. If you do use an additive in an air-cooled engine, make sure it is rated for air-cooled engines. They run much hotter than a liquid cooled engine, and the additive has to be able to handle that heat.


----------



## SVanDee

Thanks for the warning. I've just decided a little smoke from my lawn tractor isn't so bad after all.


----------



## Fredneck

an interesting and feisty thread.

i'm interested in the lucas oil treatment. my 1947 2N smokes enough to blacken the right arm of the three point, and smokes out the breather as well. i'd love to cut down on that. does anyone else here use it?


----------



## Clay

Man, this 3-year old thread jumped back to life in a hurry!


----------

