MotorKote engine survival?

[book...@yahoo.com]

Heard them promoting MotorKote on a radio talk show, you know, using
the interview format. Said the product is accepted by NASCAR
mechanics, is sold at WalMart, used for everything from motor oil
supplement, transmission additive, gun preservative (improves
accuracy), various other machines.

So I looked it up on Internet to see what reviewers were saying. Most
said only a small improvement in MPG, not much change otherwise. Some
said, yes, by golly, the engine "tic" went away in minutes. Then I
read a review by a truck driver who said he looked it up in a chemical
index of some kind and found it was only mineral oil. Didn't say
mineral oil is bad, just that it's much cheaper to buy than MotorKote.

Finally, I found the following analysis by Amsoil, which of course is
a competitor.

http://www.performanceoiltechnology.com/TSB%20MO-2010-04-01_chlorine_oil_treatments.pdf

It says MotorKote and several others contain high ppm of chlorine,
which converts to something highly corrosive in combination with water
and some other minerals. So Amsoil's warrant is voided unless it
approves another additive.

How to add up the data, I'm not sure. It's at least interesting to
compare MotorKote with Dura Lube Engine Treatment Booster, Prolong
Engine Treatment, and the regular and synthetic motor oils for
slipperiness. The test uses one speed of turning metal in an
adjustable clamp, determining how much clamp can be applied before it
slows down. In this test, MotorKote does outperform the other
additives.

MotorKote does have detractors out there, for instance the TDI forum
at http://forums.tdiclub.com/showthread.php?t=192120
might consider fuel additives, but nothing, never, no-how a motor oil
additive. bookburn

[Winston_Smith]

On Sun, 16 Dec 2012 18:36:41 -0900, book...@yahoo.com wrote:

>Heard them promoting MotorKote on a radio talk show, you know, using
>the interview format. Said the product is accepted by NASCAR
>mechanics, is sold at WalMart, used for everything from motor oil
>supplement, transmission additive, gun preservative (improves
>accuracy), various other machines.

And probably endorsed by Martha Stewart, Good Housekeeping, and
Michael Jordan. Anyone that makes significant income by selling
endorsements.

>So I looked it up on Internet to see what reviewers were saying. Most
>said only a small improvement in MPG, not much change otherwise. Some
>said, yes, by golly, the engine "tic" went away in minutes. Then I
>read a review by a truck driver who said he looked it up in a chemical
>index of some kind and found it was only mineral oil. Didn't say
>mineral oil is bad, just that it's much cheaper to buy than MotorKote.

If memory serves, mineral oil was what was used for lubrication in
early, low sophistication engines.

If there is some magic element to add to oil, why wouldn't everyone
use it and claim the benefits for their product? Mineral oil is pretty
cheap stuff, cheaper than the other stuff in a can of oil.

[book...@yahoo.com]

I would like to find a super lubricant that bonds with metal,
protecting it and making it slippery, so I might be a sucker for such
an additive. But reason tells me that oil companies would already
have the best mix to compete with. If I heard taxi companies and
truckers were going to MotorKote, I might try it.

[Winston_Smith]

On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 11:45:55 -0900, book...@yahoo.com wrote:

>On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 11:59:54 -0700, Winston_Smith wrote:

>>If there is some magic element to add to oil, why wouldn't everyone
>>use it and claim the benefits for their product? Mineral oil is pretty
>>cheap stuff, cheaper than the other stuff in a can of oil.
>
>I would like to find a super lubricant that bonds with metal,
>protecting it and making it slippery, so I might be a sucker for such
>an additive. But reason tells me that oil companies would already
>have the best mix to compete with. If I heard taxi companies and
>truckers were going to MotorKote, I might try it.

When you get into fleet operation, they are religious in their oil
change schedule. IMHO, that's the key to long life in a personal
vehicle also. Oil and filter on a strict schedule.

[book...@yahoo.com]

Hmmm. Well, I started using the synthetic oil, which plus my owners'
manual suggest a change at about 5K miles, and I have only 900 miles
on my speedometer since the last change in May. My plan is to change
twice a year at that rate, considering the cost of synthetic Castrol,
so maybe I should consider using the regular Castrol and going back to
changing every four months, which is often less than 2K miles. '94
Dakota has only 70K on it, supposedly. Had 50K when I bought it in
'01, but could have been rolled back.

[rbowman]

Winston_Smith wrote:

> When you get into fleet operation, they are religious in their oil
> change schedule. IMHO, that's the key to long life in a personal
> vehicle also. Oil and filter on a strict schedule.

After the company I drove for went to Detroit 60 engines in the fleet, they
were doing oil changes every 12,000 miles which is about once a month. They
started pulling samples and sending them out for analysis, and lengthened
the schedule out to 20,000 miles. According to the shop manager, they still
weren't seeing significant degradation but figured that was as good a number
as any. The oil of choice was Rotella with no additional miracle additives.

A diesel engine doesn't contaminate the oil as much as a gasoline engine,
but as far as lubrication went Rotella straight from the jug was good
enough. If a fleet operator thought they could get the fleet average up 0.3
mpg by adding eye of newt to the crankcase they would.

[rbowman]

book...@yahoo.com wrote:

> Hmmm. Well, I started using the synthetic oil, which plus my owners'
> manual suggest a change at about 5K miles, and I have only 900 miles
> on my speedometer since the last change in May.

My manual say 5w-30 conventional oil every 5000 miles and I see no reason to
second guess the Toyota engineers.

[Winston_Smith]

On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 21:21:41 -0700, rbowman <bow...@montana.com>
wrote:

Everything I ever read said oil never loses it's lubricating
properties.

It collects microscopic metal fillings and becomes abrasive. The
filter helps but not perfectly and not forever.

It also collects contaminants, as you say, and that starts doing
corrosive dirty work.

The first says change on a per mile basis depending on the engine and
operating conditions. The second says change the oil after some time
period expires. Especially since predominantly short trips with long
layoffs increase corrosive production. Which ever comes first.

Many high volume users use re-refined oil. Takes out the particles and
contaminants, and the oil is good to go. Some claim better because a
second refining removes additional elements that the first distill
didn't get completely. At one time the air force only used re-refined
oil. Don't know the current practice.

[Winston_Smith]

On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 21:24:24 -0700, rbowman <bow...@montana.com>
wrote:

Bet it puts a time limit on it too. Whichever comes first.

[book...@yahoo.com]

An urban legend about using magnets on the floor of the oil pan is
part of the mystery, it seems. Not sure which manufacturers deliver
motors with a magnet in them, or a magnetized oil plug. But you can
buy the magnets after market. If metal filings are the culprit, it
seems a mystery why motors don't already have magnets in the oil pan.
When I was at a NAPA store I asked the clerk about this, and he
referred the question to an experienced auto mechanic who happened to
be there. Guy said manufacturers don't put magnets in because oil
filters do the job. Go figure.

[Gunner]

This is quite true. Most of the new oils will keep small chunks of
steel, aluminum and brass etc etc in suspension until its ultimately
pulled into the oil filter and captured. Old oils..the non HD oils
would drop out the particulate matter in dead spots with little oil
flow.

Most engines these days are manufactured with such close tolerances
that there is very little Stuff that can break off and go anywhere.
Todays engines are made lightyears better than those of even 20 yrs
ago.

Gunner

The methodology of the left has always been:

1. Lie
2. Repeat the lie as many times as possible
3. Have as many people repeat the lie as often as possible
4. Eventually, the uninformed believe the lie
5. The lie will then be made into some form oflaw
6. Then everyone must conform to the lie

[book...@yahoo.com]

On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 04:24:50 -0800, Gunner <gunne...@gmail.com>
wrote:

After looking through more forum discussions about magnets, it seems
the general con census is that 1) adding magnets does no harm, 2) you
can salvage magnets from old computer hard drives, 3) fanatics are
adding magnets not only to the outside and inside of oil pans, but
putting them in transmissions, rear ends, around oil lines, and
outside and inside oil filters; 4) car engines now are built to closer
tolerances than in the past, so removal of metal particles is probably
important; 5) you should maintain magnets in contact with oil by
cleaning, because they will collect bits that might fall off.

Considering the cost of repairing an automatic transmission, I might
add a good-sized magnet in mine. Not sure about adding a magnet in a
rear end. Not going to slap on a magnet to the outside of oil pan,
because oil pans are too hard to remove for cleaning. Might add
another magnet to inside oil pan, in addition to the magnetized plug,
if I can figure out how to remove it through the plug hole; maybe just
use bent nosed pliers or make a tool.

[book...@yahoo.com]

I can always go back to using regular oil every four months, replacing
filters only every other time. Just replacing the oil I can do
without even jacking up the car. Filter replacement is a bitch.

[Shall not be infringed]

I can't verify that. We lubed our anemometer cups only once per deployment.

[Shall not be infringed]

Hopefully they've developed magnets that attract aluminum and nylon particles.

[David J. Hughes]

Modern motor oils contain additive packages in addition to the base oil.
The base oil retains its lubricating properties for a LONG time. Thermal
and Chemical breakdown will eventually degrade the base oil, but we're
talking 50K+ miles.
The additives don't last as long, which leads to shorter recommended oil
change periods.
Corrosion inhibitors are the major additives. They work very well, but
are consumed when doing the job, and the protection level drops as they
are consumed.
Water emulsifiers keep small amounts of water entrained in the oil as
micro droplets that cause no problems, but there is a limit to the
amount of water they can entrain. Once the limit is exceeded, there can
be drops of water in the oil which interfere with proper lubrication.
Mostly a problem in high humidity regions, especially with many short
trips that never get the oil oil hot enough, long enough to drive off
the water.
Detergents help keep contaminants from building up on surfaces. Like
emulsifiers, they can only handle so much contamination.

[rbowman]

book...@yahoo.com wrote:

> After looking through more forum discussions about magnets, it seems
> the general con census is that 1) adding magnets does no harm,

The OEM transmission drain plug on my bike was magnetic and does attract
steel debris. Unlike many bikes the clutch, primary drive, and transmission
are separate from the crankcase so there is no filtering.