OPINION POLL (Slick 50 or Duralube)
Zerxes Bhagalia
I have an '88 Pontiac Bonneville SSE (V6 Port fuel injected, about 100,000
miles).
But first I'd like to know what all of you think about these two and
how they compare. I want to know which you would choose to use, and why.
E-mail is preferrable so that I can tabulate the results and post them
when the poll is done. Thank you very much.
--Zerxes
Jim McDonald
WANNA BUY A BRIDGE?
Jim McDonald
Stanford Linear Accelerator Center
Menlo Park, CA
I'm not authorized to hold an opinion
==========================================================
"If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be research"
==========================================================
Daryl Krzewinski
> I am going to use either Slick 50 or Duralube in my car within 2 weeks.
> I have an '88 Pontiac Bonneville SSE (V6 Port fuel injected, about 100,000
> miles).
[...]
> --Zerxes
Hmmm. Let's see here, you have a car which has 100,000 miles on it,
and I hear no mention of any engine problems or looming breakdowns
in your post, so it *sounds* like it's still running fine.
But yet despite this fact you still want to add some Schtick 50
garbage into the oil pan??????
Oh well, sounds like another victim of advertising hype.
- Daryl
M. Morrison
Duralube that I dumped into my '79 Chevy Pickup did any good or not....
However.... I did notice that for the first few months the truck ran, started,
and sounded a heck of a lot better than before I used the stuff. Now..... well.
... the truck is back to being what it is..... a '79 Chevy Pickup.... and I
can't say that it is now any better than before I used the Duralube.
"Jesus better come back soon.... I don't want to buy another vehicle."
arie o dezwart
: I am going to use either Slick 50 or Duralube in my car within 2 weeks.
: --Zerxes
I am assuming you are going to use either to reduce wear on your engine..
If you are, using it now won't do much good anymore, on the other hand
start using a higher octane gas...
I was very much suprised when I heard this, but my brother the mechanic
has advised this over either one of the additives..
ADZ
Daniel Joshua Stern
additives. They only increase gasoline mileage and reduce engine wear by
dint of LIGHTENING YOUR WALLET, reducing the weight your car must carry.
Just change the oil and filter at least every 3,000 miles.
SL6 Dan
acss...@eku.acs.eku.edu
> In article <Cwy4q...@acsu.buffalo.edu>, v064...@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu (Zerxes Bhagalia) says:
>>
>> I am going to use either Slick 50 or Duralube in my car within 2 weeks.
>>I have an '88 Pontiac Bonneville SSE (V6 Port fuel injected, about 100,000
>>miles).
>> But first I'd like to know what all of you think about these two and
>>how they compare. I want to know which you would choose to use, and why.
>> E-mail is preferrable so that I can tabulate the results and post them
>>when the poll is done. Thank you very much.
>>
>>--Zerxes
>
> WANNA BUY A BRIDGE?
old lady on her way to church on Sunday.. hardly used at all.
dsc
Dudley Cornman - Systems Programmer
Academic Computing Services
Eastern Ky. University
Richmond, KY 40475-3111
(606) 622-1986
>
> Jim McDonald
You should have offered to seel you grandfather's farm....
You know... Ole Mcdonald's farm, OINKS included.
dsc
Dudley Cornman - Systems Programmer
Academic Computing Services
Eastern Ky. University
Richmond, KY 40475-3111
(606) 622-1986
Zerxes Bhagalia
Thanks for all your responses! I received 37 responses:
for use against use
Slick 50 1 5
Duralube 9 0
Against both 22
As I mentioned in the beginning I was intending to use either Slick 50
or Duralube in my 1988 Pontiac Bonneville SSE. Its got the GM 3800 v6 with
port fuel injection, and has about 100,000. To answer many of your questions
as to why I want to use these products...Well I just bought the car in July and
would like to take extra special care of it for the beginning of my ownership.
I am a student in Buffalo, NY and I don't have a whole lotta time in the
morning to let it run and warm up in the cold mornings we have here. So I
wanted to protect the car primarily during the cold startups. That is why I
became interested in these products. By the way, how long should I run the car
before putting it into gear? I have a temperature gauge starting at 100 (C I
think), should I wait until the temp gauge comes up above 100 to use the car?
From your responses Slick 50 really sucks. Primarly because it has a
solid (Teflon) in it. So thats out of the question. But Duralube seemed to
have gotten a much more favorable response. I'm not sure what it has in it but
I don't think its teflon. I think it works in a different way, and a few
people seem to be quite satisfied with it. Is Duralube quite so bad???
I read about how the teflon can damage the car in various ways...but what bad
things can happen with the use of Duralube? If the worst that can happen is
nothing, then I think I might try Duralube because I do hear some favorable
reports about it.
If you can suggest another way to protect the engine primarly during
cold start up, please email me!
I currently change the oil every 3000 miles, using 5w30. I am told
every major brand of oil is the same in quality. Is this right? Is it too
late to start using synthetic oil? Should I use synthetic oil?
What about Castrol GTX? Is this stuff as good as the media hype?
--Zerxes
Dirk Broer
There have been a few articles posted on news-groups and e-mail groups.
The following is a keeper:
--- begin massive excerpt ---
Newsgroups: rec.boats
Sender: ne...@exu.ericsson.se
Reply-To: lmc...@LMC.Ericsson.SE
Organization: Ericsson Communications Inc.
Date: Fri, 8 Oct 1993 23:38:36 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This article was posted by a user at Ericsson.
Any opinions expressed are strictly those of the
user and not necessarily those of Ericsson.
Not so long ago I got flamed on Rec.moto for being so foolish as to admit having
used Slick 50. Amidst the many flames I got a lot of useful info;
I am including the transcript of a magazine article (Road Rider)
investigating various oil additives, esp. the PTFE ones.
It makes interesting reading, especially if you have already used the
stuff!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Snake Oil!
Is That Additive Really A Negative?
Article and Photos by Fred Rau
Information for this article was compiled from reports and
studies by the University of Nevada Desert Research Center, DuPont
Chemical Company, Avco Lycoming (aircraft engine manufacturers),
North Dakota State University, Briggs and Stratton (engine
manufacturers), the University of Utah Engineering Experiment
Station, California State Polytechnic College and the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration's Lewis Research Center.
Road Rider does not claim to have all the answers. Nor do we
care to presume to tell you what to do. We have simply tried to
provide you with all the information we were able to dredge up on
this subject, in hopes it will help you in making your own, informed
decision.
You Can't Tell The Players Without A Program
On starting this project, we set out to find as many different
oil additives as we could buy. That turned out to be a mistake. There
were simply too many avail able! At the very first auto parts store
we visited, there were over two dozen different brand names
available. By the end of the day, we had identified over 40 different
oil additives for sale and realized we needed to rethink our strategy.
First of all, we found that if we checked the fine print on the
packages, quite a number of the additives came from the same
manufacturer. Also, we began to notice that the additives could be
separated into basic "groups" that seemed to carry approximately the
same ingredients and the same promises.
In the end, we divided our additives into four basic groups and
purchased at least three brands from three different manufacturers
for each group. We defined our four groups this way:
1.) Products that seemed to be nothing more than regular
50-rated engine oil (including standard additives) with PTFE (Teflon
TM) added.
2.) Products that seemed to be nothing more than regular
50-rated engine oil (including standard additives) with zinc
dialkyldithiophosphate added.
3.) Products containing (as near as we could determine) much
the same additives as are already found in most major brands of
engine oil, though in different quantities and combinations.
4.) Products made up primarily of solvents and/or detergents.
There may be some differences in chemical makeup within groups,
but that is impossible to tell since the additive manufacturers
refuse to list the specific ingredients of their products. We will
discuss each group individually.
The PTFE Mystery
Currently, the most common and popular oil additives on the market
are those that contain PTFE powders suspended in a regular,
over-the-counter type, 50-rated petroleum or synthetic engine oil.
PTFE is the common abbreviation used for Polytetrafloeraethylene,
more commonly known by the tradename "Teflon," which is a registered
trademark of the DuPont Chemical Corporation. Among those oil
additives we have identified as containing PTFE are: Slick 50, Liquid
Ring, Lubrilon, Microlon, Matrix, Petrolon (same company as Slick
50), QMl, and T-Plus (K-Mart). There are probably many more names in
use on many more products using PTFE. We have found that oil additive
makers like to market their products under a multitude of "private
brand" names.
While some of these products may contain other additives in
addition to PTFE, all seem to rely on the PTFE as their primary
active ingredient and all, without exception, do not list what other
ingredients they may contain.
Though they have gained rather wide acceptance among the
motoring public, oil additives containing PTFE have also garnered
their share of critics among experts in the field of lubrication. By
far the most damning testimonial against these products originally
came from the DuPont Chemical Corporation, inventor of PTFE and
holder of the patents and trademarks for Teflon. In a statement
issued about ten years ago, DuPont's Fluoropolymers Division
Product Specialist, J.F. Imbalzano said, "Teflon is not useful as an
ingredient in oil additives or oils used for internal combustion
engines."
At the time, DuPont threatened legal action against anyone who
used the name "Teflon" on any oil product destined for use in an
internal combustion engine, and refused to sell its PTFE powders to
any one who intended to use them for such purposes.
After a flurry of lawsuits from oil additive makers, claiming
DuPont could not prove that PTFE was harmful to engines, DuPont was
forced to once again begin selling their PTFE to the additive
producers. The additive makers like to claim this is some kind of
"proof' that their products work, when in fact it is nothing more
than proof that the American legal ethic of "innocent until proven
guilty" is still alive and well. The decision against Dupont involved
what is called "restraint of trade." You can't refuse to sell a
product to someone just because there is a possibility they might use
it for a purpose other than what you intended it for.
It should be noted that DuPont's official position on the use of
PTFE in engine oils remains carefully aloof and non-commital, for
obvious legal reasons. DuPont states that though they sell PTFE to
oil additive producers, they have "no proof of the validity of the
additive makers' claims." They further state that they have "no
knowledge of any advantage gained through the use of PTFE in engine
oil."
Fear of potential lawsuits for possible misrepresentation of a
product seem to run much higher among those with the most to lose.
After DuPont's decision and attempt to halt the use of PTFE in
engine oils, several of the oil additive companies simply went
elsewhere for their PTFE powders, such as purchasing them in other
countries. In some cases, they disguise or hype their PTFE as being
something different or special by listing it under one of their own
tradenames. That doesn't change the fact that it is still PTFE.
In addition, there is some evidence that certain supplies of
PTFE powders (from manufacturers other than DuPont) are of a cruder
version than the original, made with larger sized flakes that are
more likely to "settle out" in your oil or clog up your filters. One
fairly good indication that a product contains this kind of PTFE is
if the instructions for its use advise you to "shake well before
using." It only stands to reason that if the manufacturer knows the
solids in his product will settle to the bottom of a container while
sitting on a shelf, the same thing is going to hap pen inside your
engine when it is left idle for any period of time.
The problem with putting PTFE in your oil, as explained to us by
several industry experts, is that PTFE is a solid. The additive
makers claim this solid "coats" the moving parts in an engine (though
that is far from being scientifically proven). Slick 50 is currently
both the most aggressive advertiser and the most popular seller, with
claims of over 14 million treatments sold. However, such solids seem
even more inclined to coat non-moving parts, like oil passages and
filters. After all, if it can build up under the pressures and
friction exerted on a cylinder wall, then it stands to reason it
should build up even better in places with low pressures and
virtually no friction.
This conclusion seems to be borne out by tests on oil additives
containing PTFE conducted by the NASA Lewis Research Center, which
said in their report, "In the types of bearing surface contact we
have looked at, we have seen no benefit. In some cases we have seen
detrimental effect. The solids in the oil tend to accumulate at
inlets and act as a dam, which simply blocks the oil from entering.
Instead of helping, it is actually depriving parts of lubricant."
Remember, PTFE in oil additives is a suspended solid. Now think
about why you have an oil filter on your engine. To remove suspended
solids, right? Right. Therefore it would seem to follow that if your
oil filter is doing its job, it will collect as much of the PTFE as
possible, as quickly as possible. This can result in a clogged oil
filter and decreased oil pres sure throughout your engine.
In response to our inquiries about this sort of problem, several
of the PTFE pushers responded that their particulates were of a
sub-micron size, capable of passing through an ordinary oil filter
unrestricted. This certainly sounds good, and may in some cases
actually be true, but it makes little difference when you know the
rest of the story. You see, PTFE has other qualities besides being a
friction reducer: It expands radically when exposed to heat. So even
if those particles are small enough to pass through your filter when
you purchase them, they very well may not be when your engine reaches
normal operating temperature.
Here again, the' scientific evidence seems to support this, as
in tests conducted by researchers at the University of Utah
Engineering Experiment Station involving Petrolon additive with PTFE.
The Petrolon test report states, "There was a pressure drop
across the oil filter resulting from possible clogging of small
passageways." In addition, oil analysis showed that iron
contamination doubled after using the treatment, indicating that
engine wear didn't go down - it appeared to shoot up.
This particular report was paid for by Petrolon (marketers of
Slick 50), and was not all bad news for their products. The tests,
conducted on a Chevrolet six-cylinder automobile engine, showed that
after treatment with the PTFE additive the test engine's friction was
reduced by 13.1 per- cent. Also, output horsepower increased from 5.3
percent to 8.1 percent, and fuel economy improved from 11.8 percent
under light load to 3.8 percent under heavy load.
These are the kind of results an aggressive marketing company
like Petrolon can really sink their teeth into. If we only reported
the results in the last paragraph to you, you'd be inclined to think
Slick 50 was indeed a magic engine elixir. What you have to keep in
mind is that often times the benefits (like increased horse power and
fuel economy) may be out weighed by some serious drawbacks (like the
indications of reduced oil pressure and increased wear rate).
The Plot Thickens
Just as we were about to go to press with this article, we were
contacted by the public relations firm of Trent and Company, an
outfit with a prestigious address in the Empire State Building, New
York. They advised us they were working for a company called QMI out
of Lakeland, Florida, that was marketing a "technological
breakthrough" product in oil additives. Naturally, we asked them to
send us all pertinent information, including any testing and
research data.
What we got was pretty much what we expected. QMI's oil
additive, according to their press release, uses "ten times more PTFE
resins than its closest competitor." Using the "unique SX-6000
formula," they say they are the only company to use "aqueous
dispersion resin which means the microns (particle sizes) are
extensively smaller and can penetrate tight areas." This, they claim,
"completely eliminates the problem of clogged filters and oil
passages."
Intrigued by their press release, we set up a telephone
interview with their Vice- President of Technical Services, Mr. Owen
Heatwole. Mr. Heatwole's name was immediately recognized by us as one
that had popped in earlier research of this subject as a former
employee of Petrolon, a company whose name seems inextricably linked
in some fashion or another with virtually every PTFE-related additive
maker in the country.
Mr. Heatwole was a charming and persuasive talker with a knack
for avoiding direct answers as good as any seasoned politician. His
glib pitch for his product was the best we've ever heard, but when
dissected and pared down to the verifiable facts, it actually said
very little.
When we asked about the ingredients in QMI's treatments, we got
almost exactly the response we expected. Mr. Heatwole said he would
"have to avoid discussing specifics about the formula, for
proprietary reasons."
After telling us that QMI was being used by "a major oil
company," a "nuclear plant owned by a major corporation" and a
"major engine manufacturer," Mr. Heatwole followed up with,
"Naturally, I can't reveal their names- for proprietary reasons."
He further claimed to have extensive testing and research data
available from a "major laboratory," proving conclusively how
effective QMI was. When we asked for the name of the lab, can you
guess? Yup, "We can't give out that information, for proprietary
reasons."
What QMI did give us was the typical "testimonials," though we
must admit theirs came from more recognizable sources than usual.
They seem to have won over the likes of both Team Kawasaki and Bobby
Unser, who evidently endorse and use QMI in their racing engines. Mr.
Heatwole was very proud of the fact that their product was being
used in engines that he himself admitted are "torn down and
completely inspected on a weekly basis." Of course, what he left out
is that those same engines are almost totally rebuilt every time
they're torn down. So what does that prove in terms of his product
reducing wear and promoting engine longevity? Virtually nothing.
Mr. Heatwole declined to name the source of QMI's PTFE supply
"for proprietary reasons." He bragged that their product is sold
under many different private labels, but refused to identify those
labels "for proprietary reasons." When asked about the actual size of
the PTFE particles used in QMI, he claimed they were measured as
"sub-micron in size" by a "major motor laboratory" which he couldn't
identify - you guessed it - for "proprietary reasons."
After about an hour of listening to "don't quote me on this,"
"I'll have to deny that if you print it," and "I can't reveal that,"
we asked Mr. Heatwole if there was something we could print.
"Certainly," he said, "Here's a good quote for you: 'The radical
growth in technology has overcome the problem areas associated with
PTFE in the I980s'"
"Not bad," we said. Then we asked to whom we might attribute
this gem of wisdom. DuPont Chemical, perhaps?
"Me," said Mr. Heatwole. "I said that."
QMI's press releases like to quote the Guinness Book Of Records
in saying that PTFE is "The slickest substance known to man." Far be
it from us to take exception to the Guinness Book, but we doubt that
PTFE is much slicker than some of the people marketing it.
The Zinc Question
The latest "miracle ingredient" in oil additives, attempting to
usurp PTFE's cure-all throne, is zinc dialkyldithiophosphate, which
we will refer to here after as simply "zinc."
Purveyors of the new zinc-related products claim they can prove
absolute superiority over the PTFE-related products. Naturally, the
PTFE crowd claim exactly the same, in reverse.
Zinc is contained as part of the standard additive package in
virtually every major brand of engine oil sold today, varying from a
low volume of 0.10 per cent in brands such as Valvoline All Climate
and Chevron l5W-50, to a high volume of 0.20 percent in brands such
as Valvoline Race and Pennzoil GT Performance.
Organic zinc compounds are used as extreme pressure, anti-wear
additives, and are therefore found in larger amounts in oils
specifically blended for high-revving, turbocharged or racing
applications. The zinc in your oil comes into play only when there is
actual metal-to-metal con tact within your engine, which should never
occur under normal operating conditions. However, if you race your
bike, or occasionally play tag with the redline on the tach, the zinc
is your last line of defense. Under extreme conditions, the zinc
compounds react with the metal to prevent scuffing, particularly
between cylinder bores and piston rings.
However - and this is the important part to remember - available
research shows that more zinc does not give you more protection, it
merely prolongs the protection if the rate of metal-to-metal contact
is abnormally high or extended. So unless you plan on spending a
couple of hours dragging your knee at Laguna Seca, adding extra zinc
compounds to your oil is usually a waste. Also, keep in mind that
high zinc content can lead to deposit formation on your valves, and
spark plug fouling.
Among the products we found containing zinc
dialkyldithiophosphate were Mechanics Brand Engine Tune Up, K Mart
Super Oil Treatment, and STP Engine Treatment With XEP2. The only
reason we can easily identify the additives with the new zinc
compounds is that they are required to carry a Federally mandated
warning label indicating they contain a hazardous substance. The zinc
phosphate they contain is a known eye irritant, capable of inflicting
severe harm if it comes in contact with your eyes. If you insist on
using one of these products, please wear protective goggles and
exercise extreme caution.
As we mentioned, organic zinc compounds are already found in
virtually every major brand of oil, both automotive and motorcycle.
However, in recent years the oil companies voluntarily reduced the
amount of zinc content in most of their products after research
indicated the zinc was responsible for premature deterioration and
damage to catalytic converters. Obviously this situation would not
affect 99 percent of all the motorcycles on the road - however, it
could have been a factor with the newer BMW converter - equipped
bikes.
Since the reduction in zinc content was implemented solely for
the protection of catalytic converters, it is possible that some
motorcycles might benefit from a slight increase in zinc content in
their oils. This has been taken into account by at least one oil
company, Spectro, which offers 0.02 to 0.03 percent more zinc
compounds in its motorcycle oils than in its automotive oils.
Since Spectro (Golden 4 brand, in this case) is a synthetic
blend lubricant designed for extended drain intervals, this increase
seems to be wholly justified. Also, available research indicates that
Spectro has, in this case, achieved a sensible balance for extended
application without increasing the zinc content to the point that it
is likely to cause spark plug fouling or present a threat to
converter- equipped BMW models.
It would appear that someone at Spectro did their homework.
Increased Standard Additives
(More Is Not Necessarily Better)
Though some additives may not contain anything harmful to your
engine, and even some things that could be beneficial, most experts
still recommend that you avoid their use. The reason for this is that
your oil, as purchased from one of the major oil companies, already
contains a very extensive additive package.
This package is made up of numerous, specific additive
components, blended to achieve a specific formula that will meet the
requirements of your engine. Usually, at least several of these
additives will be synergistic. That is, they react mutually, in
groups of two or more, to create an effect that none of them could
attain individually. Changing or adding to this formula can upset the
balance and negate the protective effect the formula was meant to
achieve, even if you are only adding more of something that was
already included in the initial package.
If it helps, try to think of your oil like a cake recipe. Just
because the original recipe calls for two eggs (which makes for a
very moist and tasty cake), do you think adding four more eggs is
going to make the cake better? Of course not. You're going to upset
the carefully calculated balance of ingredients and magnify the
effect the eggs have on the recipe to the point that it ruins the
entire cake. Adding more of a specific additive already contained in
your oil is likely to produce similar results.
This information should also be taken into account when adding
to the oil already in your bike or when mixing oils for any reason,
such as synthetic with petroleum. In these cases, always make sure
the oils you are putting together have the same rating (SA, SE, SC,
etc.). This tells you their additive packages are basically the same,
or at least compatible, and are less likely to upset the balance or
counteract each other.
Detergents And Solvents
Many of the older, better-known oil treatments on the market do
not make claims nearly so lavish as the new upstarts. Old standbys
like Bardahl, Rislone and Marvel Mystery Oil, instead offer things
like "quieter lifters," "reduced oil burning" and a "cleaner
engine."
Most of these products are made up of solvents and detergents
designed to dissolve sludge and carbon deposits inside your engine so
they can be flushed or burned out. Wynn's Friction Proofing Oil, for
example, is 83 percent kerosene. Other brands use naphthalene,
xylene, acetone and isopropanol. Usually, these ingredients will be
found in a base of standard mineral oil.
In general, these products are designed to do just the opposite
of what the PTFE and zinc phosphate additives claim to do. Instead of
leaving behind a "coating" or a "plating" on your engine surfaces,
they are designed to strip away such things.
All of these products will strip sludge and deposits out and
clean up your engine, particularly if it is an older, abused one. The
problem is, unless you have some way of determining just how much is
needed to remove your deposits without going any further, such
solvents also can strip away the boundary lubrication layer provided
by your oil. Overuse of solvents is an easy trap to fall into, and
one which can promote harmful metal-to-metal contact within your
engine.
As a general rule of thumb these products had their place and
were at least moderately useful on older automobile and motorcycle
engines of the Fifties and Sixties, but are basically unneeded on the
more efficient engine designs of the past two decades.
The Infamous "No Oil" Demo
At at least three major motorcycle rallies this past year, we
have witnessed live demonstrations put on to demonstrate the
effectiveness of certain oil additives. The demonstrators would
have a bench- mounted engine which they would fill with oil and a
prescribed dose of their "miracle additive." After running the engine
for a while they would stop it, drain out the oil and start it up
again. Instant magic! The engine would run perfectly well for hours
on end, seemingly proving the effectiveness of the additive which had
supposedly "coated" the inside of the engine so well it didn't even
need the oil to run. In one case, we saw this done with an actual
motorcycle, which would be rid den around the parking lot after
having its oil drained. A pretty convincing demonstration - until you
know the facts.
Since some of these demonstrations were conducted using Briggs
and Stratton engines, the Briggs and Stratton Company itself
decided to run a similar, but somewhat more scientific, experiment.
Taking two brand-new, identical engines straight off their assembly
line, they set them up for bench-testing. The only difference was
that one had the special additive included with its oil and the other
did not. Both were operated for 20 hours before being shut down and
having the oil drained from them. Then both were started up again and
allowed to run for another 20 straight hours. Neither engine seemed
to have any problem performing this "minor miracle."
After the second 20-hour run, both engines were completely torn
down and inspected by the company's engineers. What they found was
that both engines suffered from scored crankpin bearings, but the
engine treated with the additive also suffered from heavy cylinder
bore damage that was not evident on the untreated engine.
This points out once again the inherent problem with particulate
oil additives: They can cause oil starvation. This is particularly
true in the area of piston rings, where there is a critical need for
adequate oil flow. In practically all of the reports and studies on
oil additives, and particularly those involving suspended solids like
PTFE, this has been reported as a major area of engine damage.
The Racing Perspective
Among the most convincing testimonials in favor of oil additives
are those that come from professional racers or racing teams. As
noted previously, some of the oil additive products actually are
capable of producing less engine friction, better gas mileage and
higher horsepower out put. In the world of professional racing, the
split-second advantage that might be gained from using such a product
could be the difference between victory and defeat.
Virtually all of the downside or detrimental effects attached to
these products are related to extended, long-term usage. For
short-life, high-revving, ultra-high performance engines designed to
last no longer than one racing season (or in some cases, one single
race), the long-term effects of oil additives need not even be
considered.
Racers also use special high-adhesion tires that give much
better traction and control than our normal street tires, but you
certainly wouldn't want to go touring on them, since they're designed
to wear out in several hundred (or less) miles. Just because certain
oil additives may be beneficial in a competitive context is no reason
to believe they would be equally beneficial in a touring context.
The Best of The Worst
Not all engine oil additives are as potentially harmful as some
of those we have described here. However, the best that can be said
of those that have not proved to be harmful is that they haven't been
proved to offer any real benefits, either. In some cases, introducing
an additive with a compatible package of components to your oil in
the right proportion and at the right time can conceivably extend the
life of your oil. However, in every case we have studied it proves
out that it would actually have been cheaper to simply change the
engine oil instead.
In addition, recent new evidence has come to light that makes
using almost any additive a game of Russian Roulette. Since the
additive distributors do not list the ingredients contained within
their products, you never know for sure just what you are putting in
your engine.
Recent tests have shown that even some of the most inoffensive
additives contain products which, though harmless in their initial
state, convert to hydrofluoric acid when exposed to the temperatures
inside a firing cylinder. This acid is formed as part of the exhaust
gases, and though it is instantly expelled from your engine and seems
to do it no harm, the gases collect inside your exhaust system and
eat away at your mufflers from the inside out.
Whatever The Market Will Bear
The pricing of oil additives seems to follow no particular
pattern whatsoever. Even among those products that seem to be almost
identical, chemically, retail prices covered an extremely wide range.
For example:
One 32-ounce bottle of Slick 50 (with PTFE) cost us $29.95 at a
discount house that listed the retail price as $59.95, while a
32-ounce bottle of T-Plus (which claims to carry twice as much PTFE
as the Slick 50) cost us only $15.88.
A 32-ounce bottle of STP Engine Treatment (containing what they
call XEP2), which they claim they can prove "outperforms leading PTFE
engine treatments," cost us $17.97. Yet a can of K Mart Super Oil
Treatment, which listed the same zinc-derivative ingredient as that
listed for the XEP2, cost us a paltry $2.67.
Industry experts estimate that the actual cost of producing most
oil additives is from one-tenth to one-twentieth of the asking
retail price. Certainly no additive manufacturer has come forward
with any exotic, high-cost ingredient or list of ingredients to
dispute this claim. As an interesting note along with this, back
before there was so much competition in the field to drive prices
down, Petrolon (Slick 50) was selling their PTFE products for as much
as $400 per treatment! The words "buyer beware" seem to take on very
real significance when talking about oil additives.
The Psychological Placebo
You have to wonder, with the volume of evidence accumulating against
oil additives, why so many of us still buy them. That's the
million-dollar question, and it's just as difficult to answer as why
so many of us smoke cigarettes, drink hard liquor or engage in any
other number of questionable activities. We know they aren't good for
us - but we go ahead and do them anyway.
Part of the answer may lie in what some psychiatrists call the
"psychological placebo effect." Simply put, that means that many of
us hunger for that peace of mind that comes with believing we have
purchased the absolute best or most protection we can possibly get.
Even better, there's that wonderfully smug feeling that comes
with thinking we might be a step ahead of the pack, possessing
knowledge of something just a bit better than everyone else.
Then again, perhaps it comes from an ancient, deep-seated need
we all seem to have to believe in magic. There has never been any
shortage of unscrupulous types ready to cash in on our willingness to
believe that there's some magical mystery potion we can buy to help
us lose weight, grow hair, attract the opposite sex or make our
engines run longer and better. I doubt that there's a one of us who
hasn't fallen for one of these at least once in our lifetimes. We
just want it to be true so bad that we can't help ourselves.
Testimonial Hype vs. Scientific Analysis
In general, most producers of oil additives rely on personal
"testimonials" to advertise and promote their products. A typical
print advertisement will be one or more letters from a satisfied
customer stating something like, "1 have used Brand X in my engine
for 2 years and 50,000 miles and it runs smoother and gets better
gas mileage than ever before. I love this product and would recommend
it to anyone."
Such evidence is referred to as "anecdotal" and is most commonly
used to pro mote such things as miracle weight loss diets and
astrology.
Whenever I see one of these ads I am reminded of a stunt played
out several years ago by Allen Funt of "Candid Camera" that clearly
demonstrated the side of human nature that makes such advertising
possible.
With cameras in full view, fake "product demonstrators" would
offer people passing through a grocery store the opportunity to
taste-test a "new soft drink." What the victims didn't know was that
they were being given a horrendous concoction of castor oil, garlic
juice, tabasco sauce and several other foul-tasting ingredients.
After taking a nice, big swallow, as instructed by the demonstrators,
the unwitting victims provided huge laughs for the audience by
desperately trying to conceal their anguish and disgust. Some
literally turned away from the cameras and spit the offending potion
on the floor.
The fascinating part came when about one out of four of the
victims would actu ally turn back to the cameras and proclaim the new
drink was "Great" or "Unique" or, in several cases, "One of the best
things I've ever tasted!" Go figure.
The point is, compiling "personal testimonials" for a product is
one of the easiest things an advertising company can do - and one of
the safest, too. You see, as long as they are only expressing some
one else's personal opinion, they don't have to prove a thing! It's
just an opinion, and needs no basis in fact whatsoever.
On the other hand, there has been documented, careful
scientific analysis done on numerous oil additives by accredited
institutions and researchers.
For example:
Avco Lycoming, a major manufacturer of aircraft engines,
states, "We have tried every additive we could find on the market,
and they are all worthless."
Briggs and Stratton, renowned builders of some of the most
durable engines in the world, says in their report on engine oil
additives, "They do not appear to offer any benefits."
North Dakota State University conducted tests on oil
additives and said in their report, "The theory sounds good- the only
problem is that the products simply don't work."
And finally, Ed Hackett, chemist at the University of Nevada
Desert Research Center, says, "Oil additives should not be used. The
oil companies have gone to great lengths to develop an additive pack
age that meets the vehicle's requirements. If you add anything to
this oil you may upset the balance and prevent the oil from
performing to specification."
Petrolon, Inc., of Houston, Texas, makers of Petrolon and
producers of at least a dozen other lubrication products containing
PTFE, including Slick 50 and Slick 30 Motorcycle Formula, claim that,
"Multiple tests by independent laboratories have shown that when
properly applied to an automotive engine, Slick 50 Engine Formula
reduces wear on engine parts. Test results have shown that Slick 50
treated engines sustained 50 percent less wear than test engines run
with premium motor oil alone."
Sounds pretty convincing, doesn't it?
The problem is, Petrolon and the other oil additive companies
that claim "scientific evidence" from "independent laboratories,"
all refuse to identify the laboratories that conducted the tests or
the criteria under which the tests were conducted. They claim they
are "contractually bound" by the laboratories to not reveal their
identities.
In addition, the claim of "50 percent less wear" has never
been proven on anything approaching a long-term basis. Typical
examples used to support the additive makers' claims involve engines
run from 100 to 200 hours after treatment, during which time the
amount of wear particles in the oil decreased. While this has proven
to be true in some cases, it has also been proven that after 400 to
500 hours of running the test engines invariably reverted to
producing just as many wear particles as before treatment, and in
some cases, even more.
No matter what the additive makers would like you to believe,
nothing has been proven to stop normal engine wear.
You will note that all of the research facilities quoted in this
article are clearly identified. They have no problem with making
their findings public. You will also note that virtually all of their
findings about oil additives are negative. That's not because we
wanted to give a biased report against oil additives - it's because
we couldn't find a single laboratory, engine manufacturer or
independent research facility who would make a public claim, with
their name attached to it, that any of the additives were actually
beneficial to an engine. The conclusion seems inescapable.
As a final note on advertising hype versus the real world, we
saw a television ad the other night for Slick 50 oil additive. The ad
encouraged people to buy their product on the basis of the fact that,
"Over 14 million Americans have tried Slick 50!" Great. We're sure
you could just as easily say, "Over 14 million Americans have smoked
cigarettes!"-but is that really any reason for you to try it? Of
course not, because you've seen the scientific evidence of the harm
it can do. The exact same principle applies here.
In Conclusion
The major oil companies are some of the richest, most powerful
and aggressive corporations in world. They own multi- million dollar
research facilities manned by some of the best chemical engineers
money can hire. It is probably safe to say that any one of them has
the capabilities and resources at hand in marketing, distribution,
advertising, research and product development equal to 20 times that
of any of the independent additive companies. It therefore stands to
reason that if any of these additive products were actu ally capable
of improving the capabilities of engine lubricants, the major oil
companies would have been able to determine that and to find some way
to cash in on it.
Yet of all the oil additives we found, none carried the name or
endorsement of any of the major oil producers.
In addition, all of the major vehicle and engine manufacturers
spend millions of dollars each year trying to increase the longevity
of their products, and millions more paying off warranty claims when
their products fail. Again, it only stands to reason that if they
thought any of these additives would increase the life or improve the
performance of their engines, they would be actively using and
selling them - or at least endorsing their use.
Instead, many of them advise against the use of these additives
and, in some cases, threaten to void their warranty coverage if such
things are found to be used in their products.
In any story of this nature, absolute "facts" are virtually
impossible to come by. Opinions abound. Evidence that points one
direction or the other is avail able, but has to be carefully
ferreted out, and is not always totally reliable or completely
verifiable.
In this environment, conclusions reached by known,
knowledgeable experts in the field must be given a certain amount of
weight. Conclusions reached by unknown, unidentifiable sources must
be discounted almost totally. That which is left must be weighed, one
side against the other, in an attempt to reach a "reasonable"
conclusion.
In the case of oil additives, there is a considerable volume of
evidence against their effectiveness. This evidence comes from
well-known and identifiable expert sources, including independent
research laboratories, state universities, major engine
manufacturers, and even NASA.
Against this rather formidable barrage of scientific research,
additive makers offer not much more than their own claims of
effectiveness, plus questionable and totally unscientific personal
testimonials. Though the purveyors of these products state they have
studies from other independent laboratories supporting their claims,
they refuse to identify the labs or provide copies of the research.
The only test results they will share are those from their own
testing departments, which must, by their very nature, be taken with
a rather large grain of salt.
--- end massive excerpt ---
Tom Coradeschi
> for use against use
> Slick 50 1 5
> Duralube 9 0
> Against both 22
Let me vote again as being against both:-}
On to the matter at hand, however.
> As I mentioned in the beginning I was intending to use either Slick 50
>or Duralube in my 1988 Pontiac Bonneville SSE. Its got the GM 3800 v6 with
>port fuel injection, and has about 100,000. To answer many of your questions
>as to why I want to use these products...Well I just bought the car in July and
>would like to take extra special care of it for the beginning of my ownership.
Food for thought: your car has already run 100,000 miles without any of
that crud added to the oil.
>I am a student in Buffalo, NY and I don't have a whole lotta time in the
>morning to let it run and warm up in the cold mornings we have here. So I
>wanted to protect the car primarily during the cold startups. That is why I
>became interested in these products. By the way, how long should I run the car
>before putting it into gear? I have a temperature gauge starting at 100 (C I
>think), should I wait until the temp gauge comes up above 100 to use the car?
Nope! Start it. Let it run a briefly and then drive away. Be gentle on the
throttle until the temp gage moves up a bit. Of course, when it gets
really cold (and it will in Buffalo!), a minute of warmup won't hurt.
Heck, it'll take you longer than that to scrape the frost off the windows.
> From your responses Slick 50 really sucks. Primarly because it has a
>solid (Teflon) in it. So thats out of the question. But Duralube seemed to
>have gotten a much more favorable response. I'm not sure what it has in it but
>I don't think its teflon. I think it works in a different way, and a few
>people seem to be quite satisfied with it. Is Duralube quite so bad???
>I read about how the teflon can damage the car in various ways...but what bad
>things can happen with the use of Duralube? If the worst that can happen is
>nothing, then I think I might try Duralube because I do hear some favorable
>reports about it.
Think of it this way: do you really want to dilute your oil?
> I currently change the oil every 3000 miles, using 5w30. I am told
>every major brand of oil is the same in quality. Is this right? Is it too
>late to start using synthetic oil? Should I use synthetic oil?
>What about Castrol GTX? Is this stuff as good as the media hype?
Check the "Oil Facts" article which cron posted for me the other day. It
has specs on many of the major oils currently sold today. Decide for
yourself. I'd say that with your change interval, you're doing just fine.
tom coradeschi <+> tc...@pica.army.mil
http://k-whiner.pica.army.mil/
GEEK#1 <+> TOM#1 <+> DW#1 <+> KOtDWL
Thomas D. Halter
In a previous article, adez...@solix.fiu.edu (arie o dezwart) says:
>Zerxes Bhagalia (v064...@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu) wrote:
>: I am going to use either Slick 50 or Duralube in my car within 2 weeks.
>: I have an '88 Pontiac Bonneville SSE (V6 Port fuel injected, about 100,000
>: miles).
>: But first I'd like to know what all of you think about these two and
>: how they compare. I want to know which you would choose to use, and why.
>: E-mail is preferrable so that I can tabulate the results and post them
>: when the poll is done. Thank you very much.
>
Why not use 'em both?
--
Consciousness: that annoying time between naps.
'94 Acura Integra GS-R '87 Honda CBR600F Hurricane DoD#1365
Dirk Broer
>v064...@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu (Zerxes Bhagalia) wrote:
>> for use against use
>> Slick 50 1 5
>> Duralube 9 0
>> Against both 22
>>
>>solid (Teflon) in it. So thats out of the question. But Duralube seemed to
>>have gotten a much more favorable response. I'm not sure what it has in it but
>>I don't think its teflon. I think it works in a different way, and a few
>>people seem to be quite satisfied with it. Is Duralube quite so bad???
>>I read about how the teflon can damage the car in various ways...but what bad
>>things can happen with the use of Duralube? If the worst that can happen is
>>nothing, then I think I might try Duralube because I do hear some favorable
>>reports about it.
Duralub is a zinc compound. Use of which could cause increased build up around
the valves and decrease lifetime of emission control devices like catastrophic
converters and oxygen sensors.
For maximum protection use synthetic oils. period. If you really want to use
dura-lube get the K-mart engine oil treatment - its got the same stuff inside
and cost alot less.
>> I currently change the oil every 3000 miles, using 5w30. I am told
>>every major brand of oil is the same in quality. Is this right? Is it too
>>late to start using synthetic oil? Should I use synthetic oil?
>>What about Castrol GTX? Is this stuff as good as the media hype?
There are slight differences - read the article I reposted about Slick50. It
mentions different oils use slightly different formulas. The more performance
related oils are heavier in things like zinc which help when metal-to-metal
contact (ie your cornering so hard the oil pickup is sucking air) happens. To
avoid metal-to-metal contact - use 5W oils in winter, keep you filter clean,
change oil-regularly, keep the oil at proper level - and most importantly don't
put strang snake oils in your motor - besides most are blended with 50 weight
oil - definitly a step in the wrong direction on cold winter mornings.
Dirk
Bill Kolofa
--
Bill Kolofa '92 ST1100
_____/ __ __/ ____/ ____/
/ / / / / Monkey#inf.-1: "A sentence is a
____ / 0 / 0 / / 5 / group of words expressing a
/ / / / / complete thud."
______/ _/ _____ ____/ RIP: Derek
Harvey Grubbs
-=> Quoting Zerxes Bhagalia to All <=-
ZB> By the way, how long should I run the car before putting it into gear?
I read you should warm an engine for up to 1 minute. After that, you
are just wasting fuel. Modern cars were ment to be warmed up under
load (that is: while being driven). And even -that- is a loooong
time to sit in a cold car.
ZB> Is Duralube quite so bad???
I just feel that modern oil contains all the additives you'll need.
ZB> If you can suggest another way to protect the engine primarly during
ZB> cold start up, please email me!
I already zapped your e-mail address. But, if you like, you might
try:
1-A block heater.
2-Some device to circulate the oil before the engine is cranked.
... A friend advises in his interest, not yours.
---
. Blue Wave/QWK v2.12 .
Ziny Flikop
>Duralub is a zinc compound.
Where you get this information from? Is everybody in NASA make up information?
Ziny Flikop
From bro...@kaos.gsfc.nasa.gov (Dirk Broer):
>Not so long ago I got flamed on Rec.moto for being so foolish as to admit having
>used Slick 50. Amidst the many flames I got a lot of useful info;
>I am including the transcript of a magazine article (Road Rider)
>investigating various oil additives, esp. the PTFE ones.
Can someone post similar article about DURALUBE test but not about something else?
To the best of my knowledge, DuraLube does not contain any solids. It works on
principle that is similar to Castrol Synthetic.
Dirk Broer
>To the best of my knowledge, DuraLube does not contain any solids. It works on
>principle that is similar to Castrol Synthetic.
Duralube is a zinc compound. If you loose oil pressure for an extended period
of time you will want zinc in the oil. Guess what? All oils contain some
amount of zinc. So you want to put more in the motor? Big question why?
Under normal running there should be little or no metal to metal contact
between parts - bearings should have pressure feed oil - and other surfaces
should have splash oil continously building up a layer on the moving parts.
Synthetic oils are just that. By producing their own moleculs there is much
better consistancy and much better characteristics as far as temperature and
viscosity. I will post an article on synthetics.
If valvoline could make their oil the best in the world - wouldn't they add
duralube to it and market it? I guess they're not aggressive enough / or smart
enough...
IMHO keep the junk out of your oil!
Dirk
Ziny Flikop
>Duralube is a zinc compound.
Dirk, you keep on claiming that DuraLube contains zinc. Where you get this information from?
acss...@eku.acs.eku.edu
To all those that spew=of about how harmfull Slick-50 is I say this.
I used it 2 times in my engine and 2 times in my wife's before I ever
knew what Internet or NEWS was. I now have 79K miles on mine and almost
100K on hers. I changed my oil last Feb and have gone almos 10K miles since.
I checked it last night. I have not even used 1/2 quart to this point
and some of the oil may have still been up in the engine when I checked
it. Has Slick-50 hurt my engine... I don't think so. Has it helped it
any? Beats the hell out of me. I do use Mobil-1, maybe that makes a
difference, maybe it doesn't. I usually change my oil about once per year
at 12K-13K miles and change the filter at the same time.
To those that ask about Slick-50 I say this...
I have decided to stop using it. Not because I'm afraid it will hurt my
engine, but because I'm not convinced it will help it. Also, I seriously
question the worth of anything advertised on a 30 minute info-mercial...
like Duralube, Autofom, color match wax, etc.
Grayson Walker
Information for this article was compiled from reports and studies by
The PTFE Mystery
trade name "Teflon," which is a registered trademark of the DuPont
well. The decision against DuPont involved what is called "restraint of
trade." You can't refuse to sell a product to someone just because there
is a possibility they might use it for a purpose other than what you
intended it for.
It should be noted that DuPont's official position on the use of PTFE
in engine oils remains carefully aloof and noncommittal, for obvious
percent. Also, output horsepower increased from 5.3 percent to 8.1
their Vice-President of Technical Services, Mr. Owen Heatwole. Mr.
Heatwole's name was immediately recognized by us as one that had popped
in earlier research of this subject as a former employee of Petrolon, a
company whose name seems inextricably linked in some fashion or another
with virtually every PTFE-related additive maker in the country.
Mr. Heatwole was a charming and persuasive talker with a knack for
avoiding direct answers as good as any seasoned politician. His glib
pitch for his product was the best we've ever heard, but when dissected
and pared down to the verifiable facts, it actually said very little.
When we asked about the ingredients in QMI's treatments, we got almost
exactly the response we expected. Mr. Heatwole said he would "have to
avoid discussing specifics about the formula, for proprietary reasons."
After telling us that QMI was being used by "a major oil company," a
"nuclear plant owned by a major corporation" and a "major engine
manufacturer," Mr. Heatwole followed up with, "Naturally, I can't reveal
their names - for proprietary reasons."
overcome the problem areas associated with PTFE in the 1980s'"
cause spark plug fouling or present a threat to converter-equipped BMW
would actually turn back to the cameras and proclaim the new drink was
"Great" or "Unique" or, in several cases, "One of the best things I've
ever tasted!" Go figure.
The point is, compiling "personal testimonials" for a product is one
of the easiest things an advertising company can do - and one of the
safest, too. You see, as long as they are only expressing some one else's
personal opinion, they don't have to prove a thing! It's just an opinion,
and needs no basis in fact whatsoever.
On the other hand, there has been documented, careful scientific
analysis done on numerous oil additives by accredited institutions and
researchers.
For example:
Avco Lycoming, a major manufacturer of aircraft engines, states, "We
have tried every additive we could find on the market, and they are all
worthless."
Briggs and Stratton, renowned builders of some of the most durable
engines in the world, says in their report on engine oil additives, "They
do not appear to offer any benefits."
North Dakota State University conducted tests on oil additives and
said in their report, "The theory sounds good - the only problem is that
aggressive corporations in world. They own multi-million dollar research
facilities manned by some of the best chemical engineers money can hire.
It is probably safe to say that any one of them has the capabilities and
resources at hand in marketing, distribution, advertising, research and
product development equal to 20 times that of any of the independent
additive companies. It therefore stands to reason that if any of these
additive products were actually capable of improving the capabilities of
Sidebar: Synthetic Oils
Whenever we talk about oil additives, the subject of synthetic oils
inevitably crops up. Actually, the tow subjects have very little to do
with each other, but since many riders seem to equate additives and
synthetics together in their minds, we will take a few lines just to
clear the air.
Synthetic oils were originally developed for use in gas turbine
engines. In most cases they are capable of maintaining their viscosity
for longer periods of use and under much greater temperatures and
pressures than petroleum products. Commons synthetics used for engine
lubrication today are Polyalphaolefin (like Mobil 1) or Dibasic Organic
Esters (like AMSOIL). They are fully compatible with conventional oils
and can be mixed, providing their ratings match.
Probably the best situation is a blend of synthetics and mineral oils,
such as Golden Spectro and AGIP Sint 2000. These products seem to offer
the best of both worlds in protection and extended service life. They may
cost considerably more than standard petroleum products, but they also
can be used for much longer periods between oil changes without losing
their protective capabilities.
Synthetics and synthetic blends offer a wider range of protection than
standard petroleum products. However, it should be noted that this
extended range of protection reaches into an area of temperatures and
pressures virtually impossible to attain inside most motorcycle engines
and transmissions. In other words, if you use them, you are buying a sort
of "overkill protection." It's certainly not going to hurt anything -
it's just unnecessary. That is, unless it makes you feel better knowing
the extra protection is on board, in which case the added expense may be
well justified.
As a basic rule of thumb, using the standard engine oil recommended by
your bike's manufacturer and changing it about every 3000 miles will
afford you all the protection you'll ever need. But if you feel better
knowing you have more protection than you need or, if you like the
extended service-life feature, there's certainly nothing wrong with using
a premium grade synthetic blend lubricant.
From Craig=Blome%Graphics=Dev%PCPD=H...@bangate.compaq.com Sat Oct 15 05:31:58 1994
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 94 16:00:00 -0600
From: Craig=Blome%Graphics=Dev%PCPD=H...@bangate.compaq.com
Reply to: shot...@cutting.hou.tx.us
To: Multiple recipients of list SHOTIMES <SHOT...@cutting.hou.tx.us>
Subject: Oil FAQ (was Re: winterizing SHO)
ste...@pms505.pms.ford.com Wrote:
|
|
| Agreed!!! Thank you VERY much. I'll be going through the checklist
| step by step very soon. But, do tell me - what are all these oil
| statistics about? and what should I get out of them?
|
| Andy
|
I knew I should have posted the bit about explanations. This FAQ can be found
on rec.motorcycles and rec.autos.tech, but I presume not everyone wants to
plow through the flames on Usenet News. Since there doesn't seem to be a
restriction on redistribution of this article, and Ed Hackett is far better at
explaining this topic than I could ever hope to be, here is the entire thing.
Regards,
CAB
---<<cut here>>---
Xref: twisto.eng.hou.compaq.com rec.motorcycles:139862 rec.autos.tech:64171
Newsgroups: rec.motorcycles,rec.autos.tech
Path:
twisto.eng.hou.compaq.com!wotan.compaq.com!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!lll-winken.ll
nl.gov!ames!ncar!hsdndev!admii!ovation!tcora
From: tc...@pica.army.mil (Tom Coradeschi)
Subject: Oil Facts v1.2
Message-ID: <CtuCM...@pica.army.mil>
Originator: tcora@fsm-1
Keywords: oil, lubricants, synthetics, viscosity
Sender: use...@pica.army.mil (USENET Special Account <usenet>)
Nntp-Posting-Host: fsm-1
Organization: U.S. Army Armament Research Dev. & Eng. Ctr, Dover NJ
Date: Mon, 1 Aug 1994 05:30:00 GMT
Lines: 283
To help fill the never-ending search for knowledge which is USENET:-}, the
following info sheet (FAQ if you wish) is being posted to rec.motorcycles
and rec.autos.tech monthly. Any updated information would be greatly
appreciated.
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
More Than You Ever Wanted to Know About Motor Oil
By Ed Hackett <e...@maxey.unr.edu>
Edits: v1.0 First there was 1.0. Before that there was darkness.
v1.1 Change in description of viscosity.
v1.2 Updated info on AMSOIL (courtesy of Morgan McArthur
<m...@inel.gov>)
Choosing the best motor oil is a topic that comes up frequently in
discussions between motoheads, whether they are talking about motorcycles
or cars. The following article is intended to help you make a choice based
on more than the advertising hype.
Oil companies provide data on their oils most often referred to as
"typical inspection data". This is an average of the actual physical and a
few common chemical properties of their oils. This information is
available to the public through their distributors or by writing or
calling the company directly. I have compiled a list of the most popular,
premium oils so that a ready comparison can be made. If your favorite oil
is not on the list get the data from the distributor and use what I have
as a data base.
This article is going to look at six of the most important properties of a
motor oil readily available to the public: viscosity, viscosity index
(VI), flash point, pour point, % sulfated ash, and % zinc.
Viscosity is a measure of the "flowability" of an oil. More specifically,
it is the property of an oil to develop and maintain a certain amount of
shearing stress dependent on flow, and then to offer continued resistance
to flow. Thicker oils generally have a higher viscosity, and thinner oils
a lower viscosity. This is the most important property for an engine. An
oil with too low a viscosity can shear and loose film strength at high
temperatures. An oil with too high a viscosity may not pump to the proper
parts at low temperatures and the film may tear at high rpm.
The weights given on oils are arbitrary numbers assigned by the S.A.E.
(Society of Automotive Engineers). These numbers correspond to "real"
viscosity, as measured by several accepted techniques. These measurements
are taken at specific temperatures. Oils that fall into a certain range
are designated 5, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 by the S.A.E. The W means the oil
meets specifications for viscosity at 0 F and is therefore suitable for
Winter use.
The following chart shows the relationship of "real" viscosity to their
S.A.E. assigned numbers. The relationship of gear oils to engine oils is
also shown.
_______________________________________________________________
| |
| SAE Gear Viscosity Number |
| ________________________________________________________ |
| |75W |80W |85W| 90 | 140 | |
| |____|_____|___|______________|________________________| |
| |
| SAE Crank Case Viscosity Number |
| ____________________________ |
| |10| 20 | 30 | 40 | 50 | |
| |__|_____|____|_____|______| |
______________________________________________________________
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42
viscosity cSt @ 100 degrees C
Multi viscosity oils work like this: Polymers are added to a light base
(5W, 10W, 20W), which prevent the oil from thinning as much as it warms
up. At cold temperatures the polymers are coiled up and allow the oil to
flow as their low numbers indicate. As the oil warms up the polymers begin
to unwind into long chains that prevent the oil from thinning as much as
it normally would. The result is that at 100 degrees C the oil has thinned
only as much as the higher viscosity number indicates. Another way of
looking at multi-vis oils is to think of a 20W-50 as a 20 weight oil that
will not thin more than a 50 weight would when hot.
Multi viscosity oils are one of the great improvements in oils, but they
should be chosen wisely. Always use a multi grade with the narrowest span
of viscosity that is appropriate for the temperatures you are going to
encounter. In the winter base your decision on the lowest temperature you
will encounter, in the summer, the highest temperature you expect. The
polymers can shear and burn forming deposits that can cause ring sticking
and other problems. 10W-40 and 5W-30 require a lot of polymers (synthetics
excluded) to achieve that range. This has caused problems in diesel
engines, but fewer polymers are better for all engines. The wide viscosity
range oils, in general, are more prone to viscosity and thermal breakdown
due to the high polymer content. It is the oil that lubricates, not the
additives. Oils that can do their job with the fewest additives are the
best.
Very few manufactures recommend 10W-40 any more, and some threaten to void
warranties if it is used. It was not included in this article for that
reason. 20W-50 is the same 30 point spread, but because it starts with a
heavier base it requires less viscosity index improvers (polymers) to do
the job. AMSOIL can formulate their 10W-30 and 15W-40 with no viscosity
index improvers but uses some in the 10W-40 and 5W-30. Mobil 1 uses no
viscosity improvers in their 5W-30, and I assume the new 10W-30. Follow
your manufacturer's recommendations as to which weights are appropriate
for your vehicle.
Viscosity Index is an empirical number indicating the rate of change in
viscosity of an oil within a given temperature range. Higher numbers
indicate a low change, lower numbers indicate a relatively large change.
The higher the number the better. This is one major property of an oil
that keeps your bearings happy. These numbers can only be compared within
a viscosity range. It is not an indication of how well the oil resists
thermal breakdown.
Flash point is the temperature at which an oil gives off vapors that can
be ignited with a flame held over the oil. The lower the flash point the
greater tendency for the oil to suffer vaporization loss at high
temperatures and to burn off on hot cylinder walls and pistons. The flash
point can be an indicator of the quality of the base stock used. The
higher the flash point the better. 400 F is the minimum to prevent
possible high consumption. Flash point is in degrees F.
Pour point is 5 degrees F above the point at which a chilled oil shows no
movement at the surface for 5 seconds when inclined. This measurement is
especially important for oils used in the winter. A borderline pumping
temperature is given by some manufacturers. This is the temperature at
which the oil will pump and maintain adequate oil pressure. This was not
given by a lot of the manufacturers, but seems to be about 20 degrees F
above the pour point. The lower the pour point the better. Pour point is
in degrees F.
% sulfated ash is how much solid material is left when the oil burns. A
high ash content will tend to form more sludge and deposits in the engine.
Low ash content also seems to promote long valve life. Look for oils with
a low ash content.
% zinc is the amount of zinc used as an extreme pressure, anti- wear
additive. The zinc is only used when there is actual metal to metal
contact in the engine. Hopefully the oil will do its job and this will
rarely occur, but if it does, the zinc compounds react with the metal to
prevent scuffing and wear. A level of .11% is enough to protect an
automobile engine for the extended oil drain interval, under normal use.
Those of you with high revving, air cooled motorcycles or turbo charged
cars or bikes might want to look at the oils with the higher zinc content.
More doesn't give you better protection, it gives you longer protection if
the rate of metal to metal contact is abnormally high. High zinc content
can lead to deposit formation and plug fouling.
The Data:
Listed alphabetically --- indicates the data was not available
Brand VI Flash Pour %ash %zinc
20W-50
AMSOIL (old) 136 482 -38 <.5 ---
AMSOIL (new) 157 507 -44 --- ---
Castrol GTX 122 440 -15 .85 .12
Exxon High Performance 119 419 -13 .70 .11
Havoline Formula 3 125 465 -30 1.0 ---
Kendall GT-1 129 390 -25 1.0 .16
Pennzoil GT Perf. 120 460 -10 .9 ---
Quaker State Dlx. 155 430 -25 .9 ---
Red Line 150 503 -49 --- ---
Shell Truck Guard 130 450 -15 1.0 .15
Spectro Golden 4 174 440 -35 --- .15
Spectro Golden M.G. 174 440 -35 --- .13
Unocal 121 432 -11 .74 .12
Valvoline All Climate 125 430 -10 1.0 .11
Valvoline Turbo 140 440 -10 .99 .13
Valvoline Race 140 425 -10 1.2 .20
Valvoline Synthetic 146 465 -40 <1.5 .12
20W-40
AMSOIL 124 500 -49 --- ---
Castrol Multi-Grade 110 440 -15 .85 .12
Quaker State 121 415 -15 .9 ---
15W-50
Chevron 204 415 -18 .96 .11
Mobil 1 170 470 -55 --- ---
Mystic JT8 144 420 -20 1.7 .15
Red Line 152 503 -49 --- ---
5W-50
Castrol Syntec 180 437 -45 1.2 .10
Quaker State Synquest 173 457 -76 --- ---
Pennzoil Performax 176 --- -69 --- ---
5W-40
Havoline 170 450 -40 1.4 ---
15W-40
AMSOIL (old) 135 460 -38 <.5 ---
AMSOIL (new) 164 462 -49 --- ---
Castrol 134 415 -15 1.3 .14
Chevron Delo 400 136 421 -27 1.0 ---
Exxon XD3 --- 417 -11 .9 .14
Exxon XD3 Extra 135 399 -11 .95 .13
Kendall GT-1 135 410 -25 1.0 .16
Mystic JT8 142 440 -20 1.7 .15
Red Line 149 495 -40 --- ---
Shell Rotella w/XLA 146 410 -25 1.0 .13
Valvoline All Fleet 140 --- -10 1.0 .15
Valvoline Turbo 140 420 -10 .99 .13
10W-30
AMSOIL (old) 142 480 -70 <.5 ---
AMSOIL (new) 162 520 -76 --- ---
Castrol GTX 140 415 -33 .85 .12
Chevron Supreme 150 401 -26 .96 .11
Exxon Superflo Hi Perf 135 392 -22 .70 .11
Exxon Superflo Supreme 133 400 -31 .85 .13
Havoline Formula 3 139 430 -30 1.0 ---
Kendall GT-1 139 390 -25 1.0 .16
Mobil 1 160 450 -65 --- ---
Pennzoil PLZ Turbo 140 410 -27 1.0 ---
Quaker State 156 410 -30 .9 ---
Red Line 139 475 -40 --- ---
Shell Fire and Ice 155 410 -35 .9 .12
Shell Super 2000 155 410 -35 1.0 .13
Shell Truck Guard 155 405 -35 1.0 .15
Spectro Golden M.G. 175 405 -40 --- ---
Unocal Super 153 428 -33 .92 .12
Valvoline All Climate 130 410 -26 1.0 .11
Valvoline Turbo 135 410 -26 .99 .13
Valvoline Race 130 410 -26 1.2 .20
Valvoline Synthetic 140 450 -40 <1.5 .12
5W-30
AMSOIL (old) 168 480 -76 <.5 ---
AMSOIL (new) 186 464 -76 --- ---
Castrol GTX 156 400 -35 .80 .12
Chevron Supreme 202? 354 -46 .96 .11
Chevron Supreme Synt. 165 446 -72 1.1 .12
Exxon Superflow HP 148 392 -22 .70 .11
Havoline Formula 3 158 420 -40 1.0 ---
Mobil 1 165 445 -65 --- ---
Mystic JT8 161 390 -25 .95 .1
Quaker State 165 405 -35 .9 ---
Red Line 151 455 -49 --- ---
Shell Fire and Ice 167 405 -35 .9 .12
Unocal 151 414 -33 .81 .12
Valvoline All Climate 135 405 -40 1.0 .11
Valvoline Turbo 158 405 -40 .99 .13
Valvoline Synthetic 160 435 -40 <1.5 .12
All of the oils above meet current SG/CD ratings and all vehicle
manufacture's warranty requirements in the proper viscosity. All are "good
enough", but those with the better numbers are icing on the cake.
The synthetics offer the only truly significant differences, due to their
superior high temperature oxidation resistance, high film strength, very
low tendency to form deposits, stable viscosity base, and low temperature
flow characteristics. Synthetics are superior lubricants compared to
traditional petroleum oils. You will have to decide if their high cost is
justified in your application.
The extended oil drain intervals given by the vehicle manufacturers
(typically 7500 miles) and synthetic oil companies (up to 25,000 miles)
are for what is called normal service. Normal service is defined as the
engine at normal operating temperature, at highway speeds, and in a dust
free environment. Stop and go, city driving, trips of less than 10 miles,
or extreme heat or cold puts the oil change interval into the severe
service category, which is 3000 miles for most vehicles. Synthetics can be
run two to three times the mileage of petroleum oils with no problems.
They do not react to combustion and combustion by-products to the extent
that the dead dinosaur juice does. The longer drain intervals possible
help take the bite out of the higher cost of the synthetics. If your car
or bike is still under warranty you will have to stick to the recommended
drain intervals. These are set for petroleum oils and the manufacturers
make no official allowance for the use of synthetics.
Oil additives should not be used. The oil companies have gone to great
lengths to develop an additive package that meets the vehicle's
requirements. Some of these additives are synergistic, that is the effect
of two additives together is greater than the effect of each acting
separately. If you add anything to the oil you may upset this balance and
prevent the oil from performing to specification.
The numbers above are not, by any means, all there is to determining what
makes a top quality oil. The exact base stock used, the type, quality, and
quantity of additives used are very important. The given data combined
with the manufacturer's claims, your personal experience, and the
reputation of the oil among others who use it should help you make an
informed choice.
--
tom coradeschi <+> tc...@pica.army.mil
--
FORZA! Smith, Walker And Associates, Melbourne, Florida
GWA...@RTFM.MLB.FL.US "Big brown river. . ." Tuli Kupferberg, 1963
Ziny Flikop
Where is information about how DuraLube or Castrol Synthetic (that
works like DuraLube) are bad?