MEB, honestly, I have no intentions of testing this as I have way too many other things going at this time. If someone was to do nothing more than run a 3k test on a standard oil and establish trends, then insert the rislone and run it for 3k, and do a comparison, it would defiantly show how it affects the oil over that period of time.
This is only a short term test, but can give you some idea of the long term affect it may or may not have.
Tend, thanks for the history page. I see they've been around for 75yrs, which is better than some, which would lend some credibility to their company which IMO is a good start, but Quaker State Corporation was created in 1931 by a consolidation of 19 companies giving them 72years and they are the ones with slick 50, so time in business doesn't always prove their case. Just as Schaeffers has been over 160+years, it too has twice the time as any of the above companies, but even then, we have gone into great lengths to dissect the 132 additive even though it is one of the "popular" additives sold by some on this site.
Point is, hate to seen someone get so upset over our position of not just "accepting" testimonials as the only way to establish how it works, when in fact, testimonials do have a tendency of being biased where as these oil analysis can really show what is truly happening for that one application and if enough are done, will give you a better idea yet.
Long term effects on engines are dismissed many times as standard mechanical failures due to the fact most lubrication problems never appear to be nothing more than worn out parts and is hard to measure actual derogation damage due to chemical additives used.
