Components of A-Rx?

[Trav]

I totally agree.ARX is a sacred cow,so any questions as to its composition or effectiveness are going to be met with disdain.If someone dares to compare it to another product they will quickly be regarded as a heretic.In all fairness the product does work but there maybe some new products on the horizon that(dare i say)may work just as well.One in particular is this new DuPont product mentioned in another thread and although not much is known about it,it appears to be worth looking into.The point here is folks are going to demand what the main component is made up of as in the ongoing Mobil 1 saga of being grp 3 or not,if they cant find out or the company claims proprietary ingredients it will be quickly branded as snake oil.Whats good for the goose isn't necessarily good for the gander in the case of ARX.

 

[GMorg]

MasterACid wrote: "man this is going to get locked eventually"

Trav wrote: "ARX is a sacred cow...Whats good for the goose isn't necessarily good for the gander in the case of ARX."



Since the AutoRX patent is in the public domain, I don't understand the origin of these comments. There is no grand conspiracy.

I have posted the link to the patent on this site more than once and no black helicopters have circled my house. As long as this discussion stays civil, I don't see any reason it would get locked. In fact, this thread now contains links to both the LC20 patent and the AutoRX patent and it has not disappeared nor been locked. It has been open for over a year.

You can post anything that you want here as long as it is factual and can be demonstrated as such.

 

[Autodarken]

http://press.arrivenet.com/autos/article.php/657358.html

So, based on the patent (link provided in another thread) and this article I found myself, Auto-RX is a blend of previously engineered and manufactured materials from other companies and mixed to produce "AutoRX"? The inventor is not a chemist, he was an application engineer per the article.

I got involved in this only from a thread about AutoRX clumping under 68f. This product provokes some very interesting threads I see.

 

[Rick20]

I can confirm that oil companies have looked at ARX. And yes it was too expensive to use at an effective dose rate.
You have got to remember that the attitude of the large formulating companies mentioned that to put it in perspective, one can buy oil cheaper in the supermarket than water.

Reverse engineering the product would be definitely fairly costly. Specific raw materials would be hard to find and if you did find them, it would be likely that you would run yourself right into the parent company that owns the patent.

This is really a silly string.

 

[Steelhead]

reason the big oil additive companies don't copy Auto-RX is market demand...the stuff is not simple to use...99% of the motoring public will not go to the trouble...the big servic e companies want something quick to use and with complicated technically impressive application equip that they can charge $200 for 20 minutes work and show you a pan of black goop at the end as they clean your wallet...

we all want and demand Seafoam smoke, the more the better

i want to see an independent analysis of Auto-RX's components and some objective independent lab testing of results...will add to the knowledge base and attract new users interested in real science and not someone's placebo effect or financially influenced opinion

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

you guys really think someone like sopus, exxonmobil, etc does not have the money or the ability to grab a bottle of autorx, or any other product and subject it to analisys?

---

I agree...and that's why I'm so surprised some big company hasn't come out with something the same/similar

---

 

[BrianWC]

yawn......

 

[BobXRC]

Woooo what a rush......

Reminds me of the old Coke new Coke days when everyone was trying to get the formula. And....I think the closest anyone got (several years later) was the sting on the Admin Assistant.

Sorry flash backs can be dangerous

 

[Frank]

Steelhead the reason big oil companies don't buy me out is they want to remove 3 of there additives and replace them with a minute amount of Auto-Rx ( only one ratio works) plus they want to buy it for pennies and control all sales. I want to respectively disagree with your opinion of our customers they are well versed in "what works" and they know how to follow instructions. I know your more comfortable with just dump it in watch it smoke scenario .Good Luck

 

[Steelhead]

Wha I said Frank is that the big oil additive companies don't bother with complicated to use additives, they go for the quicky kerosene in a bottle cheap route with lots of sales/marketing hype.
What are your yearly sales? 0.1% of Gumout the oil add. shelf hog
the mommy yuppie mom at her Saturday morning zippy lube stop is not going to bother or mess with Auto-RX, she doesn't use anything she doesn't understand or isn't advertised in Martha Stewart. 99% of the private owned passenger vehicle motor oil in the US is changed at zippy lubes and shops....

Quote:

---

Steelhead the reason big oil companies don't buy me out is they want to remove 3 of there additives and replace them with a minute amount of Auto-Rx ( only one ratio works) plus they want to buy it for pennies and control all sales. I want to respectively disagree with your opinion of our customers they are well versed in "what works" and they know how to follow instructions. I know your more comfortable with just dump it in watch it smoke scenario .Good Luck

---

 

[SargeGTO]

Heck anything can be reversed engineered and I see no problem with that personally.
As for the thoughts posted above by Steelhead....I think Frank is missing a large marketing opportunity with the Jiffy Lube places. As franchise owners they make more money on "additional" sales other than changing your oil. Wiper Blades/Transmission flushes etc.etc. I think a Auto RX service is perfect for those places. The benefits of utilizing Auto RX are established. The cost is less than a Transmission flush. And you get 2 oil changes versus one in the same period of time with the same customer. ( Found money) The customer gets a better running more efficient engine. You are utilizing a environmentally friendly product and you market to the efficiencies (Emmisions/MPG/Longevity ) that Auto RX delivers.
Everybody wins. Screw the big oil companies. If I'm Frank I'm all over the Jiffy Lubes to market Auto RX "Service" to all them soccer moms....

 

[Steelhead]

if all of use on BITOG bought one bottle of ARX for each rig every 25k miles, Frank and his family would starve to death on the "profits"

i don't know anyone who uses that much ARX which is a good quality product that does work for what it is intended, engine sludge cleaning and cleaning/swelling some leaking seals for many who use it.

 

[Steelhead]

if all of us on BITOG bought one bottle of ARX for each rig every 25k miles, Frank and his family would starve to death on the "profits"

i don't know anyone who uses that much ARX which is a good quality product that does work for what it is intended, engine sludge cleaning, ring pack cleaning and cleaning/swelling some leaking seals for many who use it.

 

[Rick20]

Alot of folks are using the maintenance dose after cleaning and rinsing with good results. Seems to keep things clean and has shown to reduce wear metal rates.

 

[GMorg]

Rick20 wrote: "has shown to reduce wear metal rates."

I like AutoRX, but I don't think there has been any experiment or study that has shown that AutoRX can reduce wear rates. If if there has been such a study, then I want to know "reduced in relation to what?"

I think that it would be safe to say that AutoRX does not seem to increase wear. I would even be confident in saying that using the maintenance dose continually is safe with regard to wear. But again, I want to see at least a good strong suggestion from data before I would be willing to say that AutoRX reduces wear.

 

[Tempest]

THIS UOA by Terry on the Cycle RX site suggests lower wear.

 

[GMorg]

First, Rick20's comment had to do with maintenance doses. In Tempest's cited experiment, a maintenance dose isn't even one of the treatments. The treatments are "before", "during", and "after".

Second, it is not clear from the citation as to wether the wear metals were "corrected" for mileage. Each treatment was in the engine for a different number of miles. For example the oil with 1000 miles of use (AutoRX treatment) had almost exactly half the level of copper as compared to the oil with 2000 miles of use (before use treatement). Was this difference due to the AutoRX or the fact that it has been in use for half the number of miles.

Third, the repeatability of each measurement is not noted. Phosphorous varied between treaments by almost 2-fold (low of 741 ppm, high of 1240 ppm). This range is noted as normal. On the other hand, lead(Pb) varied by only 9 ppm and was used to exemplify a protective effect of AutoRX. I think that the Pb numbers are actually the most impressive data points in the study. However, without knowing the variation of the lead assay and without seeing the observation repeat, the data do not prove point, they only support it.

I am not trying to trash the UOAs or the analysis. I think that the conclusions could be consistant with the data. I also know that I am not an expert in oil analysis. However, I still do not think that the results "prove" the position. I collect, analyse, and publish data for a living. I do not know of a way to prove anything with an "n" of one. Each treatement group is a single observation.

Lastly, Rick20's statement was a blanket statement - no qualifications. Even if we all accept the premise that there are cases where AutoRX could reduce wear, those cases were not noted. Will it reduce wear in Castrol 0W30? Will it reduce wear in a Honda? What about my lawn mower? I know that I don't know the circumstances under which AutoRX will reduce wear. Can someone list them?

 

[bruce381]

""Second, it is not clear from the citation as to wether the wear metals were "corrected" for mileage. Each treatment was in the engine for a different number of miles.""
yeah that data is not very vaild. oil should have been run same miles same work load same temp etc or as close as possible to get ANY conclusions at all.
bruce

 

[Rick20]

I have seen about a dozen UOA with ARX installed verses a baseline established in the same vehicles. Wear metals have always been less overall. I think that there is one with Pennsoil Platnum up on Franks site running a maintenance dose. All of the tests that I have witnessed have been in someones daily driver. I've got to believe that this is not coincidental. Everybody wants to talk about cleaning, which is what it is supposed to do. Personally, I think the added lubricity that ARX instills in a host oil is also worth talking about.

 

[GMorg]

Quote:

---

I have seen about a dozen UOA with ARX installed verses a baseline established in the same vehicles. Wear metals have always been less overall. I think that there is one with Pennsoil Platnum up on Franks site running a maintenance dose. All of the tests that I have witnessed have been in someones daily driver. I've got to believe that this is not coincidental. Everybody wants to talk about cleaning, which is what it is supposed to do. Personally, I think the added lubricity that ARX instills in a host oil is also worth talking about.

---

Your observations sound promising. It would be nice to have the data summarized in a non-biased way - that is all available data, not just the data that suggests what you want. If someone can gather a set of before/after or with/without UOAs, I would be more than happy to summarize the data. If the set is large and well described, we could control for other factors such as engine, mileage, season, ect.

Without systematic analysis, we are left no knowing for sure.

 

[GMorg]

bruce381 wrote: "as close as possible to get ANY conclusions at all."

I like well controlled data sets too. However, I am willing to grant that an experienced eye can be very accurate. In my own work I am often convinced of an answer long before I have enough data to "prove it" to others. However, since I also know that I can be wrong, I am glad to be in a field that requires me to collect enough data to prove my conclusions.