Perhaps the final word on oil additives...

[fuel tanker man]

http://www.vtr.org/maintain/oil-additives.html

A great article on the effectiveness of oil additives. Be sure to read every word of it.

I'll post the conclusion below for those short on time:

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 actually 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.

 

[LCD]

fuel tanker man,

If they cashed in on Lube Control the would lose out more in oil sales. They make their money from selling oil! The use of LC would hurt their sales greatly.

Jeff
LCD

 

[Ugly3]

I have read this article before. While it is dated 1992 I have seen nothing that indicates it is not still correct.

 

[salsahh]

This article was created by an oil company spectro oils they're big in motorcycles. Due to the friction materials used in many wet clutch sytems oil additives really don't belong there unless friction modifiers are used. This article is old and bogus.

 

[TallPaul]

There is nothing wrong with additives in general, just specific additives (about 99% of them that is). For example, using Maxlife instead if Valvoline AllClimate is not a whole lot different than putting a seal conditioner/PAO additive in the AllClimate. We can go one step further and put Synpower Oil Treatment in the Maxlife. The question as it seems to me is, "what is good enough, the basic oil, the higher performance additized oil, or the higher perf oil with an extra additive?"

Now I say this for the Synpower additive because there is nothing bad in it, but I would NOT use a PTFE additive (even thoughQuaker State and Penzoil package it with their oil) or chlorine type additive (Energy Release, I believe is one).

Other good additives appear to be Lube Control and Auto Rx (not really and additive), so I have heard from this site and am trying out Auto Rx right now.

 

[Ugly3]

Let's get some prespective here.

The folks on BITOG are far from the average consumer in the world. They are well informed consumers always looking for the best product and "deal" for thier cars.

Opinionated? You bet. Almost no one complains that Amsoil makes a poor product but hundreds rag on Amsoil for the high cost of their products. Some of the threads get down right ugly. And Amsoil is a site sponser!

I have read maybe 300 posts related to FP, LC, and AutoRx. The vast majority (maybe 250 - 280) report that the products do what they are touted as doing. A few indicated they did not see the improvement they expected. The responses were generally fact oriented, clearly identifing the benefit received (improved compression, seal leak stopped, valve tap stopped, etc). Some reported their "seat of the pants dyno" indicated an improvement (not meaningful to me).

If the folks on BITOG found a problem (long term use, some side effect, etc) the problem would be posted here "in an instant" and the maker would get "flamed" big time.

The problem the additive makers face is the hugh bad press generated by the "big time" additive makers whos products have been proven over and over to provide little if any benefit. The "gearheads" know this.

Compound this with the general public knowing that the major oil companies and automakers generally recommend against aftermarket additives and you have a real hurdle to get over.

Are some aftermarket additives effective in doing what is claimed? You bet. But they have a monster uphill fight in the marketplace trying to get the consumer past all the previous bad press.

 

[Ken2]

Every product...oils and everything else...is made to sell at a certain price point. Generally, the American way is to get lots of quantity for the dollar, and not worry much about quality. Shell, through their Jiffy Lube chain, touts 3000 mile oil changes. Shell and others in Europe have different products, at higher prices, for consumers there who demand higher quality and are willing to pay for it.

Could ChevronTexaco, ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips, Valvoline, Royal Dutch/Shell, and all the rest produce better oil?...sure. Could their marketing departments sell it at the higher price it would require?...that's the question.


Ken

 

[LCD]

quote:

---

Originally posted by 427Z06:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lcd:
If they cashed in on Lube Control the would lose out more in oil sales. They make their money from selling oil! The use of LC would hurt their sales greatly.

---

Jeff, do you have any scientific evidence from independent laboratories to back up your claim? If you don't, you're claims fall into the anecdotal category, and are nothing more than marketing drivel.

---

427Z06,

I am not sure what you are meaning 'back up your claim by indp labs'. I was not claiming anything just common sense. UOA's have shown running regular oil with LC allows that oil to be run much longer than the oil companies would like. Oil compnaies make their millions by getting people to change oil every 3000 miles. Using LC could run your regualar (5w30) oil well past 10,000 miles.

Odis has a truck that he ran 28,000 miles on one change. Oil companies lost out on a lot of changes there, that's my point. If everyone went just 6000-10000 in between changes the oil companies would lose millions.

Basically you can run oil very long if you keep it clean and free of moisture. That's what LC does. We have reports showing the oil taken out of a truck after using LC and it was in better condition than when it was new!

Feel free to call Odis and discuss 972.221.1343

 

[mechtech]

I don't intend to switch topics, but wouldn't the same reasoning apply to fuels and additives? {If an additive was any good, it would already be in the fuel made by the big producers.} I know empiricaly and vicariously that some fuel additives are great.
All the oil mfrs. add additive to their oils. Were the same additives of no value, and worthless, the day before they were sanctioned and applied in their oils?

 

[sbc350gearhead]

quote:

---

Originally posted by 427Z06:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lcd:
If they cashed in on Lube Control the would lose out more in oil sales. They make their money from selling oil! The use of LC would hurt their sales greatly.

---

Jeff, do you have any scientific evidence from independent laboratories to back up your claim? If you don't, you're claims fall into the anecdotal category, and are nothing more than marketing drivel.

---

http://www.lubecontrol.com/reports.htm

 

[salsahh]

OEM's keyword is recommend they cannot say void it is illegal and a marketing ploy on their part and the oil companies.

How many OEM oils are being made these days and additives I know ford has their own they use a copper additive that they fought a additive maker and won a 9 million$ settlement and sell it.

OEM's DO NOT make their own oil but when they get together with new material suppliers and oil companies out comes a new special to their vehicle oil contracts are set and recomendations are given. This increases their brand usage not that others cannot comply but they hold the market and make the cash especially when the car market is so slow they make up for it in service and parts thats for sure.

 

[427Z06]

quote:

---

Originally posted by lcd:
If they cashed in on Lube Control the would lose out more in oil sales. They make their money from selling oil! The use of LC would hurt their sales greatly.

---

Jeff, do you have any scientific evidence from independent laboratories to back up your claim? If you don't, you're claims fall into the anecdotal category, and are nothing more than marketing drivel.

 

[CoosBayDave]

I think it all has to do with money. They produce an oil that meets or slightly exceeds specs at a price comparable with other companies, and at a price people are willing to pay. They have the labs and the scientists and could probably produce oils that FAR exceed specs but would people pay for what for most people would be technical overkill? People running Indy cars and such must get these sort of products that are not for sale.

 

[Razl]

quote:

---

Jeff, do you have any scientific evidence from independent laboratories to back up your claim? If you don't, you're claims fall into the anecdotal category, and are nothing more than marketing drivel.

---

I would have to agree with you. It's been mentioned that the oil industry is big bucks so why wouldn't these superscientists use the best additives? They could just charge more for the "superoil" that makes all others obsolete.

Not an attack lcd...LC may work, but we already know people are getting great UOA with 10K miles intervals on the latest synthetics. That's proof enough for me that these superscientists are not part of a corporate scam.

[ September 01, 2004, 12:40 PM: Message edited by: Razl ]

 

[XS650]

quote:

---

Originally posted by lcd:
fuel tanker man,

If they cashed in on Lube Control the would lose out more in oil sales. They make their money from selling oil! The use of LC would hurt their sales greatly.

Jeff
LCD

---

Right Jeff, that's why the tire companies are still all making bias-belted tires that wear out in 20,000-25,000 when they could be making radials that last 60,000-80,000 miles.

 

[ruking77]

I would also agree with Razl.

I have been a user of Mobil One products (PAO IV) for years and many miles ( greater than 660k). Needless to say I try to read all pertinate information. I read somewhere that the cost to manufacture synthetic oil is roughly the same as conventional oil. Whether this is precisely true or not, I really don't know. Yet almost all so called "synthetics" are sold at 2-8x's premium to conventional oil!!??

The cost benefit action is to take advantage of so called "longer" intervals. So if you can chose and run the correct intervals, the per mile lubricated costs are FAR lower than conventional oil at 3/5k recommended intervals. If you could overcome all the obstacles to the majority of folks extending their oil changes from 3/5k TO 10/15/20k and in some cases beyond, the affects/effects would be enormous. Let's just say there is almost NO financial incentive to do this!?

In addition, it has been technologically feasible for a very long time, for the vehicle oem's to put filtering and preoiler devices to keep wear and oil degradation to an absolute minimum. After market products sell for ($300); ie, say 160 dollars for bypast filter products. Preoilers sell for 150 dollars. So it can be deduced that manufacturing costs for the high volume of before mentioned products would be FAR less. Again this would benefit whether you use synthetic, hydrocracked synthetic, synthetic blend, or conventional oil. The purpose of the preoiler systems; as most folks know, is to lessen the majority of the engine "wear" coming from so called "dry" starts.

[ September 01, 2004, 01:08 PM: Message edited by: ruking77 ]

 

[XS650]

quote:

---

Originally posted by CoosBayDave:
I think it all has to do with money. They produce an oil that meets or slightly exceeds specs at a price comparable with other companies, and at a price people are willing to pay.

---

We have have $1 oils and we have $4 to $8 synthetics selling side by side in the same store.

 

[salesrep]

It is easy to forget that the majors sell and market to the masses, the 80-85% of the "everyday" users. The uneducated if you will. That is true of engine oil, additives,fueltreatments etc. They battle on price. Price has limits in the competive market place. Quality is much harder to sell to the masses. Quality costs more initially though not necessarily in the long run. Most of us here are the smaller %. WE are not ther primary target. The majors make a whole lot more money selling and branding themselves to the masses. Are they aware of lc/lp or Schaeffer's technology, of course. But is the cost return there for them? As an example .. Well known brand x begins charging $.30 more for a "better" oil because it has abc additive in it. Soon they will lose market share because the public will buy the other brand cause it is $.30 cheaper.

Iam looking at what I think is a great example of this. Found a early 1960's can of Quaker State Engine Oil (please my intention is not to slam on QS) The can states "%100 pure pennsylvania crude" etc. etc. "And QS is more economical , too, because it lasts longer. You can go farther before you need to add a quart."
Now the The early 70's version.3 color can now. Quaker State "super blend" "Quaker State SUPER_BLEND is refined from Pa. grade crude oil, scientifically blende and fortified with detergent etc. it helps keep engine clean quiet and helps them last."
Now why would a refiner QS take a great base stock oil and chose to dilute it in the middle of an oil crisis??????
Let us not forget that the majors make the huge majority of there money from fuel. What is left kerosene,asphalt,paraffin etc. are secondary.

 

[427Z06]

quote:

---

Originally posted by sbc350gearhead:

quote:

---

Originally posted by 427Z06:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lcd:
If they cashed in on Lube Control the would lose out more in oil sales. They make their money from selling oil! The use of LC would hurt their sales greatly.

---

Jeff, do you have any scientific evidence from independent laboratories to back up your claim? If you don't, you're claims fall into the anecdotal category, and are nothing more than marketing drivel.

---

http://www.lubecontrol.com/reports.htm

---

You call that scientific evidence from independent laboratories? Further, what you site seems to be a little to close to the "family" to be objectivily credible even as anecdotal evidence.

I don't want to knock LC just for the sake of it, as it very well may be a good product, and since they are site sponsors, I try to look the other way. But until someone presents some scientific evidence to back their claim, my anecdotal evidence is as good as anybody else's.

 

[dropitby]

We have reports showing the oil taken out of a truck after using LC and it was in better condition than when it was new!This statement seems to show me a good reason to use LC. It also has its skeptics always looking for the down side as I am one too but not when it comes to long term UOA's.Perhaps if the big oil companys made a pristine way to transport their freshly made oil to the bottle we wouldn't have things on the VOA's that shouldn't be their. So most good additives are nothing more than cleaners of what shouldn't have been there in the first place.Oil seems to be a dirt magnet look how much longer you can run the oil after a better filtration.