Thank you for your profound and insightful analysis, Dr. johnny-b! Allow me to point out that Pablo and some "others", including myself, have already purchased and used LCD products in our vehicles. We participate in threads such as this one to solicit useful feedback about a product, but usually not for psychological evaluation.
Proof of LC performance
- Thread starter Pablo
- Start date
- Status
Everyone calm down!!! It would be interesting to hear what Terry Dyson has to say. He is very knowledgeable about these matter and is a straight shooter.
Pablo, I understand your frustration with the varnish. I take it that your car is a turbo. Perhaps you should try the other half gallon. It could not hurt. It took time for the varnish to build. Perhaps, it will take time to clean it. Your best bet might be S3000 and LC. I know that the S3000 is expensive but it cost effective if you do a long drain.
Pablo, I understand your frustration with the varnish. I take it that your car is a turbo. Perhaps you should try the other half gallon. It could not hurt. It took time for the varnish to build. Perhaps, it will take time to clean it. Your best bet might be S3000 and LC. I know that the S3000 is expensive but it cost effective if you do a long drain.
It just occurred to me that if your car is a turbo the oil might be "baked" on to your engine parts. The high heat of the turbo could prevent LC from doing its job due to the low flash point of LC. It would be good to hear what Terry or LCD has to say about this.
I think LC is best at preventing hard varnish deposits. 150k of baked on hard deposits is not easy to take off with a wire brush in a solvent tank and the expectation is that a little diluted product splashed upon these areas is going to solve the problem?
If used regularly from early in an engines life I bet the deposits don't have a time and cycles to set in. Hard deposits are almost like paint or laquer. I can't imagine a less than 1% concentration of LC being able to dissolve that. But the soft stuff that hasn't hardened should be easy to keep from baking on.
No proof not much anectdotal observation. Just some perspective on the expectations.
If used regularly from early in an engines life I bet the deposits don't have a time and cycles to set in. Hard deposits are almost like paint or laquer. I can't imagine a less than 1% concentration of LC being able to dissolve that. But the soft stuff that hasn't hardened should be easy to keep from baking on.
No proof not much anectdotal observation. Just some perspective on the expectations.
I would like to see proof as well (not only of LC but FP60, Auto-RX, etc), but real proof can be hard to come by. You would need a well prepared double blind experiment. It would need to go something like this.
Start with something like 20 high mileage cars, as identical as you can get them, with some sign of sludge or varnish under the valve cover or oil filler caps. Take them all to an independent shop. Do a bunch of pre-test analysis: compression, leak-down, oil analysis (and change the oil), open up the oil filter and take pictures, take a picture under the valve cover, maybe use a boroscope to take a picture of the bottom end (through the drain plug) or in the cylinders, etc. You don’t need to take the motor apart for this, except maybe remove the valve cover.
Half of the 20 cars get LC while the other half does not. Neither the drivers nor the shop doing the analysis knows which of the 20 cars get LC. You’d need someone independent of the shop to add the LC.
Now, run all 20 cars for about 5,000 miles. At 1,000 intervals, they return the LC source. This guy adds it to the 10 cars that get it, but does nothing to the 10 that do not. Nobody but this guy knows which cars get it and which cars do not.
At the end of 5,000 miles, return to the shop and do a post test analysis. Do the compression, oil analysis, etc, all tests done prior to LC use. Now compare all 20 cars. Can the independent shop tell which 10 cars had LC or not? Confirm with the one guy who knows which cars got it and which cars did not.
This is easy to conceive, the problem is it would take a lot of time and a lot of money to do a test like this. I doubt LCD has this kind of cash lying around. Note that this test could be used for any product, FP60, Auto-RX, etc.
Short of doing this on 20 cars, it could be done on one. I’d like to see the before and after oil analysis, pictures, compression, etc, on that car. Ideally, all the tests would be done by an independent shop and not by LCD, otherwise it starts to look like one of those infomercials on TV where they spray water on a running engine or whatever.
Start with something like 20 high mileage cars, as identical as you can get them, with some sign of sludge or varnish under the valve cover or oil filler caps. Take them all to an independent shop. Do a bunch of pre-test analysis: compression, leak-down, oil analysis (and change the oil), open up the oil filter and take pictures, take a picture under the valve cover, maybe use a boroscope to take a picture of the bottom end (through the drain plug) or in the cylinders, etc. You don’t need to take the motor apart for this, except maybe remove the valve cover.
Half of the 20 cars get LC while the other half does not. Neither the drivers nor the shop doing the analysis knows which of the 20 cars get LC. You’d need someone independent of the shop to add the LC.
Now, run all 20 cars for about 5,000 miles. At 1,000 intervals, they return the LC source. This guy adds it to the 10 cars that get it, but does nothing to the 10 that do not. Nobody but this guy knows which cars get it and which cars do not.
At the end of 5,000 miles, return to the shop and do a post test analysis. Do the compression, oil analysis, etc, all tests done prior to LC use. Now compare all 20 cars. Can the independent shop tell which 10 cars had LC or not? Confirm with the one guy who knows which cars got it and which cars did not.
This is easy to conceive, the problem is it would take a lot of time and a lot of money to do a test like this. I doubt LCD has this kind of cash lying around. Note that this test could be used for any product, FP60, Auto-RX, etc.
Short of doing this on 20 cars, it could be done on one. I’d like to see the before and after oil analysis, pictures, compression, etc, on that car. Ideally, all the tests would be done by an independent shop and not by LCD, otherwise it starts to look like one of those infomercials on TV where they spray water on a running engine or whatever.
150,000 of baked-on varnish. Yeah, I'd say that is a tough one. I'd still do my [now] usual "MolaSoak", ARX run, and then a 6000+ mile run of REDLINE, using LC-20 & FP-60. Then, another run of ARX. As my Dodge truck V8-318 is now receiving. Will it get all the varnish? Probably get most of it. Beyond that . . . ?
I have a hunch LC-20 would have been better used on any motor, any condition, from new to avoid the baked varnish. And, ARX every 20,000 to have helped kept it clean & shiny.
That'd be good enough "proof" for me (though not, I realize, what others are wanting), short of a scientific test. I would consider the different products difficulty in removing hard varnish at a mileage often equivalent with end-of-useful-life(Americans average about 15,000 miles annually; the fleet is 12-15 years old) to be less than convincing.
I would rather -- with that particular motor -- have seen UOA's, compression readings, etc, to help gauge effectiveness (if any).
I don't offer this as any challenge, just stating what to me constitutes "reasonability" in the purchase and gauged effectiveness of an engine additive product.
I have a hunch LC-20 would have been better used on any motor, any condition, from new to avoid the baked varnish. And, ARX every 20,000 to have helped kept it clean & shiny.
That'd be good enough "proof" for me (though not, I realize, what others are wanting), short of a scientific test. I would consider the different products difficulty in removing hard varnish at a mileage often equivalent with end-of-useful-life(Americans average about 15,000 miles annually; the fleet is 12-15 years old) to be less than convincing.
I would rather -- with that particular motor -- have seen UOA's, compression readings, etc, to help gauge effectiveness (if any).
I don't offer this as any challenge, just stating what to me constitutes "reasonability" in the purchase and gauged effectiveness of an engine additive product.
Why does Terry always have to explain everything about these products? Why doesnt LCD explain anything?
The most they ever seem to say is something like "its completely different".
I think I remember pictures and other info being promised a long time ago.
The most they ever seem to say is something like "its completely different".
I think I remember pictures and other info being promised a long time ago.
i use lc20 and fp60 i do respect terry,lcd,mola, pauls expertise..my cars do run so very smooth inside the valve cover i see the bolts shine and metal shine and my emissions inspection which i posted here is excellent..
An alkaline cleaner like Castrol Super Clean readily dissolves the varnish. It seems like the anti-oxidant LC should dissolve the varnish hopefully faster than it is deposited, or at least keep it from sticking.
I am going to try LC in my frightfully oranged Volvo engine after an OCI with HDEO. It is not a turbocharged engine. It is a cold oil trip 3K OCI on dino engine. The rings are stuck, too.
I am going to try LC in my frightfully oranged Volvo engine after an OCI with HDEO. It is not a turbocharged engine. It is a cold oil trip 3K OCI on dino engine. The rings are stuck, too.
Having tried to clean varnish off of metal cups that I did oil experiments in, I can confirm that removing baked on varnish is a much more difficult task than some realize. Sludge is one thing, varnish is a lot like lacquer and highly insoluble. I don't think anything that is safe to put in your motor oil will remove varnish that only gets splashed. I did find a product that removed the varnish in my cups: Simple Green. But it also corroded the aluminum cups and certainly can't be put in an engine.
That LC Report linked above sure gives some good info. But the viscosity of LC at 100C is 9.5 cSt and unfortunately that does thin out oils that have a higher viscosity than LC. I think that users of those oils should consider compensating for that by substituting some of their oil with a thicker grade of the same brand.
That LC Report linked above sure gives some good info. But the viscosity of LC at 100C is 9.5 cSt and unfortunately that does thin out oils that have a higher viscosity than LC. I think that users of those oils should consider compensating for that by substituting some of their oil with a thicker grade of the same brand.
I think Pablo sold that car.
Terry Dyson's comment is that any small company does the best they can with capitol and marketing capability they have at their disposal. Small companies are hamstrung under that burden regardless of what is commonly thought here.
There is no doubt in my mind LC works as advertized but LCD has not paid me to do double blind testing thus I cannot meet the level of testing Pablo requests.
UOA accurately interpreted is the key, you have the baseline raw data catalogued here. Maybe Tony would like to hire me to interpret online, publicly a comparison, would be happy to do it.
UOA eliminates lots of bias even with normal automotive variability.
If UOA is not enough for you Pablo then you will not be happy with any proof. Your engine visual cleanliness testing should have been backed with UOA to see benefits. Like Auto-RX if the fluid cannot hit a surface it will take much longer for chemical vapor to clean what took 260K miles to develop. As a matter of fact the loose Volvo PCV system and ring sealing may have been a major contributor to the deposit formation, while using LC and Auto-RX type products would have slowed the vapor moving around in the engine, defacto slowing that cleaning you want to view. Maybe the oils and adds Pablo used over that 260K miles allowed deposits that are too hard to remove with any chemistry ?
Without UOA I can't say for sure.
BTW SS, LC is actually pretty high flash, very stable. 400F or so.
LC does NOT shear oil when used as directed. Unless you are loading 1/2 the oil volume with LC I cannot imagine and have not observed LC ever vis shear any fluid. Quite the opposite.
Here at BITOG you have many individual oil analysis, from different labs, that demonstrate gains in vis stability, lower oxidation,nitration,insolubles, and wear rates.
I guesstimate 1/2 my UOA customers use a "correction fluid" or fuel add now and if analysis and customer observation was not positive WE would change the regimen. I care about selling oil analysis interpretation/consult which results in HAPPY repeat customers, not sell fluids !
There is no doubt in my mind LC works as advertized but LCD has not paid me to do double blind testing thus I cannot meet the level of testing Pablo requests.
UOA accurately interpreted is the key, you have the baseline raw data catalogued here. Maybe Tony would like to hire me to interpret online, publicly a comparison, would be happy to do it.
UOA eliminates lots of bias even with normal automotive variability.
If UOA is not enough for you Pablo then you will not be happy with any proof. Your engine visual cleanliness testing should have been backed with UOA to see benefits. Like Auto-RX if the fluid cannot hit a surface it will take much longer for chemical vapor to clean what took 260K miles to develop. As a matter of fact the loose Volvo PCV system and ring sealing may have been a major contributor to the deposit formation, while using LC and Auto-RX type products would have slowed the vapor moving around in the engine, defacto slowing that cleaning you want to view. Maybe the oils and adds Pablo used over that 260K miles allowed deposits that are too hard to remove with any chemistry ?
BTW SS, LC is actually pretty high flash, very stable. 400F or so.
LC does NOT shear oil when used as directed. Unless you are loading 1/2 the oil volume with LC I cannot imagine and have not observed LC ever vis shear any fluid. Quite the opposite.
Here at BITOG you have many individual oil analysis, from different labs, that demonstrate gains in vis stability, lower oxidation,nitration,insolubles, and wear rates.
I guesstimate 1/2 my UOA customers use a "correction fluid" or fuel add now and if analysis and customer observation was not positive WE would change the regimen. I care about selling oil analysis interpretation/consult which results in HAPPY repeat customers, not sell fluids !
Rodbuckler,
Being a rookie here I'm curious and would like to understand how you know the the rings are stuck?
If they are from what I've read and experianced it seems that ARX would be called for. It has cleaned out a fair amount from the wifes Camry, and a small amount from my ECHO (only 49K).
The OCI between the two ARX treatments on the Camry used LC-20 and it removed all the varnish from the dipstick. I can't say if this was the combination of the two chemistries or if the LC did it on it's own though. But it was heavily varnished prior to the treatments and is now looking factory new. It has 130K now and to see a shiny dipstick pleases me. I can offer an after image if that would help. John
Being a rookie here I'm curious and would like to understand how you know the the rings are stuck?
If they are from what I've read and experianced it seems that ARX would be called for. It has cleaned out a fair amount from the wifes Camry, and a small amount from my ECHO (only 49K).
The OCI between the two ARX treatments on the Camry used LC-20 and it removed all the varnish from the dipstick. I can't say if this was the combination of the two chemistries or if the LC did it on it's own though. But it was heavily varnished prior to the treatments and is now looking factory new. It has 130K now and to see a shiny dipstick pleases me. I can offer an after image if that would help. John
The first indication was excessive blowby at idle. I cleaned up the PCV system, which was open, but the blowby still pulsed violently out the oil fill neck. This could mean several things like broken rings, worn bore, cracked head, blown head gasket, etc. Since conditions were right for heavy varnishing, I would suspect carboned up rings.
Since the gasket set had failed at the distributor and possibly elsewhere, I pulled the head to have a look inside. The head gasket was intact, all the bores looked excellent except for a light glazing, and everything about the head and valves looked good. #4 cylinder/chamber was wet.
I poured 15W-40 oil in all the cylinders, and #4 drained to the crankcase in a number of hours. The others are OK for now. Since all the bores look equally good with no strange wear marks, I think that the rings are stuck on #4. The oil contamination was causing some detonation, so the rings or ring lands could also be broken.
I will try the lube control to see if it can eliminate the beautiful varnish and free the rings. I should take the bottom end apart as well, but I don't feel like it since I have other things to work on. I still might change my mind, and if I do I will take some pictures.
Terry is the resident oil analysis expert and a founding member of this forum therfore he does post a lot of responses on our products because 1.) he sees that they do well in oil analysis 2.) he has done testing on these products
We as a company are not always on these boards to see questions that users have. If you have a question email us and it will get answered much quicker than on this forum.
If you need pictures I will post this week an expample of LC removing carbon. If you want proof that does not come from the guy selling it do a simple test for yourself. Get some parts that have carbon and varnish on them and soak them in LC with a some heat added.
We explain plenty on our website where we answer most questions. If your questions are not answered on the website then email us....we will answer.
Dr. T and John Hilmer,
I, too, had burnt varnish on my dipstick, and it wouldn't budge when given the vigorous thumbnail scratch test.
Last week, with just a few hundred miles to go in the first Auto-Rx clean phase, I noticed that the area in question seemed to have gotten a little smaller, so I tried the scratch test again and, voila', it broke up and wiped right off!
I, too, had burnt varnish on my dipstick, and it wouldn't budge when given the vigorous thumbnail scratch test.
Last week, with just a few hundred miles to go in the first Auto-Rx clean phase, I noticed that the area in question seemed to have gotten a little smaller, so I tried the scratch test again and, voila', it broke up and wiped right off!
I have posted two UOAS on extended runs of Pennzoil dino with LC for our 02 Accord V6. In both cases the viscosity was excellent and the wear metals were very low, low single digits. At 8,000 miles the oil looked very good, TBN was dropping down but the viscosity showed the oil had a good deal more life in it. I haven't seen many other UOAS with that type of oil at that distance looking that good without LC.
I respect Pablo's question. Maybe the varnishing in his Volvo engine was so deeply "burned in" that nothing could clean it without harming other engine parts.
I respect Pablo's question. Maybe the varnishing in his Volvo engine was so deeply "burned in" that nothing could clean it without harming other engine parts.
Pablo, I too have 200k mi. car with varnish and although it hasn't taken it off completely, it has greatly diminished it.
I don't think it's feasable to say 1/2gal. of LC will remove 260k mi. of burnt oil on your drivetrain possibly without mechanical intervention. Think of burnt oil on stovetop.
For eg. I have burnt varnish on my dipstick since I aquired one vehicle at 12k. mi. Full strength LC on a paper towel took off some of it, but probably only about 10%.
Possibly 1. you need more time (aka another 200k) 2. higher doseage 3. try with different oil (eg. synth. or HDEO) 4. don't worry about it because some varnish is harmless anyway...
I don't think it's feasable to say 1/2gal. of LC will remove 260k mi. of burnt oil on your drivetrain possibly without mechanical intervention. Think of burnt oil on stovetop.
For eg. I have burnt varnish on my dipstick since I aquired one vehicle at 12k. mi. Full strength LC on a paper towel took off some of it, but probably only about 10%.
Possibly 1. you need more time (aka another 200k) 2. higher doseage 3. try with different oil (eg. synth. or HDEO) 4. don't worry about it because some varnish is harmless anyway...
- Status
Similar threads
