A long time ago in the past I thought about using Rislone, and now I am glad that I did not. In any case, Auto-RX or Neutra work better.
Rislone Clean Oil Analysis
- Thread starter MolaKule
- Start date
- Status
Why are people glad that they did not use Rislone?
Please, give some proof that it is bad or damaging in any way.
For $25, I'd expect autorx to have more than "every other element 0". Advantages to autorx--none. Just drawing the same conclusion from the autorx analysis.
How does Rislone thin the motor oil? I don't see an analysis of it mixed with oil to prove the thinning effect? or better yet, run a UOA with it mixed with oil to see if it changes anything other than a possible increase in whatever it might pick up while cleaning.
Who says a detergent is a must for effective cleaning? I think that it has already been proved that some cleaners don't need high levels of detergents to work.
I didn't say that autorx is hiding its ingredients. Anyone with common sense can read the patent and make their own. Plus, I thought that everyone agreed that it wasn't an 'additive'.
See, I'm just trying to be unbiased as possible. Try to think outside the "must use autorx mentality" and must slam all competitors!
And concerning MMO, it works too.
And, still waiting for PROOF that autorx/neutra/whichever work better than Marvel/Rislone/whatever. This would take equally sludged engines and a complete comparison which has not been done yet. Some people here are too smart for styrofoam cup comparisons.
Please, give some proof that it is bad or damaging in any way.
For $25, I'd expect autorx to have more than "every other element 0". Advantages to autorx--none. Just drawing the same conclusion from the autorx analysis.
How does Rislone thin the motor oil? I don't see an analysis of it mixed with oil to prove the thinning effect? or better yet, run a UOA with it mixed with oil to see if it changes anything other than a possible increase in whatever it might pick up while cleaning.
Who says a detergent is a must for effective cleaning? I think that it has already been proved that some cleaners don't need high levels of detergents to work.
I didn't say that autorx is hiding its ingredients. Anyone with common sense can read the patent and make their own. Plus, I thought that everyone agreed that it wasn't an 'additive'.
See, I'm just trying to be unbiased as possible. Try to think outside the "must use autorx mentality" and must slam all competitors!
And concerning MMO, it works too.
And, still waiting for PROOF that autorx/neutra/whichever work better than Marvel/Rislone/whatever. This would take equally sludged engines and a complete comparison which has not been done yet. Some people here are too smart for styrofoam cup comparisons.
undummy, no offense but if you are capable of manufacturing Auto-RX from the patent then you won't need the answers you asked for in the last post. You might consider producing it for Auto-RX as you could save them 1000's of $ a year in production costs.
The Chinese and Japanese chemists certainly haven't been able to.
You haven't paid me enough to make any of the comparisons you demand either. Get a grip.
None of "us" have an agenda against any products you mentioned, they just aren't worth the cost vs.effect. Just an opinion.
The Chinese and Japanese chemists certainly haven't been able to.
You haven't paid me enough to make any of the comparisons you demand either. Get a grip.
None of "us" have an agenda against any products you mentioned, they just aren't worth the cost vs.effect. Just an opinion.
MolaKule
Staff member
I certainly have no agenda (not connected to any oil company of blender), just tell it as I see it (and I did the analysis at my own cost, even purchased the bottle myself)!
Why would you expect Auto-RX to have additive elements, when Auto-RX is touted as an engine cleaner? There are various chemistries for differing applications. Rislone or CD-2 you could make in your back yard with a few basic chemicals and at less price than what you pay for it at Wally World. With Auto-X, you cannot do that without costly lab equipment and chemicals, hence the price.
If you are going to make just one ester, you have to have the correct acid(s) in the proper proportions, the correct alcohols in the proper proportions, and in some cases the necessary catalysts. You then have to heat the mixture (to the proper temp) in a vacuum distillation unit and then draw off the water (under just the right vacuum), and then filter or nuetralize it. I have actually done esterification in a lab and it is no easy task. And even before you take your experiment to the lab, a lot of chemical calculations and simulations have to be done before you ever turn up the heat and mix the chemicals.
Auto-RX is free from any hydrocarbon solvents that might affect elestomers, injector seals, and other similar components.
Rislone (I am reading from the back label of Part Number 100-QR) makes these claims:
"Rislone keeps your engine Clean"
1. Removes Sludge and OTHER harmful deposits.
2. Improves oil circulation for longer engine life.
3. Quiets noisy lifters and valves, frees sticky rings.
4. Restores lost compression, power and efficieny.
5. MAintains normal oil viscosity at engine operating temperature.
6. Reduces friction and wear, especially at start up.
Now, take each point on the back label and tell me what ingredient supports each claim. Has Rislone ever published a fleet study showing any advantages from using their Engine Treatment? Regarding items No. 2 and 5, anytime I thin the oil I can make that claim (except for the wear statement in 6 and longer engine life in 2), even with a Non-Detergent API SB 20 weight oil, which is basically what Rislone is. To Rislone's credit, they did put in a few additives, but these additives are still 1/3 to 1/5 below the additive levels of an SL OTC oil!
I think the proof is on you to show it has any advantages over an SL rated OTC oil.
[ May 15, 2003, 12:13 AM: Message edited by: MolaKule ]
Improved oil circulation can also be a benefit of opened up passages.........not just thin oil.
MolaKule
Staff member
How does it work and what advantage does it have, at over 2.5 times the cost of a quart of oil, compared to the oil mentioned?
A quart of SL 5W20 works as well, but we know why it works!
Putting the question another way, why put Rislone in the crankcase when a fully formulated 5W20 SL oil has more additives and cleaning abilities than the Rislone.
[ May 15, 2003, 02:03 PM: Message edited by: MolaKule ]
[ May 15, 2003, 02:58 PM: Message edited by: tenderloin ]
There seems to be a double standard on here regarding additives. I would like to see some kind of comparison test.
No additives in the favored cleaners are great. No additives in the unfavored cleaners means they are not as good as standard motor oil. Doesnt wash with me.
No additives in the favored cleaners are great. No additives in the unfavored cleaners means they are not as good as standard motor oil. Doesnt wash with me.
I would like to see a UOA of oil and a followup of the same oil and Rislone. As of now, the responses from their staff left much to be desired. At least, unlike some others they did answer.
MolaKule
Staff member
I think Csandste has the right idea. There are many UOA's reported with many of the oil supplements mentioned on this board.
Those who favor Rislone, CD2, MMO, and others, send in your VOA's and UOA's to Dyson, with and without the cleaners, and with as much info as you can provide, and we will all have a chance to examine the results.
MolaKule
Staff member
And the same can be accomplished by adding 1 qt. of a fully formulated 5W20 weight OTC SL oil at $1.05/qt. or using kerosene.
True, but returning to the real issue to be answered by the Rislone proponents is, what benefit does Rislone (or CD2) provide, at $2.67/qt., over an OTC oil from Walmart that costs $1.05?
The real issue...........IT WORKS! Geezzz
I am not favoring anything. The comments that are being made do not seem to be objective.
MolaKule
Staff member
And what comments are those, and what do you consider not objective? Old wives tales, shade tree mechanic mentality, and subjective inuendos don't work in the "NO-BULL" zone. This is a "data-and-debate" thread.
If you want objectivity, take VOA's and UOA's of non-supplemented oil and supplemented oil, and send those samples to Dyson Analysis at YOUR cost, and report the results here on the board for all to see (which is what I did at my own cost). Then you can make your "objective" case for why these supplements are so cost effective, and then you can have peer review feedback in the form of posted comments from other's on the Board.
Sa-Veh, Kemosobe?
[ May 16, 2003, 11:27 AM: Message edited by: MolaKule ]
If you want objectivity, take VOA's and UOA's of non-supplemented oil and supplemented oil, and send those samples to Dyson Analysis at YOUR cost, and report the results here on the board for all to see (which is what I did at my own cost). Then you can make your "objective" case for why these supplements are so cost effective, and then you can have peer review feedback in the form of posted comments from other's on the Board.
Sa-Veh, Kemosobe?
[ May 16, 2003, 11:27 AM: Message edited by: MolaKule ]
MolaKule -
No offense intended! I don't claim to be an oil expert. Since we are in a "no bull zone", let me say specifically where I am coming from.
The way I am interpretting what has been written on this thread... Rislone at ~$2/quart is criticized (and perhaps rightfully so?) for not having ingredients (which show up on standard oil analysis) that are better than common motor oil. Maybe there are benefits from using it that are not detectable on common motor oil tests...maybe not. I have no idea. My only experience is that once I had noisy valves and used it and they went away, but came back on the next oil change when there was no Rislone in the oil.
In contrast, there is Auto Rx at ~$25/bottle plus shipping. If I understand the postings on here, it has ingredients (that do not show up on standard oil tests) that are no better than common engine oil...in fact...it has no ingredients that show up on the tests.
So we have 2 different additives that do not show ingredients (from oil analysis) beyond common engine oil...one at $25, the other at $2.
However, the way they are discussed, Auto Rx is cast in favorable language with no supporting data, while Rislone is dismissed as no benefit at all with the same amount of data.
I am willing (and would like) to send samples of my oil with and without the two additives at my expense, as you suggest, but it will take a while to go through the cycles.
I think some sort of side by side test would be the best. Take some similar gummed up parts from the same engine and immerse them in a beaker of each and check them periodically...or something like that. Maybe they would need to be agitated or wiped periodically.
Like I said, I am no expert, I appreciate all the advice on here, including yours. If I have a misunderstanding of something that was said...help me understand it.
From where I sit, it looks like the comments are negative toward Rislone and favorable toward Rx based on what is essentially the same data from each.
Thanks again.
[ May 16, 2003, 08:52 PM: Message edited by: CJH ]
No offense intended! I don't claim to be an oil expert. Since we are in a "no bull zone", let me say specifically where I am coming from.
The way I am interpretting what has been written on this thread... Rislone at ~$2/quart is criticized (and perhaps rightfully so?) for not having ingredients (which show up on standard oil analysis) that are better than common motor oil. Maybe there are benefits from using it that are not detectable on common motor oil tests...maybe not. I have no idea. My only experience is that once I had noisy valves and used it and they went away, but came back on the next oil change when there was no Rislone in the oil.
In contrast, there is Auto Rx at ~$25/bottle plus shipping. If I understand the postings on here, it has ingredients (that do not show up on standard oil tests) that are no better than common engine oil...in fact...it has no ingredients that show up on the tests.
So we have 2 different additives that do not show ingredients (from oil analysis) beyond common engine oil...one at $25, the other at $2.
However, the way they are discussed, Auto Rx is cast in favorable language with no supporting data, while Rislone is dismissed as no benefit at all with the same amount of data.
I am willing (and would like) to send samples of my oil with and without the two additives at my expense, as you suggest, but it will take a while to go through the cycles.
I think some sort of side by side test would be the best. Take some similar gummed up parts from the same engine and immerse them in a beaker of each and check them periodically...or something like that. Maybe they would need to be agitated or wiped periodically.
Like I said, I am no expert, I appreciate all the advice on here, including yours. If I have a misunderstanding of something that was said...help me understand it.
From where I sit, it looks like the comments are negative toward Rislone and favorable toward Rx based on what is essentially the same data from each.
Thanks again.
[ May 16, 2003, 08:52 PM: Message edited by: CJH ]
MolaKule
Staff member
CJH,
The response was not directed to you personally, but was simply an invitation for anyone to post their UOA results from Rislone and CD2 (or other products) and then debate the merits/non-merits of the product, especially the cost/performance aspect, which I believe is the crux of the matter, and which to-date, has not been answered with any real data. The only way to do this fairly is to analyze a VOA of the oil you intend to run, then run a non-supplemented oil, do a UOA, and then add the supplement to new oil, and then do another UOA. One might also want to add info such as driving conditions, weather, condition of engine, fuel, etc., the more data the better.
Rislone does contain some additives (as does CD2), albeit in very low levels, that would not affect the resulting oil quality in any signifcant manner.
It contains no cleaning esters. It might contain a purely aromatic solvent, but again, none was detected. It might contain some VII's, but again none detected. If it did contain any of the products, my chemical testing would have detected them IF they were in any significant treatment rates to affect oil characteristics.
What I am try to get across, is that a standard analysis was done for additives and viscosity, IN ADDITION to my analysis to detect any of the above products, but none were detected.
To address your argument specifically, and as I stated previously, there are various chemistries for engine cleaners that affect different areas of oil and engine operation. Conventional OTC cleaners use aromatic hydrocarbon solvents, which are carcenogenic to living tissue, and very aggressive, especially to seals and other elastomers. Most OTC products contain either thin oils with very low levels of additives (CD2, RIslone, Marvel Mystery Oil), or a viscosity thickener with ZDDP, such as STP and its competing derivatives.
Auto-RX does not contain any CONVENTIONAL Anti-Wear additives such as ZDDP or Moly, or Antimony.
It does NOT contain any CONVENTIONAL detergent/dispersant additives, such as calcium or magnesium, or Borons. That is why no conventional additives show up in the analysis. It is a NON-CONVENTIONAL, slow acting, engine cleaner consisting of various esters, which through testing and historical use, cleans dirty engines. And due to its ester formulation, it also has Friction Modification properties. In addition, by removing sludge from seals and conditioning seals to make them more pliable, many people have been able reduce or eliminate leakage from seals. It is not a Miracle Cure for poorly maintained engines. It will not bring worn rings or valve stems back to their original state. The esters in ARX work by virtue of their chemically attractive polar properties by attaching themselves to carbon and sludge. The carbon and sludge are then held together in little communities called "micelles" until they they are floated into the oil, hence the recommendations to place a new filter on the engine and change it out at 500 miles.
Now Neutra, also an ester, but more aggressive, also has a long history of being able to clean an engine's crankcase by nearly the same mechanism.
Ester chemistry is more expensive than simply mixing Kerosene or 20 W oil with a few low-level additives, hence the higher price for Auto-RX and Neutra.
Auto-RX (and Neutra for that matter) are NOT engine additives or suplements in the normal definition of the word. Now Schaeffer's #132 IS a supplement, because it contains chemical components not usually found in run-of-the-mill OTC motor oils. I.E, it "supplements" oils with stuff you won't find in regular oils.
An engine "additive" does as it states, it adds or improves the characteristic of the oil, and enhances engine operation, such as with the use of AW's or FM's.
I hope this helps to clarify the issue at hand.
[ May 16, 2003, 11:34 PM: Message edited by: MolaKule ]
The response was not directed to you personally, but was simply an invitation for anyone to post their UOA results from Rislone and CD2 (or other products) and then debate the merits/non-merits of the product, especially the cost/performance aspect, which I believe is the crux of the matter, and which to-date, has not been answered with any real data. The only way to do this fairly is to analyze a VOA of the oil you intend to run, then run a non-supplemented oil, do a UOA, and then add the supplement to new oil, and then do another UOA. One might also want to add info such as driving conditions, weather, condition of engine, fuel, etc., the more data the better.
Rislone does contain some additives (as does CD2), albeit in very low levels, that would not affect the resulting oil quality in any signifcant manner.
It contains no cleaning esters. It might contain a purely aromatic solvent, but again, none was detected. It might contain some VII's, but again none detected. If it did contain any of the products, my chemical testing would have detected them IF they were in any significant treatment rates to affect oil characteristics.
What I am try to get across, is that a standard analysis was done for additives and viscosity, IN ADDITION to my analysis to detect any of the above products, but none were detected.
To address your argument specifically, and as I stated previously, there are various chemistries for engine cleaners that affect different areas of oil and engine operation. Conventional OTC cleaners use aromatic hydrocarbon solvents, which are carcenogenic to living tissue, and very aggressive, especially to seals and other elastomers. Most OTC products contain either thin oils with very low levels of additives (CD2, RIslone, Marvel Mystery Oil), or a viscosity thickener with ZDDP, such as STP and its competing derivatives.
Auto-RX does not contain any CONVENTIONAL Anti-Wear additives such as ZDDP or Moly, or Antimony.
It does NOT contain any CONVENTIONAL detergent/dispersant additives, such as calcium or magnesium, or Borons. That is why no conventional additives show up in the analysis. It is a NON-CONVENTIONAL, slow acting, engine cleaner consisting of various esters, which through testing and historical use, cleans dirty engines. And due to its ester formulation, it also has Friction Modification properties. In addition, by removing sludge from seals and conditioning seals to make them more pliable, many people have been able reduce or eliminate leakage from seals. It is not a Miracle Cure for poorly maintained engines. It will not bring worn rings or valve stems back to their original state. The esters in ARX work by virtue of their chemically attractive polar properties by attaching themselves to carbon and sludge. The carbon and sludge are then held together in little communities called "micelles" until they they are floated into the oil, hence the recommendations to place a new filter on the engine and change it out at 500 miles.
Now Neutra, also an ester, but more aggressive, also has a long history of being able to clean an engine's crankcase by nearly the same mechanism.
Ester chemistry is more expensive than simply mixing Kerosene or 20 W oil with a few low-level additives, hence the higher price for Auto-RX and Neutra.
Auto-RX (and Neutra for that matter) are NOT engine additives or suplements in the normal definition of the word. Now Schaeffer's #132 IS a supplement, because it contains chemical components not usually found in run-of-the-mill OTC motor oils. I.E, it "supplements" oils with stuff you won't find in regular oils.
An engine "additive" does as it states, it adds or improves the characteristic of the oil, and enhances engine operation, such as with the use of AW's or FM's.
I hope this helps to clarify the issue at hand.
[ May 16, 2003, 11:34 PM: Message edited by: MolaKule ]
MolaKule
Staff member
unDummy says,
"I've never seen large chunks of debris loosen up with fluid. This usually takes a scraper if it doesn't slowly dissolve. "
Did you go into an engine with a miniature security camera and prove this to yourself? The whole point is that an ester cleaner does this for you, and slowly, so you don't have to take off the oil pan and do scraping.
"The mild cleaner BS doesn't cut it with me. "
Great pun. And you have determined this by what method?
"Oil is a mild cleaner and its up to the owner to change it frequently enough to keep the engine clean, and to choose a quality brand."
An SL oil is certainly a better cleaner than something like Rislone. Then why use something like Rislone, which has fewer cleaners than does an OTC oil, when a product like Rislone contains fewer detergents/dispersants than do an SL rated oil, and at three times the cost of an OTC SL rated oil? The economics does not support your claim.
"Saying no advantage isn't being neutral. The same could be said about ALL additives/cleaners/whatever that have nothing showing in the VOA. Thinning of crankcase oil--prove it. This is unsupported even though the visc is a little lower."
I think you just proved the reduction in viscosity by your own admission. And no, as I explained above, an ester-based engine cleaner does NOT need conventional additives to clean an engine. And yes, I can make that claim because I presented data from analysis and testing. Did you actually read my explanations in the previous threads?
"According to Rislone data, it is 5-10% viscosity improver vs "testing revealed no VII's???"."
Let's assume that Rislone's claim is true. 5-10% VII per bottle of Rislone? It takes about 10% VII per QUART of motor oil to affect the VI. So we're talking at the most 2% VII per crankcase refill of additional VII to shear into sludge. And what is the type and quality of the VII? Is the VII miscible with both dinos AND synthetic?
We're not just discussing Rislone here; we are discussing similar OTC products as well. We're talking about proving the product through real testing data. You have presented none, whereas historical testing and real-world use have proven the other products.
"I've never seen large chunks of debris loosen up with fluid. This usually takes a scraper if it doesn't slowly dissolve. "
Did you go into an engine with a miniature security camera and prove this to yourself? The whole point is that an ester cleaner does this for you, and slowly, so you don't have to take off the oil pan and do scraping.
"The mild cleaner BS doesn't cut it with me. "
Great pun. And you have determined this by what method?
"Oil is a mild cleaner and its up to the owner to change it frequently enough to keep the engine clean, and to choose a quality brand."
An SL oil is certainly a better cleaner than something like Rislone. Then why use something like Rislone, which has fewer cleaners than does an OTC oil, when a product like Rislone contains fewer detergents/dispersants than do an SL rated oil, and at three times the cost of an OTC SL rated oil? The economics does not support your claim.
"Saying no advantage isn't being neutral. The same could be said about ALL additives/cleaners/whatever that have nothing showing in the VOA. Thinning of crankcase oil--prove it. This is unsupported even though the visc is a little lower."
I think you just proved the reduction in viscosity by your own admission. And no, as I explained above, an ester-based engine cleaner does NOT need conventional additives to clean an engine. And yes, I can make that claim because I presented data from analysis and testing. Did you actually read my explanations in the previous threads?
"According to Rislone data, it is 5-10% viscosity improver vs "testing revealed no VII's???"."
Let's assume that Rislone's claim is true. 5-10% VII per bottle of Rislone? It takes about 10% VII per QUART of motor oil to affect the VI. So we're talking at the most 2% VII per crankcase refill of additional VII to shear into sludge. And what is the type and quality of the VII? Is the VII miscible with both dinos AND synthetic?
We're not just discussing Rislone here; we are discussing similar OTC products as well. We're talking about proving the product through real testing data. You have presented none, whereas historical testing and real-world use have proven the other products.
and real-world use have proven the other products.
It seems "real-world use" is only valid on non OTC products. LOL What a joke.
[ May 17, 2003, 03:43 PM: Message edited by: tenderloin ]
It seems "real-world use" is only valid on non OTC products. LOL What a joke.
[ May 17, 2003, 03:43 PM: Message edited by: tenderloin ]
I am not a computer or desk jock.
I work for a living. I've rebuilt numerous engines and transmission and have replaced enough valve/rocker/oilpan....gaskets that it makes me sick to think of all the solvents that I've absorbed over time. This is how I KNOW what crud dissolves into and whether certain things work or don't work. I spent plenty of time with scraper/brushes/fingernails to KNOW that stuff won't break off.
I have spent plenty of time around parts washers, case cleaners, block washers and have a pretty good idea on what cleans and what doesn't. One of my favorite cleaners is an 'ester' but this doesn't mean I won't use anything else or that others don't work.
I use borescopes to inspect oil pans and valve covers for foreign substances. No cameras are needed. All you have to do is remove the components and clean them. If that is not in the owners budget, it is usually Rislone/MMO/5 minute flush/kerosene/biodiesel/whatever....time.
VOA/UOAs prove nothing. I find that there are too many people relying on them. How does an analyis prove that there is less contaminents coating your engine? It doesn't. Only an inspection can prove that. A good filter can hide bad oil, and good oil could also hide bad filters. Engine condition can also throw off readings. Toss in driver style and IMO, analysis is overrated.
Can you prove that Rislone sludges?
Or, the flipside, can you prove that it DOESN'T work?
You might have proof of PPM of certain elements but this in no way is proof of what you try to claim.
I am sorry that I didn't take pictures of every engine and transmission that I've worked on.
But I've inspected enough to see that quickee 5 minute flushes and certain additives work and are COST effective. And, I have never destroyed engine seals. I leave that up to the vehicle owners who don't believe in maintenance or are too ignorant to read additive instructions.
$4 vs $25? If either work, which one is cost effective?
This is what I practice in place of UOAs:
Where is the before after compression tests to prove that rings were cleaned? Where is the before after emissions tests? Where is the before/after leakdown tests? ....before/after pictures? To me, this is more important than UOAs or technical mumbo jumbo.
I make cars run clean. I make cars pass emission tests. I make cars run better and quieter.
I try(and fail because of brainwashed oil company profits) to convince owners to be less negligent to prevent further expensive repairs.
This is a Rislone and not an OTC thread. Rislone works. MMO works. I don't care for CD2. Autorx is too expensive(but works). Other things work.
Preventive maintenance prevents the needs for these additives.
I work for a living. I've rebuilt numerous engines and transmission and have replaced enough valve/rocker/oilpan....gaskets that it makes me sick to think of all the solvents that I've absorbed over time. This is how I KNOW what crud dissolves into and whether certain things work or don't work. I spent plenty of time with scraper/brushes/fingernails to KNOW that stuff won't break off.
I have spent plenty of time around parts washers, case cleaners, block washers and have a pretty good idea on what cleans and what doesn't. One of my favorite cleaners is an 'ester' but this doesn't mean I won't use anything else or that others don't work.
I use borescopes to inspect oil pans and valve covers for foreign substances. No cameras are needed. All you have to do is remove the components and clean them. If that is not in the owners budget, it is usually Rislone/MMO/5 minute flush/kerosene/biodiesel/whatever....time.
VOA/UOAs prove nothing. I find that there are too many people relying on them. How does an analyis prove that there is less contaminents coating your engine? It doesn't. Only an inspection can prove that. A good filter can hide bad oil, and good oil could also hide bad filters. Engine condition can also throw off readings. Toss in driver style and IMO, analysis is overrated.
Can you prove that Rislone sludges?
Or, the flipside, can you prove that it DOESN'T work?
You might have proof of PPM of certain elements but this in no way is proof of what you try to claim.
I am sorry that I didn't take pictures of every engine and transmission that I've worked on.
But I've inspected enough to see that quickee 5 minute flushes and certain additives work and are COST effective. And, I have never destroyed engine seals. I leave that up to the vehicle owners who don't believe in maintenance or are too ignorant to read additive instructions.
$4 vs $25? If either work, which one is cost effective?
This is what I practice in place of UOAs:
Where is the before after compression tests to prove that rings were cleaned? Where is the before after emissions tests? Where is the before/after leakdown tests? ....before/after pictures? To me, this is more important than UOAs or technical mumbo jumbo.
I make cars run clean. I make cars pass emission tests. I make cars run better and quieter.
I try(and fail because of brainwashed oil company profits) to convince owners to be less negligent to prevent further expensive repairs.
This is a Rislone and not an OTC thread. Rislone works. MMO works. I don't care for CD2. Autorx is too expensive(but works). Other things work.
Preventive maintenance prevents the needs for these additives.
I am not too trusting of oil analysis.
It doesn't tell you what the inside of the valve covers look like or any other part of the oiling system. It doesn't tell you whether the oil, pump, regulator, or filter are working. Too many assumptions are always being made. It won't tell you if an additive is working or not. It can't.
I believe that the parts washer or "beaker test" would show more.
Oil analysis will not show if an additive is working or not. A visual check of engine intervals will(and not just the FILTERS).
I've SEEN engines clean up with Rislone/Marvel and others additives. I've HEARD engines quiet down after using certain additives for 1 or 2 oil changes.
I've used 5 minute flushes(along with kero/biodiesel...) as cleaners for valve covers, oil pumps, screens, pans, transmissions, and KNOW that it will remove varnish and sludge, but possibly a little quickly which has yet to be an issue when used in a running engine.
And of the 100's of cars that I've worked on, I've never caused an oil leak or burning with any additive(no dissolved crank or valve seals). Maybe it would help if everyone read the directions on the bottle of any product prior to use.
I've never seen large chunks of debris loosen up with fluid. This usually takes a scraper if it doesn't slowly dissolve. The mild cleaner BS doesn't cut it with me.
Oil is a mild cleaner and its up to the owner to change it frequently enough to keep the engine clean, and to choose a quality brand.
Saying no advantage isn't being neutral. The same could be said about ALL additives/cleaners/whatever that have nothing showing in the VOA.
Thinning of crankcase oil--prove it. This is unsupported even though the visc is a little lower. According to Rislone data, it is 5-10% viscosity improver vs "testing revealed no VII's???".
Testimonials mean nothing. Any product can gather testimonials.
There is no definition to engine or oil additive. This is no different to certain oil makers that mutilated the definition for synthetic, and certain politicians who don't know the definition for.....
It doesn't tell you what the inside of the valve covers look like or any other part of the oiling system. It doesn't tell you whether the oil, pump, regulator, or filter are working. Too many assumptions are always being made. It won't tell you if an additive is working or not. It can't.
I believe that the parts washer or "beaker test" would show more.
Oil analysis will not show if an additive is working or not. A visual check of engine intervals will(and not just the FILTERS).
I've SEEN engines clean up with Rislone/Marvel and others additives. I've HEARD engines quiet down after using certain additives for 1 or 2 oil changes.
I've used 5 minute flushes(along with kero/biodiesel...) as cleaners for valve covers, oil pumps, screens, pans, transmissions, and KNOW that it will remove varnish and sludge, but possibly a little quickly which has yet to be an issue when used in a running engine.
And of the 100's of cars that I've worked on, I've never caused an oil leak or burning with any additive(no dissolved crank or valve seals). Maybe it would help if everyone read the directions on the bottle of any product prior to use.
I've never seen large chunks of debris loosen up with fluid. This usually takes a scraper if it doesn't slowly dissolve. The mild cleaner BS doesn't cut it with me.
Oil is a mild cleaner and its up to the owner to change it frequently enough to keep the engine clean, and to choose a quality brand.
Saying no advantage isn't being neutral. The same could be said about ALL additives/cleaners/whatever that have nothing showing in the VOA.
Thinning of crankcase oil--prove it. This is unsupported even though the visc is a little lower. According to Rislone data, it is 5-10% viscosity improver vs "testing revealed no VII's???".
Testimonials mean nothing. Any product can gather testimonials.
There is no definition to engine or oil additive. This is no different to certain oil makers that mutilated the definition for synthetic, and certain politicians who don't know the definition for.....
- Status
Similar threads
