what is auto rx?

[Terry]

I agree Stuart is a GOOD

customer of mine and is not a sales person for Schaeffers.

It's not his post that I was addressing.

Once again Bob we respectfully disagree probably to the benefit of all who have a chance to read this.

I always feel comfortable posting my thoughts here uninhibited, as you do too.

In a severely sludged engine like the Audi in this thread be very careful cleaning up the crankcase whatever you decide to use.

 

[deepsquat]

Interesting test with the seals Bob...have you done a similar test with the Auto RX? Would love to see how the photos compare.

 

[MolaKule]

Terry and Others - (Regarding Natural esters)

Some time ago I posted under Interesting Articles the following thread on esters:

http://theoildrop.server101.com/cgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=000056

Combinations of acids and alchohols are reacted to form what is commonly known as esters. When the esters gets oxidized under extremely high temps, only then will the components separate into alcohol and acids again, but the acids are weak acids even then.

Also, at this website, there are interesting links to naturally derived crop oils as well.
http://www.fhsu.edu/agriculture/oilcrops.htm

Mobil used an acid derived from cococnut oil and built an ester upon it for their Mobil 1 Tri-syn product.

The Germans in WWII found that the oil of castorbeans made a synthetic lubricant, until it oxidized and then turned into crud. What they later discovered was that the castorbean contained a natural ester and glycerine; it was the glycerine that accelerated oxidation. When they separated the castor acid from the glycerine, and then reacted an alcohol with the acid, they came up with one of the first ester lubricants known to man. What they didn't know was that secretly, Standard Oil and Union Carbide were doing the same thing for the Allies and had made various synthetic lubricants before the Germans really needed them.

I noticed that there was a lot of discussion on solvents in these threads and I would like to comment if I may. In the Oxford Dictionary of Chemistry, a solvent is "a liquid that dissolves another substance or substances to form a solution." Detergent/Dispersant additives would fall into this category as well.

There are solvents that are both polar and non-polar. Solvents such as benzene, carbon tetrachloride, phenol, hexanes, alcohols, and others in this category are non-polar.

Esters are very polar and are added to both synth and conventional oils to mix additives. Take a common additive such as ZDDP, which is usually introduced as a salt of ester and is an anti-wear, anti-oxidant, additive, extreme pressure (boundary) addtive. The polar nature of the ZDDP ester "seeks" out metal ions and bonds to them, forming a protective layer. Moly and other boundary additives do the same.

The bottom line is that all the chemicals above are solvents. What they react to, dissolve with or put into solution, and how fast they react, depends upon the nature of the solvent and what they are seeking to dissolve.

Whether you use an ester, or an alcohol, or an aromatic hydrocarbon, they all will dissolve some substance and put something into solution. Its a matter of degree.

Now naturally derived esters do have one advantage over aromatic hydrocarbons, they are generally more biodegradable; AKA, more "environmentally friendly."

[ September 14, 2002, 01:16 AM: Message edited by: MolaKule ]

 

[dragboat]

Quote:
"Whether you use an ester, or an alcohol, or an aromatic hydrocarbon, they all will dissolve some substance and put something into solution. Its a matter of degree.

Now naturally derived esters do have one advantage over aromatic hydrocarbons, they are generally more biodegradable; AKA, more "environmentally friendly")

So we finally know,the Fatty Acid Ester in the Auto-RX "is" a solvent to a 'degree" Just a slow acting solvent that some Synthetic oils would do the same thing over a period of time if NOT masked by too many additives Correct? Incorrect?

 

[MolaKule]

Right on dragboat.

Esters in motor oils act as scavengers as well as providing enhanced lubricity (FM), additive miscibility (mixibility), and anti-oxidant capabilities.

BTW, our jet engine lubes are almost 95% pure esters (pentaerithyritol polyols or PE's) and seals are only mildly affected. Seal wear in jet engines in caused mainly by the fast rotation rates and localized heating.

[ September 14, 2002, 01:22 AM: Message edited by: MolaKule ]

 

[Frank]

Auto-Rx is a patent pending non toxic metal cleaner. This thread in my opinion has degraded to abstract theories coupeled with a confusing
premise for anyone looking for practical application answers for a clean engine..To anyone as confused as myself look at M.S.D.S. (Material Data Safety Sheets ) for any product your interested in. The manufacture is required by Federal Law to make it available along with product specifications. What is interesting is the manufacture states their"SAFETY"test results along with "USES" of there product.This will help you make an informed decision. You could say it
seperates the oil from the dirt.

 

[MolaKule]

And if you examine both MSDS's for both products you will see that Auto_RX is a fatty ester; Neutra is fatty ester as well.

The differences I can see is that one uses naturally derived esters from plants and the other uses acids derived from petroleum hydrocarbons. Auto_RX apparently is for use only in motor oil. Neutra has applications in both fuel and oil.

Both appear to be effective at removing carbon deposits.

 

[Frank]

Auto-Rx is non toxic and perhaps you need to reread the MSDS for both products. I am at a loss why you you think combustible materials ( such as those that comprise 131) should be put into a crankcase.Have you seen polymer seal studies for
131? Paint thinner removes carbon that is not the issue how do you safely dispose of it is the heart of Auto-Rx as it liquify's each particle upon contact. 131 does not. I appreciate your vigilant reponses in behalf of 131 however as the inventor of Auto-Rx and having the opportunity to converse with the stable of oil company techs who
want to know how Auto-Rx does what it does I am glad to have this chance to have this dialogue, The manufacture of 131 removes themselves from any responsibility or consequences of using 131 (read bottom of MSDS )Auto-Rx has product liability Water is the most powerful solvent and it will remove anything over time, and it is non toxic like Auto-Rx. If someone is trying to make a choice,lets both give them documented data to do so.I hired Terry Dyson to Test Auto-Rx have you read his reports there on my web site ? I don't post often and this ends my reply.I hope you can stop also.

 

[BOBISTHEOILGUY]

I am at a loss why you you think combustible materials ( such as those that comprise 131) should be put into a crankcase.Have you seen polymer seal studies for 131? Question I have is have you seen any of these seal studies on the 131?

Paint thinner removes carbon that is not the issue how do you safely dispose of it is the heart of Auto-Rx as it liquify's each particle upon contact. 131 does not. My question is, have you tested 131 and seen how it doesn't liquify each particle? I have done some experimenting and seen how it breaks down sludge and trust me when I tell you it's not in chunks like you'd expect a harsh solvent to do.

The manufacture of 131 removes themselves from any responsibility or consequences of using 131 (read bottom of MSDS )Auto-Rx has product liability As for the disclaimer on the bottom of the msds sheets, ....
Although the information and recommendations set forth herein (hereafter referred to as information) are presented in good faith and believed to be accurate and factual as of the date hereof, Schaeffer Mfg. Company makes no representation as to the completeness or accuracy thereof. Information is supplied upon the condition that the person receiving the same will make their own determination as to its safety and suitability for their purposes prior to use. In no event will Schaeffer Mfg. Company be responsible for damages of any natures whatsoever resulting from the use or reliance upon information. No representation or warranty, either expressed or implied, of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose is made with respect to information of the product to which the information refers.

If you look at all of the msds sheets, that is a standard operational procedure to include that statement. I can assure you that Schaeffers carries a very heavy product liablilty issurance policy and having been in business for over 162+years(1830's). Here is an excerpt from their standard warr letter....
Schaeffer Manufacturing is the oldest lubricant manufacturer in North America and has been in business since 1839. Like any reputable company, Schaeffer Manufacturing carries product liability insurance and will stand behind our products 100% in order to maintain our good reputation in the marketplace.

If someone is trying to make a choice,lets both give them documented data to do so.They also have a very good reputation for knowing what their products will do as well as not hiding any information, good or bad so that a person can make informed choices, I don't have a problem with that but if people keep insisting on downgrading 131 to nothing more than a solvent in hopes to sway people from using it in lew of, I think it needs to be addressed. Sorry, but I for one have not in anyway tried to sway people from auto rx, but only when asked do I offer open information on the other options when asked about. I myself feel I have to defend this as it has been brought up numerous of times classified as such when in fact we have 3 in house chemists-certified lubricant specialists- sales reps with many more years experience with this product having proved it out long before many others been around that says it's not a solvent.

I think that the facts do need to be addressed as this is what this forum is about, you(or whom ever) brings up the point of solvents and try and include the 131 and others make their point clear against that stance.

I thank molacule for taking the time to address his unbiased main stream open ideas on what he sees and as always makes a very valid point. It's not a matter of how or if it's a solvent as both auto rx and neutra can be classified as one but the matter of what degree. Great Point!, .[/b]

It appears to me that auto rx is a step up from a basic synth base ester oil with fatty esters and such,(and I dont' make any claim I understand totally your technology) that calmly cleans engines like a full synth can do over an extreme period of time.

On the other hand, 131 neutra uses chemical technology to accomplish this same feat. So is it bad or can it be done that way? No, it's not bad and yes it can accomplish this WITH OUT being a harsh solvent. To prove my point, I have taken and done another little experiment and for those of you that do have 131 neutra, you can do the same...

I bought 2 solvent engine flushes... All I did was take 3 disposable coffee cups, put the gunk in one, K&W in another and 131 neutra in the other. With in less than 5 min's, both the gunk and k&w had ate through the cups, leaving them empty and all over my bench, the Schaeffers 131 neutra did nothing but sit in the cup. Upon close examination, you can see where the actual solvents had destroyed the cups where the liquid touched and the 131 neutra had no problem and the cup is still intact.

Guys, If you want to call 131 a solvent, so is auto rx. BUT, please don't try down playing the 131 over the auto rx based on opinions you have presented as I have not seen any testing done by you or any of the experts on the 131 for you to establish or even classify it as such.

[ November 06, 2002, 07:45 AM: Message edited by: BOBISTHEOILGUY ]

 

[RB Shannon]

This might be out of place,but it is about neutra.1992 Mitsubishi Montero 140k mi.used 1 qt. oil every 1k mi..ran 1 bottle of #131 700 mi.before changing,currently have 1k on new oil only down slightly,plan to purge again at the end of this run.1983 Chevy s-10 1oz. per qt.5to600 mi.with super tech 10w30 super tech filter,opened filter and had maybe 1 teaspoon of sludge,previous filter was a fram

and was fairly clean.I have 3 guy's at work who have tried nuetra as a purge and in fuel,all have said engine run's smoother,I'm going to cut their filter's open when they change.In fact two of them want a gallon each, next time I order. Schaeffer's does sell itself

Currently testing soy shield(to soon to tell)also have a co worker who want's some #267 next time I order, very very difficult to mix with water and very sticky.The sad part is I'm an amsoil dealer

maybe I need to switch companies

 

[BOBISTHEOILGUY]

I also want to add that I have the utmost respect for Frank and Terry, and know them to be upstanding and great people. I had no intention of making this which is better or not issue, but to clarify some IMO mis-understandings. The debate above isn't an issue on if auto rx is up to the task that it claims, but if 131 is a solvent.

I know that there has been a great many people who have used auto rx and found great benifets from it. I encourage others to try it if they are having problems and from what I have heard from Frank himself and Terry, says it works wonders as a maintainace product for your engine and oil. I can say that Terry doesn't get excited easy about products in general but he does support Franks technology and how it works and I respect that because if Terry likes what and how it does, It obviously has plenty of merit as a product. I have no doubts that this product(auto-rx) is of great value.

[ September 15, 2002, 06:31 AM: Message edited by: BOBISTHEOILGUY ]

 

[BOBISTHEOILGUY]

quote:

---

Originally posted by RB Shannon:
also have a co worker who want's some #267 next time I order, very very difficult to mix with water and very sticky.The sad part is I'm an amsoil dealer

maybe I need to switch companies

---

That is funny but you'd not be the first to have done that and I can assure you not the last. Just depends on how much a person has invested in it I suppose. So, you liked the gear oil.. Pretty amazing stuff IMO.

[ September 15, 2002, 06:37 AM: Message edited by: BOBISTHEOILGUY ]

 

[Terry]

I feel like I have accomplished my job, I've got Bob, Frank, and probably others mad at me. I learned this from Spector!

Keep those oil analysis tests coming.

 

[BOBISTHEOILGUY]

Nah, Terry, I'm not mad.

That's what this whole forum is about, to express opinions and hopefully with data, backup and reinforce the valid information so all of us can learn, and I certainly have learned some good information on this solvent issue as I hope you and many others

may have.

 

[Rick20]

I am confused over a previous post. Auto-Rx and Neutra 131 both being esters from analysis of the MSDS's. I know that Auto-Rx utilizes fatty acid esters from a natural source. Animal and not plant. However on the "131" data sheet, I see only an alcohol listed at any appreciable percentage. The n-butanol listed is a fairly volitile alcohol, that I have used for many years in the printing industry in printing plate preparation. It my thought that due to its volatile nature does it act as a vapor in the cleaning process. If so it must work fairly quickly, otherwise it will be vented out of the crankcase. The 131 data sheet only accounts for 10% of the product, those being considered OSHA hazards. What else is in the product? Perhaps an ester based oil?

 

[MolaKule]

Well, somewhere else I explained this but can't find it now.

The Cresyl acid and N-butyl alcohol Do form an ester. The combination is a thin ester that is very polar in oil, making it an effective candidate for a good carbonaceous cleaner while in solution with oil.

When in fuel, the heat of combustion volatizes the ester into separate components, with the butyl alcohol vaporizing combustion deposits softened and lifted by the Cresyl acid.

 

[BOBISTHEOILGUY]

A little update, went back out to the shop, looked again at my little cups of solvents and found this....

Both solvents had completely ate through the cups everywhere the stuff had touched. It actually had welded both cups to my wood bench. That suprised me.. Notice, the 131 Neutra, still sitting in the same cup no change. Neutra 131 solvent?? Remember, this is in it's pure undiluted form straight from the bottle.

 

[dragboat]

I don't see how the 131 could possibly hurt a seal after seeing that!

Thanks for the test Bob,and Molakule,thank you for digging in and enlightening me on how things work chemically to form this and that

 

[Rick20]

I didn't realize that aviation jet motors were lubricated with polyol esters, namely Pentaerythritol type. I would agree that due to high rotational speed and resistance to oxidation make it a good choice. A fairly large percentage of Auto-Rx is this same polyol ester. The percentage is in the area of 15-20%. It is in auto-rx because of its compatability with dino, semis and full synthetic motor oils. It was added to the formulation for safety in cleaning, whereby additional adhereance to metal and film strength is desireable. It is a good idea in my mind when cleaning out potential abrasives locked up in engine contaminants. I would not want shearing, fisheyes in my oil film while in the cleaning mode. These type polyol esters are also very useful in compressor lubricants due to having very high oxidation stability. Good idea Auto-Rx guys.

 

[MolaKule]

PE or PBE is such a good ester, just wished it wasn't so darned expensive. It's both a good "clinger" and a polar "cleaner."

Glad to hear its part of Auto-Rx. I haven't used either product (as yet) discussed here but will be in the near future.

Organic Chemisrty Rules!