Recent Topics
Got the Hi-Power
by john_pifer
10/01/14 12:03 AM
Upgraded Mobil Jet Oil 387
by syfi
09/30/14 11:40 PM
klotz super techniplate feed back
by mcn1970
09/30/14 10:58 PM
ISIS appears 5 miles from Baghdad
by dave1251
09/30/14 10:34 PM
ML-The Silent Danger of Abrupt Lubricant Failure
by wemay
09/30/14 10:15 PM
Apple releases important update
by Mystic
09/30/14 09:56 PM
Machinery Lubrication - 'GrpIII syn is mktng term'
by wemay
09/30/14 09:41 PM
The Paint is Peelin'!
by Nick1994
09/30/14 09:39 PM
Pennzoil Syn Blend Or Yellow Bottle 5w30 ?
by crazyoildude
09/30/14 09:29 PM
fram ultra, weird oil pressure
by bowhuuntr
09/30/14 09:27 PM
Electric dryer tripping breaker
by NateDN10
09/30/14 09:22 PM
Oil Recommendation - 1996 Grand Marquis
by AjsGarage
09/30/14 09:11 PM
Newest Members
mcn1970, KCChemist, bbuice, Hemingway, kcp
51459 Registered Users
Who's Online
38 registered (Bill_G, another Todd, babbittd, 901Memphis, berniedd, 3 invisible), 780 Guests and 155 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Stats
51459 Members
64 Forums
220059 Topics
3474849 Posts

Max Online: 2862 @ 07/07/14 03:10 PM
Donate to BITOG

Page 4 of 5 < 1 2 3 4 5 >
Topic Options
#1272123 - 11/01/08 11:04 PM Re: Rislone engine treatment [Re: kingrob]
BrianWC Offline


Registered: 02/09/06
Posts: 6873
Loc: Louisiana
 Originally Posted By: kingrob


Your point? I'm saying that if you're adding a chemical to your engine that is capable of self-emulsifying the worst sludge, then the chemical has to be so strong that it will rot your motor from the inside out. Hence the fact that most chemicals simply clean the crud off of your engine, but that crud drains back to the bottom of your pan. Auto RX is inheritable even milder than these other solvents according to Frank. So if the deposits aren't emulsified by Auto RX where are they going? They can't all end up in the filter.


Arx is inherintly milder and inherintly slower than many of the traditional solvents. At least the ones that work. I really wouldn't classify Rislone as a shock solvent, though, b/c quite honestly, I've never seen it do anything. I believe you said the same.


 Quote:

Huh? Come again? I was never aware that your engine would self destruct in less than five minutes after the cleaning process. Once you let everything cool off and settle to the bottom of your engine, then you pull your pan.


If your engine is cruded up enough, yes it could very well happen. Stuff gets knocked off the internals and yes, it goes to the oil pan. Does the oil pump not pull oil up from the pan? What's it going to pull with it? All the crud you just washed off is going to magically sit there in the bottom of the pan?

All worst case, of course!!!! I'm just pointing out the potential, that's all.



 Quote:
They're just as right as the people that swear by Auto RX.


I've got photos that I happily post showing my results. And of course, when I do, some how it's part of a nefarious plot to show them again. So I'll refrain until asked. My point is, general auotmotive forums are NOT the best place to go for oil advice, as much is based on what there favorite shadetree told them 30 years ago.



 Quote:

I've never in my life heard of this happening after a flush.


The one time I flushed my 9-5, I had a horrible squeak for about 5 seconds upon refilling and starting up. No harm, but it illustrates the point that when you use a thin flush, you risk rinsing too much good oil off vital parts. Of course, I flushed past cars with no issue (that I know of), but, like I said before, I'm just pointing out the possibility.

 Quote:

Maybe with the search you can turn up missing threads that were deleted years ago because people spoke too harshly about Auto RX or Amsoil. Oh wait, you can't. They're deleted for a reason, wiped from the pages of BITOG history.


It sure turns up plenty of threads I commented on where I told Frank arx was no different than redline and a waste of money. When threads get deleted on here, it's been my experience it's only b/c things got to a childish level and there was no point in leaving the thread visible for everyone to see just how silly people can be. I can speak from experience. Heck, I had to start a new account over stupid things that I posted. But was it b/c I was "badmouthing arx?" No, it was b/c I was being an a-ss.

 Quote:
So what makes his product so much better than the competition? The price? People like you who would rather argue the inarguable because of whatever "clique" you wish to ally yourself with? Like I said, if ARX was the bees knees it wouldn't be COMPARED to "cheapo" additives. The fact that there IS a group of skeptical ARX users out there that rank ARX with products like Rislone and Restore should tell you something about the product, not the users.


I argue from the standpoint of having had arx work for me when I tried all that other stuff. Again, I can list it if you'd like, but won't for fear someone else will accuse me of finding an excuse of making a testimonial. Arx is compared to cheapo aditives because yes, some of them DO work. No one's going to dispute that. I'm not, at least. But I haven't seen any that work as well as arx does with the margin of safety that arx has. That's all. I don't think it's some miracle product and I'd be the first to tell you that it's waaaaay to expensive for my liking. But until someone can hustle the formula away from Frank and sell it at Wal-Mart, what can you do? You're paying for better chemistry. If arx hadn't worked for me, I certainly wouldn't be wasting my breathe here looking like some zealot. I'd unpause SNL and finish my Budweiser. But given the fact that I would sleep with a can of Berryman B-12 Chemtool, I am just as surprised as many folks to point out that arx worked better than what I think is the KING of the thin, shock solvents.

 Quote:

Amsoil gets compared to other oils everyday. Gary and Pablo don't jump up with a mis-spelled FAQ sheet in defense of their products any time someone says that they achieved better results with another brand of oil. IMO I'd run Supertech before I would Amsoil. And I appreciate the fact that Gary doesn't feel the need to tell me I'm wrong for wanting to do so.


I didn't say AMSOIL doesn't get compared to other oils. What I said was what people are doing here is as out of place as someone saying AMSOIL (an oil MOST people here acknowledge as one of the finest long-drain oils) were stated to be no better than some bargain basement SM dino for the same purpose. Sure you can compare it. But there's no real comparison.

 Quote:

He's more darned if he does than if he doesn't.


No, because if he doesn't he gets people coming in here not knowing and understanding what's different about arx. Look up half the threads on here. Arx gets called a flush. Not to mention your own description of it as a "detergent" a few posts back.

Frank posted an opinion on Rislone on the basis of having intimate knowledge of what Rislone is and what arx is. Why can't you just take it as his opinion and keep on with the thread instead of diverting things into another reason to bash him?

Why not just end this and go back to Rislone-which you, yourself had no trouble advising against? I have a bottle of the new formula on my shelf but haven't used the stuff in years. Can't see the need to. But I'm certainly open to hearing ANYone's opinions, as I believe the OP was.


Edited by BrianWC (11/01/08 11:09 PM)
_________________________
2002 Honda CR-V EX AWD
2009 Honda Odyssey EX-L
2014 Ford Mustang GT

Top
#1272158 - 11/02/08 12:28 AM Re: Rislone engine treatment [Re: BrianWC]
Buffman Offline


Registered: 08/08/05
Posts: 1225
Loc: SW Michigan
I'd like to add some personal experience from my use with Auto-rx. I'm always wrenching on the Roadmaster, so I have parts on and off, sometimes with new, sometimes putting the old stuff back on etc.

I did the Auto-rx clean and rinse on my Roadmaster in the summer of 2005 (150,000 Miles). Shortly after completing the Auto-rx treatment I went to Mobil 1 0w40. I ran Mobil 1 0w40 for 13,000 miles (two 5K OCIs, one 3K). After that third OCI, I decided it was time to change the oil pan gasket out as it leaked where the RTV was. Friend who does powdercoating, coated me a good factory pan I sent him, and for spring break I did the swap.

I've had my valve covers off before and things looked clean, but you could see hints of varnish and some grime build up here and there. However when I got the stock oil pan off, the thing was clean. I mean no smudge, grude, sludge anywhere. Even the bearing caps, and connecting rods were clean. Not as clean as the oil pan, but a lot better than the valve covers and top end area. At that time is when I switched to GC.

Flash foward to earlier this year (Engine had 169K on it). I've always used the 3oz Auto-RX maintenance dose since then. Doing some more engine bay cleaning, I decided to have my friend powdercoat an intake for me. Basically just swap all my components from stock intake to coated one.

In the process I got to view the lifter valley. I noticed again pushrods still had some varnish on them, along with the lifter valley spider tray, but main areas of them had cleaned spots. the lifter valley itself was of one solid color/finish, and the paper towel with brake cleaner just really wiped off oil.

I did however discover a goldmine so to speak of engine sludge build up. On the underside of the LT1 intake there is a cover tray that bolts down with 4 bolts. It has 3 small holes drilled in the back. This is the area where the PCV valve conneects to via a slot in the side of the intake. I took the cover off, and low and behold sludge. It was maybe an 1/8" thick You can see area in question here. You can see outline of where tray bolts down to cover those core plugs.



I always wondered why the PCV valves never lasted very long, and they'd tend to stick or not work very well. Not sure how long all of it had been there, but this was the original intake that had 169K on it. It was removed 5 yrs ago to do intake gaskets, but only the plenum area had been cleaned out.

I did change the valve cover gaskets out about a month later, and noticed the valve covers (which are powdercoated stock units that are about 1.5yrs old) were still fairly clean. My Comp Cams Pro Mag rockers that are 4yrs old, are clean. While not a dull silver they once were when new, they look like someone stained them with a really light brown.


I've taken a couple LT1s down before with unknown pasts and have found quite a bit of garbage in the oil pan and other areas in the block. I would say from what I've experienced, Auto-RX does clean, but it can't clean everywhere and everything. It's apparent the only oil that made it inside that tray was in the form of vapor.

Then completely on the other end of the spectrum my first car was an 89 caprice (305 TBI). We bought it with 198,000 miles. IT was my dad's friend's loaner car. Whoever needed a car they borrowed it. People would barely ever changed the oil in it. I drove it to school here and there. I began to wonder one day why all of a sudden the car would smoke really bad when I started it up. My neighbor said he'd help change valve cover gaskets since they were leaking.

We take the covers off, a quart of oil dumps from the driver's cover and there is sludge and build up the thickness of the valvesprings all over the heads. I mean the stuff was in sheets. We vacuumed up everything we could, and even cleaned the retun passages the oil pan. Per his recommendation at the time, I ran out and got a 15 minute flush. Followed the directions on it. For the next three oil changes I kept it at 5-700 miles. Afterwards I went back to regular 3k OCIs and never had it smoke on startup like that again.

Over the 2 yrs of owning that thing (i was 16 at the time) I dumped all kinds of additives in it. Restore, Rislone, Lucas Stabilizer, CD2, ZMAX. You name it I probably put it in during an oil change. At one point for some reason my dad somehow rigged up two PCV valves to the car. You could stick a bottle of oil in the filler, and it would crumple it up because of the vacuum coming out of the valve cover gaskets. Needless to say I fixed that after I saw it doing that. I sold that car with 226,000 miles on it. I saw that car up to three years after I sold it, still driving arond with the same engine in it. Go figure..

Matt


Edited by Buffman (11/02/08 12:42 AM)
_________________________
100 characters ehh?

Top
#1272182 - 11/02/08 01:14 AM Re: Rislone engine treatment [Re: BrianWC]
kingrob Offline


Registered: 08/06/05
Posts: 1372
Loc: NC
 Quote:
Arx is inherintly milder and inherintly slower than many of the traditional solvents. At least the ones that work. I really wouldn't classify Rislone as a shock solvent, though, b/c quite honestly, I've never seen it do anything. I believe you said the same.


I did, and I agree with you. I've never seen Rislone clean anything. I did notice Auto RX do some cleaning, but very little. My problem is that at the rate I estimated it would take for my particular engine to be sufficiently "de-sludged" it would take at least four bottles of ARX; the cost just doesn't justify the end result.

What result people are looking to gain from using ARX is still beyond me. You want to clean your engine? Fine. But Frank says it's neither a solvent nor a detergent...? What is it? What does it do? Do you want to use it to make your engine perform better? How will it achieve this? Through cleaning? Ok, if it cleans your motor but its not a solvent or detergent, it's a... cleaner? So are 90% percent of the other additives out there.

I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed but if a guy gets offended that people group his product in with other products that claim to do the same thing, then semantics are his weakest defense IMHO. Every claim that is made in support of ARX are the same claims that can be attributed to most every additive manufacturer out there. What's next, is Frank going to claim it's not an additive either? Heck, right now it's not even a question anymore of what ARX does, it's what it CAN'T do! Bottom line, if you're not competing with other brands of mystery additives because you feel that you're not even in the same class, don't bother jumping on a thread that's about another additive to defend your product.

 Quote:
I argue from the standpoint of having had arx work for me when I tried all that other stuff. Again, I can list it if you'd like, but won't for fear someone else will accuse me of finding an excuse of making a testimonial. Arx is compared to cheapo aditives because yes, some of them DO work. No one's going to dispute that. I'm not, at least. But I haven't seen any that work as well as arx does with the margin of safety that arx has. That's all. I don't think it's some miracle product and I'd be the first to tell you that it's waaaaay to expensive for my liking. But until someone can hustle the formula away from Frank and sell it at Wal-Mart, what can you do? You're paying for better chemistry. If arx hadn't worked for me, I certainly wouldn't be wasting my breathe here looking like some zealot. I'd unpause SNL and finish my Budweiser. But given the fact that I would sleep with a can of Berryman B-12 Chemtool, I am just as surprised as many folks to point out that arx worked better than what I think is the KING of the thin, shock solvents.


Once again I agree with you. I'm sure ARX does work as a mild solvent, and if that level of cleaning is what you desire and the price is one that you're willing to pay, then I say go for it. I'm also sure it worked for you if you actually inspected your engine internals before and after the cleaning. I'm also not one of those people that demands photographic proof because you don't have to prove anything to me! I have literally tried almost every kind of engine additive out there at one time or another, so I am open minded. I'm by nature though a healthy skeptic. I didn't believe in ghosts until I saw what I believe to be a real ghost. I don't believe in the Loch Ness monster because I've never seen it. Are ghosts and Loch Ness monsters real? I don't know for sure, and really I don't care! But my point is that I have to see and qualify my first person experience by associative recall. I base what I experience from prior recognizance as all humans do.

Based on what I've experienced, the closest thing I can compare ARX to is CD2. But I'm not going to tell everyone to save cash and just get CD2 because I'm not trying to prove anything to anyone. Use what you feel is best for you, but don't trash other member's choices in products.

 Quote:
Frank posted an opinion on Rislone on the basis of having intimate knowledge of what Rislone is and what arx is. Why can't you just take it as his opinion and keep on with the thread instead of diverting things into another reason to bash him?


I'm in no way bashing Frank. Or ARX. It didn't work for me and I think it's overpriced. I've stood by this OPINION for years. I don't think Frank is a bad guy at all. I do question his statements though as I do feel he should back up whatever he is trying to "sell" with some substance. I get the impression at times that he has a persecution complex in regards to his product, maybe rightfully so if he really believes his own hype.

I'm just pointing out that it's kind of hard to have a completely objective and critical view of a product in an open forum if the guy that makes it is right there on your back with an often incredible rebuttal.

Look at it his way: for every one post that is critical of ARX, there are hundreds that badmouth Fram oil filters. Now what if Fram comes along with its deep pockets and becomes a site sponsor? Suppose they pay more of a sponsor fee than all the other sponsors put together? All of the sudden all the posts that are negative towards Fram start getting deleted. Threads criticizing the cardboard endcaps start getting closed. Jimmy DeFram himself comes around every time Fram is negatively mentioned and starts telling everyone they're wrong, or they used the filter wrong, or it's actually NOT an oil filter, it's a "oil collective device" or the reason their sensors all fail after using a Fram is because it's cleaning the sensors. Then Jimmy DeFram starts posting before and after pics of motors that have only ever used Frams and soon people; in order to not "rock the boat" start talking up Fram. Everyone goes home happy except for the people that are critical of Fram.

Then, you could begin to see why some members are tired of ARX getting pushed on them by certain other members. Maybe then you could see why some people are afraid to speak their minds in fear of "retaliation" by the ARX gestapos. There's a reason lobbyists can't contribute campaign funds anymore, is all I'm sayin'.

Also, how does Frank have intimate knowledge of Rislone? I must have missed something in the thread. You're telling me he created that too?

 Quote:
Why not just end this and go back to Rislone-which you, yourself had no trouble advising against? I have a bottle of the new formula on my shelf but haven't used the stuff in years.


I agree with you (yet again). I still stand behind my dislike of Rislone 100%. But, It IS possible that it did something for someone somewhere at some time.

 Quote:
I'm certainly open to hearing ANYone's opinions, as I believe the OP was.


I'm with you all the way buddy. Thanks for an enlightening discussion, as all threads should be.

Cheers!


Edited by kingrob (11/02/08 01:25 AM)
_________________________
Nosferautic Wizard Clean 3000
It's magic for your motor!

Top
#1272259 - 11/02/08 06:54 AM Re: Rislone engine treatment [Re: kingrob]
BrianWC Offline


Registered: 02/09/06
Posts: 6873
Loc: Louisiana
But that's the thing about arx's mildness! It's deceiving! Look, like I said, being a Berryman fan, I don't understand it either, but arx peeled more crud off my internals than Chemtool did. I din't know why it did, just that it did.

FWIW, arx IS technically solvent in the broad sense of the word. It's just not a thin fluid that works rapidly and disrupts the oil's chemistry. It's more like having a highly fortified oil that acutally carries through with the promises you see in the PP or M1 HM ads.
_________________________
2002 Honda CR-V EX AWD
2009 Honda Odyssey EX-L
2014 Ford Mustang GT

Top
#1272260 - 11/02/08 06:55 AM Re: Rislone engine treatment [Re: BrianWC]
BrianWC Offline


Registered: 02/09/06
Posts: 6873
Loc: Louisiana
But again, back to Rislone!!!
_________________________
2002 Honda CR-V EX AWD
2009 Honda Odyssey EX-L
2014 Ford Mustang GT

Top
#1272322 - 11/02/08 08:59 AM Re: Rislone engine treatment [Re: BrianWC]
bmwtechguy Offline


Registered: 06/15/04
Posts: 2524
Loc: South Carolina
My dad used Rislone 30 years ago when hydraulic lifters would start tapping and it would clean up the noisy lifter enough to work normally again. He always had a can on the shelf. That was back in the days of 29 cent Zayre's oil sales. We found a full, but rusty can of Shaler's Rislone in the garage when we moved him out of the house a few years ago. I'm sure the newest formulation is quite different, but I have not tried any.

I have tried ARX and found that it does work for me as claimed. Is it for everyone? Well, just like Rislone, probably not. It has a unique ester chemistry that safely and slowly cleans engine internals from most deposits, especially for folks not inclined to take their engine apart to do the same. It may not get every spec of everything. That would require a complete teardown and rebuild, which was sorta the point of using a bottle of stuff vs an expensive rebuild in the first place.

Apparently Frank is quite enthusiastic about his product and to some people a little too much so. I do think that his efforts to differentiate his ester-based ARX from other more conventional solvent-based flushes or other additives is his business- literally. His writing style may not be as polished as some, obviously.

I have found that his product does work better than others I have used over the years. I do think that a fast flush has its place in one's toolbox of chemicals. I had someone come in yesterday with some coolant in the oil. We changed the oil, added some Amsoil engine flush and ran it for about 20 minutes, then changed the oil again. The loud lifter tapping that had him worried was gone. His friend is going to replace the head gaskets on this truck next week.


Top
#1272332 - 11/02/08 09:23 AM Re: Rislone engine treatment [Re: kingrob]
dargo Offline


Registered: 11/16/06
Posts: 303
Loc: USA
 Originally Posted By: kingrob
 Quote:
Arx is inherintly milder and inherintly slower than many of the traditional solvents. At least the ones that work. I really wouldn't classify Rislone as a shock solvent, though, b/c quite honestly, I've never seen it do anything. I believe you said the same.


I did, and I agree with you. I've never seen Rislone clean anything. I did notice Auto RX do some cleaning, but very little. My problem is that at the rate I estimated it would take for my particular engine to be sufficiently "de-sludged" it would take at least four bottles of ARX; the cost just doesn't justify the end result.

What result people are looking to gain from using ARX is still beyond me. You want to clean your engine? Fine. But Frank says it's neither a solvent nor a detergent...? What is it? What does it do? Do you want to use it to make your engine perform better? How will it achieve this? Through cleaning? Ok, if it cleans your motor but its not a solvent or detergent, it's a... cleaner? So are 90% percent of the other additives out there.

I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed but if a guy gets offended that people group his product in with other products that claim to do the same thing, then semantics are his weakest defense IMHO. Every claim that is made in support of ARX are the same claims that can be attributed to most every additive manufacturer out there. What's next, is Frank going to claim it's not an additive either? Heck, right now it's not even a question anymore of what ARX does, it's what it CAN'T do! Bottom line, if you're not competing with other brands of mystery additives because you feel that you're not even in the same class, don't bother jumping on a thread that's about another additive to defend your product.

 Quote:
I argue from the standpoint of having had arx work for me when I tried all that other stuff. Again, I can list it if you'd like, but won't for fear someone else will accuse me of finding an excuse of making a testimonial. Arx is compared to cheapo aditives because yes, some of them DO work. No one's going to dispute that. I'm not, at least. But I haven't seen any that work as well as arx does with the margin of safety that arx has. That's all. I don't think it's some miracle product and I'd be the first to tell you that it's waaaaay to expensive for my liking. But until someone can hustle the formula away from Frank and sell it at Wal-Mart, what can you do? You're paying for better chemistry. If arx hadn't worked for me, I certainly wouldn't be wasting my breathe here looking like some zealot. I'd unpause SNL and finish my Budweiser. But given the fact that I would sleep with a can of Berryman B-12 Chemtool, I am just as surprised as many folks to point out that arx worked better than what I think is the KING of the thin, shock solvents.


Once again I agree with you. I'm sure ARX does work as a mild solvent, and if that level of cleaning is what you desire and the price is one that you're willing to pay, then I say go for it. I'm also sure it worked for you if you actually inspected your engine internals before and after the cleaning. I'm also not one of those people that demands photographic proof because you don't have to prove anything to me! I have literally tried almost every kind of engine additive out there at one time or another, so I am open minded. I'm by nature though a healthy skeptic. I didn't believe in ghosts until I saw what I believe to be a real ghost. I don't believe in the Loch Ness monster because I've never seen it. Are ghosts and Loch Ness monsters real? I don't know for sure, and really I don't care! But my point is that I have to see and qualify my first person experience by associative recall. I base what I experience from prior recognizance as all humans do.

Based on what I've experienced, the closest thing I can compare ARX to is CD2. But I'm not going to tell everyone to save cash and just get CD2 because I'm not trying to prove anything to anyone. Use what you feel is best for you, but don't trash other member's choices in products.

 Quote:
Frank posted an opinion on Rislone on the basis of having intimate knowledge of what Rislone is and what arx is. Why can't you just take it as his opinion and keep on with the thread instead of diverting things into another reason to bash him?


I'm in no way bashing Frank. Or ARX. It didn't work for me and I think it's overpriced. I've stood by this OPINION for years. I don't think Frank is a bad guy at all. I do question his statements though as I do feel he should back up whatever he is trying to "sell" with some substance. I get the impression at times that he has a persecution complex in regards to his product, maybe rightfully so if he really believes his own hype.

I'm just pointing out that it's kind of hard to have a completely objective and critical view of a product in an open forum if the guy that makes it is right there on your back with an often incredible rebuttal.

Look at it his way: for every one post that is critical of ARX, there are hundreds that badmouth Fram oil filters. Now what if Fram comes along with its deep pockets and becomes a site sponsor? Suppose they pay more of a sponsor fee than all the other sponsors put together? All of the sudden all the posts that are negative towards Fram start getting deleted. Threads criticizing the cardboard endcaps start getting closed. Jimmy DeFram himself comes around every time Fram is negatively mentioned and starts telling everyone they're wrong, or they used the filter wrong, or it's actually NOT an oil filter, it's a "oil collective device" or the reason their sensors all fail after using a Fram is because it's cleaning the sensors. Then Jimmy DeFram starts posting before and after pics of motors that have only ever used Frams and soon people; in order to not "rock the boat" start talking up Fram. Everyone goes home happy except for the people that are critical of Fram.

Then, you could begin to see why some members are tired of ARX getting pushed on them by certain other members. Maybe then you could see why some people are afraid to speak their minds in fear of "retaliation" by the ARX gestapos. There's a reason lobbyists can't contribute campaign funds anymore, is all I'm sayin'.

Also, how does Frank have intimate knowledge of Rislone? I must have missed something in the thread. You're telling me he created that too?

 Quote:
Why not just end this and go back to Rislone-which you, yourself had no trouble advising against? I have a bottle of the new formula on my shelf but haven't used the stuff in years.


I agree with you (yet again). I still stand behind my dislike of Rislone 100%. But, It IS possible that it did something for someone somewhere at some time.

 Quote:
I'm certainly open to hearing ANYone's opinions, as I believe the OP was.


I'm with you all the way buddy. Thanks for an enlightening discussion, as all threads should be.

Cheers!


Well, that was the best written post I have EVER seen here! Not removed either...I was just thinking of the same thing about FRAM! that is weird!

Top
#1272411 - 11/02/08 11:45 AM Re: Rislone engine treatment [Re: dargo]
Frank Offline


Registered: 05/28/02
Posts: 2164
Loc: Jacksonville Beach Fl
My fiancée has a 1991 Honda Civic DX. It has been very well maintained for the 3 1/2 years we have been together. I come from a good mechanical background and have always done the work myself. Around 102K, the tranny (automatic) began acting up. I checked the fluid level and it was full and not dirty. When coming to a stop, the tranny would not shift back down into 1st gear until the car was driven about 15-20 mins and got good and hot. I tried using Marvel Mystery Oil in the tranny to fix the problem but it did not work. I spoke with many transmission rebuild shops and all of them said my tranny was, "telling me it is about to go out." It would have cost me $1,300-$1,600, based on the estimates given to me, to get a new/rebuilt tranny for the car. I heard so much about Auto-Rx (ARX) on Bob is the Oil Guy and decided to give it a try. I told one of the tranny shops I called that I had a product I wanted to try in the tranny before I ordered a new one. The guy snickered at me and said, "it's not gonna work." I changed the ATF and added 6oz of ARX. I followed the instructions on the website to the letter. I also put 1 bottle of ARX in the engine. Within approximately 500 miles, the tranny began shifting normal again. At the end of the recommended mileage, I drained the ATF/ARX out and refilled it with the proper ATF. After my successful ARX application, I called the guy back and told him I no longer needed a tranny because a product called Auto-Rx cured the problem. He didn't believe me so I told him to go to the ARX website and see how the product works for himself. The car now has 108,200 on it and running better than ever. Thanks for making such a great product Frank. It saved me over $1,000 and a lot of work. Talk about proof of value.

Jason K
Miami, FL

Top
#1272422 - 11/02/08 12:10 PM Re: Rislone engine treatment [Re: Frank]
dargo Offline


Registered: 11/16/06
Posts: 303
Loc: USA
Frank, we are not showing anything against ARX but it looks like the same post you site here (below).

http://auto-rx.activeboard.com/index.spark?forumID=108943&p=3&topicID=18312089

Let it go here..........I though this was a post on Rislone and not an ARX commercial here (like most threads). This, I think, is why certain products lose alot of credibility ...

Top
#1274266 - 11/04/08 01:41 PM Re: Rislone engine treatment [Re: dargo]
c3po Offline


Registered: 01/24/08
Posts: 3358
Loc: Maryland
Risolne engine treatment, am I back in the 1980's.

I talked with a mechanic with over 40 years of experience, and his problem with Risolone is that he has had customers who have used it and there cars developed oil leaks.

He said this stuff is a harsh chemical that does clean the engine up somewhat but eventually hurts the seals.

I am not going to argue with a guy that was fixing cars when Bobby Kennedy was still alive.

Now lets take my El Camino which is a 1983 model and has a 305 engine, basic small block. Lets look at the problems with this engine:

1) Leak at the oil pan seal
2) Leak at the Timing Cover
3) Leak at the Rear Main Seal
4) Noisy Lifters
5) Smokes on startup because of bad or hardened valve seals
6) Oil Consumption

These were the problems I had before Auto-Rx, these problems were around at 343,000 miles, at 364,000 miles I have none of these problems.

Believe me in that if Risolone, which I have used before could eliminate all of these problems, I would be posting everyday on why you should use Risolone instead of Auto-Rx.

This mechanic with over 40 years of experience also told me even though he has replaced leaking oil seals for people that have used Risolone, that there is still some Risolone in the engine after an oil change that could still hurt the seals later on.

There is no doubt that Risolone is cheaper than Auto-Rx, so you save some money, but if you have to replace leaky oil seals in the future, you really have not saved any money.

The beauty of Auto-Rx is that it cleans the seals and makes them pliable so they do not leak, does Risolone do this.

Risolone= Old School
Auto-Rx = New School

Everyone can do what they want, if you want oil leaking all over you driveway then use the old school product.

But if you do not want oil leaking on your driveway use the new school product.



Edited by c3po (11/04/08 01:42 PM)

Top
#1274401 - 11/04/08 04:05 PM Re: Rislone engine treatment [Re: c3po]
kingrob Offline


Registered: 08/06/05
Posts: 1372
Loc: NC
 Quote:
Everyone can do what they want, if you want oil leaking all over you driveway then use the old school product.


Still not sticking up for Rislone, but I have used it before and didn't have oil leaks.

 Quote:
I am not going to argue with a guy that was fixing cars when Bobby Kennedy was still alive.


Back then cars leaked oil if you looked at them hard enough.


 Quote:
The beauty of Auto-Rx is that it cleans the seals and makes them pliable so they do not leak, does Risolone do this.


Probably not.

 Quote:
This mechanic with over 40 years of experience also told me even though he has replaced leaking oil seals for people that have used Risolone, that there is still some Risolone in the engine after an oil change that could still hurt the seals later on.


I've had a mechanic that's been working on cars since the fifties tell me to always run my car a quart low on oil as it helps the pistons pump better. He was as full of it as your mechanic.

Once again, what did YOUR car do after you used Rislone? Or, is hearsay and conjecture all you can offer in terms of how Rislone compares to Auto RX?
_________________________
Nosferautic Wizard Clean 3000
It's magic for your motor!

Top
#1274413 - 11/04/08 04:22 PM Re: Rislone engine treatment [Re: kingrob]
c3po Offline


Registered: 01/24/08
Posts: 3358
Loc: Maryland
My car did nothing after Risolone, just because all of the auto parts stores sell Risolone it does not make it the best product in the world.

When was the last time you went to the parts counter at a dealership and asked for Risolone.

My mechanic never told me too run my car a quart low.

Top
#1296644 - 11/29/08 11:34 AM Re: Rislone engine treatment [Re: c3po]
BigJohn Offline


Registered: 06/21/08
Posts: 773
Loc: Colorado
I just purchased a Yellow Bottle of Rislone Engine Treatment at Checkers. (Honestly, if ARX could have been purchased there....I would have bought it as I have liked what I have read on the web about ARX.)

I am pouring it in to my 1989 Jeep Wrangler V6 (160k miles, we purchased at 152k miles) today. (While changing the oil pump, we ran across a lot of sludge. Of course, we have detail cleaned the oil pan, but know that this engine is probably in serious need of sludge removal, not to mention quieting down the noisy lifters and valves.) So, I will come back and report what we experience.

Another job we will have to do on this engine in the next month is to replace the valve cover gasket. I plan to run Rislone for a full month before we do this second job. So it will be interesting to see what the top end looks like in 30 days.

By the way, this is what I have decided to do..... I am going to run four quarts of 5w20 (Chevron Dino...because I already have it) and one quart of Rislone for about a week, drain...change the filter...and refill with another quart of Rislone, 4 quarts of PP 5w30 and a new filter.....for the rest of the month. At that point....I will decide to either change the oil again or not....based upon the "dirtiness" of the PP.
_________________________
'14 Ram 1500 EcoDiesel 4x4 QuadCab, FF
'10 Mercedes MLK350, M1 0w40
'04 KTM 950 ADV S, Royal Monarch 15w50

Top
#1296646 - 11/29/08 11:47 AM Re: Rislone engine treatment [Re: BigJohn]
demarpaint Offline


Registered: 07/03/05
Posts: 21171
Loc: NY
I had suggested in another thread you posted to try Marvel Mystery Oil for 1000 miles along with the 5W-30 of your choice. I'd be interested in your results with the Risoline.

Good luck either way!

Frank D
_________________________
GOD Bless our Troops


Top
#1296684 - 11/29/08 12:59 PM Re: Rislone engine treatment [Re: demarpaint]
BigJohn Offline


Registered: 06/21/08
Posts: 773
Loc: Colorado
 Originally Posted By: demarpaint
I had suggested in another thread you posted to try Marvel Mystery Oil for 1000 miles along with the 5W-30 of your choice. I'd be interested in your results with the Risoline.

Good luck either way!

Frank D



Thanks FrankD....Yeah, I looked at all the options at Checkers and the only additive they had on the shelf that anyone suggestioned was Rislone.

Yep, I will let you know how it goes. This very minute my son is tightening up the bolts on the oil pan....
_________________________
'14 Ram 1500 EcoDiesel 4x4 QuadCab, FF
'10 Mercedes MLK350, M1 0w40
'04 KTM 950 ADV S, Royal Monarch 15w50

Top
Page 4 of 5 < 1 2 3 4 5 >