Auto-RX pictures on website misleading???
- Thread starter robnitro
- Start date
- Status
Just look for the old RMS13 pictures. He hated Frank with a passion for those who remember but he still posted his before/after pictures showing the results.
Before we change the subject too quickly, let's address why both before pictures look like they were photographed through a piece of brown plastic and the afters look like a Zoloft commercial.
Big Bear where is your data?
Brent don't play games, you are BB on another forum.
Sepia tone or not, you can clearly seem more bare metal in the after pictures.
As far as it being two different engines, if you look at both pictures you can tell that every single bolt head has the exact same orientation from one picture to another.
you people
As far as it being two different engines, if you look at both pictures you can tell that every single bolt head has the exact same orientation from one picture to another.
you people
Just stop. There is NO reason to add a sepia tone if a product can stand on its own. The sepia tone is also added to the metal surfaces in the first pics, thus rendering any type of before/after comparison as invalid.
The sepia tone was (allegedly) added to make the "before" pics appear worse than the situation actually was. If the sepia tone implies a fake condition, what else about the pics is fake? How do we know ARx removed those deposits and a wire brush didn't? You can't trust a [censored] thing from those pics.
This type of marketing completely disgusts me.
The sepia tone was (allegedly) added to make the "before" pics appear worse than the situation actually was. If the sepia tone implies a fake condition, what else about the pics is fake? How do we know ARx removed those deposits and a wire brush didn't? You can't trust a [censored] thing from those pics.
This type of marketing completely disgusts me.
Originally Posted By: Greggy_D
robnitro.....I noticed the same thing but never said anything. Here are the two pics, straight from the website and unaltered by me:
Look at the top pic. The plastic, hoses, and tape (outside of the engine) have a sepia tone applied. The second pic magically looks "normal". A logical person could deduce what is going on here.
Originally Posted By: Greggy_D
Oh yeah....there's that sepia hose again.
Since all of those pictures are of the same engine, and the before pics are all somewhat sepia toned, and the after pics are not, and it is pretty obvious that they would have been taken some time apart, is it not possible that there was a different camera used in the after pictures than the before ones? Same camera, but different lighting conditions? I know first hand how lighting affects the tint of pictures with digital cameras.
You guys are on a witch hunt.
robnitro.....I noticed the same thing but never said anything. Here are the two pics, straight from the website and unaltered by me:
Look at the top pic. The plastic, hoses, and tape (outside of the engine) have a sepia tone applied. The second pic magically looks "normal". A logical person could deduce what is going on here.
Originally Posted By: Greggy_D
Oh yeah....there's that sepia hose again.
Since all of those pictures are of the same engine, and the before pics are all somewhat sepia toned, and the after pics are not, and it is pretty obvious that they would have been taken some time apart, is it not possible that there was a different camera used in the after pictures than the before ones? Same camera, but different lighting conditions? I know first hand how lighting affects the tint of pictures with digital cameras.
You guys are on a witch hunt.
Mate pity you don't know the history of the people involved. I'm off to World Series Sprintcars in Sydney, when I return I'll send you a PM...s
I'll just add this and then I am done with this thread. Last time I said something negative about ARX, sprintman called me out asking me to show receipts and such when he himself has not given us proof that it does work.
My POINT is, when we bring ANY OTHER oil additives other than ARX, the most prevalent reply is "If it were so good the oil company would have integrated it into their formulation"
Well I agree with that so since NOT ONE oil manufacturer has integrated it into their formulation, I have my answer.
Yep I am done with this topic now.
My POINT is, when we bring ANY OTHER oil additives other than ARX, the most prevalent reply is "If it were so good the oil company would have integrated it into their formulation"
Well I agree with that so since NOT ONE oil manufacturer has integrated it into their formulation, I have my answer.
Yep I am done with this topic now.
MolaKule
Staff member
Quote:
is it not possible that there was a different camera used in the after pictures than the before ones? Same camera, but different lighting conditions? I know first hand how lighting affects the tint of pictures with digital cameras.
I take digital pictures as well and it appears that this is the same engine, taken under possibly different lighting conditions and at sligtly different angles. I know that incandescent light will give the picture a a warmer tone and flourescent lights will give a bluis-greenish tone, unless you use filters or color balancing.
Amatuer photgoraphy is just that, amateur photography. I suspect someone sent in those pictures not knowing the finer art of photographic consistency.
It is good to be cynical or critical of a product, but apply the same criticism/cynicism to all products, otherwise bias and agendas start to show through.
is it not possible that there was a different camera used in the after pictures than the before ones? Same camera, but different lighting conditions? I know first hand how lighting affects the tint of pictures with digital cameras.
I take digital pictures as well and it appears that this is the same engine, taken under possibly different lighting conditions and at sligtly different angles. I know that incandescent light will give the picture a a warmer tone and flourescent lights will give a bluis-greenish tone, unless you use filters or color balancing.
Amatuer photgoraphy is just that, amateur photography. I suspect someone sent in those pictures not knowing the finer art of photographic consistency.
It is good to be cynical or critical of a product, but apply the same criticism/cynicism to all products, otherwise bias and agendas start to show through.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
Originally Posted By: Greggy_D
Explain the pics above.
If the original thread were still here (it may be) you would be aware that Aaron was an agnostic ..and Frank treated him like you would expect under the threat of defaming Auto-Rx in some premeditated "expose~" of the product. This was in spite of Aaron insisting that he would report no more or no less than he discovered in using the product as described. You can imagine Frank's anxiety and reflexive demeanor in having an unsolicited test that was outside of his control ..etc...etc..
Anyway ..the guy did as he said he would. He conceded to his imperfections in using his digital camera.
..but again, we're scrutinizing the seasoning ..and ignoring the mass product of the event.
You can probably find the original post. It was some time ago and may still be in the archives.
Carry on!
Explain the pics above.
If the original thread were still here (it may be) you would be aware that Aaron was an agnostic ..and Frank treated him like you would expect under the threat of defaming Auto-Rx in some premeditated "expose~" of the product. This was in spite of Aaron insisting that he would report no more or no less than he discovered in using the product as described. You can imagine Frank's anxiety and reflexive demeanor in having an unsolicited test that was outside of his control ..etc...etc..
Anyway ..the guy did as he said he would. He conceded to his imperfections in using his digital camera.
..but again, we're scrutinizing the seasoning ..and ignoring the mass product of the event.
You can probably find the original post. It was some time ago and may still be in the archives.
I bought three bottles of ARX last Christmas.
I was surfing around in the early afternoon, the leg of lamb was in the oven, and I was sipping a nice port.
I had thought of buying the product based upon what I had read here, from various long-time and credible members.
I have no regrets, any more than I regret using synthetic oil for the past twenty years in applications and uses that certainly don't require it.
I believe that ARX cleaned the rings and lands on the two engines I've used it in. I have no proof, beyond my butt dyno, and my ears.
Was ARX worth what it cost?
Probably.
Would I have spent the money again, based upon my experience with the product?
Yes.
Not trying to keep the flame war going, but ARX is worth a shot in any 100K+ engine.
People like sprintman are not likely falling for the hype.
I am thinking of trying MMO in our '99 Accord, to see whether it does anything, and because many on this site swear by it.
Having tried ARX, I would like to try MMO.
It may well be that both products work as advertised.
Keep your mind open.
I was surfing around in the early afternoon, the leg of lamb was in the oven, and I was sipping a nice port.
I had thought of buying the product based upon what I had read here, from various long-time and credible members.
I have no regrets, any more than I regret using synthetic oil for the past twenty years in applications and uses that certainly don't require it.
I believe that ARX cleaned the rings and lands on the two engines I've used it in. I have no proof, beyond my butt dyno, and my ears.
Was ARX worth what it cost?
Probably.
Would I have spent the money again, based upon my experience with the product?
Yes.
Not trying to keep the flame war going, but ARX is worth a shot in any 100K+ engine.
People like sprintman are not likely falling for the hype.
I am thinking of trying MMO in our '99 Accord, to see whether it does anything, and because many on this site swear by it.
Having tried ARX, I would like to try MMO.
It may well be that both products work as advertised.
Keep your mind open.
Originally Posted By: DeeAgeaux
I have been reading their site and I was starting to become convinced. It seemed reasonable.
Then they say group IV V ester based motor oils cause leaks.
They lose credibility with such non-sense
Are u a chemist?
I have been reading their site and I was starting to become convinced. It seemed reasonable.
Then they say group IV V ester based motor oils cause leaks.
They lose credibility with such non-sense
Are u a chemist?
First their is no tampering with the photo's most of those photo's are from longterm members to this site. Most of them have great integrity which I can not say about all members of this site!
Frank is probably right onthe G-V and higher baase stocks causing leaks on buna seals? Buna is natural rubber seals no one use's these anymore. Well GM might still use buna but most modern manufactures droped Buna a long time ago. My 1986 4Runner had silicone hose's and viton and neoprene seals through out the entire thing from the OEM. These materials are far less reactive to high end synthetic compounds and solvents. Today a lot of manufactures are using Teflon for really important seals like the front and rear main seals because they are almost 100% non-reactive to industrial solvents and mild acids!!! For instance when I was still working for GM and the high content V6 was just starting to show up in the Lacross for example we had one at work as part of our captured fleet. GM made a big deal about using Teflon for the front main seal. I do not recall what the rear was made from!
What Frank fails to tell people is that if an oil does not use an ester in itself then they have to use something else to add seal swelling to the oil. What he fails to tell people is that sludge and deposits like varnish that often occur from the use of non-synthetics cause more seal failures then ever by allowing the seal to dry rott once it becomes coated with depostis that chock off the seals contact to the actual oil being used! So their are seal issues with almost any oil dino or synthetic when natural rubber compounds like buna are being talked about.
So one has to know the make up of a seal before you can uniformly say that XXX oil,amines,addites what ever will cause seal issues! The only uniform thing we can say is that any carbon deposits,varnish or sludge is bad for all seals. SO anything that reduces the formation of these or can remove them is going to be a step in the right direction so long as we do not cause damage to the seal in the process!
I do not sell oil or anything for that matter. I have used Auto-RX, Nutra 131, Lube Control,B12 Chemtool and flush's like AMsoils old formula. For a sludged up beast nothing beats Auto-RX for a mild cleaning or keeping an already clean engine clean Lube Control is hard to beat and so is Schaffer's 131.
Frank is probably right onthe G-V and higher baase stocks causing leaks on buna seals? Buna is natural rubber seals no one use's these anymore. Well GM might still use buna but most modern manufactures droped Buna a long time ago. My 1986 4Runner had silicone hose's and viton and neoprene seals through out the entire thing from the OEM. These materials are far less reactive to high end synthetic compounds and solvents. Today a lot of manufactures are using Teflon for really important seals like the front and rear main seals because they are almost 100% non-reactive to industrial solvents and mild acids!!! For instance when I was still working for GM and the high content V6 was just starting to show up in the Lacross for example we had one at work as part of our captured fleet. GM made a big deal about using Teflon for the front main seal. I do not recall what the rear was made from!
What Frank fails to tell people is that if an oil does not use an ester in itself then they have to use something else to add seal swelling to the oil. What he fails to tell people is that sludge and deposits like varnish that often occur from the use of non-synthetics cause more seal failures then ever by allowing the seal to dry rott once it becomes coated with depostis that chock off the seals contact to the actual oil being used! So their are seal issues with almost any oil dino or synthetic when natural rubber compounds like buna are being talked about.
So one has to know the make up of a seal before you can uniformly say that XXX oil,amines,addites what ever will cause seal issues! The only uniform thing we can say is that any carbon deposits,varnish or sludge is bad for all seals. SO anything that reduces the formation of these or can remove them is going to be a step in the right direction so long as we do not cause damage to the seal in the process!
I do not sell oil or anything for that matter. I have used Auto-RX, Nutra 131, Lube Control,B12 Chemtool and flush's like AMsoils old formula. For a sludged up beast nothing beats Auto-RX for a mild cleaning or keeping an already clean engine clean Lube Control is hard to beat and so is Schaffer's 131.
- Status
