Rev-X Oil Additive

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Quote:
...As the treated component (engine, transmission, differential or hydraulic system) runs through heat cycles the additive is absorbed into the pores of the work hardened metal surface that it lubricates....


Uh oh!

Work hardened metal surfaces and now "absorbed into the pores."

Where have we heard that before?
18.gif



Z-max
 
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Quote:
...As the treated component (engine, transmission, differential or hydraulic system) runs through heat cycles the additive is absorbed into the pores of the work hardened metal surface that it lubricates....


Uh oh!

Work hardened metal surfaces and now "absorbed into the pores."

Where have we heard that before?
18.gif



When I read claims like that any interest I might have is lost! Sorry
 
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Quote:
...As the treated component (engine, transmission, differential or hydraulic system) runs through heat cycles the additive is absorbed into the pores of the work hardened metal surface that it lubricates....


Uh oh!

Work hardened metal surfaces and now "absorbed into the pores."

Where have we heard that before?
18.gif



And, since you didn't bother to copy and paste the rest of the text, here it is:

This creates a polarized attraction of additive that flows within the treated components lubricating fluid until the lubricated surface has a film layer 4 times thicker and more than 2500 times denser than any lubricant can provide (standard or synthetic) without increasing the viscosity of the lubricating fluid being used.
 
I understand the 4 times thicker, but how does it make it 2500 times denser than any lubricant can provide? Sounds like a sales pitch that would be impossible to prove, although I could be wrong. I'm just asking a question that popped into my head, not looking to start a flame war.
 
But, I am still going to try it in the Nissan Sunny engine.
In the Nissan Laurel, I have the Nanovit, you know.
 
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
I understand the 4 times thicker, but how does it make it 2500 times denser than any lubricant can provide? Sounds like a sales pitch that would be impossible to prove, although I could be wrong. I'm just asking a question that popped into my head, not looking to start a flame war.


The claim about 2500 times more density, is hard to swallow.

I don't have a clue about how this would be possible.

After the results in the transmission, I'm still thinking it's worth a try in the engine
19.gif
 
I am also going to start a tread on the F2-21/H2oil additives, since it have given some rather hard to explain, results.
I have done nothing with this car, except adding these additives.

Will do it during this weekend.
 
Since Molakule is bringing up Z-Max, with hidden accusations on it, I think this info from Z-Max homepage, would be correct to post:

Today's engine oils are excellent performers. Synthetics and engine oil packages such as GF-4 and now GF-5 API approved categories have almost eliminated the need for the use of aftermarket engine additives. Yet with today's still prevalent engine, piston and combustion chamber carbon problems; fuel tank and injector cleaners are good movers. How can counter people sell products easier, and sell something that will help their customers? The answer is educating them better on products and a true understanding of a product's performance by SAE, ASTM and API testing protocols.

There are products that claim, better fuel mileage, and they mislead the consumers. To scientifically test a product for fuel economy the proper test is the SAE J1321, Procedure I or II fuel economy test. Cost of this test is about $80,000. ZMAX has performed three of these tests to prove its claims relating to better mileage.

If a product is going to make a claim of less friction or more horsepower, they must be asked, "Where is their API, SAE or ASTM Laboratory or Field (vehicle) Engine Tests that should be behind every such claim?" When the FTC filed lawsuits against several of the major aftermarket engine products several years back, the only product that passed the SAE and ASTM testing requirements to say saves fuel was zMAX Micro-lubricant. Unfortunately, very few know what it takes to make a fuel economy claim. How many products are being falsely advertised? Plenty!

Why SAE, ASTM testing? The OEM's spend millions of dollars with major oil company's and additive company's such as Lubrizol, Ethyl Corp, Infineon, Orinite and others, developing additive packages that are blended to their specific base oils. These special blended engine oil formulas receive a specific API Certification. By adding an off-the-shelf additive into your engine oil that may contain solids like PTFE, Moly (MoS2), graphite, etc., and/or chemicals like zinc, phosphorous (in combination as Zinc Dialkyl Dithio Phosphate, better known as ZDDP anti-wear additive) and chlorine (chlorinated paraffin extreme pressure "EP" additives, etc.,) will alter that oil formula and voids the API Certification. Why? The simple answer is that without additional SAE, ASTM and API testing with the new addition of solids or chemicals, you do not know how the newly modified oil's performance has been compromised. This is the concern of the API and OEM's. Without further testing, any claim of wear reduction or enhanced performance would have to be deemed misleading. This is the main reason auto manufacturers state in their Owners Handbook that, "We highly recommend that you do not use additives in the engine." What the counter person or consumer should know is that zMAX is not an additive; zMAX is a pure Micro-lubricant® that treats the metal, not the oil or fuel. Its main characteristic is that it "soaks into the metal deeper than regular engine oil, additives, detergents or solvents can." Being a pure lubricant without PTFE, chlorine or other chemicals or solids zMAX has no harmful effect on the original oil's API Certification, and therefore does not violate that certification.

I have no intentions of trying Z-Max, but it is irritating, the way Molakule is throwing out half-spoken accusations, without giving more info about it.

I guess that only a few on this board have followed any discussion about Z-Max and what chemicals it contains.
Enlighten us!
 
Didn't the FTC come after Z-Max for making false claims? Quoting them might not be a good example, although their statements about why a mfg doesn't want to see an additive used is a good one.
 
Originally Posted By: jonny-b
Yes, the FTC did come after them.

I found this: ZMax wins against an FTC settlement for misleading advertising.

Read: http://www.carbibles.com/additives.html


As I read and re-read through all the FTC vs "xyz additives" lawsuit, I realise that they all settle with FTC instead of fighting to win their case (david vs gohliah? no way!).

I do not agree with the interpretation(s) in carbibles RE: Zmax wins against FTP settlement for if you look at the settlements on FTC site, it's very clear (in the case of ZMax settlement:

http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2003/03/fyi0320.shtm

"...
NOTE: Stipulated final judgments are for settlement purposes only and do not constitute an admission by the defendants of a law violation..."

In other words: ZMax didn't win and neither did FTC. They just agreed to settle on this case, period.

So, back to you johnny-b: I do not agree with your quote/carbible's quote that ZMax won against FTC settlement for there isn't such a thing called "won" to begin with....
Q.

***lawyers and spindoktors can be playful about their words and to those that cannot read: they fall for it***
 
Yep, one good attorney. Some people might actually think it was dropped because the product worked as advertised.
 
Hi, Quest.

If you didn't understand it; it was carbible's quote, not mine.

Just to make this clear, for you.
 
I have also never tried Z-Max myself, but for those interested to find out more, it would be wise to try the link TurboJim provided, a couple of posts before this one.

I guess it is a good chance that Z-Max will outperform ARX!
 
At least I know that Rev-X outperforms Auto-Rx in this transmission, since I tried it in this same transmission, 3 years ago.
Auto-Rx did NOT do much difference.
 
Quote:
the way Molakule is throwing out half-spoken accusations, without giving more info about it.


I am just giggling about the claims made as they are essentially the same claims made by Z-MAX and others.

As an educator as well, I try to get people to think critically about claims based on physics and chemistry. If I irritate you into thinking critcially, then I have accomplised my mission.

Most people would say I am "Overspoken" at times, certainly not "half-spoken."
21.gif


I have asked these questions many times and have had no answers from anyone on:

1. how does a chemical "work harden" a metal surface,

2. how does a chemical "diffuse" into the metal; think crystalline structure of host metallurgy verses what it takes to diffuse anything into a closely-packed crytalline structure.

I laugh because I see no chemical or physical (aka physics) explanations as to how this could happen.

You have to realize marketing departments work overtime to get you to buy a product.

Does it reduce friction; it may but what is the real physio-chemical-material explanation behind it? Forget the marketing hype and half-baked marketing explanations.

Does it reduce friction via the use of chlorinated paraffins?
And if so, what is the corrosion and acid potential?

Does it reduce friction via the use of normal fatty acids or esters?

What are these new physio-chemical laws these people discovered that those of us in the industry have not found?

Just some points to ponder.
13.gif


Please go ahead and use these products if you like. No one is keeping you from purchasing these products.
 
Last edited:
Quote:
This creates a polarized attraction of additive that flows within the treated components lubricating fluid until the lubricated surface has a film layer 4 times thicker and more than 2500 times denser than any lubricant can provide (standard or synthetic) without increasing the viscosity of the lubricating fluid being used.


Let's say I have 0.0005" clearance between an engine's main journal bearing and the journal and that an oil film fills this area between the journal and bearing at a specific point in the journals rotation.

Does the explanation above mean I now have a 0.0020" clearance????

If so, how does that happen?
 
The following presentation provides some interesting ways that specific esters can be used to improve lubrication in various lubrication regimes. The polymeric esters with high viscosity and medium polarity can improve lubrication in the mixed lubrication regime.

http://www.crodalubricants.com/download.aspx?s=133&m=doc&id=258

Since Rev-X's website mentions polar group of the molecules, they could be using polymeric esters. It could be many other things though. Here is the MSDS: http://www.revxoil.com/rev-x-Fleet-msd.asp
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

6
Prolube oil additive
2
Replies
20
Views
23K
Vitamin Yoda
C
Bestline oil additive
Replies
5
Views
1K
wlk
C
Using Stihl HP Ultra 2 stroke oil as an Ester additive
Replies
11
Views
670
MolaKule
H
PTFE oil additive for gokart engine
Replies
16
Views
2K
SubieRubyRoo
A
Chemtool B12 in Oil
Replies
13
Views
2K
nicholas
Back
Top