In view of the many postings regarding the utility of these aftermarket additives (both for the fuel and the engine oil), thought the following article that I had published several years ago might be of some help.
AFTERMARKET ADDITIVES - THE CONSUMER’s DILEMMA
The typical consumer, car enthusiast, or weekend mechanic is confronted with a wide array of aftermarket additives generally available in service stations, supermarkets, discount stores, convenience outlets, and automotive stores. These aftermarket additives, targeted for the individual consumer, are not the same as those additives used by refineries and terminal operators in formulating finished fuels and automotive lubricants. Refineries and bulk terminals provide fuels and lubricants that fully meet the industry developed standards for performance (e.g., antiknock quality, volatility, cleanliness, antiwear protection, corrosion protection, deposit control, etc.) using a wide variety of individual additive ingredients. However, manufacturers and distributors of aftermarket additives maintain their products can either (1) correct existing engine performance deficiencies, or (2) significantly improve vehicle and engine performance by providing additional protection against engine wear, deposit formation, internal engine corrosion, etc. In effect, users of aftermarket additives are adding these ingredients to fully finished products that already contain the additives needed to comply with industry standards for satisfactory performance. In other cases, users are adding these aftermarket additives to hopefully correct existing engine deficiencies such as high oil consumption, oil seal leaks, excessive smoking due to fouled injectors, etc.
Aftermarket additives are primarily marketed for gasoline, diesel fuel, engine oils for both spark ignition and compression ignition engines, and automatic transmission fluid. These products are typically listed as cleaners, treatments, tonics, cures, improvers, modifiers, conditioners, suppliments, inhibitors, formulae, catalysts, boosters, restorers, detergents, and agents. For clarification in this article, the term “aftermarket additives” includes additives, supplements, treatments, motor cures/tonics, metal conditioners, surface modifiers, improvers, oil boosters, etc. which are required to be added to existing fuels or lubricating oils. A recent visit to a local automotive store (in Northern Virginia) revealed a consumer had the opportunity to choose from more than forty-five different fuel aftermarket additives and more than twenty-three different engine oil aftermarket additives.
Problems Confronting Consumer-
Being exposed to this large number of different aftermarket additives, the individual consumer is obviously confronted with many questions regarding their potential use. Some questions that come to mind are the following: why are they needed, do they really work, will using them cause any other problems, does using them one time mean they will be needed on a routine basis, will they really fix my problem (e.g., stalling, knocking, engine run-on, excess smoking, oil leaking, stuck valve lifters, high oil consumption, low oil pressure, etc.), why is there such a wide price range between these, does a higher cost mean a superior product, will their use make my warranty become void, etc.? As there are no industry standards or guidelines for these aftermarket additives, the consumer must rely on either prior knowledge of the product(s), advertisements in magazines/journals, newspaper, or television/radio, sales people advocating and actively promoting their product(s) of choice, or just chance selection perhaps due to the appeal of the product’s container. Many times, prior knowledge resulting from word and mouth will cause people to gravitate to a particular product. Individuals hearing from a mechanic or service station attendant that “brand X is really good” are more prone to accept these types of casual recommendations as the gospel. Their presumption is based on the belief that these “qualified individuals” are more likely to know what is good because of their professions and possibly past experiences. Unfortunately, that is not always the case. Without industry standards such as those which have been developed for engine oils, gear lubricants, grease, antifreeze, transmission fluids, etc., there is no clear way to assess the performance of these aftermarket additives or differences between the many different brands and types.
In addition to the above-mentioned concerns, a majority of the engine and vehicle manufacturers recommend against the use of any aftermarket additives which are often referred to as supplemental additives. A statement representative of many manufacturers notes “ using supplemental additives is generally unnecessary and can even be harmful. One should never use an additive to fix a mechanical problem and be cautious of products claiming to prevent such problems[1].”
Improvements versus Claims-
The advertisements that typically accompany these products serve to further confuse consumers as they at times are couched in terminology indicating broad improvements in performance. For example, one fuel injector cleaner states it dissolves varnish, carbon, and gum deposits. In doing so, its use will promote increased combustion efficiency, smoother operation, faster starts, reduced misfire and lower exhaust emissions. Likewise, an engine oil treatment reportedly fills in the worn cylinder and piston surfaces and improves ring sealing which in turn will restore compression, increase horsepower, reduce oil consumption, and improve engine life. However, noticeably absent in both of these is any indication of testing that would validate the claims being made. How can a consumer possibly tell whether one injector cleaner is better than the other, or if it really does what is claimed? If one oil treatment reduces oil consumption because of how it thickens the engine oil’s viscosity, do others work as well? More important, will the consumer know that adding an oil thickener (i.e., a viscosity index improver) is more than likely to increase the oil’s viscosity at low temperatures which will cause other starting problems in cold temperatures?
Where performance claims are being made such as improving fuel economy, reducing engine wear, improving power and acceleration, or those mentioned above, some documented performance testing data should be available. The documentation needs to clearly show measurable improvements can be realized by using the specific product. Such information would help to remove the mystery surrounding these products and give the consumer a more factual accounting as to how these aftermarket additives should perform. Information such as testimonials from past or current users is often supplied to support a product’s claims when questions are raised. These are invariably viewed as highly anecdotal in quality and inadequate for clearly answering the improvement question where standardized testing protocols and procedures are the rule. Individual operators’ experience with a particular product is also offered as another means to validate advertisement claims. These too, must be viewed as anecdotal for the above reasons and also because a meaningful statistical sampling of data is generally required to validate such claims (e.g., a one vehicle fleet test will not suffice).
In addition to testimonials and anecdotal material, many advertisements for these products carry non-standardized tests which have little correlation to an engine’s environment but show their product to be vastly superior to its competitors. Any results from these types of quasi tests should also be viewed as anecdotal.
Army Experience and Approach Taken-
The problems mentioned above were identical to those which confronted the U. S. Army several years ago. Since the Army had and continues to have lead service responsibility for the fuels and lubricant products utilized by the Department of Defense, it invariably became the recipient of many proposals, suggestions, requests, and congressional recommendations that focused on DOD’s adopting and specifying the use of different types of aftermarket additives for its large ground vehicle and equipment fleet. The intent in all of these offerings was to reduce operating and maintenance costs thereby creating significant savings for the taxpayer. Since these initiatives were well intentioned and there were so many products being suggested, the Army needed a testing protocol to at least sort out the potential candidates from the “snake oil” products. Such a testing protocol would also put all candidates on a level playing field and prevent the potential for any preferential treatment.
A testing protocol was developed using industry standard laboratory testing procedures with two specific objectives in mind: the preliminary testing would (1) provide a means to see if any measurable improvements existed by using back-to-back comparisons (i.e., testing with a baseline fuel or lubricant followed by the identical testing with the treated version) and, (2) show if the presence of the candidate product when used with formulated fuels or lubricants caused any adverse side effects such as emulsification, additive separation, deposits being formed, foaming, loss of additive efficacy because of non compatibility, etc. Prior to implementing this testing protocol, it was circulated to the Environmental Protection Agency and to the automotive and petroleum industries under a cooperative agreement with the Coordinating Research Council for their review and comment. All parties concurred as they viewed this to be a reasonable approach and one that insured parity for all. The testing protocol included tests for aftermarket additives intended for gasoline, diesel fuel, engine oils, transmission fluids, and gear oils. This protocol was subsequently incorporated into an Army Regulation in the mid 1980's and in May 1996, became a DOD document entitled “DOD Policy Guidelines for Use of Aftermarket Fuel and Lubricant Additives[2].” This approach has worked exceedingly well for DOD in screening products that are submitted and to determine if further consideration is justified.
What to Do-
The question of whether to use or not use aftermarket additives is difficult to answer as there are many differing points of view. The type of technical data described above which would enable the consumer to see the facts before making a decision is generally not readily available and as stated previously, owners’ manuals do not recommend using aftermarket or supplemental additives. Their guidance is to use the required performance level of the product specified in the manual and follow the recommended oil change interval based upon the type of service encountered. On the other hand, many “do-it-yourself” consumers believed to be the majority users of aftermarket additives[3] simply have become convinced that using aftermarket additives is like having life insurance which provides added protection to increase engine life. Whether these products provide any additional protection remains a debatable subject. In reality, consumers following good maintenance practices and using the fuel or lubricant having the prescribed performance level listed in their owners’ manual would tend to have little need for aftermarket additives. This approach has been echoed in several publications[4-6].
Those who feel a bona fide need exists for using aftermarket additives should at least attempt to obtain as much technical information on the product as possible. This information should help to serve in answering any of your questions. Apart from the costs for these aftermarket additives which range from approximately $1.00 to in excess of $20.00, their continuous use can create problems. Of the two general types (i.e., fuel versus lubricant), the aftermarket lubricant additives could potentially create greater problems as they are allowed to remain in the crankcase and transmission systems for longer periods of time.
Although the debate for using or not using aftermarket additives will certainly continue, nothing can replace good maintenance combined with using the fuel and lubricants specified in your owners’ manual.
References-
[1]. Detroit Diesel: Lubricating Oil, Fuel Oil and Filter Recommendations, Bulletin 7SE270, Detroit Diesel Corporation, Detroit MI 48239-5000.
[2]. DOD Policy Guidelines for Use of Aftermarket Fuel and Lubricant Additives, May 1996, U. S. Army Tank-Automotive Research, Development and Engineering Center, ATTN: AMSTA-TR-D/210 (Fuels and Lubricants Technology Team), Warren MI 48397-5000.
[3]. "Aftermarket Additives Pose High-Margin Paradox”, Hart’s Lubricant World, April 1997.
[4]. "Additives Under Fire”, Car and Travel, September/October 1997.
[5]. "Don’t Use Oil Additives”, NUTZ & BOLTZ, Vol VI, No 2, Butler MD 21023.
[6]. "More On Additives”, NUTZ & BOLTZ, Vol VI, No 3, Butler MD 21023.
AFTERMARKET ADDITIVES - THE CONSUMER’s DILEMMA
The typical consumer, car enthusiast, or weekend mechanic is confronted with a wide array of aftermarket additives generally available in service stations, supermarkets, discount stores, convenience outlets, and automotive stores. These aftermarket additives, targeted for the individual consumer, are not the same as those additives used by refineries and terminal operators in formulating finished fuels and automotive lubricants. Refineries and bulk terminals provide fuels and lubricants that fully meet the industry developed standards for performance (e.g., antiknock quality, volatility, cleanliness, antiwear protection, corrosion protection, deposit control, etc.) using a wide variety of individual additive ingredients. However, manufacturers and distributors of aftermarket additives maintain their products can either (1) correct existing engine performance deficiencies, or (2) significantly improve vehicle and engine performance by providing additional protection against engine wear, deposit formation, internal engine corrosion, etc. In effect, users of aftermarket additives are adding these ingredients to fully finished products that already contain the additives needed to comply with industry standards for satisfactory performance. In other cases, users are adding these aftermarket additives to hopefully correct existing engine deficiencies such as high oil consumption, oil seal leaks, excessive smoking due to fouled injectors, etc.
Aftermarket additives are primarily marketed for gasoline, diesel fuel, engine oils for both spark ignition and compression ignition engines, and automatic transmission fluid. These products are typically listed as cleaners, treatments, tonics, cures, improvers, modifiers, conditioners, suppliments, inhibitors, formulae, catalysts, boosters, restorers, detergents, and agents. For clarification in this article, the term “aftermarket additives” includes additives, supplements, treatments, motor cures/tonics, metal conditioners, surface modifiers, improvers, oil boosters, etc. which are required to be added to existing fuels or lubricating oils. A recent visit to a local automotive store (in Northern Virginia) revealed a consumer had the opportunity to choose from more than forty-five different fuel aftermarket additives and more than twenty-three different engine oil aftermarket additives.
Problems Confronting Consumer-
Being exposed to this large number of different aftermarket additives, the individual consumer is obviously confronted with many questions regarding their potential use. Some questions that come to mind are the following: why are they needed, do they really work, will using them cause any other problems, does using them one time mean they will be needed on a routine basis, will they really fix my problem (e.g., stalling, knocking, engine run-on, excess smoking, oil leaking, stuck valve lifters, high oil consumption, low oil pressure, etc.), why is there such a wide price range between these, does a higher cost mean a superior product, will their use make my warranty become void, etc.? As there are no industry standards or guidelines for these aftermarket additives, the consumer must rely on either prior knowledge of the product(s), advertisements in magazines/journals, newspaper, or television/radio, sales people advocating and actively promoting their product(s) of choice, or just chance selection perhaps due to the appeal of the product’s container. Many times, prior knowledge resulting from word and mouth will cause people to gravitate to a particular product. Individuals hearing from a mechanic or service station attendant that “brand X is really good” are more prone to accept these types of casual recommendations as the gospel. Their presumption is based on the belief that these “qualified individuals” are more likely to know what is good because of their professions and possibly past experiences. Unfortunately, that is not always the case. Without industry standards such as those which have been developed for engine oils, gear lubricants, grease, antifreeze, transmission fluids, etc., there is no clear way to assess the performance of these aftermarket additives or differences between the many different brands and types.
In addition to the above-mentioned concerns, a majority of the engine and vehicle manufacturers recommend against the use of any aftermarket additives which are often referred to as supplemental additives. A statement representative of many manufacturers notes “ using supplemental additives is generally unnecessary and can even be harmful. One should never use an additive to fix a mechanical problem and be cautious of products claiming to prevent such problems[1].”
Improvements versus Claims-
The advertisements that typically accompany these products serve to further confuse consumers as they at times are couched in terminology indicating broad improvements in performance. For example, one fuel injector cleaner states it dissolves varnish, carbon, and gum deposits. In doing so, its use will promote increased combustion efficiency, smoother operation, faster starts, reduced misfire and lower exhaust emissions. Likewise, an engine oil treatment reportedly fills in the worn cylinder and piston surfaces and improves ring sealing which in turn will restore compression, increase horsepower, reduce oil consumption, and improve engine life. However, noticeably absent in both of these is any indication of testing that would validate the claims being made. How can a consumer possibly tell whether one injector cleaner is better than the other, or if it really does what is claimed? If one oil treatment reduces oil consumption because of how it thickens the engine oil’s viscosity, do others work as well? More important, will the consumer know that adding an oil thickener (i.e., a viscosity index improver) is more than likely to increase the oil’s viscosity at low temperatures which will cause other starting problems in cold temperatures?
Where performance claims are being made such as improving fuel economy, reducing engine wear, improving power and acceleration, or those mentioned above, some documented performance testing data should be available. The documentation needs to clearly show measurable improvements can be realized by using the specific product. Such information would help to remove the mystery surrounding these products and give the consumer a more factual accounting as to how these aftermarket additives should perform. Information such as testimonials from past or current users is often supplied to support a product’s claims when questions are raised. These are invariably viewed as highly anecdotal in quality and inadequate for clearly answering the improvement question where standardized testing protocols and procedures are the rule. Individual operators’ experience with a particular product is also offered as another means to validate advertisement claims. These too, must be viewed as anecdotal for the above reasons and also because a meaningful statistical sampling of data is generally required to validate such claims (e.g., a one vehicle fleet test will not suffice).
In addition to testimonials and anecdotal material, many advertisements for these products carry non-standardized tests which have little correlation to an engine’s environment but show their product to be vastly superior to its competitors. Any results from these types of quasi tests should also be viewed as anecdotal.
Army Experience and Approach Taken-
The problems mentioned above were identical to those which confronted the U. S. Army several years ago. Since the Army had and continues to have lead service responsibility for the fuels and lubricant products utilized by the Department of Defense, it invariably became the recipient of many proposals, suggestions, requests, and congressional recommendations that focused on DOD’s adopting and specifying the use of different types of aftermarket additives for its large ground vehicle and equipment fleet. The intent in all of these offerings was to reduce operating and maintenance costs thereby creating significant savings for the taxpayer. Since these initiatives were well intentioned and there were so many products being suggested, the Army needed a testing protocol to at least sort out the potential candidates from the “snake oil” products. Such a testing protocol would also put all candidates on a level playing field and prevent the potential for any preferential treatment.
A testing protocol was developed using industry standard laboratory testing procedures with two specific objectives in mind: the preliminary testing would (1) provide a means to see if any measurable improvements existed by using back-to-back comparisons (i.e., testing with a baseline fuel or lubricant followed by the identical testing with the treated version) and, (2) show if the presence of the candidate product when used with formulated fuels or lubricants caused any adverse side effects such as emulsification, additive separation, deposits being formed, foaming, loss of additive efficacy because of non compatibility, etc. Prior to implementing this testing protocol, it was circulated to the Environmental Protection Agency and to the automotive and petroleum industries under a cooperative agreement with the Coordinating Research Council for their review and comment. All parties concurred as they viewed this to be a reasonable approach and one that insured parity for all. The testing protocol included tests for aftermarket additives intended for gasoline, diesel fuel, engine oils, transmission fluids, and gear oils. This protocol was subsequently incorporated into an Army Regulation in the mid 1980's and in May 1996, became a DOD document entitled “DOD Policy Guidelines for Use of Aftermarket Fuel and Lubricant Additives[2].” This approach has worked exceedingly well for DOD in screening products that are submitted and to determine if further consideration is justified.
What to Do-
The question of whether to use or not use aftermarket additives is difficult to answer as there are many differing points of view. The type of technical data described above which would enable the consumer to see the facts before making a decision is generally not readily available and as stated previously, owners’ manuals do not recommend using aftermarket or supplemental additives. Their guidance is to use the required performance level of the product specified in the manual and follow the recommended oil change interval based upon the type of service encountered. On the other hand, many “do-it-yourself” consumers believed to be the majority users of aftermarket additives[3] simply have become convinced that using aftermarket additives is like having life insurance which provides added protection to increase engine life. Whether these products provide any additional protection remains a debatable subject. In reality, consumers following good maintenance practices and using the fuel or lubricant having the prescribed performance level listed in their owners’ manual would tend to have little need for aftermarket additives. This approach has been echoed in several publications[4-6].
Those who feel a bona fide need exists for using aftermarket additives should at least attempt to obtain as much technical information on the product as possible. This information should help to serve in answering any of your questions. Apart from the costs for these aftermarket additives which range from approximately $1.00 to in excess of $20.00, their continuous use can create problems. Of the two general types (i.e., fuel versus lubricant), the aftermarket lubricant additives could potentially create greater problems as they are allowed to remain in the crankcase and transmission systems for longer periods of time.
Although the debate for using or not using aftermarket additives will certainly continue, nothing can replace good maintenance combined with using the fuel and lubricants specified in your owners’ manual.
References-
[1]. Detroit Diesel: Lubricating Oil, Fuel Oil and Filter Recommendations, Bulletin 7SE270, Detroit Diesel Corporation, Detroit MI 48239-5000.
[2]. DOD Policy Guidelines for Use of Aftermarket Fuel and Lubricant Additives, May 1996, U. S. Army Tank-Automotive Research, Development and Engineering Center, ATTN: AMSTA-TR-D/210 (Fuels and Lubricants Technology Team), Warren MI 48397-5000.
[3]. "Aftermarket Additives Pose High-Margin Paradox”, Hart’s Lubricant World, April 1997.
[4]. "Additives Under Fire”, Car and Travel, September/October 1997.
[5]. "Don’t Use Oil Additives”, NUTZ & BOLTZ, Vol VI, No 2, Butler MD 21023.
[6]. "More On Additives”, NUTZ & BOLTZ, Vol VI, No 3, Butler MD 21023.
