Before I added the Rislone, I did quite a bit of reading on this forum and heard both sides. I just dug up this thread, and want to now rehash the past:
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2654584&page=1
First off, does anybody know if the chemical formulation for Rislone has changed, being now that it's 10 years subsequent to the above thread? MolaKule stated that according to the VOA, Rislone was nothing more than a 20 weight oil with low levels of calcium and ZDDP, with some anti-foam. If this is true, and there's no additional cleaning agent in Rislone which didn't show up on the VOA, or wouldn't show up on a VOA, then obviously further investigation needs to be done into the product if people are going to be dumping it into their engine. I'm not somebody who believes in anecdotal evidence and experiences, but rather somebody who bases decisions off scientific studies and proof. Just because somebody lived to be 90 years old on a diet of hot dogs full of sodium nitrate, doesn't automatically negate years of research showing that certain foods increase the likelihood of certain diseases, equating to an overall higher mortality rate. In other words, people who claimed that a specific additive worked may have had that same exact improvement without the additive.
Since MolaKule seems to be one of the only tribologists on the forum who I frequently come across, I am going to take into account what he writes. It concerns me, however, that there's been so much past hoopla pertaining to Auto-Rx from delighted and enthusiastic users, mixed with propaganda coming from paid posters. Then you read the numerous threads from people claiming Auto-Rx did absolutely nothing, having left them feeling scammed. I have an open mind, and obviously I am going to take into account that different driving patterns/drivers, engines, ambient temperatures, oils, gasoline, and existing mechanical issues all have the potential to make any specific additive or oil have different outcomes, but being the skeptic that I am, if there is a group of people who have similar combined elements, and this group is large enough and comes forward and states: "This product is junk and doesn't work", then it's obviously time to drop that product and move forward with other plans. One thing I noticed is that MolaKule praises Auto-Rx in the above thread, but dismisses Rislone as being nothing more than the aforementioned. This makes me very suspicious if he was or is a shill for Auto-Rx, and I also noticed that a decade ago was around the time that all the Auto-Rx shilling was going on. Please put yourself in my shoes. It's not my intention to make any truthful person feel under pressure on this forum, but you can rest assured that if I found out anybody was getting a kickback from any one company for posting about it in a positive light, I would draw a conclusion that that would be a pretty repugnant thing to do from a morality standpoint. Considering that this is a forum where anybody can be anybody and claim anything, as well as considering this forum's checkered past with paid shills posting about a product which has mixed results (and who knows, maybe some of the people who wrote in describing positive results were paid posters or were promised a free bottle, or their engines would've improved anyway without the additive), it all adds to my skepticism meter about what works and what doesn't. I can see why certain individuals on this forum stay completely away from additives, but that isn't to say that I'm going to expeditiously subscribe to that set of beliefs (that all additives belong in the trash). What I'm stating is that the maniacal carousel which never ceases to letup in relation to the topic of oil additives can be so mind-boggling and difficult to believe in, not to mention that the only stuff I've ever read was based off empirical and/or anecdotal evidence, that it is simple to just write everything or most of the additive products off as being nothing more than snake oil -- and maybe those people were right after all; maybe they weren't. When I say empirical, that means that you can see the product is working through observation. But how do we really know it's working, without a scientific clone of the vehicle, and the same exact usage pattern/driver? We don't. Empirical evidence in the additive field hasn't shown me anything provable. Then we have anecdotal evidence; e.g., "Jordge over at Tijuana Motors said Rislone really works good and cleans all his customers engines up real nice." Sorry, but that's not enough for me to believe in a product.
Obviously I'm somebody who has mixed feelings on this subject, and I have a good reason for it. What MolaKule posted about Rislone kind of makes me want to drain the oil and figure out a new plan. If Rislone really is just a 20 weight oil with a weak additive pack, then how is this company still in business? Is Bar's Products just waiting for the unsuspecting and uneducated consumer to pull the yellow bottle off the shelf and believe in all the claims on the back? I read Bar's response to the VOA, and thought it was lacking. Just because grandpa used Rislone in his tractor without any problems isn't proof of anything. An observation I made in regards to Rislone is that it has a minty smell; could this be some type of cleaner which didn't show up on the VOA, or is it now a different formula than what was tested 10 years ago? I'd like to hear what other people here have to say about Rislone. It's significantly gone up in cost since the above linked thread, almost tripling in price (the above thread stated $2.29/qt.; it now runs $6.59/qt. in my location. How much, per quart, has motor oil gone up in the last 10 years? Does anyone have a new VOA for Rislone? If I leave Rislone in, is it going to hurt anything? And last but not least, the oil in my engine is looking darker than normal after 400 miles with Rislone in. It's anyone's guess if it's actually working or not.
