Recent Topics
Looking For Economical Vehicle
by 13Tacoma
10/23/14 01:54 AM
M/T Fluid Change in '06 Corolla
by BrandonVA
10/23/14 01:10 AM
Biggest AC Delco/Fram Ultra for GM LSA?
by GM4LIFE
10/23/14 12:10 AM
using M1 High Mileage... having doubts, switch?
by Legend11
10/22/14 11:55 PM
What is white mask symbol on violet back ground
by jorton
10/22/14 11:39 PM
Took the Amsoil plunge today.
by 340_Magnum
10/22/14 11:32 PM
2013 Silverado 5.3 lifter noise
by gofasterrrr
10/22/14 10:12 PM
Installed my last PureOne today.
by Hollow
10/22/14 09:55 PM
2014 silverado oil issue
by Jschreffler81
10/22/14 09:14 PM
Ford Duratec 2.0
by pbm
10/22/14 08:47 PM
Improving Vision
by lawman1909
10/22/14 08:19 PM
Made a headlamp harness for the Miata
by Klutch9
10/22/14 08:09 PM
Newest Members
340_Magnum, aselinger, extrabigjon, monron, Jschreffler81
51672 Registered Users
Who's Online
22 registered (3800Series, Digital2k2, david_ES2, 901Memphis, aselinger, 1 invisible), 601 Guests and 170 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Stats
51672 Members
64 Forums
221089 Topics
3494869 Posts

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

Page 5 of 7 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >
Topic Options
#3291970 - 02/23/14 04:50 PM Re: Archoil AR6200 [Re: simple_simon]
demarpaint Offline


Registered: 07/03/05
Posts: 21314
Loc: NY
Originally Posted By: simple_simon

Like how an oil additive magically changes the temperature of the thermostat installed in the cooling system? With that kind of "proof", Archoil has a LONG way to go to prove themselves to the intelligent members of BITOG.


You're right it can't change the thermostat setting. But lets say the thermostat opens at 195F, and the fan kicks on @ 210F, what if the additive keeps the engine below 210F, and that can be documented? Or instead of the fan coming on in 20 minutes it kicks on in 40 minutes, and runs less time, and it can be documented. Is that possible? Would that be worthy of some consideration? These are tests I'd like to see. Just thinking out loud. No dog in this fight.
_________________________
GOD Bless our Troops


Top
#3291978 - 02/23/14 04:58 PM Re: Archoil AR6200 [Re: demarpaint]
simple_simon Offline


Registered: 01/26/11
Posts: 103
Loc: Indianapolis, IN
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Originally Posted By: simple_simon

Like how an oil additive magically changes the temperature of the thermostat installed in the cooling system? With that kind of "proof", Archoil has a LONG way to go to prove themselves to the intelligent members of BITOG.


You're right it can't change the thermostat setting. But lets say the thermostat opens at 195F, and the fan kicks on @ 210F, what if the additive keeps the engine below 210F, and that can be documented? Or instead of the fan coming on in 20 minutes it kicks on in 40 minutes, and runs less time, and it can be documented. Is that possible? Would that be worthy of some consideration? These are tests I'd like to see. Just thinking out loud. No dog in this fight.


Those would be valid tests but are certainly a far cry from what boxcartommie22 claimed. He drove around during the winter in Colorado and then opened his hood and put his hand on the cylider head (he probably meant the valve cover) and determined that it felt cooler than it did before he put an additive into the oil.

Top
#3291988 - 02/23/14 05:15 PM Re: Archoil AR6200 [Re: simple_simon]
demarpaint Offline


Registered: 07/03/05
Posts: 21314
Loc: NY
My test would be easy enough to conduct. It wouldn't cost much either for the DIY'er if he/she were so inclined.
_________________________
GOD Bless our Troops


Top
#3291994 - 02/23/14 05:23 PM Re: Archoil AR6200 [Re: demarpaint]
simple_simon Offline


Registered: 01/26/11
Posts: 103
Loc: Indianapolis, IN
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
My test would be easy enough to conduct. It wouldn't cost much either for the DIY'er if he/she were so inclined.


It would just require a constant ambient temperature and humidity between tests and a driving loop that can be done at a set speed and time/distance.

Top
#3292014 - 02/23/14 05:51 PM Re: Archoil AR6200 [Re: demarpaint]
kschachn Offline


Registered: 12/26/05
Posts: 2657
Loc: Upper Midwest
The bulk of the heat is produced by the combustion of gasoline, not frictional losses (and especially not those that could be reduced via an oil additive; the coefficient of friction of a PCMO is already very low). So unless you are lowering the heat of combustion of the gasoline then you won't reduce the total heat load of the engine very much at all. And besides, the frictional losses are themselves produced by the gasoline combustion since in order to turn the engine you have to burn gasoline. So in reality it is additive, not a separate heat source.

Unless the ambient temperature is very low and you are running at a very low load, then you will not run the engine at a temperature that is lower than the thermostat setting. There is simply too much heat from combustion to stop it. We're talking hundreds of thousands of Watts, even in a small ICE like the one in my 1NZ-FE. If I somehow reduced the oil-related frictional losses in that engine even by half, there is simply no way it would come close to lowering the overall heat output enough to lower the coolant temperature in a noticeable way. I mean, look at the almost miniscule improvement you get going to the low-viscosity oils that are being used today.

Also in an ICE, lower operating temperatures equal lower thermal efficiency. You really want the engine to operate at as high a temperature as possible. The Japanese did a lot of work on uncooled engines (adiabatic), but those require exotic materials that are very expensive. So you resort to rejecting heat to keep the block, pistons and head from melting. But every BTU you reject through the cooling system is a BTU that is forever unavailable to do useful work. Engine designers do not want the engine operating at anything other than the thermostat setting and they do a lot to make sure it doesn't happen very often, or for very long.

Of course this post will immediately be labeled as "trashing people's info" when in reality we have had no info presented that is valid in a statistical or scientific way. I don't have a dog in this fight either (despite several poster's protestations to the contrary), but when sound engineering and chemistry is being tossed out the window, it's hard not to comment.


Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Originally Posted By: simple_simon

Like how an oil additive magically changes the temperature of the thermostat installed in the cooling system? With that kind of "proof", Archoil has a LONG way to go to prove themselves to the intelligent members of BITOG.


You're right it can't change the thermostat setting. But lets say the thermostat opens at 195F, and the fan kicks on @ 210F, what if the additive keeps the engine below 210F, and that can be documented? Or instead of the fan coming on in 20 minutes it kicks on in 40 minutes, and runs less time, and it can be documented. Is that possible? Would that be worthy of some consideration? These are tests I'd like to see. Just thinking out loud. No dog in this fight.
_________________________
1994 BMW 530i, 189K
1996 Honda Accord, 203K
1999 Toyota Sienna, 306K
2000 Toyota ECHO, 224K

Top
#3292045 - 02/23/14 06:21 PM Re: Archoil AR6200 [Re: kschachn]
simple_simon Offline


Registered: 01/26/11
Posts: 103
Loc: Indianapolis, IN
Originally Posted By: kschachn
Unless the ambient temperature is very low and you are running at a very low load, then you will not run the engine at a temperature that is lower than the thermostat setting. There is simply too much heat from combustion to stop it. We're talking hundreds of thousands of Watts, even in a small ICE like the one in my 1NZ-FE. If I somehow reduced the oil-related frictional losses in that engine even by half, there is simply no way it would come close to lowering the overall heat output enough to lower the coolant temperature in a noticeable way. I mean, look at the almost miniscule improvement you get going to the low-viscosity oils that are being used today.

Also in an ICE, lower operating temperatures equal lower thermal efficiency. You really want the engine to operate at as high a temperature as possible. The Japanese did a lot of work on uncooled engines (adiabatic), but those require exotic materials that are very expensive. So you resort to rejecting heat to keep the block, pistons and head from melting. But every BTU you reject through the cooling system is a BTU that is forever unavailable to do useful work. Engine designers do not want the engine operating at anything other than the thermostat setting and they do a lot to make sure it doesn't happen very often, or for very long.


But. But. The boxcarshill put his hand on the valve cover and determined that Archoil is the greatest product in the history of the world. It magically lowered his operating temperatures by a huge factor and also increased his fuel economy by a whopping 15%!!!!

With CAFE regulations being what they are, it sure is surprising that not a single one of the auto manufacturers have gotten wind of the panacea that is AR9100.

Top
#3292066 - 02/23/14 06:48 PM Re: Archoil AR6200 [Re: kschachn]
demarpaint Offline


Registered: 07/03/05
Posts: 21314
Loc: NY
Originally Posted By: kschachn

Of course this post will immediately be labeled as "trashing people's info" when in reality we have had no info presented that is valid in a statistical or scientific way. I don't have a dog in this fight either (despite several poster's protestations to the contrary), but when sound engineering and chemistry is being tossed out the window, it's hard not to comment.


First off thanks for taking the time for a educated reply, and not being confrontational with me. A reply like this one IMO is not trashing anything. I was asking questions that's all. The bulk of the heat is from combustion I realize that. I was wondering if friction accounted for enough heat, that if it was reduced would it be noticeable in my hypothetical test? Would there be enough heat reduction to keep the fan off, or delay it coming on? I guess it isn't that simple a test after all.

Is there a way to calculate how much heat is from combustion and how much heat is from friction percent wise? Or would it be different for every engine, and driving conditions and impossible to measure? Could fuel savings calculated in a controlled environment be considered a reduction in friction? If so that could be another way to test the product.

_________________________
GOD Bless our Troops


Top
#3292108 - 02/23/14 07:30 PM Re: Archoil AR6200 [Re: demarpaint]
kschachn Offline


Registered: 12/26/05
Posts: 2657
Loc: Upper Midwest
You'll have to look into that yourself, I don't recall. Be careful though, because the "friction loss" in an ICE is not the same as what we are discussing here. You want the friction loss attributed to the engine oil, and I have never seen a figure for that (but obviously the auto manufacturers and oil companies know; ExxonMobil's admittedly vague figures for 0W-30 must come from somewhere).

Piston ring friction is the single greatest percentage of total friction loss I believe, and I think that is something like 20-25% of the total mechanical loss in an ICE. That friction isn't directly connected to oil however, not like in a bearing (or just in the drag of rotating components). Hydrodynamic friction loss is what you want - and not only that, but you want a measure of the heat that is generated. For fully warmed up engine oil it is going to be pretty small, and compared to the heat of combustion for the fuel it will be tiny. Gasoline is a pretty energetic substance smile

But look it up, see what you can find.

Originally Posted By: demarpaint
First off thanks for taking the time for a educated reply, and not being confrontational with me. A reply like this one IMO is not trashing anything. I was asking questions that's all. The bulk of the heat is from combustion I realize that. I was wondering if friction accounted for enough heat, that if it was reduced would it be noticeable in my hypothetical test? Would there be enough heat reduction to keep the fan off, or delay it coming on? I guess it isn't that simple a test after all.

Is there a way to calculate how much heat is from combustion and how much heat is from friction percent wise? Or would it be different for every engine, and driving conditions and impossible to measure? Could fuel savings calculated in a controlled environment be considered a reduction in friction? If so that could be another way to test the product.

_________________________
1994 BMW 530i, 189K
1996 Honda Accord, 203K
1999 Toyota Sienna, 306K
2000 Toyota ECHO, 224K

Top
#3292171 - 02/23/14 08:29 PM Re: Archoil AR6200 [Re: kschachn]
demarpaint Offline


Registered: 07/03/05
Posts: 21314
Loc: NY
Originally Posted By: kschachn


But look it up, see what you can find.



I did a few times and didn't find much that I could make a case with.
_________________________
GOD Bless our Troops


Top
#3292175 - 02/23/14 08:39 PM Re: Archoil AR6200 [Re: jonny-b]
Vikas Offline


Registered: 07/22/05
Posts: 8232
Loc: NorthEast
If you are willing, here is an easy test.

Take an experimental OPE, tachometer and a wired drill. Take the spark plug out and spin the engine using the drill machine. Measure the speed.

Now add your favorite snake oil and run the same test. Find the percentage increase in the engine speed.

Anybody willing to rig it up?

Top
#3292282 - 02/23/14 10:22 PM Re: Archoil AR6200 [Re: jonny-b]
a2gtinut Offline


Registered: 01/27/08
Posts: 11
Loc: Earth
Originally Posted By: jonny-b
Hi, a2gtinut.
Did you follow the instruction and use 1 to 5000 the first tank?
Translated to 10 ml for 50 liters(13 US gallons).

After that, only 5 ml for 50 liters, are needed(1 to 10 000).

What car brands is it?



I used only 5mL per tank and both cars have Audi/Vw 1.8T engine.

Top
#3292572 - 02/24/14 09:05 AM Re: Archoil AR6200 [Re: jonny-b]
boxcartommie22 Offline


Registered: 01/03/03
Posts: 2997
Loc: moutain country
first of all,i didn't say the reduced heat was from archoil.the heat reduction just so happens after a couple of weeks after archoil ar9100..coincidence maybe or maybe not.i don't feel it is necessary to be mocked by low life's on here for someone's opinion.
_________________________
2001 Lincoln Conti,RL,K&N,SS Filter,Lubegard,Archoil
2007 Grand Marquis,RL,K&N,SS Filter,Lubegard,Archoil
2010 Raptor,RL,SS Filter,Lubegard,Archoil

Top
#3292578 - 02/24/14 09:12 AM Re: Archoil AR6200 [Re: boxcartommie22]
simple_simon Offline


Registered: 01/26/11
Posts: 103
Loc: Indianapolis, IN
Originally Posted By: boxcartommie22
I could not believe it adding that boran additive ar9100 from archoil has did to reducing the heat greatly!!!


Originally Posted By: boxcartommie22
first of all,i didn't say the reduced heat was from archoil.the heat reduction just so happens after a couple of weeks after archoil ar9100..coincidence maybe or maybe not.i don't feel it is necessary to be mocked by low life's on here for someone's opinion.


Please take the spam somewhere else. No one here is buying that garbage.

Top
#3292613 - 02/24/14 09:46 AM Re: Archoil AR6200 [Re: simple_simon]
dave5358 Offline


Registered: 04/25/13
Posts: 669
Loc: North Bend
Originally Posted By: simple_simon
Please take the spam somewhere else. No one here is buying that garbage.


Okay, you don't like Archoil. Otherwise, how does this contribute to the thread?
_________________________
2006 Forester XT
2008 Corolla LE

Top
#3292618 - 02/24/14 09:50 AM Re: Archoil AR6200 [Re: jonny-b]
Clevy Offline


Registered: 11/11/10
Posts: 7364
Loc: Saskatoon canada
I thought boron was an anti-oxidant and helped in the tbn department,not a friction modifier.
So what has boron got to do with heat?

I'd like to find this stuff and try it in one of my air compressors,just to see for myself if it does anything.
These nano particle adds seem to be the future if lubication. Whether it be mos2,ceramic,hexagonal boron(not sure what it does yet) but it seems they are all gaining traction.
_________________________
2006 Charger RT
Miles x 2 per oil filter

Top
Page 5 of 7 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >