Archoil AR6200

Status
Not open for further replies.
And then of course it can be frustrating when a poster says they only want one thing, but then make two long posts detailing claims the manufacturer is making for the product. Then when a response is made to those posts, they make no effort to comment on the questions raised, but instead cry foul that the rules were broken - rules they themselves broke in the first place.

Originally Posted By: demarpaint
This is true. However when you spell it all out, and are very specific in who should answer, meaning only people who used the product in this case, it can be frustrating. I've seen it in other threads where very specific questions were asked, and people twist things around just to reply ignoring the question and how it was asked.
 
Originally Posted By: kschachn
And then of course it can be frustrating when a poster says they only want one thing, but then make two long posts detailing claims the manufacturer is making for the product. Then when a response is made to those posts, they make no effort to comment on the questions raised, but instead cry foul that the rules were broken - rules they themselves broke in the first place.



I hear ya, I think he wanted to hear from people who actually used the product, and the thread blew up. Tough to find users since it seems to be a fairly new product. I heard about it a month or so ago here.
 
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Originally Posted By: dailydriver
^^^Yes, and some wonder WHY I sometimes feel the need to 'pre-emptively strike' in threads I start on here!
lol.gif



But seriously, think about it and you can't possibly think it's not going to fire someone up when you tell them to shut up and go away because you don't appreciate their comments?

It's a public forum. Expect dissent, people who want to censor the comments in threads are thinking very unreasonably. It's going to happen...


I am speaking of when the thread starter SPECIFICALLY/EMPHATICALLY states, right in the FIRST post, that they don't want or need the negative 'sidebar' type comments and opinions, and dissing of what they are asking about/doing, just DIRECT answers to their question(s), but those who INSIST on getting their zealous
49.gif
in, do so anyway.

I especially see this when discussing premium boutique oils and their add packs/base stock compositions.
Of course everything from a 250K mile Yugo to a brand new Italia Speciale will 'survive' on PYB, but who needs this site if we just default to the cheapest/bargain oil one can find, and everyone just disses those who use an oil which is deemed "too good/overkill" for their app??

This site used to be about discussing the latest and greatest, top notch, exceptional oils/lubes/etc., NOT just the bottom line, "good enough", 'bargains' (I am told that is one of the reasons so many informative people have left.
21.gif
)

Otherwise, if not requested by the thread starter, YES, it should be an open/free discussion.
wink.gif
 
And then the thread starter posts two detailed posts of what the manufacturer's claims are, and when a response is made to those claims will not permit a discussion of his own posts.

And where did anyone, myself included, "diss" what he was asking or doing? I did question and refute the manufacturer's claims and statements, but never "dissed" the poster. He however, did "diss" me by calling me "stupid" and "rude", and demanded that I not address him any more.

The claims posted that came from the manufacturer, are at best dubious and more likely downright dishonest. As someone who knows a little about chemistry - and I did state it was a little - should I just sit here and be quiet? Should I?

Originally Posted By: dailydriver
I am speaking of when the thread starterSPECIFICALLY/EMPHATICALLY states, right in the FIRST post, that they don't want or need the negative 'sidebar' type comments and opinions, and dissing of what they are asking about/doing, just DIRECT answers to their question(s), but those who INSIST on getting their zealous
49.gif
in, do so anyway.
 
Yes, let's get back to discussing AR6200.

What do you think of the fact that Archoil is flat out lying concerning the testing done on AR6200?

Ed
 
Originally Posted By: edhackett
Yes, let's get back to discussing AR6200.

What do you think of the fact that Archoil is flat out lying concerning the testing done on AR6200?

Ed



I certainly find the entire thing interesting.
I'll stick with liqui-moly. I know their stuff works and every product they make performs as advertised.
 
Originally Posted By: edhackett
Originally Posted By: kschachn
Did you look that up? The "EPA CMB" is a Chemical Mass Balance model, not even a test as such. It is a computer model. And it is used to predict air pollution.

Unless there is another "EPA CMB test" then this doesn't appear to even relate to what they claim.

Originally Posted By: jonny-b
"AR6200 Fuel Modification Complex was developed to address the shortcomings in carbon based fuels. AR6200 utilizes the principle of catalysis and at the same time is a demulsifier, increases available combustion BTU by lowering the burn rate, controls bacteria growth, a polymerization retardant and more. Tested in the field for MPG using the EPA CMB test averaging an 8% improvement, the most accurate EPA test for MPG. Can be used in any carbon fuel type including bunker and will maintain storage fuel integrity. One pint treats 1280 gallons".

It looks like they know it because of the testing.


Late to this thread, but good catch, kschachn.

CMB is a source-receptor model used to do source apportionment of regional air pollutants. It was developed by the Principal Investigators at the Desert Research Institute's Environmental Anyalysis Facility. This is where I spent the last 17 years of my career at DRI. A large part of my work there was analyzing source and ambient samples and putting the results into final form for input into CMB.

I can tell you without a doubt that Archoil did not use CMB to determine a fuel milage increase of an additive.

CMB is used to "back out" the sources of pollution in an area. Source profiles are generated by sampling major point sources in the area of interest; refinery stack emissions, cooking(Burger King is a big polluter), power plants, chemical factories, etc. These samples are comprehensively analyzed to create a chemical signature of each point source. Non-point source emission source profiles are added to the data; gasoline powered vehicles, light, medium, and heavy duty diesel, OPE, BBQ, etc. Ambient samples are taken around the region, neighborhood, or even a specific point such as an elementary school. CMB backs out the contribution of each source profile entered to the specific ambient sample of interest.

CMB

Ed


Good info here. Not so good for Archoil though.
 
Originally Posted By: edhackett
Yes, let's get back to discussing AR6200.

What do you think of the fact that Archoil is flat out lying concerning the testing done on AR6200?

Ed


I'm currently using this product with good results so far in the '77 F250. But I am interested in this CMB testing as well, I've emailed Archoil about it, we'll see what they say.
 
I couldn't believe Archoil could really be that blatant in misrepresenting their testing. I did some more research into what they may have done.

They actually did use a method appropriate to what they were testing; method AS2077-1982, carbon mass balance. Abbreviating carbon mass balance as CMB is improper, as CMB is the proper name of the receptor model. They need to refer to the test by its full method name to eliminate confusion. Any search of EPA CMB will bring up only references to the receptor model.

Ed
 
Originally Posted By: edhackett
I couldn't believe Archoil could really be that blatant in misrepresenting their testing. I did some more research into what they may have done.

They actually did use a method appropriate to what they were testing; method AS2077-1982, carbon mass balance. Abbreviating carbon mass balance as CMB is improper, as CMB is the proper name of the receptor model. They need to refer to the test by its full method name to eliminate confusion. Any search of EPA CMB will bring up only references to the receptor model.

Ed


This is correct as per: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:v5TUGGFLdIUJ:www.archoil.com/stage/assets/File/CARBON%2520MASS%2520BALANCE%2520TEST.pdf
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: edhackett
I couldn't believe Archoil could really be that blatant in misrepresenting their testing. I did some more research into what they may have done.

They actually did use a method appropriate to what they were testing; method AS2077-1982, carbon mass balance. Abbreviating carbon mass balance as CMB is improper, as CMB is the proper name of the receptor model. They need to refer to the test by its full method name to eliminate confusion. Any search of EPA CMB will bring up only references to the receptor model.

Ed


Based on that could the results they claim be within the boundaries of reality?
 
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?
 
Been a few weeks now in the F250. One observation so far is that cold starts are much improved. The truck often sits 5+ days without starting and usually I need to start it 2-3 times to keep it running. Since the addition of the Archoil, the truck has started on the first try every time. Not sure how it works, but it's been nice.

In the next couple of weeks, I will be putting Archoil's claims of reduced emissions to the test. The tuning on the truck is the same as last year, the only difference will be using Archoil in the fuel and the oil(only in the fuel at the moment). Last year it passed by 1ppm on the idle Hydrocarbon, so we'll see!
 
Hi, panthermike!

It is great that you haven't made any changes since the last emission testing.

It will be great to see the numbers.

I guess there will be many more, accurate readings, when people start using it.
I guess that maybe in 2 or 3 years, even those who haven't tried it, but still say it doesn't work, will be using it.
 
Originally Posted By: boxcartommie22
jonny-b,thanks for your wisdom and listening on here, its amazing how some people on here trash peoples info. and experiences..


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.

I will say that AR9100 has gotten very positive reviews from the PowerStroke diesel crowd as the oil is used to operate the fuel injectors in those engines. Of course, Kreen has been shown to do the same thing for a lot less money.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top