tried archoil

Status
Not open for further replies.
Tested how? The only "testing" I have ever seen here is along the lines of hand-to-the-manifold testing; blurry and/inconclusive cell phone pictures; supposed better tests that under the lightest of scrutiny reveal that multiple parameters were changed for the test; testimonials about how "better" the car feels and how it is "smoother" or "idles better"; and tales of how somebody's grandpappy always added that to their ND30 oil and it "worked for years". You seen anything better?

I'm not being argumentative but each and every test I have seen has been so full of statistical or methodical holes as to be completely and utterly worthless.

Originally Posted By: Mystic
This has all been gone over again and again. People should be allowed to talk about what products they have tested. There would be little to talk about here if people were not allowed to discuss their experiences here with various products.
 
Originally Posted By: kschachn
Tested how? The only "testing" I have ever seen here is along the lines of hand-to-the-manifold testing; blurry and/inconclusive cell phone pictures; supposed better tests that under the lightest of scrutiny reveal that multiple parameters were changed for the test; testimonials about how "better" the car feels and how it is "smoother" or "idles better"; and tales of how somebody's grandpappy always added that to their ND30 oil and it "worked for years". You seen anything better?

I'm not being argumentative but each and every test I have seen has been so full of statistical or methodical holes as to be completely and utterly worthless.

Originally Posted By: Mystic
This has all been gone over again and again. People should be allowed to talk about what products they have TRIED. There would be little to talk about here if people were not allowed to discuss their experiences here with various products.


I fixed it. Unfortunately even tested products must be taken with a grain of salt, as I already mentioned above.
 
I don't disagree with your change, but tell me how that makes a difference.

Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Originally Posted By: kschachn
Tested how? The only "testing" I have ever seen here is along the lines of hand-to-the-manifold testing; blurry and/inconclusive cell phone pictures; supposed better tests that under the lightest of scrutiny reveal that multiple parameters were changed for the test; testimonials about how "better" the car feels and how it is "smoother" or "idles better"; and tales of how somebody's grandpappy always added that to their ND30 oil and it "worked for years". You seen anything better?

I'm not being argumentative but each and every test I have seen has been so full of statistical or methodical holes as to be completely and utterly worthless.
Originally Posted By: Mystic
This has all been gone over again and again. People should be allowed to talk about what products they have TRIED. There would be little to talk about here if people were not allowed to discuss their experiences here with various products.

I fixed it. Unfortunately even tested products must be taken with a grain of salt, as I already mentioned above.
 
Originally Posted By: kschachn
I don't disagree with your change, but tell me how that makes a difference.

Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Originally Posted By: kschachn
Tested how? The only "testing" I have ever seen here is along the lines of hand-to-the-manifold testing; blurry and/inconclusive cell phone pictures; supposed better tests that under the lightest of scrutiny reveal that multiple parameters were changed for the test; testimonials about how "better" the car feels and how it is "smoother" or "idles better"; and tales of how somebody's grandpappy always added that to their ND30 oil and it "worked for years". You seen anything better?

I'm not being argumentative but each and every test I have seen has been so full of statistical or methodical holes as to be completely and utterly worthless.
Originally Posted By: Mystic
This has all been gone over again and again. People should be allowed to talk about what products they have TRIED. There would be little to talk about here if people were not allowed to discuss their experiences here with various products.

I fixed it. Unfortunately even tested products must be taken with a grain of salt, as I already mentioned above.


Tried means just that, tried. Tested would open up a whole big can of worms, just like it did here. People would like to see how the test was conducted and if it was valid or not, then systematically pick it apart if they like. If someone tried something it is a lot less formal IMO, and lets the guy off the hook for those looking to attack, question, challenge, or even praise the results.
 
Last edited:
I posted what I observed when using certain additive(s) in 1 or more my cars. Everybody should take what I posted as an experience in my car(s) alone in my area(So Cal) with my driving style.

One thing for sure is I don't post positive result(s) because I was paid to do it.

Example, I could not get Kreen in California so I used non-solvent Lubegard engine flush with reduced dosage. Instead of full bottle for 10-15 minutes I used 1/2 oz per quart for 200-300 miles. I didn't follow manufacture's direction, I tried to see if my way worked or not and it worked as I expected.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR
I posted what I observed when using certain additive(s) in 1 or more my cars. Everybody should take what I posted as an experience in my car(s) alone in my area(So Cal) with my driving style.

One thing for sure is I don't post positive result(s) because I was paid to do it.


I post my experiences, good and bad. I haven't been paid as of yet. I haven't collected a dime or an ounce of free product either.
 
Last edited:
But if you "try" something, there has to be a conclusion. Even if your conclusion is that it did nothing, that may or may not be true depending on how you arrived at that conclusion. I can say I tried an additive and conclude that it did nothing. However, it may be that I was looking at the color of the oil during my trial and this is not a reliable indicator of performance.

Take this thread for example. The OP tried Archoil. Besides stating that he thought it didn't do anything, he also mentions a 1% increase in mileage. Now 1% is meaningless in a real-world test. The prevailing winds here in Milwaukee during my morning commute (on the lake, off the lake), coupled with the changing time of sunrise and the presence or absence of holidays all would contribute to any mileage variation that is impossible to factor out in this example.

So am I to conclude from this one trial that on a global scale Archoil is worthless? Or do I say this is a meaningless test and no conclusion can be made?

If no conclusion can be made, and if this trial is no different than any other trial here on BITOG, why should anyone alter their opinion based on these results?

Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Tried means just that, tried. Tested would open up a whole big can of worms, just like it did here. People would like to see how the test was conducted and if it was valid or not, then systematically pick it apart. If someone tried something it is a lot less formal IMO, and lets the guy off the hook for those looking to attack, question, challenge, or even praise the results.
 
Originally Posted By: kschachn
But if you "try" something, there has to be a conclusion. Even if your conclusion is that it did nothing, that may or may not be true depending on how you arrived at that conclusion. I can say I tried an additive and conclude that it did nothing. However, it may be that I was looking at the color of the oil during my trial and this is not a reliable indicator of performance.

Take this thread for example. The OP tried Archoil. Besides stating that he thought it didn't do anything, he also mentions a 1% increase in mileage. Now 1% is meaningless in a real-world test. The prevailing winds here in Milwaukee during my morning commute, coupled with the changing time of sunrise and the presence or absence of holidays all would contribute to any mileage variation that is impossible to factor out in this example.

So am I to conclude from this one trial that on a global scale Archoil is worthless? What other conclusion could be made?

Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Tried means just that, tried. Tested would open up a whole big can of worms, just like it did here. People would like to see how the test was conducted and if it was valid or not, then systematically pick it apart. If someone tried something it is a lot less formal IMO, and lets the guy off the hook for those looking to attack, question, challenge, or even praise the results.


There's really no point in me going in circles with words, we're very much alike. People like us should "try" the product and come to our own conclusions. That's what I did with a few different products over the years. Products that I thought had some merit. Some where good, some were total garbage. I posted my observations, took some heat at times, and moved on. Other times I had people thanking me.
 
Scientific testing of the vast majority of any of these products is out of the question. It might cost a million dollars or more to run some kind of testing.

I look at it this way-if 300 guys here have used MMO or Kreen or some other product, and 98% of those guys have obtained what they consider to be positive results, maybe the product is worth a try. About the only other testing that anybody here could afford is to take photos of the engine on the inside after a cleaning product has been used or do compression testing with a quality compression tester. And of course we have to take the word of whoever presents the before and after photographs and the before and after compression testing. If somebody uses a poor quality compression tester the results might as well be thrown out.

There are a very few products that probably did get tested. For example, Valvoline not so long ago was selling their own oil supplements. Scaheffer's has also sold old supplements. And Lubegard is probably a big enough company to do some testing. Kreen is sold by Kano Labs, which as far as I know is a reputable company. MMO is sold by Turtle Wax which is also a company of some size.

I don't think I would want to mess around with some concoction that somebody had developed in their garage. But on the other hand a lot of successful companies started in garages.

I also am not going to mess around with any product where the promoters play fast and loose with the facts, or a product that is promoted at a state fair and nobody has ever heard of the product before. If somebody says, 'The product was tested in a taxi company,' is it okay for me to ask what the name of the taxi company was, and when the testing took place? Or if somebody says, 'There is no need to test this product further. I have already tested it with a compression tester.' Really? Maybe I tested my revolutionary product SuperX Oil Supplement also with a compression tester. Anybody can make any kind of claims.

And I think it is wrong to throw out ancedotal testimony. If hundreds of guys have tried some product here isn't their testimony worth something? It may not be scientific evidence, but who is going to try that product if 95% of the guys say they have negative results or harmful results? So can't the reverse also be true? If the vast majority of hundreds of guys trying a product have obtained positive results, isn't there some possibility that the product might be good?
 
Originally Posted By: kschachn
But if you "try" something, there has to be a conclusion. Even if your conclusion is that it did nothing, that may or may not be true depending on how you arrived at that conclusion. I can say I tried an additive and conclude that it did nothing. However, it may be that I was looking at the color of the oil during my trial and this is not a reliable indicator of performance.

Take this thread for example. The OP tried Archoil. Besides stating that he thought it didn't do anything, he also mentions a 1% increase in mileage. Now 1% is meaningless in a real-world test. The prevailing winds here in Milwaukee during my morning commute (on the lake, off the lake), coupled with the changing time of sunrise and the presence or absence of holidays all would contribute to any mileage variation that is impossible to factor out in this example.

So am I to conclude from this one trial that on a global scale Archoil is worthless? Or do I say this is a meaningless test and no conclusion can be made?

If no conclusion can be made, and if this trial is no different than any other trial here on BITOG, why should anyone alter their opinion based on these results?

Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Tried means just that, tried. Tested would open up a whole big can of worms, just like it did here. People would like to see how the test was conducted and if it was valid or not, then systematically pick it apart. If someone tried something it is a lot less formal IMO, and lets the guy off the hook for those looking to attack, question, challenge, or even praise the results.



I tested mos2,running a new to me vehicle on my commute which is flat and 30+ miles each way. I established a baseline after 3000+ miles,tracking every tank of fuel,then added mos2 and again tracked consumption for a total of 10000 miles all told.
I used cruise control,bought fuel from the same station and pump every time,so the only actual variable that was uncontrolled was wind speed.
And even then my observations weren't good enough.
All I wanted to to was to test the stuff objectively and see if there were any changes in fuel consumption that could be considered more than just tank to tank variation.
I also wanted to see if my observations in my other vehicles were more than just in my head.
And I proved it to myself that the stuff worked. I gained iirc 3-4mpg consistently,on the highway.
City mileage wasn't noticeable one way or the other however on the highway the increase was significant enough that 1 tank of fuel savings more than covered the cost of the additive,which I call good return on investment.
Now if all my miles were city driven I'm confident there would be little to no fuel economy improvement because of how traffic works,constant stops and starts but when on the highway there was a significant,repeatable improvement.
 
Mystic-Even if someone was to pay for the testing, it would take minutes for many of us to nitpick the testing methods and results. Bottom line, if you feel a product has some benefit that you might be in need of, try it. If you don't have the time or desire to get into a slug fest keep your observations and opinions to yourself.
 
One of the problems with any kind of additive is the relatively small effect they are claiming. For example, if the Archoil oil additive claims to reduce friction, you have to factor in that the coefficient of friction in motor oil is already extremely low. Even if you reduce it by 75% it is still going to be a small amount that is very hard to measure in an operating engine. It's kind of like the difference between buying two lottery tickets instead of just one. The marginal improvement is not a whole lot.

So you get additive companies making claims that for the most part are great sounding claims but nearly impossible to prove. If motor oil was some horrible substance that could barely keep an engine alive, and the additive claimed to improve it by 90%, well great, you could easily see that kind of a difference. But modern oils are already pretty good and any "improvement" whatever it might be is going to be tough to see. Whenever somebody claims a "%improvement", make sure you know what the base numbers are. It would be more meaningful if the additive company posted actual numbers.
 
So what is that, about a 10% improvement?

Originally Posted By: Clevy
I tested mos2,running a new to me vehicle on my commute which is flat and 30+ miles each way. I established a baseline after 3000+ miles,tracking every tank of fuel,then added mos2 and again tracked consumption for a total of 10000 miles all told.
I used cruise control,bought fuel from the same station and pump every time,so the only actual variable that was uncontrolled was wind speed.
And even then my observations weren't good enough.
All I wanted to to was to test the stuff objectively and see if there were any changes in fuel consumption that could be considered more than just tank to tank variation.
I also wanted to see if my observations in my other vehicles were more than just in my head.
And I proved it to myself that the stuff worked. I gained iirc 3-4mpg consistently,on the highway.
City mileage wasn't noticeable one way or the other however on the highway the increase was significant enough that 1 tank of fuel savings more than covered the cost of the additive,which I call good return on investment.
Now if all my miles were city driven I'm confident there would be little to no fuel economy improvement because of how traffic works,constant stops and starts but when on the highway there was a significant,repeatable improvement.
 
Nobody has to use any oil supplement, although a new car dealership might try to sell you oil supplements. If a person does not believe in oil supplements, they don't have to use any-period. I do get tired of the people who are promoting some product here and they put down every product and claim their product works. Their product is the grand exception.

Kreen is sold by Kano Labs. I have heard of Kano Labs. I assume they are a reputable company. I have also heard of Turtle Wax (MMO) and Lubegard. I have heard of the company that makes LM moly. I am more likely to buy a product from a company I have heard of before.

Right now I am using very few supplements of any kind. I still use Techron, which was developed by Chevron, an oil company I have heard of.

I do think guys should be allowed at the Oil Additives Section here to discuss varous oil supplements. That is what this section is for.
 
I agree with Mystic.

I tried various additives from only reputable companies such as Lubegard, Liqui Moly(Lubro Moly), Chevron ... Most of them worked as expected. Especially, the cost of those additives are relatively cheap such that if it didn't work it didn't hurt the pocket much.
 
Originally Posted By: kschachn
So what is that, about a 10% improvement?

Originally Posted By: Clevy
I tested mos2,running a new to me vehicle on my commute which is flat and 30+ miles each way. I established a baseline after 3000+ miles,tracking every tank of fuel,then added mos2 and again tracked consumption for a total of 10000 miles all told.
I used cruise control,bought fuel from the same station and pump every time,so the only actual variable that was uncontrolled was wind speed.
And even then my observations weren't good enough.
All I wanted to to was to test the stuff objectively and see if there were any changes in fuel consumption that could be considered more than just tank to tank variation.
I also wanted to see if my observations in my other vehicles were more than just in my head.
And I proved it to myself that the stuff worked. I gained iirc 3-4mpg consistently,on the highway.
City mileage wasn't noticeable one way or the other however on the highway the increase was significant enough that 1 tank of fuel savings more than covered the cost of the additive,which I call good return on investment.
Now if all my miles were city driven I'm confident there would be little to no fuel economy improvement because of how traffic works,constant stops and starts but when on the highway there was a significant,repeatable improvement.


Well the charger baselined at 25ish on the highway,so 3-4 mpg is probably closer to 5% isn't it,or has the sun cooked my brain today.

I don't blame anyone for their skepticism,the whole additive market is pretty much snake oil in pretty containers,but the few that do work as advertised are worth mentioning.
Now I've noticed significant gains only in v-8 engines. Smaller engines don't seem to benefit as much on the fuel consumption end although from the posts I've read some guys do mention a free'er spinning engine,less shake etc,but for me,in the small engines I've used it in fuel consumption wasn't affected enough for me to make note of.
 
Ah well I didn't see what car you used it in. I was thinking it was something with higher mileage.

OK so maybe my 530i with the V-8 is a good candidate. My daughter drives it back and forth to school (250 miles each way). Sounds like a fit.

Originally Posted By: Clevy
Well the charger baselined at 25ish on the highway,so 3-4 mpg is probably closer to 5% isn't it,or has the sun cooked my brain today.

I don't blame anyone for their skepticism,the whole additive market is pretty much snake oil in pretty containers,but the few that do work as advertised are worth mentioning.
Now I've noticed significant gains only in v-8 engines. Smaller engines don't seem to benefit as much on the fuel consumption end although from the posts I've read some guys do mention a free'er spinning engine,less shake etc,but for me,in the small engines I've used it in fuel consumption wasn't affected enough for me to make note of.
 
It amuses me that every few weeks we see the same posters NOT talking about the additive that started the thread but instead pontificating on how discussions on additives SHOULD take place. Which companies make good additives, how we should interpret results, what anecdotes are valid and which are not.

Having to wade through these posts every time is suffocating this sub forum.
 
19.1 mpg to 19.3 mpg is no more than fillup variation.
Consider this:
The difference between the two is only .15 gallons over a three hundred mile run, or about a beer can and a half. You can easily put in another couple of tenths on a full tank with patience if you'd like, so we can say that archoil did nothing for the fuel economy of your Trib.
Incidentally, 19 mpg is not bad for this heavy AWD vehicle with its thirsty, but very nice flat six.
 
No doubt. Just like how every few weeks we see the same kind of anecdotal posts about the effectiveness some additive, such as a "hand to the manifold test" or an observed approximate 1% increase in fuel economy. Then when that, as the only offered evidence of effectiveness is discussed, some people decry how the additive itself isn't being discussed. Generally the next comment is a dismissal of any input by those who haven't actually used the product.

Frustrating, isn't it?

Originally Posted By: Sam2000
It amuses me that every few weeks we see the same posters NOT talking about the additive that started the thread but instead pontificating on how discussions on additives SHOULD take place. Which companies make good additives, how we should interpret results, what anecdotes are valid and which are not.

Having to wade through these posts every time is suffocating this sub forum.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top