Oil additives

[4wheeldog]

Originally Posted By: minis
Yep I maintain my cars well

If you never use a product you cannot give a fair review of the product.

There are a few people at the local vw club that use cera tec in there new beetle and only good thing to say
While people who never used it only had bad things to say.
go figure


It is not necessary to use every product available to form an opinion of its value. Otherwise, we would be downing various pharmaceuticals to address problems we don't have. Does that sound like a good idea? Why do you want to do it for your engine?

 

[MolaKule]

Originally Posted By: minis
Yep I maintain my cars well

If you never use a product you cannot give a fair review of the product.

There are a few people at the local vw club that use cera tec in there new beetle and only good thing to say
While people who never used it only had bad things to say.
go figure


NO, I have either used, evaluated, or analyzed just about every one of these additives at one time or another.

As I asked before, would showing some efficacy of a product be a fair assessment of that product? That is, why not ask for some definitive cause and effect data?

Marketing and hype are very strong motivators to buy.

Another strong motivator is hearsay. But hearsay is not proof of efficacy.

No one is preventing anyone from using anything.

What various people are trying to convey is this: If you educate the prospective consumer to what a product really is, and what is does and doesn't do, then that consumer has the opportunity to make an informed choice.

 

[minis]

I never said I was going to use it.
I was asking what the difference was between the two products.

I am not sure why that is confusing people in thinking it was going in my engine now with 30,000 mile?

But I am thinking of future possibilities

 

[Trajan]

Originally Posted By: minis
Yep I maintain my cars well

If you never use a product you cannot give a fair review of the product.


Sure you can. For example, you don't have to use Zmax to know that it does not soak into metal.
Originally Posted By: minis


There are a few people at the local vw club that use cera tec in there new beetle and only good thing to say


So how did they determine that they need it? How did they determine the effect it would have on the oil chemistry?
Originally Posted By: minis


While people who never used it only had bad things to say.
go figure


And do you have the statistics to back that up? Are you saying that people who do use it have only good things to say?

 

[minis]

Just read the first reply to my post and read what they said

Do I need to put % no but you can read all the post that ask about additives and see how many say snake oil and never used the product And how many used it and say good or bad?

 

[MolaKule]

Originally Posted By: minis
I never said I was going to use it.
I was asking what the difference was between the two products.

I am not sure why that is confusing people in thinking it was going in my engine now with 30,000 mile?

But I am thinking of future possibilities


Quote:
Cera Tec by LiquiMoly is Boron Nitride in an oil carrier.

Boron type components are already included in most motor oils.

LiquiMoly Oil Additive by LiquiMoly is a suspension of SOLID MoS2 powders in an oil carrier.

Better moly chemistries are already included in most motor oil PI additive packages.


RESTORE Engine Restorer,

Quote:
RESTORE repairs worn out areas in the cylinder walls to improve the seal between piston rings and cylinder walls.

This stuff contains small particles of copper, silver, and lead.


You have your answer. Are there any other questions we can help you with?

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Originally Posted By: minis
I never said I was going to use it.
I was asking what the difference was between the two products.

I am not sure why that is confusing people in thinking it was going in my engine now with 30,000 mile?

But I am thinking of future possibilities


Quote:
Cera Tec by LiquiMoly is Boron Nitride in an oil carrier.

Boron type components are already included in most motor oils.

LiquiMoly Oil Additive by LiquiMoly is a suspension of SOLID MoS2 powders in an oil carrier.

Better moly chemistries are already included in most motor oil PI additive packages.


RESTORE Engine Restorer,

Quote:
RESTORE repairs worn out areas in the cylinder walls to improve the seal between piston rings and cylinder walls.

This stuff contains small particles of copper, silver, and lead.


You have your answer. Are there any other questions we can help you with?


I'll add one thing. Restore is a product that can be used for a final attempt at keeping an old beater running a little longer. It does fill imperfections in cylinder walls and helps make for a better ring seal. IT IS NOT FOR A HEALTHY WELL RUNNING ENGINE! IMO it is a Hail Mary play that has worked for a lot of people who want to squeeze a little more life out of a junk yard canditate.

 

[MolaKule]

Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Originally Posted By: minis
I know some VW community love cera tec and I know people who swear by the stuff so I was wonder which is better or are they pretty much do the same thing


I would like to hear from people who actually used the products to feria fair assessment
Thank you


Engine Restorer as stated, is primarily for engines with bore polishing or engines with worn rings, I.E., engines that need a serious rebuild. One might extend the time to rebuild with this stuff but it is not a permanent fix.

Cera Tec as stated is a Boron Nitride friction reducer and anti-wear OTC additive that is already included in the vast majority of engine oils.

Assessment: What would a fair assessment include?

I would think that proof of efficacy would be part of a fair assessment.



Yep, that is what I attempted to explain to the OP earlier.

 

[Trajan]

Originally Posted By: minis
Just read the first reply to my post and read what they said

Do I need to put % no but you can read all the post that ask about additives and see how many say snake oil and never used the product And how many used it and say good or bad?



So I take that as a *no* then.........

 

[MolaKule]

Originally Posted By: minis
Anyone know the difference between engine restorer or cera tec?

Which would you say is better?


Better for what?

 

[kschachn]

This is one of my favorite arguments. I haven't put sand in my engine crankcase either, but just because I haven't that makes me unqualified to caution someone else against doing so?

The manufacturers of products (any product) publish claims and product information to the public. Those claims can be evaluated on their face, no testing is required. For some additives the claims violate laws of physics, or otherwise are invalid just on their face. For other products the claims are worded in a way to be hopelessly vague and end up being worthless but sound good. You see a lot of techo-babble sometimes and it is perfectly valid to comment on that without using the product.

Besides, nearly every "product review" I see on here is along the lines of "idles so much smoother", "I got a 1% fuel economy improvement", "the power is just amazing!", "take a look at these cell phone pictures down my fill hole after 15 miles!", or other useless statements.

So if I use a product and make that type evaluation that's valid in your mind, but any comments based on chemistry and physics of the claims and marketing information are not? Is that what you're saying?

Originally Posted By: minis
If you never use a product you cannot give a fair review of the product.

 

[Clevy]

Originally Posted By: minis
Anyone know the difference between engine restorer or cera tec?

Which would you say is better?



Engine restore is a last resort for use in an engine on its last legs. The stuff contains silver,copper and lead and those particles immediately overwhelm the oil filter causing the filter to operate in by-pass mode,thus those soft metals can now flow freely and fill in the imperfections in the cylinder bores.
As you can imagine those metals also deposit on the ring lands impeding their seal,and the stuff isn't effective for very long either. Use it in an engine not worth fixing.

Cera-tec is far superior to engine restore and cannot even be compared.

I've used restore before in my first car. A cutlass supreme with a 305 engine. The restore did exactly what I described and overwhelmed the filter. I got maybe 15000 more miles from that engine before it wiped out the cam.
Once The old timer that I got to help me install the warmed over 350 target master heard me say I used restore he immediately removed the oil filter and cut it open and from what I saw there is NO WAY that filter was still filtering oil.
We tore that 305 down for fun after we got the 350 installed and there was greenish sludge everywhere. The topish layer was slimy and soft but as we went deeper with the screwdriver we found that it became extremely hard.
I figured it was the c/s/l in the restore getting baked on over time.

Use the search function. We have a member here who used the stuff and his filters certainly looked overwhelmed to many here,including myself.

I use cera-tec and mos2 in every engine I own. I've used mos2 in my nitrous fed mustang 2v for over 100000 miles. Upon tearing that engine down the innards were spotless. In fact the cams from those heads are still sitting on a shelf in my garage exposed to the open air and there isn't so much as a spec of rust on them anywhere. They've been sitting there for a couple of years already.
The reason I mention those cams is because I've seen 2v cams rust in very short order when exposed to the air and not in some form of enclosed box,which leads me to believe the mos2 has coated the cams to the point that the metal is covered.
And they are very slick to the touch,as though they had oil on them yet they are dry to the touch. I just found that interesting.

Back to ceratec. I've been using it in my RT charger now for a year and 35000 miles. I inspected my plugs last week and there were no deposits whatsoever on them,and with my Milwaukee inspection camera the top of the head has nothing but shiny metal visible.

So if you are asking which is better you aren't asking a relevant question since they do different things.
Restore with C/S/L is a last resort for an engine that's pretty much toast trying to eek out a few more miles before having to replace.
Cera-tec is a friction modifier that comes from a fantastic company known for quality products.
They don't compare because they do different things

 

[Finz]

I think it's pretty clear minis was asking for a simple comparison of the products... Not a critique of each

With 18+ posts under his belt! he's probably still getting a feel for how BITOG works and how the phrasing of questions can be interpreted differently

Minis... I haven't used either but from what I've gathered these 2 products are quite different in what they purport to remedy. Simply put, I believe:

1. Ceratec is a product used to lessen the amount of friction within the engine. It affixes itself to the guts of the engine and acts as a sacrificial layer allowing itself to be worn away vs the engine components themselves. Lots of debate as to how effectively it accomplishes this goal, however, as you've seen

2. Restore, as Dermapaint stated, is a last-ditch effort to keep a car in need of repair running. I can't be specific as I never looked at a bottle of this stuff before but, from what I've read here, I hope to never need the stuff

So I don't think comparing the 2 makes any sense as they are used/should be used to accomplish different things.

 

[MolaKule]

Originally Posted By: kschachn
This is one of my favorite arguments. I haven't put sand in my engine crankcase either, but just because I haven't that makes me unqualified to caution someone else against doing so?

The manufacturers of products (any product) publish claims and product information to the public. Those claims can be evaluated on their face, no testing is required. For some additives the claims violate laws of physics, or otherwise are invalid just on their face. For other products the claims are worded in a way to be hopelessly vague and end up being worthless but sound good. You see a lot of techo-babble sometimes and it is perfectly valid to comment on that without using the product.

Besides, nearly every "product review" I see on here is along the lines of "idles so much smoother", "I got a 1% fuel economy improvement", "the power is just amazing!", "take a look at these cell phone pictures down my fill hole after 15 miles!", or other useless statements.

So if I use a product and make that type evaluation that's valid in your mind, but any comments based on chemistry and physics of the claims and marketing information are not? Is that what you're saying?

Originally Posted By: minis
If you never use a product you cannot give a fair review of the product.


What? How dare you dispel the demons of mythology and ask questions regarding cause and effect (efficacy).

Quote:
I think it's pretty clear minis was asking for a simple comparison of the products... Not a critique of each.


It was apparent he was not familiar with additives in general and what they they can really do or not do.

Background technical information makes one a more astute consumer.

 

[Trajan]

Originally Posted By: kschachn
This is one of my favorite arguments. I haven't put sand in my engine crankcase either, but just because I haven't that makes me unqualified to caution someone else against doing so?

The manufacturers of products (any product) publish claims and product information to the public. Those claims can be evaluated on their face, no testing is required. For some additives the claims violate laws of physics, or otherwise are invalid just on their face. For other products the claims are worded in a way to be hopelessly vague and end up being worthless but sound good. You see a lot of techo-babble sometimes and it is perfectly valid to comment on that without using the product.

Besides, nearly every "product review" I see on here is along the lines of "idles so much smoother", "I got a 1% fuel economy improvement", "the power is just amazing!", "take a look at these cell phone pictures down my fill hole after 15 miles!", or other useless statements.

So if I use a product and make that type evaluation that's valid in your mind, but any comments based on chemistry and physics of the claims and marketing information are not? Is that what you're saying?

Originally Posted By: minis
If you never use a product you cannot give a fair review of the product.


MMO zealots are the same way.

Oh, you left out the "hand on the manifold" test.

 

[123Saab]

Originally Posted By: Trajan
Originally Posted By: kschachn
This is one of my favorite arguments. I haven't put sand in my engine crankcase either, but just because I haven't that makes me unqualified to caution someone else against doing so?

The manufacturers of products (any product) publish claims and product information to the public. Those claims can be evaluated on their face, no testing is required. For some additives the claims violate laws of physics, or otherwise are invalid just on their face. For other products the claims are worded in a way to be hopelessly vague and end up being worthless but sound good. You see a lot of techo-babble sometimes and it is perfectly valid to comment on that without using the product.

Besides, nearly every "product review" I see on here is along the lines of "idles so much smoother", "I got a 1% fuel economy improvement", "the power is just amazing!", "take a look at these cell phone pictures down my fill hole after 15 miles!", or other useless statements.

So if I use a product and make that type evaluation that's valid in your mind, but any comments based on chemistry and physics of the claims and marketing information are not? Is that what you're saying?

Originally Posted By: minis
If you never use a product you cannot give a fair review of the product.


MMO zealots are the same way.

Oh, you left out the "hand on the manifold" test.


Look at your sig, Zealot.

 

[Trajan]

Originally Posted By: 123Saab
Originally Posted By: Trajan
Originally Posted By: kschachn
This is one of my favorite arguments. I haven't put sand in my engine crankcase either, but just because I haven't that makes me unqualified to caution someone else against doing so?

The manufacturers of products (any product) publish claims and product information to the public. Those claims can be evaluated on their face, no testing is required. For some additives the claims violate laws of physics, or otherwise are invalid just on their face. For other products the claims are worded in a way to be hopelessly vague and end up being worthless but sound good. You see a lot of techo-babble sometimes and it is perfectly valid to comment on that without using the product.

Besides, nearly every "product review" I see on here is along the lines of "idles so much smoother", "I got a 1% fuel economy improvement", "the power is just amazing!", "take a look at these cell phone pictures down my fill hole after 15 miles!", or other useless statements.

So if I use a product and make that type evaluation that's valid in your mind, but any comments based on chemistry and physics of the claims and marketing information are not? Is that what you're saying?

Originally Posted By: minis
If you never use a product you cannot give a fair review of the product.


MMO zealots are the same way.

Oh, you left out the "hand on the manifold" test.


Look at your sig, Zealot.


The one that says lack of harm does not mean proof of benefit? That isn't zealotry, just the truth.

Feel free to disprove that at your leisure. You will fails, but go ahead.

 

[jk_636]

MMO zealots....sounds like someone is

 

[123Saab]

Originally Posted By: jk_636
MMO zealots....sounds like someone is

Yep...

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: 123Saab
Originally Posted By: jk_636
MMO zealots....sounds like someone is

Yep...


They aren't biting though. It's probably a good idea to troll somewhere else.