Originally Posted By: jk_636
This couldn't be farther from the truth. You can take mediocre oils and increase their lubricant, protection and cleaning properties through the use of additives. I'm not familiar with arch oil but MMO, Riselone, Tufoil, Mos2 etc would definetely fall into this category.
It is purported by pundits such as yourself that these additives provide benefits X, Y and Z. However, there is never any actual proof provided, and by proof I mean the results of standardized testing regiments that would actually stand up to the scrutiny of the API, ACEA or an OEM, that indicates that this is the case.
As it stands, all major oil manufacturers and OEM's advise against dosing their products and engines with additional additives.
Originally Posted By: jk_636
Originally Posted By: kschachn
Nice, bring the additive Archoil into the discussion.
But hey why not. Maybe Archoil shows excellent lubricity. Whatever that is.
As if you didn't know what lubricity is. Gale if these additives work for you, then keep on using them.
There are many here and on other forums (myself included) who utilize aftermarket additives with great success. You will meet a lot
Of resistance when discussing them here, but who cares. It's not their motor right?
You have yet to define "lubricity" as you use it.
Lubricity according to Wikipedia is as follows:
Originally Posted By: Wikipedia
Lubricity is the measure of the reduction in friction and wear by a lubricant. The study of lubrication and wear mechanisms is called tribology.
Please explain how lubricity is measured using a bench test that doesn't replicate conditions found inside an engine? How does that evaluate the reduction of friction? How does that evaluate the reduction of wear?
There are actual standardized tests for both of those things. Friction and wear. Multiple tests actually. This isn't one of those tests.
If we were to state that this test evaluates the lubricity of a gear oil or grease we'd be closer to the mark as there would be some correlation there. The test utilized by AMSOIL (the 4-ball wear test) is a valid screening tool for gear lubes and is used by the majors for that purpose. There is another version of that test for evaluating greases.
Surprisingly enough, the tests used to evaluate various lubricants correspond with their intended use. That is, tests used to evaluate and screen engine oils correlate well with and replicate the conditions found in actual engines. Tests used to evaluate transmission fluids are again, designed to replicate the conditions found inside transmissions. Often times, real engines and transmissions are even used! imagine that
The same goes for gear oils and greases.
So when somebody takes a gear oil or grease test and applies it to an engine oil it isn't surprising that the results wouldn't represent the actual performance of the product in its intended application. If we wanted to know how it fared in a 5-speed or a diff, then yes, perhaps the results hold some merit (as Shannow pointed out).
Also, regarding the part I underlined, your own recent UOA with respect to your MMO dosing that led to much discussion certainly would cause somebody to question your "success" with that particular product.