Any opinions on this nanoceramic oil additive?

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Cycle

Joined
Mar 9, 2015
Messages
2
Location
CA
Hi, all. New member, first post.

Has anyone seen / heard of / used this product before?

ArchOil AR9300 Nanoceramic

It's supposedly got a Coefficient of Friction of 0.003, which is better than any other additive I've ever seen.

Its component ingredients, according to ArchOil, are:
SiO2 42%
MgO 38%
Other 14.65%
Al2O3 1.95%
Fe2O3 3.50%
CaO 0.30%
Na2O 0.30%
TiO2 0.11%
MnO 0.09%

A 4-ounce bottle treats 5 quarts of oil, and costs $49.95.

Some questions:
1) If I've already used ZDDP and LiquiMoly Ceratec in the engine, would this help, hurt, have no effect?

2) For an aluminum-block engine, would the ingredients in this cause any problems?

3) Is this compatible with tungsten disulfide? I'm putting in new hybrid ceramic bearings from MicroBlue that are micro-polished and treated with tungsten disulfide, would this oil additive cause the WS2 to be removed from the metal surface?

4) As regards the WPC metal treatment, I'll be having it done to the cylinder, rings and piston skirts... would this treatment negate the WPC treatment, given that one of its claims is to "restore areas worn by friction", which I would take to mean it fills in any asperities in the metal surface. The WPC treatment intentionally creates a microscopically dimpled surface to hold more oil and reduce sliding friction surface area.

Thanks for any info you can provide.
 
In their marketing claims: "Lowest coefficient of friction in Tribology at 0.0003". Problem is, thats very dependent on what surface, what temperature, hydrodynamic or not. Very unclear what they mean by that.
 
OP seems to really like additives.

What are you trying to achieve?

Longevity? Fuel economy?

Engines will run for hundreds of thousands of miles with cheap oil that meets the specs. You will never have enough fuel consumption reduction to pay for the cost of these miracle products.

Scratch your itch with some lottery tickets instead.
 
I can relate to an interest in additives. Some seem to work. For example, I like polymer esters (Hyperlube & Biotech), where I can search on the internet and/or get some insight from MolaKule here on bitog (when he's not grumpy, ha!) to find some lab data.

Using moly is another area that has a lot of evidence it works. Gotta read a lot of tech papers to form the picture.
 
Last edited:
What exactly are you trying to accomplish that a fully formulated motor oil cannot accomplish? In my experience, accompanying uoas with additives indicated elevated wear. Most additives are junk, so even if there is 1 good one out there, you don't wanna play roulette with your engine to find out. To my knowledge the only reputable additive company is Lubrimoly/Lubrizol.
 
Originally Posted By: surfstar

OP seems to really like additives.

What are you trying to achieve?

Longevity? Fuel economy?


Both. This is for a high-fuel-efficiency motorcycle project I'm doing. Given that it's a small engine, any reduction in friction both helps increase engine longevity and helps to reach my goal of at least doubling fuel efficiency.

Originally Posted By: surfstar

Engines will run for hundreds of thousands of miles with cheap oil that meets the specs.


I did a hard break-in of the engine on Shell Rotella-T, changing the oil at 50 miles, 100, 200, 400, 800 miles and every 600 miles after that. At 1400 miles, I began using Royal Purple 15W-40 Synthetic. I added LiquiMoly Ceratec for 1800 miles (3 oil changes) at 6200 miles. I added STP Oil treatment with ZDDP starting at 8000 miles because the engine's got flat tappet lifters. At 9200 miles, I finally found a local supplier for Royal Purple 10W-40 Synthetic with Synerlec, and started using that and stopped using the ZDDP.

Engines this small don't last for hundreds of thousands of miles... although it'd be great if it did so because it was well maintained... I aim to see just how long one of these engines can last.

It's not so much about maximizing the cost efficiency, this bike is a project, a rolling experimental test-bed. It's torn down right now for some major changes. I'll be fitting a few of my inventions to it to test them out.

Originally Posted By: surfstar

You will never have enough fuel consumption reduction to pay for the cost of these miracle products.


But what I learn while tearing the bike down, rebuilding it, testing several of my inventions, trying to tweak it to get maximum fuel efficiency... that learning experience is invaluable. Especially so because my kids help out, gaining mechanical aptitude in the process.

Originally Posted By: surfstar

Scratch your itch with some lottery tickets instead.


There's a huge difference between knowingly spending money in order to learn new things (and teach your kids new things), and knowingly throwing your money away.
 
Interesting. Lots of oxides, while I was under the impression that sulfides have better friction characteristics.
 
Originally Posted By: Cycle
Originally Posted By: surfstar

OP seems to really like additives.

What are you trying to achieve?

Longevity? Fuel economy?


Both. This is for a high-fuel-efficiency motorcycle project I'm doing. Given that it's a small engine, any reduction in friction both helps increase engine longevity and helps to reach my goal of at least doubling fuel efficiency.

Originally Posted By: surfstar

Engines will run for hundreds of thousands of miles with cheap oil that meets the specs.


I did a hard break-in of the engine on Shell Rotella-T, changing the oil at 50 miles, 100, 200, 400, 800 miles and every 600 miles after that. At 1400 miles, I began using Royal Purple 15W-40 Synthetic. I added LiquiMoly Ceratec for 1800 miles (3 oil changes) at 6200 miles. I added STP Oil treatment with ZDDP starting at 8000 miles because the engine's got flat tappet lifters. At 9200 miles, I finally found a local supplier for Royal Purple 10W-40 Synthetic with Synerlec, and started using that and stopped using the ZDDP.

Engines this small don't last for hundreds of thousands of miles... although it'd be great if it did so because it was well maintained... I aim to see just how long one of these engines can last.

It's not so much about maximizing the cost efficiency, this bike is a project, a rolling experimental test-bed. It's torn down right now for some major changes. I'll be fitting a few of my inventions to it to test them out.

Originally Posted By: surfstar

You will never have enough fuel consumption reduction to pay for the cost of these miracle products.


But what I learn while tearing the bike down, rebuilding it, testing several of my inventions, trying to tweak it to get maximum fuel efficiency... that learning experience is invaluable. Especially so because my kids help out, gaining mechanical aptitude in the process.

Originally Posted By: surfstar

Scratch your itch with some lottery tickets instead.


There's a huge difference between knowingly spending money in order to learn new things (and teach your kids new things), and knowingly throwing your money away.


I've never used it and tend to avoid additives for the most part. It sounds like the bike is your experimental test bed to educate both you and your kids, so give it a shot and report back!
MolaKule is the go to knowledge guy around here with regards to chemistry so maybe you'll get lucky and he'll see this thread and chime in.
Oh and
welcome2.gif
 
Originally Posted By: Cycle
Given that it's a small engine, any reduction in friction both helps increase engine longevity and helps to reach my goal of at least doubling fuel efficiency.


My question (as always) is how would you know it worked or not? Are you going to run an identical engine in identical operation and then have some method of comparison? Surely you can't tell through fuel economy, a while back I posted a link to an article that showed that from even the same gas station, the energy content of the gasoline varied by 4%. In order to do any kind of meaningful fuel economy testing requires the use of a standardized test fuel. Additives such as this one presumably create less than single-digit MPG improvements, how would you ever be able to reliably measure that and most importantly - attribute any observed change to the additive?

The most anyone on here ever claims is some highly subjective change such as "it's smoother", "idles better", "more power", or everyone's favorite, the classic "hand to the manifold test". None of these claims means anything in terms of verifiable, measurable results.

And if you are testing other things (as you mention in your post), then how are you segregating the effect of this additive from the other changes you might be making to the engine?
 
Originally Posted By: kschachn
Originally Posted By: Cycle
Given that it's a small engine, any reduction in friction both helps increase engine longevity and helps to reach my goal of at least doubling fuel efficiency.


My question (as always) is how would you know it worked or not? Are you going to run an identical engine in identical operation and then have some method of comparison? Surely you can't tell through fuel economy, a while back I posted a link to an article that showed that from even the same gas station, the energy content of the gasoline varied by 4%. In order to do any kind of meaningful fuel economy testing requires the use of a standardized test fuel. Additives such as this one presumably create less than single-digit MPG improvements, how would you ever be able to reliably measure that and most importantly - attribute any observed change to the additive?

The most anyone on here ever claims is some highly subjective change such as "it's smoother", "idles better", "more power", or everyone's favorite, the classic "hand to the manifold test". None of these claims means anything in terms of verifiable, measurable results.

And if you are testing other things (as you mention in your post), then how are you segregating the effect of this additive from the other changes you might be making to the engine?


And herein lay the problem: Unless you have two identical, blueprinted engines properly broken in, how can you possibly determine the efficacy of this product?

The analysis reads like a "kitchen-sink" or shotgun approach to friction modification and I am always wary of these type of additives and their potential antagonistic interactions.

And BTW, I am not grumpy, I am Grampi!
grin.gif
 
Last edited:
MolaKule, is there any value in taking a relatively additive-free (low additive anyway) oil like German Castrol 0w-30 or 0w-40 (no boron, no moly, no sodium, etc., (recently they're adding a little Ti) and putting in your own moly-boron-whatever, expecting less potential interactions?
 
Originally Posted By: CrawfishTails
MolaKule, is there any value in taking a relatively additive-free (low additive anyway) oil like German Castrol 0w-30 or 0w-40 (no boron, no moly, no sodium, etc., (recently they're adding a little Ti) and putting in your own moly-boron-whatever, expecting less potential interactions?


Great question!
 
Originally Posted By: CrawfishTails
MolaKule, is there any value in taking a relatively additive-free (low additive anyway) oil like German Castrol 0w-30 or 0w-40 (no boron, no moly, no sodium, etc., (recently they're adding a little Ti) and putting in your own moly-boron-whatever, expecting less potential interactions?


There is no extra value and no less an expectaton of potential interactions.

In many engine oils such as German Castrol or whatever, there are organic additives that have no elemental (organo-metallic) counterpart and thus do not show up in run-of-the-mill VOA's.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

H
Organic soluble Tungsten/Wolfram or Molybdenum safe as a CVT additive?
Replies
6
Views
2K
sk_pete
OVERKILL
HOBS base oils and implicit/inherent FM
Replies
7
Views
4K
bruce381
SoNic67
Open differential and transfer case - additive?
Replies
10
Views
7K
1000MPH
JHogan
  • Locked
Significance of Ws2 (Tungsten Disulfide)
Replies
9
Views
7K
ZZman
sloinker
  • Locked
Any consensus on TGDI engine oil?
Replies
9
Views
1K
dailydriver
Back
Top