Archoil AR6200

Posted by: jonny-b

Archoil AR6200 - 01/31/14 05:14 PM

Just wonder if anyone here has tried AR6200, over more than 1000 miles?

If you haven't, don't bother to write anything, since it won't be of any value.
Posted by: panthermike

Re: Archoil AR6200 - 01/31/14 11:23 PM

Give me about 3 weeks and I can give you my impression(~1000 miles). Using it in all of our vehicles.
Posted by: GaleHawkins

Re: Archoil AR6200 - 02/01/14 12:27 AM

PantherMike will look forward to reading your report. Just put it in two diesel tractors and a gas F700 16' flat dump truck that will be parked for another month or too. On a test drive of the F700 with the 429 carbed engine I noticed it did not back fire like before which may indicate gas is burning in the cylinders instead of in the exhaust pipe. It is to start burning 400F degrees sooner if I understood what I was reading from Archoil. Actually all of the history of Archoil additives are interesting.
Posted by: jonny-b

Re: Archoil AR6200 - 02/01/14 02:28 PM

I have been using it for 260 kilometers now, in a 2 liter turbodiesel.

Want to see the results we get in a 2008 Skoda 1.9 liter PD turbodiesel(same engine that is used in VW Golf and Passat), before I post any results.
We will drive some 2000 miles with each car, before posting some first impressions.

Good to see that others have seen this one, too.
Posted by: Clevy

Re: Archoil AR6200 - 02/01/14 10:34 PM

Originally Posted By: GaleHawkins
PantherMike will look forward to reading your report. Just put it in two diesel tractors and a gas F700 16' flat dump truck that will be parked for another month or too. On a test drive of the F700 with the 429 carbed engine I noticed it did not back fire like before which may indicate gas is burning in the cylinders instead of in the exhaust pipe. It is to start burning 400F degrees sooner if I understood what I was reading from Archoil. Actually all of the history of Archoil additives are interesting.




A 429?
Is that a ford sohc?
The hemi killer?
Posted by: GaleHawkins

Re: Archoil AR6200 - 02/02/14 01:59 AM

It is a 1989 429 Lima what ever that means. It is set up for torque in this case being in a 26K pound rated 16' flat dump truck. The 460 version of the big block is more common in motor homes and the smaller F series. It is a high RPM for a truck at 4500. Our 1992 454 shifts at 4000 RPM when at WOT. It has more kick but it only has 110K miles on it. It will set up and run at 75 MPH on the interstates but holds the RPM's at 2900 in OD but it sounds more happy at 2700 RPM so we try not to go over 70 MPH.

The 429 is in front of a 5 speed manual with a two speed rear axle and it will run 75 at 4500 RPM but I only did that for a while on I-24 when we brought it home from TN/GA border. Bought it to move a hill to a hollow mainly but get hay and stuff with it too. It is too worn to push hard on the road. On the place we used it at more like 3500 RPM doing about 10 MPH when loaded with dirt. It shows about 150K miles but I expect that may not be correct. I bought it because of the dual three stage rams in the lift. smile
Posted by: jonny-b

Re: Archoil AR6200 - 02/03/14 01:25 PM

I also received this info:

"We regularly receive questions regarding fuel catalyst technologies and how they work. In particular, the Archoil AR6200. The existing definition of “burn rate modifier” and “lowers burn rate by up to 400 degrees” has caused confusion.

In simple terms, a catalyst facilitates a better burn of the fuel. Each fuel type will have a flash point and auto-ignition point, determined by temperature and other factors. This is different to the burn rate.

Both petrol and diesel is composed of carbons and these carbons or carbon chains require up to 1200ºF to burn fully. This has nothing to do with the flash point. The flash point is the temperature at which the vapour of the fuel will ignite with the help of an ignition source and the auto-ignition point is the temperature at which the fuel vapour will ignite without an ignition source.

Once the fuel has ignited it creates an exothermic reaction (heat). It is this rapid increase in heat that actually burns the fuel (carbons) and creates the explosion in the combustion chamber, thus resulting in a massive release of energy forcing the piston downwards and thus rotating the crank shaft.

If you can reduce the temperature at which the carbons burn, say by up to 400ºF in the case of AR6200, you can improve the burn. This is achieved by increasing the surface area of fuel droplets, and starting the burn rate of hydrocarbons at a lower temperature to yield more available BTU’s from the combustion process. The fuel becomes more aromatic (increased chemical stability) and a longer residual burn occurs. By commencing the burn rate lower, the lower end hydrocarbons are burnt and the combustion process is more residual and complete, practically eliminating unburned hydrocarbons and wasted energy in the form of black smoke or emissions.

Altering the burn rate in this way does not directly increase horse power. It increases the energy release through the explosion, which raises torque output. The result of burning the fuel more fully will also increase torque as well as lower emissions as proven by the AR6200 carbon mass balance tests. This is the same process with all hydrocarbon fuels such as petrol, diesel, ethanol, heating oil, heavy fuel oil etc.

Will AR6200 affect the octane rating of petrol?

No, we have proven with ASTM D2699 tests that there is no change. Octane is simply a measurement at which gasoline will auto ignite. Increases in cylinder pressures and temperatures can make the fuel ignite prematurely, thus creating the dreaded engine knock/pinking sound. Octane boosters or anti-knock additives reduce the volatility of the fuel so that it ignites as instructed via a source of ignition rather than on its own.

AR6200 only affects the temperature at which the carbons will burn once the fuel has ignited. It does not directly alter the flash or auto-ignition point. That said, tests have shown that the improvement in combustion quality and stability means that the propensity of pre-ignition is actually reduced with AR6200 and therefore can have the effect of “raising” the octane. This cannot be demonstrated with a simple D2699 knock engine.

But isn’t this contradictory? Not really. When fuel is not fully burned it can leave pockets of fuel that subsequently ignite a second time, again causing engine knock. The improvement in combustion quality from using AR6200 helps eliminate this because all fuel carbons are burned fully the first time. AR6200 is not altering the auto-ignition point of the fuel but instead correcting another inherent source of engine knock - remaining unburned fuel".
Posted by: jonny-b

Re: Archoil AR6200 - 02/07/14 09:40 AM

Another person I know, started using AR6200, yesterday.

The car is a 1986 3.3 liter Nissan Patrol 4X4 Turbodiesel.

I am close to 1000 km now, with the 1997 Nissan Primera 2.0 TD.

The odometer is now at 300 143 kilometers (186 540 miles).
Posted by: kschachn

Re: Archoil AR6200 - 02/07/14 10:20 AM

I only have a minor in chemistry, so I'm going to qualify my comment with that statement.

I have to say this sounds like the biggest load of pseudoscience I have heard in a while. Yes, you can reduce combustion temperatures with a catalyst but you will be able to see it happen. None the tests you mention in this post show anything, it keeps saying "no, you can't see this in any test". That right there is a huge red flag.

What about a reduction in NOx? What about flame temperature readings? I mean, you don't need an ICE to test it, right? Just inject some into a hydrocarbon flame and see what happens.

Generally lower flame front temperatures result in more incomplete combustion. Any explanation why this isn't happening?

Originally Posted By: jonny-b
I also received this info:

"We regularly receive questions regarding fuel catalyst technologies and how they work. In particular, the Archoil AR6200. The existing definition of “burn rate modifier” and “lowers burn rate by up to 400 degrees” has caused confusion.

In simple terms, a catalyst facilitates a better burn of the fuel. Each fuel type will have a flash point and auto-ignition point, determined by temperature and other factors. This is different to the burn rate.

Both petrol and diesel is composed of carbons and these carbons or carbon chains require up to 1200ºF to burn fully. This has nothing to do with the flash point. The flash point is the temperature at which the vapour of the fuel will ignite with the help of an ignition source and the auto-ignition point is the temperature at which the fuel vapour will ignite without an ignition source.

Once the fuel has ignited it creates an exothermic reaction (heat). It is this rapid increase in heat that actually burns the fuel (carbons) and creates the explosion in the combustion chamber, thus resulting in a massive release of energy forcing the piston downwards and thus rotating the crank shaft.

If you can reduce the temperature at which the carbons burn, say by up to 400ºF in the case of AR6200, you can improve the burn. This is achieved by increasing the surface area of fuel droplets, and starting the burn rate of hydrocarbons at a lower temperature to yield more available BTU’s from the combustion process. The fuel becomes more aromatic (increased chemical stability) and a longer residual burn occurs. By commencing the burn rate lower, the lower end hydrocarbons are burnt and the combustion process is more residual and complete, practically eliminating unburned hydrocarbons and wasted energy in the form of black smoke or emissions.

Altering the burn rate in this way does not directly increase horse power. It increases the energy release through the explosion, which raises torque output. The result of burning the fuel more fully will also increase torque as well as lower emissions as proven by the AR6200 carbon mass balance tests. This is the same process with all hydrocarbon fuels such as petrol, diesel, ethanol, heating oil, heavy fuel oil etc.

Will AR6200 affect the octane rating of petrol?

No, we have proven with ASTM D2699 tests that there is no change. Octane is simply a measurement at which gasoline will auto ignite. Increases in cylinder pressures and temperatures can make the fuel ignite prematurely, thus creating the dreaded engine knock/pinking sound. Octane boosters or anti-knock additives reduce the volatility of the fuel so that it ignites as instructed via a source of ignition rather than on its own.

AR6200 only affects the temperature at which the carbons will burn once the fuel has ignited. It does not directly alter the flash or auto-ignition point. That said, tests have shown that the improvement in combustion quality and stability means that the propensity of pre-ignition is actually reduced with AR6200 and therefore can have the effect of “raising” the octane. This cannot be demonstrated with a simple D2699 knock engine.

But isn’t this contradictory? Not really. When fuel is not fully burned it can leave pockets of fuel that subsequently ignite a second time, again causing engine knock. The improvement in combustion quality from using AR6200 helps eliminate this because all fuel carbons are burned fully the first time. AR6200 is not altering the auto-ignition point of the fuel but instead correcting another inherent source of engine knock - remaining unburned fuel".
Posted by: jonny-b

Re: Archoil AR6200 - 02/07/14 04:50 PM

Well, it's up to you. I don't care if you use it, or not.

However, I hope that there are more people out there, who want to spend less money when they fuel up.

For those people, maybe with even less chemistry knowledge, I believe this will be a small "goldmine".

I don't earn a cent from this product, but I like a product that does what it says, and even more.

No [censored], if you follow their rather straightforward instruction.

However, if you walk around the bush, too much, you might get dizzy, kschachn.

I understand that you need education to understand something, if you don't have the ability/capability to think for yourself.

Actually, it is so easy, that you can actually buy a bottle to try......


You haven't thought about that, or........?
Posted by: jonny-b

Re: Archoil AR6200 - 02/07/14 05:03 PM

I know that I won't be offered the job as a diplomat in the middle east, but I look forward to see the results from other users here.

Since I have only tried it on diesel cars, I must be honest to say I don't know if it is working equally good in petrol engines.

And, no, I don't have a degree in chemistry.

Posted by: kschachn

Re: Archoil AR6200 - 02/07/14 06:10 PM

Did you say anything to answer what I was asking? If you did, I missed it.

You don't need education to "understand something". In fact, like a manager in the Apollo program stated, "if you understand it then you can explain it to me". The problem I had is with the explanation you posted - it doesn't say anything as far as I can see. One thing that always alerts me to babble is when someone purports to have something that does something, but they say it can't be shown or measured. I was only stating it said a lot of that. If something does something, then it can be seen, one way or another. Even in quantum mechanics.

A bottle to try? In my engine? There is no way that is enough of a controlled environment for me to make a determination if something would work like this claims to work.

Originally Posted By: jonny-b
Well, it's up to you. I don't care if you use it, or not.

However, I hope that there are more people out there, who want to spend less money when they fuel up.

For those people, maybe with even less chemistry knowledge, I believe this will be a small "goldmine".

I don't earn a cent from this product, but I like a product that does what it says, and even more.

No [censored], if you follow their rather straightforward instruction.

However, if you walk around the bush, too much, you might get dizzy, kschachn.

I understand that you need education to understand something, if you don't have the ability/capability to think for yourself.

Actually, it is so easy, that you can actually buy a bottle to try......


You haven't thought about that, or........?
Posted by: jonny-b

Re: Archoil AR6200 - 02/08/14 01:48 PM

Was this so hard to understand? Read the following text, again, please:

"Just wonder if anyone here has tried AR6200, over more than 1000 miles?

If you haven't, don't bother to write anything, since it won't be of any value".
Posted by: jonny-b

Re: Archoil AR6200 - 02/08/14 01:55 PM

kschachn, you have now proved my point.

You have also shown that you don't understand English.

It is better for all parts, that you don't write any more, under this topic.

Of course, unless you have tried AR6200.

I am interested in results from others, that have tried this stuff.

I know it works, since I am using it.

Please, don't come here with more [censored]-Bingo.
Posted by: kschachn

Re: Archoil AR6200 - 02/08/14 02:37 PM

Ok, sorry for questioning and commenting a post you made on a public forum. Your response proves what I thought, that there is no substance behind the claims that are made for this product. The premise on your first post does too - that no discussion contrary to your beliefs are to be tolerated.

Ignorance is bliss, eh?
Posted by: yonyon

Re: Archoil AR6200 - 02/08/14 03:39 PM

Originally Posted By: kschachn
I only have a minor in chemistry, so I'm going to qualify my comment with that statement.

I have to say this sounds like the biggest load of pseudoscience I have heard in a while. Yes, you can reduce combustion temperatures with a catalyst but you will be able to see it happen. None the tests you mention in this post show anything, it keeps saying "no, you can't see this in any test". That right there is a huge red flag.


If something can't be tested then it's either junk or it's religion. We don't discuss religion on BITOG but there is discussion of this product here. One way to explain this is that the participants in the discussion are in consensus that the product is junk.
Posted by: TurboJim

Re: Archoil AR6200 - 02/08/14 04:40 PM

Suggest we restrict this thread to those who have actually used the product. Those who haven't used the product and especially those who have no intention of using the product can start their own thead.
Posted by: kschachn

Re: Archoil AR6200 - 02/09/14 11:51 AM

OK, backing off. But tell me this - if the product does something that they themselves are saying can't be measured, then how does Archoil know that it does?

Originally Posted By: TurboJim
Suggest we restrict this thread to those who have actually used the product. Those who haven't used the product and especially those who have no intention of using the product can start their own thead.
Posted by: jonny-b

Re: Archoil AR6200 - 02/09/14 01:36 PM

"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.
Posted by: kschachn

Re: Archoil AR6200 - 02/11/14 10:48 AM

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.
Posted by: jonny-b

Re: Archoil AR6200 - 02/11/14 11:47 AM

OK. Great to see that you have finally tried AR6200, kschachn!

What is your impression after the first 1000 miles?
Posted by: jonny-b

Re: Archoil AR6200 - 02/11/14 11:53 AM

Can you see for yourself how stupid it looks like, when somebody who doesn't have first-hand knowledge about AR6200, cycles into this tread.

Having tried it, is actually the criteria for saying something under this tread.

You still doesn't understand it, or...?
Posted by: edhackett

Re: Archoil AR6200 - 02/11/14 03:13 PM

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
Posted by: nleksan

Re: Archoil AR6200 - 02/12/14 01:37 AM

You don't need to have tried a product to comment on it. Especially when there are plenty of very knowledgeable people here...
Posted by: spasm3

Re: Archoil AR6200 - 02/12/14 02:22 AM

found this online
http://www.archoil.nl/pdf/msds/SDS%20AR6200%20NL%28EN%29.pdf

Composition/information on ingredients
3.1 Mixtures
Chemical Name
Concentration CAS Number EC Number R/H Phrases* Symbols
1-decene, homopolymer, hydrogenated 1-5% 68037-01-4 500-183-1 H304
R65
GHS08
Xn
Distillates (petroleum) hydrotreated light 70-80% 64742-47-8 265-149-8 H304
R65
GHS08
Xn
Solvent naphtha (petroleum) heavy aromatic 10-20% 64742-94-5 265-198-5 H304
R65
GHS08
Xn
Ethylenediamine
<1% 107-15-3 203-468-6 H226, H302,
H312, H314,
H317, H334
R10, R21/22,
R34, R42/43
GHS02, GHS05,
GHS07, GHS08
Xn, C
Hexahydro-1,3,5-triethyl-s-triazine
<5% 68955-53-3 273-279-1 H302, H311,
H314, H317,
H318, H330,
H400, H410
R22, R24,
R26, R34,
R43, R41,
R50-53
GHS05, GHS06,
GHS09
T+, C, N

70-80% light petroleum distillate and 10-20% naptha
not too special
Posted by: jonny-b

Re: Archoil AR6200 - 02/12/14 02:55 AM

What you found there, spasm3, is actually quite useful.

However, when I started this tread, I was thinking more of a tread where actual users of this product could say something.
Good or bad.

If someone with great technical know-how, tribologists and others have something they want to share, it would be great if they did it in another tread, where they can tell everyone what they know about this product, what they feel about this product, etc, etc, etc,......

But, interestingly enough, people who claim this or that about a product they haven't tried, must have quite a desperate need to say something about a product they should not care about.

Unless it is an effort to look smart, or trying to talk down a bothersome competition.

Or, it could be a natural talent of being rude.
Who knows?
Posted by: kschachn

Re: Archoil AR6200 - 02/12/14 12:45 PM

What is it about the MSDS you find useful?

Originally Posted By: jonny-b
What you found there, spasm3, is actually quite useful.
Posted by: kschachn

Re: Archoil AR6200 - 02/12/14 02:47 PM

Wow. You're not going to scare me away by demanding that I not address you again, LOL.

You were the one who said the post was useful, in fact you said it was "quite useful". I wondered what it was that you found useful about the data that was posted.

I don't think that I have once been demeaning or rude here, yet you continue to be that way. And I have made up my mind? Absolutely not. But it certainly appears you have, at least to the extent that you do not want to know if the product is of any value or not.
Posted by: jonny-b

Re: Archoil AR6200 - 02/13/14 03:03 PM

kschachn, I found it was interesting that it is biodegradable and does no harm if it leaks into water.

I really don't understand your speculation in if I don't want to know if the product is of any value or not?

How can you ask such a strange question, when you know that I am using it (AR6200)?

I already know that it is useful.

But, in which, and how many ways, I will come back to when I have driven 2000 kilometers with both my personal cars.

As I have said before.

The advantage of using 20 Bucks in product and testing it personally, is that you can see/feel/measure what differences that occur.

How far you want to go with it, depends on if you have your own private lab.

However, if several persons that have actually USED it, tell what they experience, it is an indication that it does something.

Good or bad.

I have to repeat once again, that this tread was meant for those who have actually tried the product.

Those who like speculations, can start their own tread.

Of course, for a person who want to sabotage this tread, it is very easy to do what kschachn have done with success, so far.
Posted by: kschachn

Re: Archoil AR6200 - 02/13/14 08:34 PM

Well, first off please explain to me how asking you questions about posts YOU have made to this thread is somehow "sabotaging" it. You posted the data, I only asked about what YOU posted.

And second, why would I or anyone spend $20 on a product and test it, when the company is making apparently unsubstantiated and dubious claims?

Why would you?
Posted by: jonny-b

Re: Archoil AR6200 - 02/14/14 03:46 AM

I believe you are on thin ice here, kschacn.

What you consider dubious claims, may look different, to others.

I am very glad I decided to try it, after a couple of months sitting on the fence.

It looks like most people that have tried it, are impressed.

You are ruining this tread because of stupid questions, that you know (since I told I will not report until after I have driven 2000 km)I will not answer, yet.

People get tired when they read meaningless hypothesis and speculations about a product.
From a person who haven't even seen the product in real life.

That's the difference from belief to knowledge.

We all know what kind of damage belief and religion can do, and what you appear to do is quite similar.

You have only changed out the religion with your hate against additives.

Why can't you be quiet for a while, so that people who have actually tried this, can report their findings?

If you feel an itching desire to write something, start your own tread.
Posted by: Tron1

Re: Archoil AR6200 - 02/14/14 12:30 PM

I am on the fence re: the fuel system additive... and I am aware that others use it and claim it works..... I would like to keep the criticisms non-personal and focused on the product. I appreciate the points of view of both jonny-b and kschachn re: Archoil...but as far as I am concerned the personal differences miss the point of a good, objective, discussion.
Posted by: SteveSRT8

Re: Archoil AR6200 - 02/14/14 01:59 PM

Jonny-b got what he deserved. As he said himself, he sure ain't no diplomat. I agree.

How it works around here is we share stories and anecdotal experiences, but once in a while some 'proof' is requested. When that happens you can be a jerk and tell the guy to buzz off like Jonny-b did or you could consider responding in a civil tone.

I occasionally use additives, and I cannot always provide iron clad proof of their effectiveness. But in an open forum it may be unreasonable to expect everyone to simply do as you tell them! Not likely at all when done brusquely...
Posted by: kschachn

Re: Archoil AR6200 - 02/14/14 02:52 PM

Yeah, at first you think you are having a rational discussion but then realize it isn't rational, and will go nowhere.

jonny-b you win. The specs and claims that Archoil publishes about AR6200 are all sound, as is their testing methodology. I didn't realize my questions were stupid and that I shouldn't be questioning their published data that you yourself posted. I didn't know that taking what they said without questioning it was, as you say, "the difference from belief to knowledge".

Above all I did not realize my questions were "meaningless hypothesis and speculations about a product". You see, I thought that described the product's claims instead. I also didn't know that "testing it personally, is that you can see/feel/measure what differences that occur" was what was important. I thought what was important was the integrity of the claims the manufacturer made for the product, backed by at least a shred of substantiated test data.

When you're right, you're right.
Posted by: jonny-b

Re: Archoil AR6200 - 02/14/14 07:38 PM

"Just wonder if anyone here has tried AR6200, over more than 1000 miles?

If you haven't, don't bother to write anything, since it won't be of any value".


This is the excact wordings that starts this tread.

Can it be said much clearer?

Which part of it didn't you understand, kschacn?[color:#FF0000][/color]
Posted by: badtlc

Re: Archoil AR6200 - 02/14/14 09:45 PM

I rule in favor of jonny-b. It really sucks when a thread specifically makes a request and others feel they are too smart to comply.

I feel your pain jonny-b. It happens all the time on this site and is the worst part of this site now days. Sticking to a topic is impossible. Keep fighting the good fight. Hopefully some people who have tried it will chime in soon.

I'd like to try archoil products if I can find them for a reasonable price and would love to read the experiences of others.
Posted by: boxcartommie22

Re: Archoil AR6200 - 02/15/14 10:35 AM

I agree with badtlc about this site!! however, it is till a great site to learn from. archoil is awesome and a sleeper that has come to life.
Posted by: dailydriver

Re: Archoil AR6200 - 02/16/14 04:17 PM

^^^Yes, and some wonder WHY I sometimes feel the need to 'pre-emptively strike' in threads I start on here! LOL
Posted by: SteveSRT8

Re: Archoil AR6200 - 02/17/14 06:28 AM

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


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...
Posted by: demarpaint

Re: Archoil AR6200 - 02/17/14 07:19 AM

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


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...


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.
Posted by: kschachn

Re: Archoil AR6200 - 02/17/14 04:36 PM

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.
Posted by: demarpaint

Re: Archoil AR6200 - 02/17/14 04:45 PM

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.
Posted by: dailydriver

Re: Archoil AR6200 - 02/17/14 05:01 PM

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


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 2cents 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. shrug )

Otherwise, if not requested by the thread starter, YES, it should be an open/free discussion. wink
Posted by: kschachn

Re: Archoil AR6200 - 02/17/14 06:17 PM

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 2cents in, do so anyway.
Posted by: boxcartommie22

Re: Archoil AR6200 - 02/17/14 07:44 PM

enough is enough!!



lets go back to the original topic ar 6200..
Posted by: edhackett

Re: Archoil AR6200 - 02/17/14 09:17 PM

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
Posted by: Clevy

Re: Archoil AR6200 - 02/18/14 02:46 AM

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.
Posted by: simple_simon

Re: Archoil AR6200 - 02/18/14 07:39 AM

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.
Posted by: panthermike

Re: Archoil AR6200 - 02/18/14 11:31 AM

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.
Posted by: edhackett

Re: Archoil AR6200 - 02/19/14 01:07 AM

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
Posted by: simple_simon

Re: Archoil AR6200 - 02/19/14 06:01 AM

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
Posted by: demarpaint

Re: Archoil AR6200 - 02/19/14 06:15 AM

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?
Posted by: panthermike

Re: Archoil AR6200 - 02/19/14 10:50 AM

Archoil sent me a 38 page pdf on their testing, can I link it somehow here?
Posted by: Tron1

Re: Archoil AR6200 - 02/20/14 12:12 PM

Thanks for that bit of research Ed, good work! That makes me feel more confident in the product. Let's continue the discussions.
Posted by: a2gtinut

Re: Archoil AR6200 - 02/20/14 01:23 PM

I am on first tank of BP gas with AR6200. Second car should get it this weekend.
Posted by: jonny-b

Re: Archoil AR6200 - 02/20/14 01:41 PM

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?
Posted by: panthermike

Re: Archoil AR6200 - 02/23/14 02:05 PM

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!
Posted by: jonny-b

Re: Archoil AR6200 - 02/23/14 03:19 PM

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.
Posted by: boxcartommie22

Re: Archoil AR6200 - 02/23/14 04:04 PM

jonny-b,thanks for your wisdom and listening on here, its amazing how some people on here trash peoples info. and experiences..
Posted by: simple_simon

Re: Archoil AR6200 - 02/23/14 04:33 PM

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.
Posted by: demarpaint

Re: Archoil AR6200 - 02/23/14 04:50 PM

Originally Posted By: simple_simon

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.


You're right it can't change the thermostat setting. But lets say the thermostat opens at 195°F, and the fan kicks on @ 210°F, what if the additive keeps the engine below 210°F, and that can be documented? Or instead of the fan coming on in 20 minutes it kicks on in 40 minutes, and runs less time, and it can be documented. Is that possible? Would that be worthy of some consideration? These are tests I'd like to see. Just thinking out loud. No dog in this fight.
Posted by: simple_simon

Re: Archoil AR6200 - 02/23/14 04:58 PM

Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Originally Posted By: simple_simon

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.


You're right it can't change the thermostat setting. But lets say the thermostat opens at 195°F, and the fan kicks on @ 210°F, what if the additive keeps the engine below 210°F, and that can be documented? Or instead of the fan coming on in 20 minutes it kicks on in 40 minutes, and runs less time, and it can be documented. Is that possible? Would that be worthy of some consideration? These are tests I'd like to see. Just thinking out loud. No dog in this fight.


Those would be valid tests but are certainly a far cry from what boxcartommie22 claimed. He drove around during the winter in Colorado and then opened his hood and put his hand on the cylider head (he probably meant the valve cover) and determined that it felt cooler than it did before he put an additive into the oil.
Posted by: demarpaint

Re: Archoil AR6200 - 02/23/14 05:15 PM

My test would be easy enough to conduct. It wouldn't cost much either for the DIY'er if he/she were so inclined.
Posted by: simple_simon

Re: Archoil AR6200 - 02/23/14 05:23 PM

Originally Posted By: demarpaint
My test would be easy enough to conduct. It wouldn't cost much either for the DIY'er if he/she were so inclined.


It would just require a constant ambient temperature and humidity between tests and a driving loop that can be done at a set speed and time/distance.
Posted by: kschachn

Re: Archoil AR6200 - 02/23/14 05:51 PM

The bulk of the heat is produced by the combustion of gasoline, not frictional losses (and especially not those that could be reduced via an oil additive; the coefficient of friction of a PCMO is already very low). So unless you are lowering the heat of combustion of the gasoline then you won't reduce the total heat load of the engine very much at all. And besides, the frictional losses are themselves produced by the gasoline combustion since in order to turn the engine you have to burn gasoline. So in reality it is additive, not a separate heat source.

Unless the ambient temperature is very low and you are running at a very low load, then you will not run the engine at a temperature that is lower than the thermostat setting. There is simply too much heat from combustion to stop it. We're talking hundreds of thousands of Watts, even in a small ICE like the one in my 1NZ-FE. If I somehow reduced the oil-related frictional losses in that engine even by half, there is simply no way it would come close to lowering the overall heat output enough to lower the coolant temperature in a noticeable way. I mean, look at the almost miniscule improvement you get going to the low-viscosity oils that are being used today.

Also in an ICE, lower operating temperatures equal lower thermal efficiency. You really want the engine to operate at as high a temperature as possible. The Japanese did a lot of work on uncooled engines (adiabatic), but those require exotic materials that are very expensive. So you resort to rejecting heat to keep the block, pistons and head from melting. But every BTU you reject through the cooling system is a BTU that is forever unavailable to do useful work. Engine designers do not want the engine operating at anything other than the thermostat setting and they do a lot to make sure it doesn't happen very often, or for very long.

Of course this post will immediately be labeled as "trashing people's info" when in reality we have had no info presented that is valid in a statistical or scientific way. I don't have a dog in this fight either (despite several poster's protestations to the contrary), but when sound engineering and chemistry is being tossed out the window, it's hard not to comment.


Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Originally Posted By: simple_simon

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.


You're right it can't change the thermostat setting. But lets say the thermostat opens at 195°F, and the fan kicks on @ 210°F, what if the additive keeps the engine below 210°F, and that can be documented? Or instead of the fan coming on in 20 minutes it kicks on in 40 minutes, and runs less time, and it can be documented. Is that possible? Would that be worthy of some consideration? These are tests I'd like to see. Just thinking out loud. No dog in this fight.
Posted by: simple_simon

Re: Archoil AR6200 - 02/23/14 06:21 PM

Originally Posted By: kschachn
Unless the ambient temperature is very low and you are running at a very low load, then you will not run the engine at a temperature that is lower than the thermostat setting. There is simply too much heat from combustion to stop it. We're talking hundreds of thousands of Watts, even in a small ICE like the one in my 1NZ-FE. If I somehow reduced the oil-related frictional losses in that engine even by half, there is simply no way it would come close to lowering the overall heat output enough to lower the coolant temperature in a noticeable way. I mean, look at the almost miniscule improvement you get going to the low-viscosity oils that are being used today.

Also in an ICE, lower operating temperatures equal lower thermal efficiency. You really want the engine to operate at as high a temperature as possible. The Japanese did a lot of work on uncooled engines (adiabatic), but those require exotic materials that are very expensive. So you resort to rejecting heat to keep the block, pistons and head from melting. But every BTU you reject through the cooling system is a BTU that is forever unavailable to do useful work. Engine designers do not want the engine operating at anything other than the thermostat setting and they do a lot to make sure it doesn't happen very often, or for very long.


But. But. The boxcarshill put his hand on the valve cover and determined that Archoil is the greatest product in the history of the world. It magically lowered his operating temperatures by a huge factor and also increased his fuel economy by a whopping 15%!!!!

With CAFE regulations being what they are, it sure is surprising that not a single one of the auto manufacturers have gotten wind of the panacea that is AR9100.
Posted by: demarpaint

Re: Archoil AR6200 - 02/23/14 06:48 PM

Originally Posted By: kschachn

Of course this post will immediately be labeled as "trashing people's info" when in reality we have had no info presented that is valid in a statistical or scientific way. I don't have a dog in this fight either (despite several poster's protestations to the contrary), but when sound engineering and chemistry is being tossed out the window, it's hard not to comment.


First off thanks for taking the time for a educated reply, and not being confrontational with me. A reply like this one IMO is not trashing anything. I was asking questions that's all. The bulk of the heat is from combustion I realize that. I was wondering if friction accounted for enough heat, that if it was reduced would it be noticeable in my hypothetical test? Would there be enough heat reduction to keep the fan off, or delay it coming on? I guess it isn't that simple a test after all.

Is there a way to calculate how much heat is from combustion and how much heat is from friction percent wise? Or would it be different for every engine, and driving conditions and impossible to measure? Could fuel savings calculated in a controlled environment be considered a reduction in friction? If so that could be another way to test the product.

Posted by: kschachn

Re: Archoil AR6200 - 02/23/14 07:30 PM

You'll have to look into that yourself, I don't recall. Be careful though, because the "friction loss" in an ICE is not the same as what we are discussing here. You want the friction loss attributed to the engine oil, and I have never seen a figure for that (but obviously the auto manufacturers and oil companies know; ExxonMobil's admittedly vague figures for 0W-30 must come from somewhere).

Piston ring friction is the single greatest percentage of total friction loss I believe, and I think that is something like 20-25% of the total mechanical loss in an ICE. That friction isn't directly connected to oil however, not like in a bearing (or just in the drag of rotating components). Hydrodynamic friction loss is what you want - and not only that, but you want a measure of the heat that is generated. For fully warmed up engine oil it is going to be pretty small, and compared to the heat of combustion for the fuel it will be tiny. Gasoline is a pretty energetic substance smile

But look it up, see what you can find.

Originally Posted By: demarpaint
First off thanks for taking the time for a educated reply, and not being confrontational with me. A reply like this one IMO is not trashing anything. I was asking questions that's all. The bulk of the heat is from combustion I realize that. I was wondering if friction accounted for enough heat, that if it was reduced would it be noticeable in my hypothetical test? Would there be enough heat reduction to keep the fan off, or delay it coming on? I guess it isn't that simple a test after all.

Is there a way to calculate how much heat is from combustion and how much heat is from friction percent wise? Or would it be different for every engine, and driving conditions and impossible to measure? Could fuel savings calculated in a controlled environment be considered a reduction in friction? If so that could be another way to test the product.

Posted by: demarpaint

Re: Archoil AR6200 - 02/23/14 08:29 PM

Originally Posted By: kschachn


But look it up, see what you can find.



I did a few times and didn't find much that I could make a case with.
Posted by: Vikas

Re: Archoil AR6200 - 02/23/14 08:39 PM

If you are willing, here is an easy test.

Take an experimental OPE, tachometer and a wired drill. Take the spark plug out and spin the engine using the drill machine. Measure the speed.

Now add your favorite snake oil and run the same test. Find the percentage increase in the engine speed.

Anybody willing to rig it up?
Posted by: a2gtinut

Re: Archoil AR6200 - 02/23/14 10:22 PM

Originally Posted By: jonny-b
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?



I used only 5mL per tank and both cars have Audi/Vw 1.8T engine.
Posted by: boxcartommie22

Re: Archoil AR6200 - 02/24/14 09:05 AM

first of all,i didn't say the reduced heat was from archoil.the heat reduction just so happens after a couple of weeks after archoil ar9100..coincidence maybe or maybe not.i don't feel it is necessary to be mocked by low life's on here for someone's opinion.
Posted by: simple_simon

Re: Archoil AR6200 - 02/24/14 09:12 AM

Originally Posted By: boxcartommie22
I could not believe it adding that boran additive ar9100 from archoil has did to reducing the heat greatly!!!


Originally Posted By: boxcartommie22
first of all,i didn't say the reduced heat was from archoil.the heat reduction just so happens after a couple of weeks after archoil ar9100..coincidence maybe or maybe not.i don't feel it is necessary to be mocked by low life's on here for someone's opinion.


Please take the spam somewhere else. No one here is buying that garbage.
Posted by: dave5358

Re: Archoil AR6200 - 02/24/14 09:46 AM

Originally Posted By: simple_simon
Please take the spam somewhere else. No one here is buying that garbage.


Okay, you don't like Archoil. Otherwise, how does this contribute to the thread?
Posted by: Clevy

Re: Archoil AR6200 - 02/24/14 09:50 AM

I thought boron was an anti-oxidant and helped in the tbn department,not a friction modifier.
So what has boron got to do with heat?

I'd like to find this stuff and try it in one of my air compressors,just to see for myself if it does anything.
These nano particle adds seem to be the future if lubication. Whether it be mos2,ceramic,hexagonal boron(not sure what it does yet) but it seems they are all gaining traction.
Posted by: simple_simon

Re: Archoil AR6200 - 02/24/14 10:04 AM

Originally Posted By: dave5358
Originally Posted By: simple_simon
Please take the spam somewhere else. No one here is buying that garbage.


Okay, you don't like Archoil. Otherwise, how does this contribute to the thread?


Perhaps you should try reading the thread a few more times until you understand. It's spam that I don't like, not Archoil.
Posted by: dave5358

Re: Archoil AR6200 - 02/24/14 10:07 AM

Originally Posted By: simple_simon
Perhaps you should try reading the thread a few more times until you understand. It's spam that I don't like, not Archoil.


How does this contribute to this thread?
Posted by: simple_simon

Re: Archoil AR6200 - 02/24/14 10:10 AM

Originally Posted By: dave5358
Originally Posted By: simple_simon
Perhaps you should try reading the thread a few more times until you understand. It's spam that I don't like, not Archoil.


How does this contribute to this thread?


Um, obviously by contributing knowledge, logic and reason to a thread where statements like this are running rampant:

Originally Posted By: boxcartommie22
I could not believe it adding that boran additive ar9100 from archoil has did to reducing the heat greatly!!!
Posted by: dave5358

Re: Archoil AR6200 - 02/24/14 10:19 AM

Originally Posted By: simple_simon
Originally Posted By: dave5358
How does this contribute to this thread?


Um, obviously by contributing knowledge, logic and reason to a thread where statements like this are running rampant:

Originally Posted By: boxcartommie22
I could not believe it adding that boran additive ar9100 from archoil has did to reducing the heat greatly!!!


At least boxcartommie22 was commenting on the product, rather than commenting on other users. You might check the definitions of 'spam', 'logic' and 'reason'.
Posted by: Trajan

Re: Archoil AR6200 - 02/24/14 11:16 AM

Originally Posted By: simple_simon
Originally Posted By: boxcartommie22
I could not believe it adding that boran additive ar9100 from archoil has did to reducing the heat greatly!!!


Originally Posted By: boxcartommie22
first of all,i didn't say the reduced heat was from archoil.the heat reduction just so happens after a couple of weeks after archoil ar9100..coincidence maybe or maybe not.i don't feel it is necessary to be mocked by low life's on here for someone's opinion.


Please take the spam somewhere else. No one here is buying that garbage.


It intrigues me as how one can say that the ar9100 reduced heat greatly, then say it wasn't from ar9100.

So which is it?

(Good catch simple_simon!!)
Posted by: dave5358

Re: Archoil AR6200 - 02/24/14 11:41 AM

Originally Posted By: Trajan
Originally Posted By: simple_simon
Originally Posted By: boxcartommie22
I could not believe it adding that boran additive ar9100 from archoil has did to reducing the heat greatly!!!


Originally Posted By: boxcartommie22
first of all,i didn't say the reduced heat was from archoil.the heat reduction just so happens after a couple of weeks after archoil ar9100..coincidence maybe or maybe not.i don't feel it is necessary to be mocked by low life's on here for someone's opinion.


Please take the spam somewhere else. No one here is buying that garbage.


It intrigues me as how one can say that the ar9100 reduced heat greatly, then say it wasn't from ar9100.

So which is it?

(Good catch simple_simon!!)


It intrigues me as to how one can conveniently misread simple statements:

- "I could not believe it adding that boran additive ar9100 from archoil has did to reducing the heat greatly"

- "first of all,i didn't say the reduced heat was from archoil."

Trajan: do you have any information or experience about AR9100 reducing engine heat (or not)? Pretty clearly, simple_simon does not.
Posted by: boxcartommie22

Re: Archoil AR6200 - 02/24/14 01:02 PM

clevy, archoil says this is designed to be a fm..now the boron in say red line, functions as a detergent and a fm.. this is what I understand.
Posted by: Trajan

Re: Archoil AR6200 - 02/24/14 01:08 PM

Originally Posted By: dave5358
Originally Posted By: Trajan
Originally Posted By: simple_simon
Originally Posted By: boxcartommie22
I could not believe it adding that boran additive ar9100 from archoil has did to reducing the heat greatly!!!


Originally Posted By: boxcartommie22
first of all,i didn't say the reduced heat was from archoil.the heat reduction just so happens after a couple of weeks after archoil ar9100..coincidence maybe or maybe not.i don't feel it is necessary to be mocked by low life's on here for someone's opinion.


Please take the spam somewhere else. No one here is buying that garbage.


It intrigues me as how one can say that the ar9100 reduced heat greatly, then say it wasn't from ar9100.

So which is it?

(Good catch simple_simon!!)


It intrigues me as to how one can conveniently misread simple statements:

- "I could not believe it adding that boran additive ar9100 from archoil has did to reducing the heat greatly"

- "first of all,i didn't say the reduced heat was from archoil."

Trajan: do you have any information or experience about AR9100 reducing engine heat (or not)? Pretty clearly, simple_simon does not.



And just what simple statement was misread?

Let us not dwell on the poor English. Let's figure he meant to say "done" instead of "did." (It is the internet after all.)

So, which is it? First sentence attributes this temp lowering claim to the product. The second says it wasn't it.
Posted by: dave5358

Re: Archoil AR6200 - 02/24/14 03:02 PM

Originally Posted By: Trajan
Let us not dwell on the poor English <snip>

Great idea. Now, do you have anything to contribute about Archoil's impact on engine temperature?

Any information on Archoil at all?

Any information?
Posted by: simple_simon

Re: Archoil AR6200 - 02/24/14 03:09 PM

Originally Posted By: dave5358
Originally Posted By: Trajan
Originally Posted By: simple_simon
Originally Posted By: boxcartommie22
I could not believe it adding that boran additive ar9100 from archoil has did to reducing the heat greatly!!!


Originally Posted By: boxcartommie22
first of all,i didn't say the reduced heat was from archoil.the heat reduction just so happens after a couple of weeks after archoil ar9100..coincidence maybe or maybe not.i don't feel it is necessary to be mocked by low life's on here for someone's opinion.


Please take the spam somewhere else. No one here is buying that garbage.


It intrigues me as how one can say that the ar9100 reduced heat greatly, then say it wasn't from ar9100.

So which is it?

(Good catch simple_simon!!)


It intrigues me as to how one can conveniently misread simple statements:

- "I could not believe it adding that boran additive ar9100 from archoil has did to reducing the heat greatly"

- "first of all,i didn't say the reduced heat was from archoil."

Trajan: do you have any information or experience about AR9100 reducing engine heat (or not)? Pretty clearly, simple_simon does not.



Still waiting for you to back up this allegation, dave.

Shills are running scared in here.
Posted by: Trajan

Re: Archoil AR6200 - 02/24/14 03:20 PM

Originally Posted By: dave5358
Originally Posted By: Trajan
Let us not dwell on the poor English <snip>

Great idea. Now, do you have anything to contribute about Archoil's impact on engine temperature?

Any information on Archoil at all?

Any information?


Still waiting for you to tell me, 1: Which simple statement you claim is misread. 2: Why the contradiction?

Then, and only then, will I answer.

Simple_simon, careful with the *S* word.
Posted by: dave5358

Re: Archoil AR6200 - 02/24/14 03:36 PM

Originally Posted By: Trajan
Originally Posted By: dave5358
Originally Posted By: Trajan
Let us not dwell on the poor English <snip>

Great idea. Now, do you have anything to contribute about Archoil's impact on engine temperature?

Any information on Archoil at all?

Any information?

Then, and only then, will I answer.


You have already answered.
Posted by: simple_simon

Re: Archoil AR6200 - 02/24/14 03:47 PM

Originally Posted By: Trajan
Originally Posted By: dave5358
Originally Posted By: Trajan
Let us not dwell on the poor English <snip>

Great idea. Now, do you have anything to contribute about Archoil's impact on engine temperature?

Any information on Archoil at all?

Any information?


Still waiting for you to tell me, 1: Which simple statement you claim is misread. 2: Why the contradiction?

Then, and only then, will I answer.

Simple_simon, careful with the *S* word.


Just waiting for Dave or Thomas to start talking about Yugos and lifetime motor oil.
Posted by: dave5358

Re: Archoil AR6200 - 02/24/14 03:52 PM

Originally Posted By: simple_simon
Just waiting for Dave or Thomas to start talking about Yugos and lifetime motor oil.


There you go again. Do you have anything to contribute about Archoil's impact on engine temperature?

Any information on Archoil at all?

Any information?
Posted by: simple_simon

Re: Archoil AR6200 - 02/24/14 03:53 PM

Originally Posted By: dave5358
Originally Posted By: simple_simon
Just waiting for Dave or Thomas to start talking about Yugos and lifetime motor oil.


There you go again. Do you have anything to contribute about Archoil's impact on engine temperature?

Any information on Archoil at all?

Any information?


I would suggest that you read the thread before posting again. I've already contributed on Archoil's impact on engine temperature.

Now, which one of you is Miro?
Posted by: boxcartommie22

Re: Archoil AR6200 - 02/24/14 04:05 PM

it would be interesting to differentiate between heat from combustion or engine friction.archoil says on their stite claims the ar9100 reduces engine heat by 30-40%. I hope they can back that up!!I am going to ask for proof from them.i sure noticed a difference just overall the way things run.i would like to know others experiences..
Posted by: simple_simon

Re: Archoil AR6200 - 02/24/14 04:20 PM

Originally Posted By: boxcartommie22
it would be interesting to differentiate between heat from combustion or engine friction.archoil says on their stite claims the ar9100 reduces engine heat by 30-40%. I hope they can back that up!!I am going to ask for proof from them.i sure noticed a difference just overall the way things run.i would like to know others experiences..


1. You claimed that AR9100 drastically lowered the operating temperature of your engine.
2. You backtracked and said that AR9100 did NOT lower the operating temperature of your engine.
3. You are now claiming that AR9100 did in fact reduce the operating temperatures of your ICE (and also increased your MPG by 15%)

Have aliens landed in Littleton, CO recently?
Posted by: dave5358

Re: Archoil AR6200 - 02/24/14 04:31 PM

Originally Posted By: simple_simon
I've already contributed on Archoil's impact on engine temperature.


You may wish to check the definition of 'contributed'.

Do you have anything to contribute about Archoil's impact on engine temperature?

Any information on Archoil at all?

Any information?
Posted by: Trajan

Re: Archoil AR6200 - 02/24/14 04:31 PM

Originally Posted By: dave5358
Originally Posted By: Trajan
Originally Posted By: dave5358
Originally Posted By: Trajan
Let us not dwell on the poor English <snip>

Great idea. Now, do you have anything to contribute about Archoil's impact on engine temperature?

Any information on Archoil at all?

Any information?

Then, and only then, will I answer.


You have already answered.


Not possible, as....

Originally Posted By: Trajan


Still waiting for you to tell me, 1: Which simple statement you claim is misread. 2: Why the contradiction?

... you have not answered yet.
Posted by: boxcartommie22

Re: Archoil AR6200 - 02/24/14 04:33 PM

I spoke to tech support and learned a lot.they primarily service the mining, oil, ship, military industry..they do extensive testing using astm standards thus the claims. told him what I observed, he was not surprised. its the engine friction heat that is reduced and inc. mpg in which I noticed. very knowledgeable.
Posted by: Trajan

Re: Archoil AR6200 - 02/24/14 04:34 PM

Originally Posted By: dave5358
Originally Posted By: simple_simon
I've already contributed on Archoil's impact on engine temperature.


You may wish to check the definition of 'contributed'.

Do you have anything to contribute about Archoil's impact on engine temperature?

Any information on Archoil at all?

Any information?


Do you? You have yet to do what you expect others to do.

Originally Posted By: dave5358

Okay, you don't like Archoil. Otherwise, how does this contribute to the thread?
Is the first. And not a single one since then has any "information".

For someone who is so hot on contribution, you haven't met what looks to be your standard yet.
Posted by: dave5358

Re: Archoil AR6200 - 02/24/14 04:42 PM

Originally Posted By: simple_simon
Just waiting for Dave to start talking about lifetime motor oil.


This is completely off the topic of Archoil, but at least a welcome change from personal attacks.

So, whose lifetime? The oil? The vehicle? Most motor oils will last just about forever. If you doubt that, consider the airline industry which uses almost 100% recycled oil, or peruse the Wiki article on motor oils.

The automobile problem is filtration - you need a full-flow filter (with a relief valve, just in case) so you are limited by the particle size the filter can handle. You could add a by-pass filter system and get much longer oil life. But, why?

Which gets to the real problem: economics. How much trouble and expense are you will to incur to avoid an oil change? For many vehicles, the OCI is already 8-10,000 miles and may even be included in the warranty.
Posted by: boxcartommie22

Re: Archoil AR6200 - 02/24/14 04:57 PM

I spoke to tech support and learned a lot.they primarily service the mining, oil, ship, military industry..they do extensive testing using astm standards thus the claims. told him what I observed, he was not surprised. its the engine friction heat that is reduced and inc. mpg in which I noticed. very knowledgeable.
Posted by: simple_simon

Re: Archoil AR6200 - 02/24/14 04:59 PM

Originally Posted By: boxcartommie22
I spoke to tech support and learned a lot.they primarily service the mining, oil, ship, military industry..they do extensive testing using astm standards thus the claims. told him what I observed, he was not surprised. its the engine friction heat that is reduced and inc. mpg in which I noticed. very knowledgeable.


Posting it twice makes it true.
Posted by: dave5358

Re: Archoil AR6200 - 02/24/14 05:04 PM

Originally Posted By: Trajan
For someone who is so hot on contribution, you haven't met what looks to be your standard yet.

I was reading the thread for information (a bit optimistic, it would seem). Your stream of mindless attacks on the OP and Archoil have made this difficult.

Do you have anything to contribute about Archoil's impact on engine temperature?

Any information on Archoil at all?

Any information?
Posted by: dave5358

Re: Archoil AR6200 - 02/24/14 05:07 PM

Originally Posted By: boxcartommie22
I spoke to tech support and learned a lot.they primarily service the mining, oil, ship, military industry..they do extensive testing using astm standards thus the claims. told him what I observed, he was not surprised. its the engine friction heat that is reduced and inc. mpg in which I noticed. very knowledgeable.


VW specified the use of MoS2 in the engine oil of air-cooled Beetles, to reduce heat and reduce the risk of oil failure. Other additives might work the same.
Posted by: dave5358

Re: Archoil AR6200 - 02/24/14 05:09 PM

Originally Posted By: simple_simon
Posting it twice makes it true.


Do you have anything to contribute about Archoil's impact on engine temperature?

Any information on Archoil at all?

Any information?

Posted by: Clevy

Re: Archoil AR6200 - 02/24/14 05:14 PM

Originally Posted By: boxcartommie22
clevy, archoil says this is designed to be a fm..now the boron in say red line, functions as a detergent and a fm.. this is what I understand.



Fair enough.

Thank you
Posted by: JHZR2

Re: Archoil AR6200 - 02/24/14 06:12 PM

People need to learn to grow up. Some may be banned from this thread, or at least may be watched closer as a result.