Originally Posted By: dnewton3
A little background here regarding me, so that you'll understand my opinion on this issue. I worked (past tense) for Ford for 16 years at the Indinapolis Steering Systems plant. I had access to lots of the engineering data, even related to other vehicle components. As a "gearhead" I would spend my lunches and such sometimes surfing the internal data from Ford.
I can tell you there is typically no need for any additives to any vehicle fluid, save for what might be formally suggested by the manufacturer (L/S diff friction modifiers, coolant additives for the old 7.3 PSD, etc).
With that in mind, you also have to think of the demonstration you saw in the context of not just lubricants, but hydrodynamic barriers. Most people forget that one of the most important contributing factors of engine oil is that part of it's job is to be a physical barrier between a moving part and a stationary part. Therefore, a series of hydrodynamic barriers develop, from the nearly-still outer boundry layers on the parts, to the high flowing fluids in mid-stream.
Think of a car that hydro-planes when driving across a deep puddle. One surface looses contact with another, right? Well, that hyrodynamic pressue is one of the main contributing effects regarding bearings and fluidsas well. You can run water in a pressureized plain bearing, and for a time, the "fluid" would help the parts float apart. The advantage to engine oil is that it has all kinds of other chemistry to better that relationship; additives such as anti-wear, anti-corrosion, dispersants, detergents, and a maybe even a little black-magic are added to help that relationship be extended well past water's ability. Further, the surface tention properties of lubricants enhance the relationship by inclusion. Perhaps the sliding friction of the piston ring and cylinder don't quite benefit as greatly from the pressurized scenario, but still nearly any liquid is a friction reducer and heat reducer when flowing between two parts.
The fact that the bearing seized almost immediately with no fluid does not suprise anyone. Adding oil, the results make for a marked improvement in performance; but again, no suprise, right?
The question is, when the BG product is added, is it bolstering a relationship past a point where it's presence is moot? I suspect so. Any decent brand name oil is engineered to give many, many thousands of miles of service in an engine, when used with decent OCI's; those lubricant property specifications are often a colaborative effort in studies done by the SAE and API. It's possible that the BG fluid created a film barrier greater than the Mobil 1 alone, but I would question why such a film barrier is even necessary. The BG would have to be either thicker, or more slippery, or a combination of the two. Further, the "thicker" the viscosity, the more resistant to flow, hence more pumping power is needed to overcome the resistance.
I like providing analogies, so that we can remove ourselves from the topic, and see things from a different perspective. Consider deer hunting. You could shoot a deer with a .22 rimfire, and it make put the deer down with a lucky spinal cord hit, or the deer might live for years with an "inconvenience". There are many calibers that are appropriate, such as shotgun slugs and common rifle chamberings. Then there's .50 BMG, Big Game .460x102, mortars, RPG's and such. Surely these huge rounds would put the animal down, but it would be a waste of money and a waste or resources. Get the point?
It's important to select a product that is appropriate for a particular use. BG products might likely enhance a product past a needed point, is what I'm saying. Sure, you leaned on the torque wrench with all your might, but since when does a crankshaft, con-rod, or cam lobe see any greater pressure than WOT under full load? An engine, and it's specified lubricants, were designed to meet this demand. BG might be capable of withstanding an increased load, but it's a load that will likely never been seen anyway.
I don't have any experience with BG, so it would be unfair for me to say it's a bad product. But I am always leary of adding an element to any environment that wasn't designed for "intruders". What are the long term effects of BG being in a system? How does it effect the host oil's chemistry? How does it effect operational efficiency? How does it effect OCI's? And so on ...
What I feel comfortable saying is that it's very likely an undeeded product. Traditional motor oils ("dino" or "synthetic") provide such a well-engineered service to vehicle components that additives for routine operation are moot, and therefore a waste.
dnewton3, you've done it again. Well thought out and written. And I agree, this should be in the oil additive section.
