Tufoil with PP in 2004 Lexus RX330 ... with UOA

Status
Not open for further replies.
N

newtoncd8

Joined
Jan 18, 2003
Messages
1,064
Location
Colorado
I tried Tufoil years ago in my Honda Accord and decided to try it again ... this time in my wife's 2004 Lexus RX330 V6 with close to 90,000 miles.

Blackstone's comments were: Everything looks good in the latest sample from your Lexus. All wear read at or below universal
averages and in the proper balance. No fuel, coolant, or moisture was found and the viscosity read normally for a 5W/30. Both silicon and insolubles (oil oxidation due to heat, use, and blow-by) read normally, which shows good air and oil filtration.
Toyota makes nicely wearing engines and the one that powers your Lexus is no exception. No problems were found at 87,750 miles.

The UOA thread is here:

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1052763#Post1052763

Comments?
 
Curtis how much of the oil lubricated engine parts do you think
Tufoil is actually lubricating? Tufoil or WalMarts oil no matter They will not lubricate through dirt-contamnants and oil can't clean.

87,750 miles engines are dirty. All oil lubricated rotating metal parts have a MTBF rating from the manufacture IMO yours is accellerating.
 
Frank, forget about the Tufoil for a minute. I'm missing something here. What is the MTBF rating and how can you tell it is accelerating? I look at that UOA above and I do not see any excessive wear indicated. Help educate me. Thanks
 
I am stating if you dont clean the "crud" off your engine internal parts no oil or oil additive can effectively clean deep down so areas of your engine stay starved for lubrication and this situation causes premature metal wear.
 
Originally Posted By: hannaco
MTBE Mean Time Before Failure.
Frank has suggested that the time before failure is shorter now that Tufoil is being used.



So, if I am using Tufoil (or the SOPUS Slick 50 product) in my wife's RX330, the engine will not last as long, correct?

I am probably stating an isolated case, but don't tell that to our (brother-in-law now drives for daily commute) 88 Camry with Tufoil and/or Slick 50 treatments and 347,000 miles on it ... the engine is all original (except for multiple timing belt changes) and it runs great.

I guess what I am saying is, I don't have any proof that Tufoil will make my engine last longer, but in my case there sure isn't any proof that early failure is imminent.

I am always willing to change my ways and will stop using Tufoil immediately if there any documented cases of Tufoil (or Slick 50) causing early engine failure? (yes, I am aware of the 1992 Road Rider report that gets posted all of the time).

Thanks for any help.
 
I've never had any problems with Tufoil. Seems to quiet down engines, smooth them out, and improve MPG.
Since your UOA didn't show any drastic wear increase, thats proof enough for me, not that I needed any. Too bad Toyotas wear very well. Need a hard 'wearing' engine to test Tufoil in.

I wish that Tufoil would switch to a synthetic or higher group carrier oil. Thats my only complaint. For what it costs, it should be a Group III/III+/IV/V blend.
 
Originally Posted By: hannaco
Do you trust Blackstone Labs? Their current newsletter may shed some light on this subject. To read the newsletter follow the link: http://www.blackstone-labs.com/newsletter.html



Thanks for the article and if Blackstone would have written the article (based upon what their testing revealed, that would have been beneficial) .... however, believe it or not, that is the same Road Rider report from 1992 ... it just keeps on getting reused / recycled as if it was new (each time, the poster/author will put a new date on it). I guess I am saying, a lot has changed since 1992.

Due to proprietary reasons, I can't say the name, but I heard from someone on this board that reads a lot of UOAs and he said he hasn't seen any bad Tufoil related reports.

Also, with SOPUS involved with Slick 50, that is an interesting development. Whether or not, it is simply because they inherited it with a purchase a company, they are still selling the product.

Thanks unDummy for your comments also.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Quote:
I wish that Tufoil would switch to a synthetic or higher group carrier oil. Thats my only complaint. For what it costs, it should be a Group III/III+/IV/V blend.


Don't you need a Group I or Group II oil for suspending additives? That's why you can't just have a pure PAO and additives. You've got to have some carrier oil.

Or is Tufoil an oil all by itself? The way it sounded, it was added (we are in the oil additive section here).
 
Quote:
Also, with SOPUS involved with Slick 50, that is an interesting development. Whether or not, it is simply because they inherited it with a purchase a company, they are still selling the product.


If you go to the SOPUS site, there's a full line of Slick50 products that are professional grade. If you cruise through the MSDS sheets, you'll see that most of them don't have Teflon in them. It's truly PZ's "mechanic in a can" line. Most of them aren't on retail shelves.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
Quote:
I wish that Tufoil would switch to a synthetic or higher group carrier oil. Thats my only complaint. For what it costs, it should be a Group III/III+/IV/V blend.


Don't you need a Group I or Group II oil for suspending additives? That's why you can't just have a pure PAO and additives. You've got to have some carrier oil.

Or is Tufoil an oil all by itself? The way it sounded, it was added (we are in the oil additive section here).



Tufoil is an additive. Here is the MSDS:

Tufoil-MSDS.jpg
 
Okay, then AFAIK ..no one uses ..or can use ..a Group IV oil with this stuff. I'm way behind the curve on the inherent characteristics of the Group III and Group IV base stocks, but there's a reason for that disclaimer on every bottle of M1. It's been gone over many times...but I've been focused on other stuff for quite some time.
 
Gary, Why? and what disclaimer?

Curtiss, so it is group 1ish, 4, 5? Thats not the Msds I saw years ago. Thanks for the update. Explains the cost better.

I'm also under the impression that EOP and POA have the solvency issues. Other group V and GTL+ oils can carry additive. It also make you wonder if the boutique companies, and all those full synthetic store bought oils,...have a chunk of group 1 carrying the additives.
 
Quote:
Gary, Why? and what disclaimer?


Maybe they don't have it anymore
21.gif


..but every bottle of M1 had (words like these), "100% Synthetic Oil*"


*Exclusive of conventional additive carrier oil.

Now they really should have had a PR campaign to educate the public on this. The use of the word "carrier" gave me the impression that the amount of 100% synthetic oil was relatively small compared to the "carrier" that was transporting it around. They didn't clearly communicate that the percentage was small ..and was only there for the additives.
 
The stuff is still mostly GrpI and VII. Not exactly something I want to pay extra for in order to dump into my engine. Even the PAO is filler.
 
Frank Said:

""They will not lubricate through dirt-contamnants and oil can't clean."'

Sorry I'm just Dumb BUT you always say this please exsplain?

I assume you mean varnish/dbris/solids buildup on a rotaing shaft/bearing in the contact zone.

Unless the engine in question has an external oil pump to pump up to pressue to lift crankshaft off of bearing then the meer start up metal to metal/Boundry regime will wipe/scuff any varnish debris off of shaft keeping it clean and contributing to the majority of wear.

How can this be if you keep saying that varnishy/gummy bearing surfaces need your product to clean them when they would already be scuffed clean?

IMHO any area of NON bearing contact will benifit from your product but NOT bearings contact areas.

Please help me understand this.
bruce
 
Last edited:
The main deal is reduced or restricted oil flows to lifters and ring packs (and all other elements/surfaces where accumulations would alter flow), imo. Naturally cam surfaces would benefit from a higher refresh rate, or so I would reason.


..but while you're here, bruce, does this have any components that resemble FM's?

Quote:
The product ARX is a proprietary blend of three ester groups. One is fatty ester, lanolin type, that is the base of ARX. Raw material is derived from the washing of sheep hair. This unique ester has very good detergent properties and is reponsible for most of the cleaning of engine deposits that motor oil detergents can't clean. A second ester group is an aliphatic ester, which helps in the oil film formation. Esters of this group make up the base of many aviation oils. They prevent dry spots or fish eyes in the oil film formation. This is obviously important while flying many thousand feet above the ground. It is also vital during the cleansing of deposits in your ground level motor. The other ester group is a polyol ester. Although is primarily used as a thinning agent of the ARX blend, improving pour point, they are biodegadeable eco friendly extreme pressue agents. By green I mean cholorine free, phoshate free, boron free, etc.
 
read the patent if has esters and some AW/EP/FM additives from dover chemcial as I remember so yes ARX would IMHO work as or be a AW/FM additive also.
bruce
 
I'm late to this thread by I have a question. If one person poured Tufoil in their engine and pulled samples for testing every oil change how would you know if anything good happened and if it did, now much of it happened? I don't mean to take a shot at Tufoil but how would you know with any of those products? In fact the only thing Tufoil has to do is not cause immediate damage. I've seen every additive you can imagine and we've run dyno test for all kinds of stuff and I've never seen anything that did enough that we could point at something and say, "see what it did". A couple of years ago someone came in with a factory hotrod Dodge pickup with a V10. He was selling Prolong and wanted us to sell it. This was when there were infomercials showing cars running with Prolong and no oil so we asked him to drain his oil and repeat the test. We never saw him or Prolong again.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

D
2005 RX330 3000 miles M1 FS 0w40
Replies
17
Views
2K
DV0993
A
2015 Toyota 2.5L 2AR-FE M1 AFE 0W-30 ~8000 miles ish UOA
Replies
10
Views
896
fantastic
C
Tie Rods, Swaybar Links, Rack, or Strut Mount?
Replies
18
Views
938
c3uo
I
UOA Castrol Euro (mix 0w30 & 0w40) in 2007 Subaru EJ25 after ~4770 miles
Replies
12
Views
2K
Impatient
1
2007 Lexus RX400H: 284k, $1k gamble
2
Replies
35
Views
5K
14Accent
Back
Top