Frank had some before and after photos of a piston out of a small Honda 4 cyclinder a while back. I will ask him to see if he can find them. It was from 2-3 years ago.
LC or ARX for maintenance dosage?
- Thread starter ttsakai
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2003
- Messages
- 23,591
That would be swell, but I'm really more interested in seeing before pictures, so that I can get an idea about how many deposits we are talking. A fellow Audi owner who had his engine torn down gave me this description:
I would love to see the pic's too since I have a '95 Civic I drive almost every day (now at ~52K miles).
Just purchased a six-pack of Auto-Rx for my rolling stock; the main reasons I considered it are the numerous positive reviews on this board and that the company's owner seems like a very skookum person.
I've been AutoRXing for about 3 years now. Ran a cleaning cycle and maintenance doses since.
A couple of changes went without the maint. dose and I found that my engine was just a little louder through the whole range (idle to full throttle). Same oil, same driving conditions, same gasoline. Add the AutoRX and its quieter again. Hmmmmm. Terry once mentioned that the esters in AutoRX may have some lubricating properties. Maybe its all in my head, but I really think they do. So its my beleif (only to be proven by Terry or Mola) that Auto RX is probably a better maint dose, because of its cleaning ability and "possible" lubricating enhancement.
I could be completely wrong, but either way my engine is clean!
A couple of changes went without the maint. dose and I found that my engine was just a little louder through the whole range (idle to full throttle). Same oil, same driving conditions, same gasoline. Add the AutoRX and its quieter again. Hmmmmm. Terry once mentioned that the esters in AutoRX may have some lubricating properties. Maybe its all in my head, but I really think they do. So its my beleif (only to be proven by Terry or Mola) that Auto RX is probably a better maint dose, because of its cleaning ability and "possible" lubricating enhancement.
I could be completely wrong, but either way my engine is clean!
First of all I am not endorsing ARX; I merely want to say that I too have an older car with high mileage that I had debated about whether I needed to use ARX.
This is a 1990 Acura which had M1 for the past 8-9 years. I am currently in the second cleaning phase of ARX with about 400 miles to go. The car was running fine before I put ARX in but I think it is running smoother now. Maybe this is my imagination. Regardless of this I have cylinder compressions readings before ARX and plan to check again after completing the second rinse phase.
The one thought I have is whether using the MOlaBrew of #132 and LC will keep the engine clean enough compared to just ARX or just LC alone.
This is a 1990 Acura which had M1 for the past 8-9 years. I am currently in the second cleaning phase of ARX with about 400 miles to go. The car was running fine before I put ARX in but I think it is running smoother now. Maybe this is my imagination. Regardless of this I have cylinder compressions readings before ARX and plan to check again after completing the second rinse phase.
The one thought I have is whether using the MOlaBrew of #132 and LC will keep the engine clean enough compared to just ARX or just LC alone.
Tracy, please search and read about BOTH these unique and effective products from previous posts by people who test lubricants or have a chemistry background.
FYI, I was hired by both companies to test these products when they were almost completetly unknown.
For a maintenance cleaner I think that it depends on the application and its needs.
For instance we know that Auto-RX is a more methodical and long lasting cleaner of the ring pack area than LC. LC will clean that but it takes much longer. Auto-RX does not wear out, LC needs to be recharged but acts faster in anti- oxidation effectiveness.
LC can strip lighter varnish type coatings faster than RX. RX is extremely lubricious and is a EP add in its own right. LC is more of a traditional inhibited solvent with a excellent anti oxidant capability.
BOTH are exceptionally safe to use in engines, trans, hydraulics , etc.
RX lowers oxidation and nitration by cleaning and enabling better ring seal while LC will do it by lowering the oxidation rates in the host oil, allowing that oil to seal the rings better.
RX IS an ESTER. LC is what I call a NEAR ESTER.
RX can disperse effectively, LC uses the lubricant to do that job.
LC will clean seals but not rejuvinate them like RX can.
Using oil analysis and general observation a person can use both products effectively.
Each one has tremendous strengths ,similar to using appropriate tools for the job, use LC and Auto-X based on the oil and engine combination and the needs of same, backed by oil analysis to verify the regimen.
For example :
If I had a older car that is using oil and has seal leaks I would use the maintenance dose of RX after a good cleaning phase.
If I had a motor oil and engine application that tends to thicken that oil through oxidation I would use 2 ounces of LC per qt capacity and 1000 mile top ups with 3 ounces of LC.
If I had a Cadillac Northstar V8 I would use Auto-RX to lube those rings and assist in oil control.
If I had a 84 302 ford with lots of carbon buildup in the intake manifold I would pour LC down the carb while running and smoke the neigborhood and pour until I kill it and let it soak all night. Just did that today ! I had just finished a Auto-RX cleaning for 1700 miles of driving in 2 days and what a difference in the oil and ring control ! BOTH products work !
No matter which add you use in the oil I would run FP60 every gas fillup !
Enjoy both chemical tools folks.
Terry
FYI, I was hired by both companies to test these products when they were almost completetly unknown.
For a maintenance cleaner I think that it depends on the application and its needs.
For instance we know that Auto-RX is a more methodical and long lasting cleaner of the ring pack area than LC. LC will clean that but it takes much longer. Auto-RX does not wear out, LC needs to be recharged but acts faster in anti- oxidation effectiveness.
LC can strip lighter varnish type coatings faster than RX. RX is extremely lubricious and is a EP add in its own right. LC is more of a traditional inhibited solvent with a excellent anti oxidant capability.
BOTH are exceptionally safe to use in engines, trans, hydraulics , etc.
RX lowers oxidation and nitration by cleaning and enabling better ring seal while LC will do it by lowering the oxidation rates in the host oil, allowing that oil to seal the rings better.
RX IS an ESTER. LC is what I call a NEAR ESTER.
RX can disperse effectively, LC uses the lubricant to do that job.
LC will clean seals but not rejuvinate them like RX can.
Using oil analysis and general observation a person can use both products effectively.
Each one has tremendous strengths ,similar to using appropriate tools for the job, use LC and Auto-X based on the oil and engine combination and the needs of same, backed by oil analysis to verify the regimen.
For example :
If I had a older car that is using oil and has seal leaks I would use the maintenance dose of RX after a good cleaning phase.
If I had a motor oil and engine application that tends to thicken that oil through oxidation I would use 2 ounces of LC per qt capacity and 1000 mile top ups with 3 ounces of LC.
If I had a Cadillac Northstar V8 I would use Auto-RX to lube those rings and assist in oil control.
If I had a 84 302 ford with lots of carbon buildup in the intake manifold I would pour LC down the carb while running and smoke the neigborhood and pour until I kill it and let it soak all night. Just did that today ! I had just finished a Auto-RX cleaning for 1700 miles of driving in 2 days and what a difference in the oil and ring control ! BOTH products work !
No matter which add you use in the oil I would run FP60 every gas fillup !
Enjoy both chemical tools folks.
Terry
This particular treatment reminds me of this stuff years ago (I think Shaler made it) called "Karb Out" which, when used in pretty much this manner, was supposed to help remove carbon buildup in the combustion chambers. Treated my old '65 Coronet 383-4V with it.
Man, oh, man, did that stuff smoke! For some twisted reason it was kind of fun to watch.
It also said "DO NOT USE IN VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH CATALYTIC CONVERTORS".
EDIT: Sorry if I'm threadjacking with this post but it shows I'm getting old; reminiscing...!
Terry, that is the single most succinct explanation of the differences between LC and ARX, and of the usefulness of both, that I have yet read. It should somehow be made a sticky...
Excellent job!!!
And... Happy Fourth!
Excellent job!!!
And... Happy Fourth!
That’s marketing hype.
Engine cleanliness depends more on the quality of oil and how often it’s changed than the number of miles.
I don’t pull pistons out of engines all that often but the last time I did the ring pack was perfectly clean.
I just can’t see where arx is all that useful when you use a good oil.
I suppose sooner or later I’ll have to put my money where my mouth is and give arx the good old college try. I’ve got a ’88 Honda with 215K miles that runs as good as the day I bought it 17 years ago. Do you suppose arx will make run even better?
I must also say Thank You!quote:
Originally posted by Big O Dave:
Terry, that is the single most succinct explanation of the differences between LC and ARX, and of the usefulness of both, that I have yet read. It should somehow be made a sticky...
Excellent job!!!
And... Happy Fourth!
Hi Terry,
Thanks for your suggestion regarding doing a search on the forum to find data regarding the question I posed. But I have to say that your response was the most informative and what I was looking for. All the other responses that were being posted never answered the question I asked, until you.
Thank you for the very complete answer to my question.
Tracy
Thanks for your suggestion regarding doing a search on the forum to find data regarding the question I posed. But I have to say that your response was the most informative and what I was looking for. All the other responses that were being posted never answered the question I asked, until you.
Thank you for the very complete answer to my question.
Tracy
terry, what do you mean by a near ester compared to a real ester?
- Status