Lube control 'vs.' Auto Rx

[Terry]

I am a hired tribological consultant for both these companies proprietary chemistries.

I use both products in my personal engines, trans,and gearboxes. I have found that through oil analysis I can find the "sweet spot" for a unit when using both as tools to ensure my machines run clean.

Both chemistries are antithetical to one another in formulation and effect. Auto-RX is a metal cleaner with a "liquid" filtering capability.

LC is a solvent that has extremely strong anti oxidation capability.

LC seems to be able to utilize the host carbon deposits as an effective lubricant while Auto-RX gets rid of them safely by dispersing effect.

I don't think that LC can deeply clean as effectively as Auto-RX. Nor can Auto-RX anti oxidise the host lube like LC can.

Based on oil analysis results, Mechtech I could fine tune for you and optimize the use of BOTH products.

As to the effect of the products used together I cannot recommend it or address that as neither company has hired me to test for that, nor will they !

I do not see Frank marketing in his statement above JHZR2. He knows more about this chemistry than me and I would be forwarned in using the two together.

Terry

 

[1sttruck]

"LC seems to be able to utilize the host carbon deposits as an effective lubricant while Auto-RX gets rid of them safely by dispersing effect."

I've run across an article by an aircraft mechanic, suggesting pretty much the same mechanism on how MMO seem to work.

 

[JHZR2]

Terry: Based upon what Ive read in your and Frank's posts, I take it (and this may be a big set of assumptions on my part) that: theoretically LC combines with the carbon deposits, and then the carbon is 'encapsulated' by ARX, effectively removing LC from the base oil, rendering it (LC) useless to the bulk oil? Seems to me that as a solvent, it is not 'absorbed' into the carbon deposits, nor 'adsorbed' to the carbon / particulate surface, and as a result, should coincide with ARX in the bulk lube oil, each doing their own thing: ARX encapsulating dirt and making its way to the metallic surface, and LC interacting with deposits of various sorts, solublizing them, and also manipulating the oxidative characteristics of the bulk oil. Even if LC whets the surfaces of encapsulated particles super-well, I cant see how ARX would remove any significant amount of the LC component.

Seems to me they would co-exist very nicely, not have one 'remove' the other from solution. If they indeed react, then this should be disclosed to the members of this site who would theoretically have both products in their engines at or near the same time. if they do not react, I cannot see how ARX would remove LC... deactivate, maybe, react or clash with, maybe, but remove?

I have an internal interest in this, as I would like to use LC and ARX together in my new Saab, which can do up to 18k mile OCIs. Right now Im just using LC, as I believe it is the correct product for a new, clean engine to remain that way, unless a significant problem arises.

As for marketing... the claim that a cleaner like arx is needed at ANY mileage is a bit of a stretch, IMO... but it is IMO, baed upon my multiple vehicles, all but two have over 100k, and most of which have over 150k...YMMV...

Thanks!

Respectfully,

JMH

 

[Rick20]

How much chemistry do you think a fully formulated oil can suspend or co-exist with before it becomes a one handed juggler. There is a big difference between running each product on different oil changes vs. running a full dose of each in the same oil fill.

Auto-Rx is a cleaner of internal deposits. It slowly, safely dissolves undesireable deposits from the engines internals. ARX also contains some ep adds and film formation support to the oil. Call it a bit of extra protection while the cleaning goes on. LC seems to a big boost of antioxidant to the host oil. It also seems to raise the base number.I would say in design that it prevents the complex sludge forming interaction of blow by gases, heat , and pressure with the host oil.

I don't think it cleans nearly as well as ARX. But that is not its design or purpose. UOA's would indicate that the host oil life is enhanced with LC. However, pushing the envelope to outrageous oil change intervals is not my recommendation. Otherwise you'll be back to ARX.

 

[JHZR2]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rick20:
How much chemistry do you think a fully formulated oil can suspend or co-exist with before it becomes a one handed juggler.

---

I don't know... thats why Im asking the folks who test and evaluate the products, as well as the devellopers... Of course the easy answer is that it depends on the oil, as thats why arx needs to be used with a cheapo one... or the other easy answer is it depends on the additive, which is why LC, and perhaps others like #132, valvoline suppliment, neutra and SX-UP seem to do fine boosting any oil.

Its a function of what the additive is... LC will work with anything, arx competes with other esters. Yet that doesnt mean that arx is BAD for use in synthetic oils... or that was at least my impression, and you're right, it doesnt mean that LC magically allows you to have obscenely long OCIs.

Thus my questions...

JMH

JMH

 

[doitmyself]

So, the question still remains, if LC20 is used from the "beginning" (less than ten thousand miles), will it keep the engine clean enough to forego ARX treatments? Or, what interval should ARX be used if LC20 is used?

In this case, assuming a mechanically good engine and reasonable OCI's. Even if LC20 only cleans a "little", wouldn't that be enough to keep a new engine spotless.

On the other hand, would ARX every 25K (even with LC20 regime) help condition and prolong the seals?

 

[JHZR2]

IMO, the issue is, if you use NEITHER, will you still get >>100k, good, clean running, high MPG, low emissions miles? From my experience, likely, yes.

Of course youll hear that ARX is the killer app for keeping an engine new from the ARX folks, and youll see results that LC keeps UOAs super low... Both are good, and I maintain that LC will keep things super-clean, especially if used as a flush, or used since just after breakin, and great UOA results are the proof in the pudding. ARX will keep a neglected or sludge-prone engine clean, and its abilities are shown in many photos found on this site - but Id rather have my lube oil remain 'healthy' to keep things clean before the fact, and immediately solubilize junk before there is a buildup, so it doesnt form, rather than after the fact when deposits have formed...

To us joe consumers, who arent interested in selling product, its a matter of which will perform better. I tend to lean towards a very measurable metric: excellent UOA results found when LC is used... But thats just my opinion, and I certainly use ARX when needs arise (like Ill be sending 2 bottles down to my GF's mother after I get some insight into a good interval in an odd application (Caribbean driving).

We'll see if we get any real good technical info though... These arent my products, and the only real evidence I have is that my engines are all clean without any additive, and that my UOA results are better with LC.

JMH

[ August 29, 2005, 07:18 PM: Message edited by: JHZR2 ]

 

[1sttruck]

"LC cleans very well! Have you tested it on anything yet? IF you follow the flush procedure it is amazing what it can clean! Even at 1/2 within 500 miles your oil will be full of garbage that is inside you engine. "

My oil didn't start getting dirty looking in the older car until I added the Seafoam/baking soda at 2k miles. It has also had about 1 can of Seafoam sprayed into the intake, over about 3 applciations. That car has Mobil 1 T&S with the larger LC dose added at a change, has had the additional 1 oz at 1k miles, and I added 2 oz at 2k miles. The oil is pretty clean as the engine is probably pretty clean, except for the sticky rings.

The newer car, with over 80k miles, still has fairly clean looking oil at over 2k miles, and it has some Union 76 10W30 with LC. Looking inside the engine when removing the oil fill cap there is no varnish, just clean metal, which is how it's looked all along. I'm using some less than a $1 a qt oil at 3k oil changes to clean it, having used some Rislone previously and then adding some Seafoam for the last couple of hundred miles. It doesn't use any oil, and neither did the older car until maybe at 160k miles or so. The older car has over 190k miles on it.

I haven't tried soaking the chambers after pulling the plugs as nothing that I used would clean a plugged EGR feedback port coming off of the exhaust, or get a badly fouled ACT sensor clean. Nothing that I would want to put in the engine that is, as the Castrol engine cleaner cleans well but it's basically oven cleaner as it has lye in it (I'll nmot be spraying it all over the engine more). Nothing seems to clean baked on carbon, at least quickly.

MMO doesn't seem to when used in the fuel at the 4 oz per 10 gal does per the bottle, as I ended having to use some Techron in the newer car when it started pinging again, even though I've been using MMO all along. I'll need to use soem Techron in the older car as well.

Anyway, back to more experiments in keeping old cars running.

 

[Dr. T]

LC will clean as my oil has turned darker quicker since it's use necessitating a couple shorter OCI's. My guess is therefore that continued use will keep the engine clean without auto-rx as this product seems more suited for neglected engines rather than new ones or extended OCI's.

 

[JohnBrowning]

Remember that in an engine all you have to do is break the bond that is holding the carbon together and it comes loose. Most of the carbon deposits in the engine are held together with left over polymers fromt he oil and unburned fuel byproducts. If you have something that can break these bonds then the carbon will want to fall into suspension int he oil if the oil has enough dispersents and solvency left in it! I do not know of anyting that would be safe to put in an engine that would ever work directly on the carbon itself!

 

[Rick20]

On a well carboned up motor, slow cleaning is the prefered method. Dislodging sizeable chunks can be a catastrophy. ARX is designed to slowly dismantle deposits, safely carrying deposits to the filter media. Carbon deposits form over a relatively long period of time. Should be dismantled in a nice slow, safe fashion. ARX is definitly the leader in freeing up carbonized ring packs.

I think LC is designed more to fortify oil with a secondary antioxidant package to prevent oil from degradeing and coking up.

 

[Terry]

JMH, BOTH LC and Auto-RX will give you a measureable metric in excellent oil analysis reports. Some of the lowest wearing analysis results seen have been post Auto-RX.

LC is a poor flush IMHO. It needs to be heated and use a flush machine to accomplish that procedure. I would rather use it to CONTROL soot/solids/oxidation and use Auto-RX to clean with at the end of oil drains, even ones using LC ! As always use at least annual oil analysis to fine tune.

I sell oil analysis interpretation not either product. Remember I introduced both here and at Noria BEFORE I was remunerated in testing for them.

Being a moderator JMH, readers will follow what you say even if you are thinking through this out loud !

Respectfully, Terry

 

[JHZR2]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Terry:
I would rather use it to CONTROL soot/solids/oxidation and use Auto-RX to clean with at the end of oil drains, even ones using LC ! As always use at least annual oil analysis to fine tune.

---

Terry,

I think that little quote solves the dilemma of what to do with my 04 saab, which I will be keeping for as long as possible, and will be doing OCIs >>10k, per the computer (provided UOA says I can go >>10k).

I am taking this (and correct me if Im wrong) as a blessing to 'mix' LC and ARX int he engine, albeit shortly before draining the oil.

Given that I am using the reccomended doses of LC, how much ARX would you reccomend adding at the end, and how many miles before the drain do you reccomend doing it?

Will this skew UOA results?

I appreciate this tidbit of info.

JMH

 

[pbm]

quote:

---

Originally posted by SteveU:
I added an initial dose of 3 oz/qt & my oil was noticably darker with little black specks 60 mi later. Now there are no more 'specks' but the oil is darker than its ever been at this mileage. Pulled the valve cover & varnish is almost gone in places, much lighter on the rest. This stuff really works on varnish which is all I had under the valve cover. Mileage is up & motor seems quieter.
Steve

---

Steve: Are you talking about LC or ARX?

 

[SteveU]

PBM,
that was the LC at 3 oz/qt & using FP at 4-6 oz/ 10gal tank. Just changed the fuel filter, plan on running 1 more tank at a 'shock' dosage then back off to 2 oz/fillup.
Steve

 

[MadScientist]

Very interesting and informative topic... hopefully, there would be some form of recommendation(s) for end-user laymen like myself.

Cheers!

 

[Frank]

"New Auto-Rx Test Data" please read this post (on bitog) and examine data by Dyson Oil Analysis, think it speaks for itself.

 

[1sttruck]

"Remember that in an engine all you have to do is break the bond that is holding the carbon together and it comes loose. Most of the carbon deposits in the engine are held together with left over polymers fromt he oil and unburned fuel byproducts. If you have something that can break these bonds then the carbon will want to fall into suspension int he oil if the oil has enough dispersents and solvency left in it! I do not know of anyting that would be safe to put in an engine that would ever work directly on the carbon itself!"

Thinking about this some more, and thinking back on different things that I've tried, it seems that different products clean different 'species', whether it's varnish, sludge, or carbon, and depending on how/what formed the film. When I first started using a synthetic PCMO, and later on an HDEO, it seemed that at first the oil would blacken quickly, and with later changes not as quickly. Seafoam and evidently LC clean differently. What seems to consistently clean carbon is an alkaline environment, such as sodium hydroxide used in an engine cleaner, something that will literally pit aluminum, or even sodium bicarbonate (baking soda), which in high concentrations and long exposure can also pit aluminum. HDEOs seem to have a lot of calcium carbonate for neutralizing acids and such. Baking soda isn't an accepted oil additive, in part I guess because of the danger of corrosion from salt formation when exposed to some acids and the aluminum pitting at high use levels.

I have noticed that the oil in the old car is blackening quickly after having added about a teaspoon of baking soda in a bit of Seafoam and dumping it in the oil, and so far the rings don't to sticking as the oil consumption hasn't shot up again. I guess the baking soda is just slowly working the remaining varnish/carbon that the other products weren't removing, and/or allowing the LC in the oil to work better on the remaining carbon. No telling what it's doing to the add pac, but I'll let it go for awhile to see if the rings stay free and the oil keeps blackening.