additive upon additive? Lube Control plus Tribomaxx?

[Bob A.]

I'm new to BITOG and this is my first step into the breach.

I just sent a message to the Service Dept. at Lube Control which read:

quote:

---

I'm using an "extreme pressure" oil additive called Tribomaxx in combination with Chevron RPM 15w40 diesel engine oil. The mix is 1 oz. Tribomaxx to 1 qt. of RPM. I'm using this combo. in a '95 Ford turbo diesel Power Stroke F250 pickup.

I don't know the composition of the Tribomaxx additive, but it has calcium as a base element which provides surfactant-like effects. The positive effect Tribomaxx produces for the RPM is very low engine parts wear as measured by oil analysis and an upgraded and durable TBN for the RPM sustained over extended oil change intervals (e.g., 15 to 18 TBN in 20,000 miles).

Any chance that Lube Control would not be compatible with Tribomaxx-like additive packages -- or that the Lube Control and the Tribomaxx might neutralize the other (or both) -- or together precipitate new compounds?

I'm not asking for nor holding you to guaranteed performance or effect, just your best guess as to the potential for Lube Control compatibility with Tribomaxx -- and/or your input regarding potential problems. That is, would it be worth the risk mixing the two, say at a rate of 1 oz. Lube Control per quart of RPM?

Thanks, in advance, for your response.

---

I did read Terry's (or his lab's) analysis of Lube Control and would guess that it would be relatively safe to add the LC to my concoction, but thought I'd run it by those on the Board who have additive experience.

Also, I am awaiting results of my first UOA of the TRB./RPM brew (10k miles on oil and oil filter) from Wear Check in Tennessee. I'll post the results in the UOA category as soon as I receive the info.

Bob A.

 

[Bob A.]

Well, I seem to be talking to myself, but that's O.K. Sometimes I prefer my own company.

Read some other posts in this category of topics and ran across a comment from Terry about LC and Auto-RX:

quote:

---

I agree with Frank LC is a near ester so it may compete for clean surface.

RX will attack the carbon and buildup first. LC is more a anitoxidant then a "cleaner".

RX is like TAN, and LC is like TBN !! Not totally accurate but close.

---

Thank you, Terry. That helps with my question. I think LC and Tribomaxx share some qualities and effects, although Tribomaxx is more of a continuous additive than one used once in awhile for cleaning--like I have interpreted LC's purpose to be. At least that's kind of my take on the question I raised about "additive upon additive".

I did receive UOA results today for my 10K mile-12 month sample of my brew of RPM 15w40 and Tribomaxx. I don't have time to post it tonight or this weekend (attending a national level spey fly casting clinic in Portland, OR area Sat./Sun.), but will post this UOA info. on Monday or Tuesday. These results indicate to me that combining LC with Tribomaxx would be way-over kill.

This post is just an update of one of my talking-to-myself episodes . . .

 

[rg144]

Additives are not needed with a top-notch oil and may even be harmful. Some may have a specific application making them useful (as you've pointed out some).

In doing a search the only negative comment on Tribomaxx that I saw was "their additive approach may be harmful to non-ferrous metal parts in our engines" (link ).

 

[Bio-T]

Bob A.

Could you provide a link to this product so you won't be so lonely.

And:

 

[Pablo]

Mixing additives is frowned upon. I can actually handle mixing motor oils IF you know what you are doing - but additives can be tricky and worse if you don't (know what you are doing)

I coulda sworn that stuff has Cl in it but...maybe I'm confused. Stick with LC. Or if you are just trying to clean, stick with AutoRx.

 

[Bob A.]

rg144 -- Thanks for your response. Interestingly enough, I was the person who made the comment, "their additive approach may be harmful to non-ferrous metal parts in our engines" in the link you referred me to.

Shortly after I posted that comment on the site where the "Synthetic Oil Life Study" is being conducted and reported by Brian (a guest contributor on BITOG), I did contact the person who developed the Tribomaxx formula. (This was over a year ago.) I asked the developer about whether Tribomaxx is harmful to non-ferrous metal engine parts. He assured me that the critque was not warranted, i.e., non-ferrous engine parts are not jeopardized by the Tribomaxx EP additive formula.

I do believe, despite his claim, that the jury is still out on this issue. I'll have more questions to raise about this when I present the results of my UOA in the next day or two.
.................................................

59 Vetteman -- Thanks for the welcome! I don't have a link to Tribomaxx, although that is how I ran across this product in the first place. The very short version of this saga is that Tribomaxx has been, and is being, used in the Phillipines, S.E. Asia and some in Europe. The initial effort to get it established in the U.S. failed because the business partnership here failed.

Currently, Tribomaxx is being manufactured in the States by a company called "EP Lubricants". It is run by one of the original Tribomaxx U.S.A. partners. I've searched the web (albeit not very thoroughly) for a website and have not found one.

The developer of the formula has no patent on the product. He is living here and is engaged in various endeavors, one of which is producing custom lubricant formulae for various clients, private and commercial, which utilize his own manufactured Tribomaxx and mixtures. His clients include a variety of users. All kinds of motor applications are served: printing press equipment, small and large auto and truck applications, cruise ship engine applications, etc., etc.

One interesting aspect of his approach to lubrication is "less (viscosity) is more (protection)". One of his clients owns and drives a very expensive automobile in the Phoenix area. The client requested a combination which utilizes a synthetic, monograde, zero viscosity oil with Tribomaxx and runs it during the dead of summer (120 degrees in the shade, folks). No kidding. No B.S. The premise is that thinner oils penetrate the narrow spaces between moving parts. The oil becomes a carrier of the lubricant, which is the Tribomax additive, rather than serving as the lubricant. In other words, the Tribomaxx lubricates, not the oil. Typically, the developer uses synthetic, monograde, 20 weight oil as the base for his products.

At any rate, I obtained the Tribomaxx additive from another one of the partners who does have the rights to the product name -- and to distribution of the product. He obtains his inventory from the partner who is the owner and manager of EP lubricants. The partner with the name rights mixes the additive with various auto oil products, including Chevron's RPM and Supreme series of auto/truck oils and some Shell products. Hence, my current experiment.

I've tried to give you a very brief overview about a business venture which had a lot of potential, but which dissolved, probably for the variety of reasons which have led to the dissolution of many promising partnership business ventures.

I did take the plunge, though, and bought some Tribomaxx additive from the partner who holds the rights to the product name because I had reviewed oil analyses showing the effectiveness of the product in 7.3 liter PSD turbo diesel applications (school buses).

I own a vehicle powered by the 7.3 DTI (Ford F250 PS turbo diesel) and am ever interested in EP protection because I do stress my engine with short range, stop-and-go trips on a daily basis in a 12 minute town. These very short trips are killers for the goliath-like PSD engines which are designed to warm up fully, tow/carry and run long distances in highway driving-like circumstances.

My work place was one mile from home (I retired Feb. 1, 2005). It takes at least 10 minutes for the 14 qts. of oil in my crankcase to show that it is approaching warming up. It took me only 3 minutes to get to work. In short, I need a strong engine oil that cleans things up and protects from wear under such severe circumstances. That's why I've been searching for a good lubrication formula for my circumstances.

Unfortunately, 59 Vetteman, I can't direct you to a good website for Tribomaxx because the ones I encountered early-on are no longer on the web. The partnership has split here in the States, and each arm of the business is functioning independently and at very moderate levels.

Thanks again for the welcome. I appreciate it.
.................................................

Pablo -- You are right. Additives are dicey at best. Combining them is more than doubly dicey.
Your suggestion has strengthened my resolve to consider limiting myself to using LC20 with Chevron Delo 400 IS syn Cl-4 Plus in my next step of oil use and analysis -- for comparison with the Chevron RPM 15w40/Tribomaxx combination.

That said, I can tell you that Tribomaxx does not contain chlorine.
.................................................

To the three of you who bailed me out of having to converse with myself in front of everybody on the web, I am close to posting my UOA for the combination of Chevron RPM 15w40 and Tribomaxx. I do have one or two things I want to research first before I post this data. When I do post this info., the results will appear in the area on BITOG which contains UOA info.

Thanks for your responses.

Bob A.

 

[Pablo]

quote:

---

That said, I can tell you that Tribomaxx does not contain chlorine.

---

OK that relieves most of my fears. I say do not hesitate to post your UOA. Thanks.

 

[Mystic]

Seems to me that any good quality motor oil should be able to get the job done and if a person has to add a bunch of oil supplements to motor oils so that the job can get done then there is something very wrong with our motor oils. And mixing a bunch of oi supplements together can have unpredicable results.

A person could use good quality conventional, semi-synthetic, or full synthetic oil for the entire useful life of a car or truck and probably do just fine, as long as you had reasonable drain intervals and maintained the vehicle in other ways (air filter, etc.).

Personally myself I like Auto-RX. It seemed to work on my car. Keeping the engine clean makes sense to me.

I now have a very short list of stuff that I am willing to use in my car.

 

[Bob A.]

Boy, Mystic, there's an opening for a long debate -- which maybe has occurred numerous times already. In general I agree with you about additives. However, I have had enough experience over the years with oils to know that different oils offer different effects in different automobiles, regardless of the fact that they all claim to meet specific performance specifications.

Example, For 20 years I owned a '78 1/2 ton Suburban 2 wheel drive with a 454 engine. I ran a Valvoline 10-40 in it for years and religiously changed the oil at 3000 mile intervals. After 15 years of service for me I was adding at least 3 qts. of oil each drain period. I talked to a guy at a local auto parts store about that, and he said he owned at least four vehicles with big block engines, including 454s, a 460 and a 400. He said he experienced high usage also until he started using Castrol GTX 10W-40. So I tried it in my 'Burb and it cut down the usage to 1 qt. in 3000 miles.

Was the Valvoline that bad? Maybe, but maybe it just wasn't right for the 454. Is GTX right for my Outback. Some would say yes, but I don't/won't know until I find out.

I've patterned shotguns to find out which size shot creates the fullest pattern at 40 yards. You put three shotguns side by side with designations of full choke on their barrels and each one will present different patterns with different sized shot.

I've done a similar process in trying to determine which films resolve best with the camera lenses I own. You think that Kodak, Fuji and Konica film companies don't manufacture some fine fims? The reality is some resolve so much better with some lenses than with others, even within the same line of cameras and lenses from the same company.

Additives may not be a good way to achieve the best lubrication for my autos, but when I see a combination of a basic oil with a specific additive that produces the kind of wear protection that synthetics are supposed to provide and do it at half the cost, then I'm willing to consider it. I'm not sold on it yet, but I looked into this additive and its effects with this specific oil very carefully before I used it in my rig. We'll see if it has been worth it.

I do appreciate your point of view. It's equally as arguable as what I have just presented. The reality is this additive that I've been testing did not work as well with Delo 400 15w40 as it has with the less complex formula of RPM 15w40 which was the predecessor of Delo 400.

I will post my UOA here pretty quick. I felt that I first had to get some answers to about 3 questions I had about the oils and additive before I posted the findings. I have found answers to a couple so far. For instance, Chevron has changed their formulas for Delo 400 and RPM in the last year to meet the CI-4 Plus specifications by adding some Boron and some Moly. There may be more changes, but I haven't come up with those yet.

Anyway, I've changed my oil after 12 months of service despite the fact that Wear Check says that the sample was good to go beyond that interval -- because I was uncomfortable with some of the results. . . . It's all interesting . . .

 

[Mystic]

Bob A., I know what you are saying. I once owned a Toyota Corolla car that I bought used. It was an excellent little car that ran good but when first started each morning the engine chattered a little bit. I tried Tufoil in it-I had been impressed by the documentatin for Tufoil. It did seem to work-the chatter actually went away for a while! But Tufoil is thick stuff also. Looking back on it all, I think it would have cost me less money and I would have achieved similar results if I had just used a thicker oil in the summertime in that Toyota Corolla. I wish there was someway I could go back in time and try a thicker oil.

Motor oils can differ. Based on VOA and UOA results that people have posted here, Valvoline (much to my surprise) does not appear to be the greatest motor oil in the world. Chevron, Havoline, Pennzoil, etc., seem to be better. You can check out the VOAs and UOAs here and use these to help you select a motor oil that should be able to get the job done. I have heard some guys say that Castrol or whatever was the only motor oil that would work in their car or truck. Heck, if Castrol works the best or Pnnzoil works the best or whatever, use it.

But personally I have lost all faith in 99% of oil supplements.

 

[Mystic]

And there has to be a serious problem if an engine is using three quarts of oil each oil change period. Is it burning ol, leaking it-what?

 

[Bob A.]

OFF TOPIC A BIT . . . The vehicle I referred to which was using 3 qts. of oil per 3000 mile OCI was a '78 Suburban which I no longer own. I looked into restoring it, but it wasn't cost effective to do so. It was from the era when GM paint wasn't worth much more than the paint from a water color paint set you might buy for a kid to use. Despite good care, the body just kind of disintegrated -- a lot of body rust by the wheel wells and along the bottom edges, visible primer on the hood from a lot of waxing, body putty and spray paint to patch the rusted areas, etc., etc.

It was still serviceable and even looked fairly decent when I sold it, but my budget couldn't accommodate a restoration.

It had 175,000 miles on it when I sold it. The compression was good, it didn't leak oil, and, as I mentioned preveiously, after I changed from the Valvoline 10W-40 to GTX 10W-40, it used 1 qt. per OCI. I wasn't doing UOAs then, so I don't know if there was extensive internal wear. All I know is that it ran well.

I sighed heavily when the new owner backed it out of my driveway and headed into the sunset. A lot of family history and memories are connected to that versatile vehicle (camping, boating, fishing, hunting, hauling, transporting teammates, basic transportation, long distance travel . . . )

 

[Mystic]

Bob A. I know what you are talking about there also. There would be a lot more older cars and trucks from the past still around if there have been better corrosion protection in the past. And there was a period of time somewhere in the 1970's and 1980's when American cars and trucks in general really fell into a quality sinkhole. For example, I personally think that the Ford Maverick could have been and should have been a great car. Just to mention one thing I have seen paint chipping off a Ford Maverick like the car had been handpainted.

I think Ameican cars and trucks are much better today and a few cars and trucks are great. But Americans still can't seem to get small cars right, no matter what. With the energy crisis being what it is I think they better find an answer soon. We may all be driving small economy cars soon except for a very small number of people who are either very rich or simply have to have a truck, SUV, or big van considering their lifestyles.

You are nice to talk to Bob A.

 

[Bob A.]

I've finally gotten around to posting the UOA for my '95 Powerstroke DIT: Chevron RPM HD 15w40 with Tribomaxx additive. The drain period was one year and 11,686 miles. I posted it on the topic board, UOA for diesel engines.

Bob A.