If I become interested in a product enough, I'll try it for myself and see if it does anything I can notice. Anecdotal or not, many times I won't get that warm fuzzy feeling others get, so I won't buy it again. People claim noting differences between oils and filters, regarding start-up noise or "smoothness" - my butt dyno isn't calibrated correctly, so I've yet to notice things like that. Makes it hard for me to buy into claims.
ARCHOIL Pics after week and half
- Thread starter domer10
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: surfstar
If I become interested in a product enough, I'll try it for myself and see if it does anything I can notice. Anecdotal or not, many times I won't get that warm fuzzy feeling others get, so I won't buy it again. People claim noting differences between oils and filters, regarding start-up noise or "smoothness" - my butt dyno isn't calibrated correctly, so I've yet to notice things like that. Makes it hard for me to buy into claims.
I couldn't agree more.
Anecdotal information should always be scrutinized. But, that does not necessarily mean that it is wrong.
If I become interested in a product enough, I'll try it for myself and see if it does anything I can notice. Anecdotal or not, many times I won't get that warm fuzzy feeling others get, so I won't buy it again. People claim noting differences between oils and filters, regarding start-up noise or "smoothness" - my butt dyno isn't calibrated correctly, so I've yet to notice things like that. Makes it hard for me to buy into claims.
I couldn't agree more.
Anecdotal information should always be scrutinized. But, that does not necessarily mean that it is wrong.
May I elaborate on an earlier reply? I suggested that, while PEA may have been indepently studied, Techron has not. PEA, yes. Techron, no. Other responders may not agree with this distinction (but be careful what you wish for).
Liqui-Moly MoS2 Anti Friction is a popular MoS2 oil suspension product, product of a German company that seems to enjoy a generally good reputation. Has this product been independently studied? Almost certainly not. That's not to say that the L-M folks didn't do significant in-house research before releasing the product. But independent research? Probably not.
But, the principal ingredient in Liqui-Moly MoS2 Anti Friciton - molybdenum disulfide - is the most common industrial lubricant in use today. It is hard to imagine the amount of research, independent, in-house, whatever, that has been done on MoS2. Is there anybody in this forum that really thinks MoS2 doesn't reduce friction between metal surfaces? Seriously?
I'm not questioning the effectiveness of Techron, with or without independent research. And my own limited uses of Techron confirms that it works. As for oil, serve mine up with a side of MoS2.
Liqui-Moly MoS2 Anti Friction is a popular MoS2 oil suspension product, product of a German company that seems to enjoy a generally good reputation. Has this product been independently studied? Almost certainly not. That's not to say that the L-M folks didn't do significant in-house research before releasing the product. But independent research? Probably not.
But, the principal ingredient in Liqui-Moly MoS2 Anti Friciton - molybdenum disulfide - is the most common industrial lubricant in use today. It is hard to imagine the amount of research, independent, in-house, whatever, that has been done on MoS2. Is there anybody in this forum that really thinks MoS2 doesn't reduce friction between metal surfaces? Seriously?
I'm not questioning the effectiveness of Techron, with or without independent research. And my own limited uses of Techron confirms that it works. As for oil, serve mine up with a side of MoS2.
Originally Posted By: dave5358
May I elaborate on an earlier reply? I suggested that, while PEA may have been indepently studied, Techron has not. PEA, yes. Techron, no. Other responders may not agree with this distinction (but be careful what you wish for).
Liqui-Moly MoS2 Anti Friction is a popular MoS2 oil suspension product, product of a German company that seems to enjoy a generally good reputation. Has this product been independently studied? Almost certainly not. That's not to say that the L-M folks didn't do significant in-house research before releasing the product. But independent research? Probably not.
But, the principal ingredient in Liqui-Moly MoS2 Anti Friciton - molybdenum disulfide - is the most common industrial lubricant in use today. It is hard to imagine the amount of research, independent, in-house, whatever, that has been done on MoS2. Is there anybody in this forum that really thinks MoS2 doesn't reduce friction between metal surfaces? Seriously?
I'm not questioning the effectiveness of Techron, with or without independent research. And my own limited uses of Techron confirms that it works. As for oil, serve mine up with a side of MoS2.
I haven't used archoil so I cannot say for sure whether it works or not because I have no experience with the product however I've got a lot of experience with mos2 and I know the stuff works as advertised,and I'm beyond arguing with anyone here about it.
What I have learned about mos2 is that the more miles on the engine the more significant the results are.
For example my moms caliber. I couldn't really tell it was even treated however I used it with like 20k kms on the engine,so there really wasn't much for it to do.
And it's a 4 cylinder. So not a lot of moving parts working against each other.
In every high mile v-8 engine I've used it in I gained at least 1 to 1.5km per litre,which is significant over a 100 litre tank of fuel.
My charger gained 2-3 mpg on the highway using it at the very most. I saw no change in city mileage however I like to get on it so I wasn't expecting any.
In a new engine I wouldn't expect to see much if any changes to be honest.
I'm now driving that sierra c3. I'm going to put 5000 miles on tracking highway mileage,then mos2 again and see if there's any changes. Engine has 200k kms/120k miles so it's not extremely high mile yet.
It has a new fuel pump, which I'd like to thank trav again for helping me pinpoint the cause. Saved me 150 bucks diagnostic and no check engine lights now.
May I elaborate on an earlier reply? I suggested that, while PEA may have been indepently studied, Techron has not. PEA, yes. Techron, no. Other responders may not agree with this distinction (but be careful what you wish for).
Liqui-Moly MoS2 Anti Friction is a popular MoS2 oil suspension product, product of a German company that seems to enjoy a generally good reputation. Has this product been independently studied? Almost certainly not. That's not to say that the L-M folks didn't do significant in-house research before releasing the product. But independent research? Probably not.
But, the principal ingredient in Liqui-Moly MoS2 Anti Friciton - molybdenum disulfide - is the most common industrial lubricant in use today. It is hard to imagine the amount of research, independent, in-house, whatever, that has been done on MoS2. Is there anybody in this forum that really thinks MoS2 doesn't reduce friction between metal surfaces? Seriously?
I'm not questioning the effectiveness of Techron, with or without independent research. And my own limited uses of Techron confirms that it works. As for oil, serve mine up with a side of MoS2.
I haven't used archoil so I cannot say for sure whether it works or not because I have no experience with the product however I've got a lot of experience with mos2 and I know the stuff works as advertised,and I'm beyond arguing with anyone here about it.
What I have learned about mos2 is that the more miles on the engine the more significant the results are.
For example my moms caliber. I couldn't really tell it was even treated however I used it with like 20k kms on the engine,so there really wasn't much for it to do.
And it's a 4 cylinder. So not a lot of moving parts working against each other.
In every high mile v-8 engine I've used it in I gained at least 1 to 1.5km per litre,which is significant over a 100 litre tank of fuel.
My charger gained 2-3 mpg on the highway using it at the very most. I saw no change in city mileage however I like to get on it so I wasn't expecting any.
In a new engine I wouldn't expect to see much if any changes to be honest.
I'm now driving that sierra c3. I'm going to put 5000 miles on tracking highway mileage,then mos2 again and see if there's any changes. Engine has 200k kms/120k miles so it's not extremely high mile yet.
It has a new fuel pump, which I'd like to thank trav again for helping me pinpoint the cause. Saved me 150 bucks diagnostic and no check engine lights now.
Originally Posted By: Trajan
You have to wonder, with the volume of evidence accumulating against oil additives, why so many of us still buy them. That's the million-dollar question, and it's just as difficult to answer as why so many of us smoke cigarettes, drink hard liquor or engage in any other number of questionable activities. We know they aren't good for us - but we go ahead and do them anyway.
Part of the answer may lie in what some psychiatrists call the "psychological placebo effect." Simply put, that means that many of us hunger for that peace of mind that comes with believing we have purchased the absolute best or most protection we can possibly get.
Even better, there's that wonderfully smug feeling that comes with thinking we might be a step ahead of the pack, possessing knowledge of something just a bit better than everyone else.
Then again, perhaps it comes from an ancient, deep-seated need we all seem to have to believe in magic. There has never been any shortage of unscrupulous types ready to cash in on our willingness to believe that there's some magical mystery potion we can buy to help
us lose weight, grow hair, attract the opposite sex or make our engines run longer and better. I doubt that there's a one of us who hasn't fallen for one of these at least once in our lifetimes. We just want it to be true so bad that we can't help ourselves.
Dr. Travan blesses us with his psycho-babble work! But, wait. It's not Dr. Travan's work at all - it's just something he plagiarized from Fred Rau, writing in the August 1992 edition of Road Rider. And, not surprisingly, Dr. Travan didn't even get the message right.
Fred Rau did a very thoughtful article on additives: Is that Additive a Negative? I would urge everyone to read it. Much of the article is directed to additives with Teflon or PTFE (it has no place in the crankcase) but he deals with a wide range of additives in an intelligent way. His remarks on Marvel Mystery Oil are not unkind (note: he is discussing MMO as an oil additive). But, read the article yourself and draw your own conclusions. It is well documented, and when he cites the work of others, he gives them full credit.
In another thread about Liqui-Moly's Ceratec product, Travan whined:
Originally Posted By: Trajan
What I find funny is that one is *required* to use a product to have an opinion on it. Even though one can read information in various threads, websites, etc. The Synlube lube 4 Life crowd had the same "you don't use it so you're not allowed to express an opinion." blather.
I have no idea what Travan's talking about, nor did another poster in that thread. But I frequently ask posters if they have used the product under discussion. I really want to know. My question doesn't seem to have stopped anyone (particularly Travan) from responding. But, when it becomes obvious that a responder has never used the product (and has no clue as to what it's about) his postings don't even amount to an anecdote.
Maybe I'm asking the wrong question. Instead of "have you used this product", I should ask "Is your response your own?" Or, "Is your response something you've ripped from another writer, because you have no thoughts of your own?"
In almost every additive thread, Travan and a few of his friends can be counted upon to belittle the original poster, make fun of a product (which he has never used), distract the thread and contribute absolutely nothing. And now, it seems, these distracting words aren't even his own words? Whew.
Travan: don't plagiarize other people's work. And,you might take a break from posting and consider getting professional help.
You have to wonder, with the volume of evidence accumulating against oil additives, why so many of us still buy them. That's the million-dollar question, and it's just as difficult to answer as why so many of us smoke cigarettes, drink hard liquor or engage in any other number of questionable activities. We know they aren't good for us - but we go ahead and do them anyway.
Part of the answer may lie in what some psychiatrists call the "psychological placebo effect." Simply put, that means that many of us hunger for that peace of mind that comes with believing we have purchased the absolute best or most protection we can possibly get.
Even better, there's that wonderfully smug feeling that comes with thinking we might be a step ahead of the pack, possessing knowledge of something just a bit better than everyone else.
Then again, perhaps it comes from an ancient, deep-seated need we all seem to have to believe in magic. There has never been any shortage of unscrupulous types ready to cash in on our willingness to believe that there's some magical mystery potion we can buy to help
us lose weight, grow hair, attract the opposite sex or make our engines run longer and better. I doubt that there's a one of us who hasn't fallen for one of these at least once in our lifetimes. We just want it to be true so bad that we can't help ourselves.
Dr. Travan blesses us with his psycho-babble work! But, wait. It's not Dr. Travan's work at all - it's just something he plagiarized from Fred Rau, writing in the August 1992 edition of Road Rider. And, not surprisingly, Dr. Travan didn't even get the message right.
Fred Rau did a very thoughtful article on additives: Is that Additive a Negative? I would urge everyone to read it. Much of the article is directed to additives with Teflon or PTFE (it has no place in the crankcase) but he deals with a wide range of additives in an intelligent way. His remarks on Marvel Mystery Oil are not unkind (note: he is discussing MMO as an oil additive). But, read the article yourself and draw your own conclusions. It is well documented, and when he cites the work of others, he gives them full credit.
In another thread about Liqui-Moly's Ceratec product, Travan whined:
Originally Posted By: Trajan
What I find funny is that one is *required* to use a product to have an opinion on it. Even though one can read information in various threads, websites, etc. The Synlube lube 4 Life crowd had the same "you don't use it so you're not allowed to express an opinion." blather.
I have no idea what Travan's talking about, nor did another poster in that thread. But I frequently ask posters if they have used the product under discussion. I really want to know. My question doesn't seem to have stopped anyone (particularly Travan) from responding. But, when it becomes obvious that a responder has never used the product (and has no clue as to what it's about) his postings don't even amount to an anecdote.
Maybe I'm asking the wrong question. Instead of "have you used this product", I should ask "Is your response your own?" Or, "Is your response something you've ripped from another writer, because you have no thoughts of your own?"
In almost every additive thread, Travan and a few of his friends can be counted upon to belittle the original poster, make fun of a product (which he has never used), distract the thread and contribute absolutely nothing. And now, it seems, these distracting words aren't even his own words? Whew.
Travan: don't plagiarize other people's work. And,you might take a break from posting and consider getting professional help.
Hi Dave,
Re Techron, Chevron did a peer reviewed study to test its effectiveness a long time ago. Mercedes, Hyundai and others resell / list Techron as a recommended fuel additive where top tier fuel is not used.
Top tier fuel has virtually all the major manufacturers backing and contains fuel additives that do what Techron does. Some or all may be PEA, certainly Chevron / Texaco will use the same Techron in fuel as that recommended as a one tank additive. Chevrons study established dosage rates and intervals for periodic usage and continual usage. More recently, Costco became top tier after field testing an additive mixture that will clean not just keep clean.
So there is a world of difference in known testing and manufacturer approval for additives vs the anecdotal recommendations that you want us to trust more than approved products.
Re your comment about my choice to use the cheapest manufacturer approved oil, are you saying that I shouldn't buy M1 0w40 or Castrol 0w40 from Walmart for my Euro vehicles because its too cheap? Or that if PU 5w40 is cheaper due to FRN, I should turn my nose up at it and order some boutique oil instead?
Or when looking for someone else to do an oil change people shouldn't use Firestone's $20 offer because that means Kendall semi syn is inferior. And for Ford owners to avoid Ford dealers who use MC semi syn for low price oil changes because it is an inferior oil? Instead they should all go to Jiffy Lube or Walmart to get upsold to $80+ full syn oil changes because then it is automatically better?
Don't really understand why you disagree with my choice to use manufacturer approved fuel additives and manufacturer approved oil at the lowest cost? Costco top tier will really stimulate your anger because it is also the cheapest fuel top tier or not.
Lastly, no manufacturer or manufacturer approved product has ever felt the need to insult users for not choosing their approved products. But additive supporters descend into that behavior quite readily. Do you really think that is going to help your argument and persuade them to trust your judgement?
Re Techron, Chevron did a peer reviewed study to test its effectiveness a long time ago. Mercedes, Hyundai and others resell / list Techron as a recommended fuel additive where top tier fuel is not used.
Top tier fuel has virtually all the major manufacturers backing and contains fuel additives that do what Techron does. Some or all may be PEA, certainly Chevron / Texaco will use the same Techron in fuel as that recommended as a one tank additive. Chevrons study established dosage rates and intervals for periodic usage and continual usage. More recently, Costco became top tier after field testing an additive mixture that will clean not just keep clean.
So there is a world of difference in known testing and manufacturer approval for additives vs the anecdotal recommendations that you want us to trust more than approved products.
Re your comment about my choice to use the cheapest manufacturer approved oil, are you saying that I shouldn't buy M1 0w40 or Castrol 0w40 from Walmart for my Euro vehicles because its too cheap? Or that if PU 5w40 is cheaper due to FRN, I should turn my nose up at it and order some boutique oil instead?
Or when looking for someone else to do an oil change people shouldn't use Firestone's $20 offer because that means Kendall semi syn is inferior. And for Ford owners to avoid Ford dealers who use MC semi syn for low price oil changes because it is an inferior oil? Instead they should all go to Jiffy Lube or Walmart to get upsold to $80+ full syn oil changes because then it is automatically better?
Don't really understand why you disagree with my choice to use manufacturer approved fuel additives and manufacturer approved oil at the lowest cost? Costco top tier will really stimulate your anger because it is also the cheapest fuel top tier or not.
Lastly, no manufacturer or manufacturer approved product has ever felt the need to insult users for not choosing their approved products. But additive supporters descend into that behavior quite readily. Do you really think that is going to help your argument and persuade them to trust your judgement?
Originally Posted By: dave5358
Originally Posted By: Trajan
You have to wonder, with the volume of evidence accumulating against oil additives, why so many of us still buy them. That's the million-dollar question, and it's just as difficult to answer as why so many of us smoke cigarettes, drink hard liquor or engage in any other number of questionable activities. We know they aren't good for us - but we go ahead and do them anyway.
Part of the answer may lie in what some psychiatrists call the "psychological placebo effect." Simply put, that means that many of us hunger for that peace of mind that comes with believing we have purchased the absolute best or most protection we can possibly get.
Even better, there's that wonderfully smug feeling that comes with thinking we might be a step ahead of the pack, possessing knowledge of something just a bit better than everyone else.
Then again, perhaps it comes from an ancient, deep-seated need we all seem to have to believe in magic. There has never been any shortage of unscrupulous types ready to cash in on our willingness to believe that there's some magical mystery potion we can buy to help
us lose weight, grow hair, attract the opposite sex or make our engines run longer and better. I doubt that there's a one of us who hasn't fallen for one of these at least once in our lifetimes. We just want it to be true so bad that we can't help ourselves.
Dr. Travan blesses us with his psycho-babble work! But, wait. It's not Dr. Travan's work at all - it's just something he plagiarized from Fred Rau, writing in the August 1992 edition of Road Rider. And, not surprisingly, Dr. Travan didn't even get the message right.
Fred Rau did a very thoughtful article on additives: Is that Additive a Negative? I would urge everyone to read it. Much of the article is directed to additives with Teflon or PTFE (it has no place in the crankcase) but he deals with a wide range of additives in an intelligent way. His remarks on Marvel Mystery Oil are not unkind (note: he is discussing MMO as an oil additive). But, read the article yourself and draw your own conclusions. It is well documented, and when he cites the work of others, he gives them full credit.
In another thread about Liqui-Moly's Ceratec product, Travan whined:
Originally Posted By: Trajan
What I find funny is that one is *required* to use a product to have an opinion on it. Even though one can read information in various threads, websites, etc. The Synlube lube 4 Life crowd had the same "you don't use it so you're not allowed to express an opinion." blather.
I have no idea what Travan's talking about, nor did another poster in that thread. But I frequently ask posters if they have used the product under discussion. I really want to know. My question doesn't seem to have stopped anyone (particularly Travan) from responding. But, when it becomes obvious that a responder has never used the product (and has no clue as to what it's about) his postings don't even amount to an anecdote.
Maybe I'm asking the wrong question. Instead of "have you used this product", I should ask "Is your response your own?" Or, "Is your response something you've ripped from another writer, because you have no thoughts of your own?"
In almost every additive thread, Travan and a few of his friends can be counted upon to belittle the original poster, make fun of a product (which he has never used), distract the thread and contribute absolutely nothing. And now, it seems, these distracting words aren't even his own words? Whew.
Travan: don't plagiarize other people's work. And,you might take a break from posting and consider getting professional help.
Bahahahaha.
Your absolutely right about opinions from folks who've never used a product,yet they seem to be experts in its abilities and short comings.
I like this forum when the sharing of ideas and experiences are included in threads.
I am disgusted when folks who know nothing about a product post negatively when they truly don't have a clue.
When I see those posts I can't help but laugh inside.
Originally Posted By: Trajan
You have to wonder, with the volume of evidence accumulating against oil additives, why so many of us still buy them. That's the million-dollar question, and it's just as difficult to answer as why so many of us smoke cigarettes, drink hard liquor or engage in any other number of questionable activities. We know they aren't good for us - but we go ahead and do them anyway.
Part of the answer may lie in what some psychiatrists call the "psychological placebo effect." Simply put, that means that many of us hunger for that peace of mind that comes with believing we have purchased the absolute best or most protection we can possibly get.
Even better, there's that wonderfully smug feeling that comes with thinking we might be a step ahead of the pack, possessing knowledge of something just a bit better than everyone else.
Then again, perhaps it comes from an ancient, deep-seated need we all seem to have to believe in magic. There has never been any shortage of unscrupulous types ready to cash in on our willingness to believe that there's some magical mystery potion we can buy to help
us lose weight, grow hair, attract the opposite sex or make our engines run longer and better. I doubt that there's a one of us who hasn't fallen for one of these at least once in our lifetimes. We just want it to be true so bad that we can't help ourselves.
Dr. Travan blesses us with his psycho-babble work! But, wait. It's not Dr. Travan's work at all - it's just something he plagiarized from Fred Rau, writing in the August 1992 edition of Road Rider. And, not surprisingly, Dr. Travan didn't even get the message right.
Fred Rau did a very thoughtful article on additives: Is that Additive a Negative? I would urge everyone to read it. Much of the article is directed to additives with Teflon or PTFE (it has no place in the crankcase) but he deals with a wide range of additives in an intelligent way. His remarks on Marvel Mystery Oil are not unkind (note: he is discussing MMO as an oil additive). But, read the article yourself and draw your own conclusions. It is well documented, and when he cites the work of others, he gives them full credit.
In another thread about Liqui-Moly's Ceratec product, Travan whined:
Originally Posted By: Trajan
What I find funny is that one is *required* to use a product to have an opinion on it. Even though one can read information in various threads, websites, etc. The Synlube lube 4 Life crowd had the same "you don't use it so you're not allowed to express an opinion." blather.
I have no idea what Travan's talking about, nor did another poster in that thread. But I frequently ask posters if they have used the product under discussion. I really want to know. My question doesn't seem to have stopped anyone (particularly Travan) from responding. But, when it becomes obvious that a responder has never used the product (and has no clue as to what it's about) his postings don't even amount to an anecdote.
Maybe I'm asking the wrong question. Instead of "have you used this product", I should ask "Is your response your own?" Or, "Is your response something you've ripped from another writer, because you have no thoughts of your own?"
In almost every additive thread, Travan and a few of his friends can be counted upon to belittle the original poster, make fun of a product (which he has never used), distract the thread and contribute absolutely nothing. And now, it seems, these distracting words aren't even his own words? Whew.
Travan: don't plagiarize other people's work. And,you might take a break from posting and consider getting professional help.
Bahahahaha.
Your absolutely right about opinions from folks who've never used a product,yet they seem to be experts in its abilities and short comings.
I like this forum when the sharing of ideas and experiences are included in threads.
I am disgusted when folks who know nothing about a product post negatively when they truly don't have a clue.
When I see those posts I can't help but laugh inside.
Originally Posted By: Sam2000
Re Techron, Chevron did a peer reviewed study to test its effectiveness a long time ago. Mercedes, Hyundai and others resell / list Techron as a recommended fuel additive where top tier fuel is not used.
Top tier fuel has virtually all the major manufacturers backing and contains fuel additives that do what Techron does. Some or all may be PEA, certainly Chevron / Texaco will use the same Techron in fuel as that recommended as a one tank additive. Chevrons study established dosage rates and intervals for periodic usage and continual usage. More recently, Costco became top tier after field testing an additive mixture that will clean not just keep clean.
Right, Chevron/Techron were the principal movers and shakers behind Top Tier.
Originally Posted By: Sam2000
So there is a world of difference in known testing and manufacturer approval for additives vs the anecdotal recommendations that you want us to trust more than approved products.
If they actually tested Techron, then I stand corrected. If they reviewed PEA or PEA containing products more generally, then I'll stand by what I said.
As for automaker endorsement, okay, but some of the German automakers endorse various additives as well. To me, that simply says that Techron is a good product - a point not really in dispute. If you were Mercedes and you thought it was useful to recommend a PEA product, why not Techron?
Originally Posted By: Sam2000
Re your comment about my choice to use the cheapest manufacturer approved oil, are you saying that I shouldn't buy M1 0w40 or Castrol 0w40 from Walmart for my Euro vehicles because its too cheap? Or that if PU 5w40 is cheaper due to FRN, I should turn my nose up at it and order some boutique oil instead?
Actually, I was thinking of products much further down in the barrel. You're right - if you watch the prices at Wallyworld, you can frequently buy very good oil at a reasonable price. Ditto for Top Tier gasoline at Costco or Sams. But the next time you're there, look at some of their house-branded oil products. That's what I was thinking of.
Originally Posted By: Sam2000
Or when looking for someone else to do an oil change people shouldn't use Firestone's $20 offer because that means Kendall semi syn is inferior. And for Ford owners to avoid Ford dealers who use MC semi syn for low price oil changes because it is an inferior oil? Instead they should all go to Jiffy Lube or Walmart to get upsold to $80+ full syn oil changes because then it is automatically better?
Don't really understand why you disagree with my choice to use manufacturer approved fuel additives and manufacturer approved oil at the lowest cost? Costco top tier will really stimulate your anger because it is also the cheapest fuel top tier or not.
I'm glad I said 'I don't want to go there'. Buying good oil at the cheapest price is a good recommendation for anyone, particularly if they are paying attention to details. Whether it is safe advice to give to a stranger is less clear.
Re Techron, Chevron did a peer reviewed study to test its effectiveness a long time ago. Mercedes, Hyundai and others resell / list Techron as a recommended fuel additive where top tier fuel is not used.
Top tier fuel has virtually all the major manufacturers backing and contains fuel additives that do what Techron does. Some or all may be PEA, certainly Chevron / Texaco will use the same Techron in fuel as that recommended as a one tank additive. Chevrons study established dosage rates and intervals for periodic usage and continual usage. More recently, Costco became top tier after field testing an additive mixture that will clean not just keep clean.
Right, Chevron/Techron were the principal movers and shakers behind Top Tier.
Originally Posted By: Sam2000
So there is a world of difference in known testing and manufacturer approval for additives vs the anecdotal recommendations that you want us to trust more than approved products.
If they actually tested Techron, then I stand corrected. If they reviewed PEA or PEA containing products more generally, then I'll stand by what I said.
As for automaker endorsement, okay, but some of the German automakers endorse various additives as well. To me, that simply says that Techron is a good product - a point not really in dispute. If you were Mercedes and you thought it was useful to recommend a PEA product, why not Techron?
Originally Posted By: Sam2000
Re your comment about my choice to use the cheapest manufacturer approved oil, are you saying that I shouldn't buy M1 0w40 or Castrol 0w40 from Walmart for my Euro vehicles because its too cheap? Or that if PU 5w40 is cheaper due to FRN, I should turn my nose up at it and order some boutique oil instead?
Actually, I was thinking of products much further down in the barrel. You're right - if you watch the prices at Wallyworld, you can frequently buy very good oil at a reasonable price. Ditto for Top Tier gasoline at Costco or Sams. But the next time you're there, look at some of their house-branded oil products. That's what I was thinking of.
Originally Posted By: Sam2000
Or when looking for someone else to do an oil change people shouldn't use Firestone's $20 offer because that means Kendall semi syn is inferior. And for Ford owners to avoid Ford dealers who use MC semi syn for low price oil changes because it is an inferior oil? Instead they should all go to Jiffy Lube or Walmart to get upsold to $80+ full syn oil changes because then it is automatically better?
Don't really understand why you disagree with my choice to use manufacturer approved fuel additives and manufacturer approved oil at the lowest cost? Costco top tier will really stimulate your anger because it is also the cheapest fuel top tier or not.
I'm glad I said 'I don't want to go there'. Buying good oil at the cheapest price is a good recommendation for anyone, particularly if they are paying attention to details. Whether it is safe advice to give to a stranger is less clear.
I have a major problem whenever anybody mentions Synlube. A long time ago there was a major battle at this website between Synlube promoters and people here who had problems with the claims being made.
Guys here even went on Google Maps to try to find the facility in Las Vegas where Synlube was supposedly being manufactured and no such facility could be located. When that was pointed out to the major promoter he then claimed that the facility was located in some government controlled area where ordinary civilians are not allowed in.
The Synlube promoters finally left.
I would have no problem using Techron. It was developed by Chevron, a major oil company. They should know what they are doing. Do their gasoline and motor oils seem to work?
I have personal experience with Lubegard products and I know at least some of their products work. In fact, at one time their automatic transmissions fluids were accepted by three major automobile manufacturers. I know for a fact that a Lubegard Power Steering Supplement seemed to have worked. I added some to a power steering unit and the squealing in cold weather stopped and never came back. Unless that was just a strange coincidence that seems like pretty good evidence to me.
I tend to be wary about any claims made by some promoter of a product. I can still remember when a major Indy 500 race car driver was promoting an oil supplement one year, and the next year he was promoting a different oil supplement. You pay somebody some money and they promote your product for you.
But a chemist who worked for Exxon helped to develop the Lubegard products.
Guys here even went on Google Maps to try to find the facility in Las Vegas where Synlube was supposedly being manufactured and no such facility could be located. When that was pointed out to the major promoter he then claimed that the facility was located in some government controlled area where ordinary civilians are not allowed in.
The Synlube promoters finally left.
I would have no problem using Techron. It was developed by Chevron, a major oil company. They should know what they are doing. Do their gasoline and motor oils seem to work?
I have personal experience with Lubegard products and I know at least some of their products work. In fact, at one time their automatic transmissions fluids were accepted by three major automobile manufacturers. I know for a fact that a Lubegard Power Steering Supplement seemed to have worked. I added some to a power steering unit and the squealing in cold weather stopped and never came back. Unless that was just a strange coincidence that seems like pretty good evidence to me.
I tend to be wary about any claims made by some promoter of a product. I can still remember when a major Indy 500 race car driver was promoting an oil supplement one year, and the next year he was promoting a different oil supplement. You pay somebody some money and they promote your product for you.
But a chemist who worked for Exxon helped to develop the Lubegard products.
Originally Posted By: Clevy
I am disgusted when folks who know nothing about a product post negatively when they truly don't have a clue.
When I see those posts I can't help but laugh inside.
Firstly, I am confused by the duality of your emotional reaction. Disgusted and laughing at the same time seem at best contradictory.
Secondly, I am intrigued that a personal decision based on evaluating a products claims as well as the basis of those claims elicits such a profound emotional reaction in you and Dave that is taken so personally and which leads to personal insults against another member.
Thirdly, I am amused at the irony of you whole heartedly agreeing with Dave on the point that Trajan should not attack a product he hasn't used when Dave himself cast doubt on an additive, Techron, which he clearly hasn't used and which he assumed hadn't had formal testing. Techron as many know, is probably the most formally approved and tested additive out there.
Lastly, making a decision, after evaluating the available evidence, to not want to use certain additives, is hardly a controversial thing to do. KFC introduced the DoubleDown product a few years ago. That consists of bacon and cheese and sauce in the middle of the two fried or grilled chicken fillets that act as the bun. Now I'm sure some people couldn't wait to try it, but I'm sure many people who don't want to eat traditional fast food could take a look at the product picture and description and figure out that it wasn't suitable for them and don't feel it is really suitable for anyone else.
If you had the latter position, it would be very strange to be on the receiving end of disgust or being laughed at or being told to seek professional help.
I am disgusted when folks who know nothing about a product post negatively when they truly don't have a clue.
When I see those posts I can't help but laugh inside.
Firstly, I am confused by the duality of your emotional reaction. Disgusted and laughing at the same time seem at best contradictory.
Secondly, I am intrigued that a personal decision based on evaluating a products claims as well as the basis of those claims elicits such a profound emotional reaction in you and Dave that is taken so personally and which leads to personal insults against another member.
Thirdly, I am amused at the irony of you whole heartedly agreeing with Dave on the point that Trajan should not attack a product he hasn't used when Dave himself cast doubt on an additive, Techron, which he clearly hasn't used and which he assumed hadn't had formal testing. Techron as many know, is probably the most formally approved and tested additive out there.
Lastly, making a decision, after evaluating the available evidence, to not want to use certain additives, is hardly a controversial thing to do. KFC introduced the DoubleDown product a few years ago. That consists of bacon and cheese and sauce in the middle of the two fried or grilled chicken fillets that act as the bun. Now I'm sure some people couldn't wait to try it, but I'm sure many people who don't want to eat traditional fast food could take a look at the product picture and description and figure out that it wasn't suitable for them and don't feel it is really suitable for anyone else.
If you had the latter position, it would be very strange to be on the receiving end of disgust or being laughed at or being told to seek professional help.
Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't VW have overheating issues with the air cooled bug in the seventies and didn't they rebadge mos2 and use it in the problem engines.
I'm sure I read here at bitog about that a couple of years ago.
If true doesn't that imply less friction therefore less hear generated?
If I'm mistaken I apologize
I'm sure I read here at bitog about that a couple of years ago.
If true doesn't that imply less friction therefore less hear generated?
If I'm mistaken I apologize
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2011
- Messages
- 109
Originally Posted By: Clevy
Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't VW have overheating issues with the air cooled bug in the seventies and didn't they rebadge mos2 and use it in the problem engines.
I'm sure I read here at bitog about that a couple of years ago.
If true doesn't that imply less friction therefore less hear generated?
If I'm mistaken I apologize
I wonder if VW did the hand-on-the-manifold test as well? LOL
Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't VW have overheating issues with the air cooled bug in the seventies and didn't they rebadge mos2 and use it in the problem engines.
I'm sure I read here at bitog about that a couple of years ago.
If true doesn't that imply less friction therefore less hear generated?
If I'm mistaken I apologize
I wonder if VW did the hand-on-the-manifold test as well? LOL
Originally Posted By: Sam2000
I simply don't understand why there is reaction and emotion to a personal preference to use oil that meets manufacturer requirements at the lowest cost.
Sorry, I am all in favor of using oil that meet the manufacturer's requirements.
My concern is that if you suggest using the least expensive oil you can find, particularly to someone who is not paying attention to the details, the 'manufacturer's requirements' part may get lost in translation.
I simply don't understand why there is reaction and emotion to a personal preference to use oil that meets manufacturer requirements at the lowest cost.
Sorry, I am all in favor of using oil that meet the manufacturer's requirements.
My concern is that if you suggest using the least expensive oil you can find, particularly to someone who is not paying attention to the details, the 'manufacturer's requirements' part may get lost in translation.
Originally Posted By: Mystic
I have a major problem whenever anybody mentions Synlube. A long time ago there was a major battle at this website between Synlube promoters and people here who had problems with the claims being made.
Guys here even went on Google Maps to try to find the facility in Las Vegas where Synlube was supposedly being manufactured and no such facility could be located. When that was pointed out to the major promoter he then claimed that the facility was located in some government controlled area where ordinary civilians are not allowed in.
I had never heard of Synlube until it was mentioned in this thread.
Their website is a visual disaster - it reeks of a promotion. You might think they would simply hire someone to clean it up and delete the carnival atmosphere.
That said, their products and user history is quite remarkable. I've had a few friends who worked at NASA and they are very picky (beyond your wildest imagination) about the products they use - they build stuff like it's gonna go to the moon or Mars. What was even more interesting is that the Russians also picked Synlube for the Lunokhod 1 - the first man-made robot on the moon from their Luna 17 mission. So the Russians knew about Synmlube? Give me a break.
Synlube's team sponsorship is interesting as well - Tatra trucks in rally competition. That's tough competition for almost zero glory.
But, who knows? At $35 a quart for Synlube, I think I'll go on changing my oil.
I have a major problem whenever anybody mentions Synlube. A long time ago there was a major battle at this website between Synlube promoters and people here who had problems with the claims being made.
Guys here even went on Google Maps to try to find the facility in Las Vegas where Synlube was supposedly being manufactured and no such facility could be located. When that was pointed out to the major promoter he then claimed that the facility was located in some government controlled area where ordinary civilians are not allowed in.
I had never heard of Synlube until it was mentioned in this thread.
Their website is a visual disaster - it reeks of a promotion. You might think they would simply hire someone to clean it up and delete the carnival atmosphere.
That said, their products and user history is quite remarkable. I've had a few friends who worked at NASA and they are very picky (beyond your wildest imagination) about the products they use - they build stuff like it's gonna go to the moon or Mars. What was even more interesting is that the Russians also picked Synlube for the Lunokhod 1 - the first man-made robot on the moon from their Luna 17 mission. So the Russians knew about Synmlube? Give me a break.
Synlube's team sponsorship is interesting as well - Tatra trucks in rally competition. That's tough competition for almost zero glory.
But, who knows? At $35 a quart for Synlube, I think I'll go on changing my oil.
Originally Posted By: Sam2000
Thirdly, I am amused at the irony of you whole heartedly agreeing with Dave on the point that Trajan should not attack a product he hasn't used when Dave himself cast doubt on an additive, Techron, which he clearly hasn't used and which he assumed hadn't had formal testing. Techron as many know, is probably the most formally approved and tested additive out there.
I have used Techron... please check my earlier posts. It always worked as advertised. It still appears that most of the testing and approval is for PEA - Techron's principal ingredient. That's not surprising to me. Companies simply don't share internal product information with outsiders.
In your post, you mentioned MoS2 as a product which relied on anecdotal approval. That's an inconsistent evaluation standard for products containing MoS2.
Thirdly, I am amused at the irony of you whole heartedly agreeing with Dave on the point that Trajan should not attack a product he hasn't used when Dave himself cast doubt on an additive, Techron, which he clearly hasn't used and which he assumed hadn't had formal testing. Techron as many know, is probably the most formally approved and tested additive out there.
I have used Techron... please check my earlier posts. It always worked as advertised. It still appears that most of the testing and approval is for PEA - Techron's principal ingredient. That's not surprising to me. Companies simply don't share internal product information with outsiders.
In your post, you mentioned MoS2 as a product which relied on anecdotal approval. That's an inconsistent evaluation standard for products containing MoS2.
Originally Posted By: Clevy
Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't VW have overheating issues with the air cooled bug in the seventies and didn't they rebadge mos2 and use it in the problem engines.
I'm sure I read here at bitog about that a couple of years ago.
If true doesn't that imply less friction therefore less hear generated?
If I'm mistaken I apologize
Yes, VW did use this product. Air-cooled engines are he** on oil. That's where I first saw it in use - maybe mid-70's. The air-cooled engine overheating seemed to be an 'American' issue - not as big of a deal in Europe.
VW had MoS2 packaged in VW blue 'pillows' by Dow-Corning Corporation. Occasionally, a VW dealer would have MoS2 in yellow Dow Corning tubes - identical packaging but with a different name. Dow-Corning's trade name for MoS2 is/was Molykote. After VW threw in the towel, there was a large speed shop in the Philly area that sold Molykote. I bought it from them for several years. Even J C Whitney may have carried it for a period.
In another thread, a contributor said the Dow-Corning is still selling Molykote in South America - the last stronghold of the air-cooled Beetle
Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't VW have overheating issues with the air cooled bug in the seventies and didn't they rebadge mos2 and use it in the problem engines.
I'm sure I read here at bitog about that a couple of years ago.
If true doesn't that imply less friction therefore less hear generated?
If I'm mistaken I apologize
Yes, VW did use this product. Air-cooled engines are he** on oil. That's where I first saw it in use - maybe mid-70's. The air-cooled engine overheating seemed to be an 'American' issue - not as big of a deal in Europe.
VW had MoS2 packaged in VW blue 'pillows' by Dow-Corning Corporation. Occasionally, a VW dealer would have MoS2 in yellow Dow Corning tubes - identical packaging but with a different name. Dow-Corning's trade name for MoS2 is/was Molykote. After VW threw in the towel, there was a large speed shop in the Philly area that sold Molykote. I bought it from them for several years. Even J C Whitney may have carried it for a period.
In another thread, a contributor said the Dow-Corning is still selling Molykote in South America - the last stronghold of the air-cooled Beetle
Originally Posted By: Sam2000
Originally Posted By: Clevy
I am disgusted when folks who know nothing about a product post negatively when they truly don't have a clue.
When I see those posts I can't help but laugh inside.
Firstly, I am confused by the duality of your emotional reaction. Disgusted and laughing at the same time seem at best contradictory.
Secondly, I am intrigued that a personal decision based on evaluating a products claims as well as the basis of those claims elicits such a profound emotional reaction in you and Dave that is taken so personally and which leads to personal insults against another member.
Thirdly, I am amused at the irony of you whole heartedly agreeing with Dave on the point that Trajan should not attack a product he hasn't used when Dave himself cast doubt on an additive, Techron, which he clearly hasn't used and which he assumed hadn't had formal testing. Techron as many know, is probably the most formally approved and tested additive out there.
Lastly, making a decision, after evaluating the available evidence, to not want to use certain additives, is hardly a controversial thing to do. KFC introduced the DoubleDown product a few years ago. That consists of bacon and cheese and sauce in the middle of the two fried or grilled chicken fillets that act as the bun. Now I'm sure some people couldn't wait to try it, but I'm sure many people who don't want to eat traditional fast food could take a look at the product picture and description and figure out that it wasn't suitable for them and don't feel it is really suitable for anyone else.
If you had the latter position, it would be very strange to be on the receiving end of disgust or being laughed at or being told to seek professional help.
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb...RT.#Post3103801
He gets that way with people who use the product and say it doesn't work as well.
Originally Posted By: Clevy
I am disgusted when folks who know nothing about a product post negatively when they truly don't have a clue.
When I see those posts I can't help but laugh inside.
Firstly, I am confused by the duality of your emotional reaction. Disgusted and laughing at the same time seem at best contradictory.
Secondly, I am intrigued that a personal decision based on evaluating a products claims as well as the basis of those claims elicits such a profound emotional reaction in you and Dave that is taken so personally and which leads to personal insults against another member.
Thirdly, I am amused at the irony of you whole heartedly agreeing with Dave on the point that Trajan should not attack a product he hasn't used when Dave himself cast doubt on an additive, Techron, which he clearly hasn't used and which he assumed hadn't had formal testing. Techron as many know, is probably the most formally approved and tested additive out there.
Lastly, making a decision, after evaluating the available evidence, to not want to use certain additives, is hardly a controversial thing to do. KFC introduced the DoubleDown product a few years ago. That consists of bacon and cheese and sauce in the middle of the two fried or grilled chicken fillets that act as the bun. Now I'm sure some people couldn't wait to try it, but I'm sure many people who don't want to eat traditional fast food could take a look at the product picture and description and figure out that it wasn't suitable for them and don't feel it is really suitable for anyone else.
If you had the latter position, it would be very strange to be on the receiving end of disgust or being laughed at or being told to seek professional help.
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb...RT.#Post3103801
He gets that way with people who use the product and say it doesn't work as well.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: simple_simon
I wonder if VW did the hand-on-the-manifold test as well? LOL
Maybe not. Put your hand on an air-cooled Beetle manifold and you will probably need to get your hand re-calibrated.
I wonder if VW did the hand-on-the-manifold test as well? LOL
Maybe not. Put your hand on an air-cooled Beetle manifold and you will probably need to get your hand re-calibrated.
Originally Posted By: dave5358
Originally Posted By: simple_simon
I wonder if VW did the hand-on-the-manifold test as well? LOL
Maybe not. Put your hand on an air-cooled Beetle manifold and you will probably need to get your hand re-calibrated.
For a grown up, 60-65C is about the point that you can consciously hold your hand against something, without an immediate jerk away...70C you will retract instantly.
Originally Posted By: simple_simon
I wonder if VW did the hand-on-the-manifold test as well? LOL
Maybe not. Put your hand on an air-cooled Beetle manifold and you will probably need to get your hand re-calibrated.
For a grown up, 60-65C is about the point that you can consciously hold your hand against something, without an immediate jerk away...70C you will retract instantly.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked