Faster cleaner at room temp: Red Line or LC20?

[JAG]

Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
I always find tests like this very interesting. The bbq grill tests (whith the muffin tins),freezer tests,and this one. It`s like having a chemistry set and performing experiments. It`s always interesting to see the outcome of these oil tests. Has anyone ever done a test with a hot frying pan to see which oils begin to eveporate first (guess that would sort`ve be like the bbq grill test).
I wouldn't use a frying pan but I've done a lot of volatility tests to determine how fast different oils evaporate. I've posted some of the results here over the years. It needs to be done well to make sure errors are minimized and results are highly repeatable.

 

[StevieC]

Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Re-reading what I posted earlier I might have sounded like I didn't appreciate your efforts, sorry. I find your comments interesting and informative. Thanks!
+1

I was just trying to tell you that you shouldn't use your testing method as scientific is all.

Sorry if I was harsh.

 

[Spyder7]

I`ve enjoyed the whole thread, right from the first post. Novel experiment, but its useful knowledge and know how that springs from out of the (q-tip) box thinking.

-Spyder

 

[GMorg]

Thanks for sharing JAG.

I try to teach my grad students that there is a difference between a data set that is not relevant and our inability to see the relevance of a particular data set. I think that as long as the methods are described well, nearly any observation can be useful.

 

[gaspo]

RL can keep your engine clean but they never marketed their oils as an engine cleaner. You should test against dedicated products or stuff on the yellow banner above..lol

 

[JAG]

Originally Posted By: GMorg
I try to teach my grad students that there is a difference between a data set that is not relevant and our inability to see the relevance of a particular data set. I think that as long as the methods are described well, nearly any observation can be useful.

Great point. That is a common error that people make and it certainly applies in this thread.

 

[Ken42]

Are you bored?

 

[bmwtechguy]

I was thinking more like curious and perhaps nothing good on TV.

 

[ericthepig]

The spirit of the original Bob of BITOG still has a pulse on this forum (it seems to me it was Bob who charted the course for hands on exploration around here).

Keeps me coming back.

Thanks JAG!

 

[ericthepig]

Originally Posted By: StevieC
I was just trying to tell you that you shouldn't use your testing method as scientific is all.


Stevie, it is indeed "science". Hands on exploration of a repeatable (if desired) experiment leading to induction and then deduction and either strenthening your hypothesis or weakening or disproving it.

Originally Posted By: StevieC
Doesn't prove anything really...


Science NEVER "proves" anything. You can help your hypothesis or you can knock holes in it, but you can't prove it. To "prove" your hypothesis, you would have to show that every possible future experiment involving your hypothesis will validate it. And that is impossible to do.

 

[Gary Allan]

Quote:
To "prove" your hypothesis, you would have to show that every possible future experiment involving your hypothesis will validate it. And that is impossible to do.


Nitpicking anti-disingenuous assertion theoretical purist!!!

 

[ericthepig]

Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
Quote:
To "prove" your hypothesis, you would have to show that every possible future experiment involving your hypothesis will validate it. And that is impossible to do.


Nitpicking anti-disingenuous assertion theoretical purist!!!

Perhaps.

 

[[RT] ProjUltraZ]

if you heated both to 212F then it would be a little more indicative of what it can do when running

a bit

 

[Ben99GT]

Originally Posted By: JAG
I did a quick test and it is far from the be-all end-all answer but it's better than nothing. So my mom's E46 BMW's oil fill cap has a quite thick layer of baked on deposits. I took it off, turned it upside down, poured Lube Control LC20 on one half of it and Red Line 10W-40 on the other half. The two oils were not allowed to mix. I let it sit for an hour at room temperature. Then using Q-Tips, I rubbed one-half of the cap, then the other half with the other end of the Q-Tip. Rubbing was as close to the same as possible for both halves to keep the test fair. I repeated this until the rubbed surface was almost oil-free.

Then came the comparison of cleanliness of each half. The side that had the LC20 got a little bit cleaner. It was NOT a night and day difference but LC20 was the clear winner. Neither side got completely clean. The spaces between the raised letters still were clogged with deposits. This is just something to think about and would be just a start to a complete answer to cleaning ability of these oils in an engine. Viscosity does effect quickness of cleaning and LC20 is much thinner than Red Line 10W-40 so keep that in mind. Also, room temperature cleaning quickness is very different from what it is at higher temperatures.


Is the oil fill cap plastic or metal? I wouldn't think an ester-based motor oil would clean plastics much better than most oils.

 

[JAG]

Originally Posted By: Ben99GT
Is the oil fill cap plastic or metal? I wouldn't think an ester-based motor oil would clean plastics much better than most oils.

It was mostly plastic along with 2 metal locking arms. My opinion on cleaning is there are two types of removal: stripping deposit particles from deposit particles (somewhat like dissolving), and stripping deposit particles from the substrate they are sticking to.

The deposit layer on the plastic was thick enough and well adhered to the plastic so this was mostly a testing of the first type of cleaning I mentioned above.

 

[416Rigby]

Having run Redline in some pretty cruddy engines, I can say with certainty that it is quite a potent cleaner. Strips the [censored] out in about 1000 miles.

 

[Kuato]

Originally Posted By: JAG
The comments from most of the rest of you appear to me as unappreciative. I made this thread for your benefit. It didn't do me any good to share what I found.


Apologies if mine sounded that way. I found the thread interesting and thought I had something witty to say. No insult intended!

 

[HangerHarley]

Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
Quote:
To "prove" your hypothesis, you would have to show that every possible future experiment involving your hypothesis will validate it. And that is impossible to do.


Nitpicking anti-disingenuous assertion theoretical purist!!!

 

[tig1]

Dawn dish washing liquid works well for cleaning gunk.

 

[ItsuMitsubishi]

Originally Posted By: ericthepig

Science NEVER "proves" anything. You can help your hypothesis or you can knock holes in it, but you can't prove it. To "prove" your hypothesis, you would have to show that every possible future experiment involving your hypothesis will validate it. And that is impossible to do.


Very nicely done!