No Oil Demo - Clear Proof?

[addyguy]

I know there have been other posts on this, but I wanted to start a new one to get a clearer discussion on it. On the Bardahl website, there is this test. Have a look:

http://www.bardahl.com/news/news.htm

This kind of 'test' has been done again and again by different companies, but usually it is done by a 'private lab' and there is very little way to verify the conditions of the test or other factors.

However, here we have what seems to be a recent, out-in-the-open demonstration, witndessed by people and officials, and done fairly transparently. Also, it would appear it has set a new official world record, which should give it some credibility... So, if because of this it is to be believed, then it would appear that Bardahl is a miracle product that can provide extra protection to an engine.

What do people think of this? I'm not trying to be niaeve, or say we should all go out and buy the stuff, but it must count for something toward the value of the product as a friction reducer...thoughts?

 

[stogiedude]

The only way I would believe a test like this would be to do it myself to make sure there was no way the test could be fudged or if it was done by a totally impartial third party with an unimpeachable reputation and credentials AND if the entire process was monitored by an additional outside party in addition to the impartial third party.

Why do a test in Malaysia? How many cars, trucks and other motorized vehicles are there in the US? Millions. Seems like if they want to let people know of a true, cutting edge, revolutionary lubricating product that really works they would do it in the USA and shout it from the rooftops. No way you can dump a lubricant into the oil that treats the metal and then drive the engine without oil for hundreds of miles with no lube in the engine. I will believe in the Easter Bunny first.

 

[Hasbeen]

Just the fact that oil does a lot more in an engine than just lubricate is enough for me to not believe tests like this.

 

[MolaKule]

Any non-hydraulic tappet engine of about 1.5L can run without oil for awhile.

Some questions:

1. How much metal wear in mg was seen by the bearings, journals, cylinder walls, and cams? If the cylinder was aluminum, how much distortion was seen in the block?

2. Assuming this was watercooled engine, coolant kept the engine from melting down.

3. How much bearing, cam, and other corrosion was seen after this test.

4. Most of these types of third party chlorinated additives will alow a small engine to run without oil. But how does it affect the engine oil and aluminum parts when the chlorine is released due to high temp decomposition of the chlorinated waxes/esters?

I suspect that a synthetic POE oil with a good amount of moly and zinc could be placed in a solid tappet engine and do the same thing.

 

[bruce381]

seen it before as Molakule said a chloro parrafin
will bond to the metal and will allow an engine to run as in this test. And as a note as the metal gets hotter the AW effect gets better.

BUT chlor parrafin will decompose to HCL acid at 250-275F as such it will cause massive rust and corrosion in upper engine parts over time due to mositure condensation and acid formation.

It makes a good stainless steel cutiing oil but even when inhibited with a high TBN CA corrosive wear is still a problem.

I think it was Duralube? that had corrosion problems some time ago.

bruce

[ September 13, 2005, 06:51 PM: Message edited by: bruce381 ]

 

[LarryL]

After the run through town, do you think the engine could be started, again, after a shut down?

Now that I know the focus of Bardahl's product development I'm going to go buy a bottle of this stuff. You never know when I might want to drive around with no oil for a while.

 

[stogiedude]

"Any non-hydraulic tappet engine of about 1.5L can run without oil for awhile."

What's a while? A few minutes?

From the article:
"The vehicles were driven North at expressway speeds between 90 and 100 kilometers per hour using air conditioning for the entire test."
"Two 1998 Proton, 1.5 liter GL, manual transmission vehicles were "Bardahlized" [Bardahl 1 Engine Treatment], had their oil drained and were driven at least 1330 kilometers with out engine oil"

These vehicles were driven hundreds of miles, about 10-12 hours continuously without any oil in the engines? Metal to metal parts not causing so much friction and heat that they fuse together or cause significant scratching, scuffing and abrasive wear? Even if a film adhered to the metal surfaces it couldn't withstand hours and hours and hundreds of miles of operation without failure. No way, no how.

 

[John K]

Why test two vehicles the same? Why not one with and one without the treatment to show the difference?
Briggs and Stratton ran a test with and without additives and after tearing the engines down found higher wear in the oils with additives. They did this because so many demos were run with their engines. Their comment about running them after draining the oils was that their engines would run without oil for a long time under no load conditions. The test you are refering to is not under no load conditions though. Still think it is worthless....imho. Oil additive packages are carefully balanced, adding anything to it will screw up something.

 

[Steve S]

Buy some and try it ,let us know the results.I mean drain the oil and drive it.

 

[addyguy]

I just wanted to start a discussion on this test, to see what BITOG people thought about it in realtion to other tests, and if it gave the product more credibility.

I agree with the opinions posted - why do it in Malaysia? something is weird there, when your main market is going to be in the US. To be honest, it is most likely because Malaysia is not quite as developed a county as America or Canada, the same stringent standards for the test don't have to apply there - the country is poorer, so with some persusion ($$) these officials could prolly be convinced to report what the company wanted them to. I know no politics, but it is true, to a degree.

Also, even if this test did occur as reported, there is prolly unseen damage done to the engine, and if done again, eventually the engine would fail. Who knows how many times they did this test before, where the motor died? Maybe they just got lucky this time, so they reported it. Product has been around a long time....

And yes, the best way to verify it, if you really wanted to, would be to do it yourself. I might try it if I had an old clunker that was going to the scrap yard for a fun experiment, but on my newer daily driver? Not a chance. Even the company says not to do it. I might use it with an oil change, just 'cause it is only $4.00 or so...as I said in another post, Wal-Marts here charge $17.96 for an oil and filter using Tech 2000 (re-refined) oil versus $23.96 for regualar Penz...so if I get an $18 Tech 2000 change, and $4.00 can of Bardahl, I get the 'protection' of both, for less than a regualar Penz change! Not a bad deal I think....

 

[rg144]

"Both test vehicles were rented to assure the AAM no special engine modifications were made."

Reminder to myself: do not buy any cars from rental agencies.

 

[LarryL]

Rental cars get no respect.

 

[Big Jim]

You would be surprised how long an engine will run with no oil.

I've seen pool bets taken on how long an engine would last if run without oil prior to pulling the engine for replacement anyway. It always last longer than anyone in the pool has bet.

I remember a Volvo that didn't get new oil added after draining it. The customer picked it up, and his wife drove it about 20 miles to home. When she got home she told her husband that there was a red light on. He explored it and found that there was no oil showing on the dipstick so he had the car towed back to the shop. The engine was torn down for inspection. No damage could be found.

I'm not saying that it is a good idea to run without oil, but those tests don't really tell you much.

 

[John K]

Addyguy - I think it is a bad deal. You have no idea of how you can mess up the additve balance. Most likely you will not notice any difference and conclude that it didn't hurt, probably helped. I think you will be wrong. Additive packages have to be balanced, you add too much of one think, you screw up something else. The oil may oxidize faster, may even make it prone to sludging. I think Consumer Reports ran two vehicles with and without one of the additives that claimed they could run without oil. I think both of them ran about the same number of miles, like 3 ot 4. I cannot find it now, it was a very small article.
I feel like a broken record that no one listens to......... Oh well, your money, not mine. Your engine, not mine......

 

[Big O Dave]

I think it's great when any Mitsubishi goes 1300km without breaking down, so this no-oil test is incredible!

 

[vad]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Big Jim:
You would be surprised how long an engine will run with no oil.

---

Have you heard those stories from someone else, or witnessed with your own eyes.
I'm not saying I'm doubting you, it's just I find it hard to believe that an engine would run 20 miles with 0 oil in it without experiencing any damage.
The engines retain some amount of oil after being "completley" drained. Some probably more than others.
A half quart of remaining oil can play a huge difference in those "tests"

 

[Big Jim]

quote:

---

Originally posted by vad:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Big Jim:
You would be surprised how long an engine will run with no oil.

---

Have you heard those stories from someone else, or witnessed with your own eyes.
I'm not saying I'm doubting you, it's just I find it hard to believe that an engine would run 20 miles with 0 oil in it without experiencing any damage.
The engines retain some amount of oil after being "completley" drained. Some probably more than others.
A half quart of remaining oil can play a huge difference in those "tests"

---

I witnessed the Volvo incident and was the one who had to deal with the customer. I also witnessed one of those how long will it last pools.

In both cases, the only oil left is what was in the filter and whatever is left behind after draining the oil until there is hardly any drip.

 

[sagaboy]

Since they have gone to such great trouble to prove something, they should have first open the engine and certify the piston/ring and any other parts that is within certain tolerance AND THEN after the no oil drive, strip open the engine again and measure the same parts for wear… that’s the only way to prove their"snake oil" worked.

Otherwise, what they have done prove nothing except to "hoodwink" some third world under the trees mechanics officials, press guys, by-standers and anyone willing to swallow hook-line-sinkers

 

[vad]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Big Jim:
I witnessed the Volvo incident and was the one who had to deal with the customer. I also witnessed one of those how long will it last pools.

---

In case with the Volvo "no oil on dispstick" doesn't necessarily mean no oil.
Were you the one who torned the engine down?
If not then you're making too broad of a conclusion based on the pretty spotty story.

I did have experienced a catastrophic engine failure due to the documented 0 oil in the crankase.
0 meaning there wasn't any significant amount of oil coming out upon the removal of the oil plug.
The motor seized up within ~3-5 minutes or several blocks of driving time on the city streets.

 

[Big Jim]

I was present when the engine was torn down. The technician did drain all the oil except for the oil filter. He absent mindedly drained the oil while the car was on his hoist for other work. The car did not come in for an oil change. He completely forgot that he had drained the oil and then did not put any oil back in.

He learned from his mistake and went on to become the best tech in the shop, eventually becoming the shop foreman.