Who has the most miles on an Auto-Rx'd engine?

[darrenc]

2003TRD, I would love to show you a high res photo of my wife's Volvo's oil filter after a 1,500 mile ARX treatment. Her car has 55,000 miles on it and it has seen Amsoil ATM exclusively with 5000 mile changes. But, I can't figure out how to do it. If anybody knows, PM me and I'll send you the photo to post. It's pretty cool, and has made me a believer.

Darren

 

[brianl703]

I just cut apart the filter that was on my 1996 Ford Contour (2.5L V6) for the 2000-mile rinse phase (first application...it now has 104,200 miles on it).

I didn't see any solid material on the filter element (unlike some of the photos I've seen here), and when I ran a screwdriver blade across it to scrape the filter material, all I got was a bit of dirty oil on the screwdriver.

Maybe my engine is cleaner than usual. The element seemed like it was very dark so maybe all of the crap was in the filter element. The Auto-RX did seem to slow, if not stop, the main seal leak, which is the whole reason I tried it.

I didn't cut apart the filter for the cleaning phase. I wish I would have saved it now.

 

[Bruce T]

Thanks, gentlemen (Terry and MolaKule). These were not the type of answers I was originally expecting, but they are satisfying nevertheless. Please forgive my poor comprehension of your earlier replies.

[ July 02, 2004, 08:18 PM: Message edited by: Bruce T ]

 

[FL-400S]

Well, Ive got AutoRx in both the engine and manual gearbox of my '94 tercel. And Ive still got to run it 750 more miles until I can take it out. But Im going to cut open the oil filter and see what gunk is in it after the AutoRx and again after rinse.

 

[Bruce T]

MolaKule, I'm sorry my question wasn't clear. It seems like the harder I try, the worse it gets! I was asking if any part of ARX could react in a detrimental way with any engine surface? I suspect the answer is, "No," but I would love to hear it from a chemist. No such reactions would mean no long-term risks to the engine.

I was approaching from the market side when I asked Terry about the fallout of any negative lab results.

[ July 02, 2004, 01:27 PM: Message edited by: Bruce T ]

 

[brianl703]

Well the Auto-RX does seem to be working it's magic on the leaks my 1996 Ford Contour has (or used to have).

It used to be I'd pull that car in my garage and immediately smell the stench of burning oil (because it was leaking onto the exhaust Y pipe and/or the manifold).

I just pulled it into my garage for the first time in 3 months (I decided to take the other car, which has been sitting in there for 3 months, out for a drive) and I couldn't smell anything except the smell of new tires (got new tires on it last month).

Now I wonder what kind of magic it'll work on my 1988 Mustang GT with 158,000 miles. Nothing really wrong with the engine except that it likes to consume oil...like a quart every 1500 miles.

 

[darrenc]

Thanks G Man II. Check this photo out.

http://theoildrop.server101.com/cgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=45&t=000018#000009

 

[Bruce T]

If I sent out any mixed signals, my original question wasn't intended to be hostile to ARX. It's a normal condition for people to have second thoughts after making any major decision. I was struggling with the issues, looking at ARX from every possible angle. That's all I wanted to do. Verify the performance of ARX from another angle.

As usual, Terry and MolaKule provided wonderfully complete answers. Some people may notice that no one directly answered my mileage question, except MAJA. I had hoped someone would come forward with 100-200K on their engine after ARX, but no one did. If anyone considers this a negative result, I should play the Devil's advocate.

As Frank mentioned above, ARX has been used in car engines for over five years. There are probably a few people by now who have post-ARX mileages over 100K. If these people had experienced ANY negative long-term effects, then we would have seen some credible negative posts, posts transmitted heavily across the Internet. Mad people need to vent. They vent hard. Plenty of other people want to be the first one to find/quote their horror story.

No such instances have occurred. People who experience positive results tend to remain silent. It's business as usual. If they are problem free, then why stop their busy schedules to post the fact? If the product works as advertised, why say more? No complaints. Just as with Terry's lab results, it's a case of "no news is good news."

[ July 09, 2004, 05:47 PM: Message edited by: Bruce T ]

 

[TheTanSedan]

2001 JEEP Cherokee
242-6
Currently at 79,000

First A-Rx at 41,000

(Two UOA's since then)

Second A-Rx at about 66,000

(one year apart)

After second UOA have been running REDLINE 10w30 on 8k intervals, and have been chasing down any and all small problems of idle instability, silicon intake, etc. Am on fourth run of RL.

First RL run , oil was very dark -- a first for this vehicle -- and since then has changed little in color from new to used. (Belief is that RL removed what A-Rx didn't in re previous 30k worth of MOBIL ONE use.

Last change removed Superplug and have never seen so little debris on a magnetic drain plug! Just about enough to cover a couple of pinheads. Never seen that in 35-years of looking at oil drainplugs.

Have also continued use of FUEL POWER. Mileage has remained high, and consistent.

The use of A-RX, REDLINE and FUEL POWER have -- I believe the next two UOA's will show -- given me the combo I want for an engine remaining in truly "new" condition. We'll see.

Recommend you have a look at my experience in those UOA's.

And, that Terry Dyson is The Man! Advice worth having on your vehicle.

Suggest also that you search these forums for comments and info by Terry, and especially those of MolaKule on subject.

 

[Rick20]

Thanks for the very accurate sumation of ARX, Terry and Molecule. Perhaps the underlying question being asked by the concerned party is does ARX contain any chlorinated paraffins. And of course the answer would be NO. Chlorinated additives will react will ferous metals, under heat and pressure, to form ferrous chloride. These products show nicely on gimick type falax machines and driving cars with no oil in them after treatment. This phenomenon is a very short term gain, with disasterous long term effects.

There is nothing reactive with any metals found in a motor or trans, from the use of ARX.

I have run 4 cleanings of ARX in a 4.3 liter GM motor, over a 6 year period, encompassing 60,000 miles. The motor is actually burning cleaner now than it was with only 20,000 miles. I was buying the product from Frank before it was marketed to the auto industry. I have used it in a Northstar V-8 for over 60,000 miles(4 years). I have used in in a 1968 Pontiac 350 for 5 years. Only positive notes to report.

 

[Luke]

quote:

---

Fm Bruce

I must raise the obvious question about the risk of long-term effects on the engine: Who has reported the most miles on an engine AFTER it has been treated with ARX?

---

I affected a Auto-RX on my Saturn '95, SL2 at 338,950 miles on it (I'm the original owner), and my currect mileage is 382,832 (as of 7/14/04). After using the product my oil consumption went from 600 to my most recent reading (yesterday) being 1,100 miles per quart (10w-40 Quaker State).

 

[ToyotaNSaturn]

Luke, that's an incredible amount of mileage for any car!

I wonder if running multiple Auto-Rx treatments in the old S-series would provide more benefit than running a second application in other vehicles.

Frank/Terry, is it worth running a second run of Auto-Rx through these engines? I already have a couple bottles in stock. My first run was at 96K, and am at 109K. Consumption isn't an issue in my case, but getting the engine clean is.

I only have another quarter million more miles to catch up to Luke!

 

[Bruce T]

Rick20, you're exactly right. I was asking about a destructive reaction like chlorinated paraffins on metal (Terry also mentioned), but a slower, milder reaction. I didn't think it was likely, but I just wanted some reassurance from chemists like you and MolaKule. It says a lot that you've used it yourself in multiple vehicles.

Consumers face a nasty market of dangerous engine flush/treatment products. Just a handful of products (like Auto-Rx) can be trusted. People are justifiably wary about the claims of most "miracle" products. I suspect that's one reason why Frank doesn't put ARX on the shelves of local stores: it would be sitting beside snake oil products.

TheTanSedan, Rick20, and Luke: Thanks for posting your mileages after ARX. I'm sure we'll continue to see more postive accounts in the next few years. If I don't total my own car by driving too fast, I plan to be among them.

[ July 15, 2004, 11:06 AM: Message edited by: Bruce T ]

 

[VaderSS]

Many times when a main or cam seal is replaced, the sealing surface of the rotaing shaft has been grooved and the seal will not last because of it. The make "savers" that are simply very thin metal shells that fit over the shaft to give a new sealing surface.

 

[brianl703]

I just started Auto-RX on my 1988 Mustang 5.0. It has 158,000 miles. It also seems to have developed a bit of a rear main seal leak(it started prior to the Auto-RX), despite the fact that the rear main seal was replaced only 40,000 miles ago.

I wonder if the PCV valve needs to be replaced. I checked it at around the same time the rear main seal was replaced, but it could be clogged by now. (It's a bit of a pain to get to on that engine...)