Archoil products

Status
Not open for further replies.
I used Archoil's oil additive. Of all the additives I have tried, it is the best - hands down. I noticed the difference right away.

With a newer car where the oil is changed on schedule with top tier oils, it most likely wouldn't make a bit of discernable difference. With an older engine, engineered before CNC engine machining, it has the better chance for impact. I fall into this category.

This, parenthetically for me, is where the battle lines get drawn on archoil and others: "It didn't work for me", usually they are in the first camp; "It worked for me", generally in the latter camp.

For me, Archoil works.
 
I am hoping that some of the users of Archoil 9300 come back to this thread and report on their UOA besides the 'feel' of the car.

Besides the high cost cost of AR9300 (around $70 per treatment in an average car engine), would there be a reason not to use it in automotive applications due to unintended 'restoration' of the engine surfaces in which the OEM clearances are compromised? Is this even possible with a product such as Archoil 9300?

It seems to me that the main focus of AR9300 is heavy equipment, industrial applications, NOT cars.

Originally Posted By: Antisoshal
Boxcart, please stop. You aren't helping on any level at this point.

Looking forward to your results Gale. I'm currently using a mix of 9100 and 9300 in my Land Rover 2.5L diesel. Since I dont have any lab grade empirical results that would survive the peer review process for publication, I wont share them other than one: The Wife Test.

The rover is a bit of a noisy and rough lummox and at highway speeds the motor noise and vibration are quite substantial. Before a 5600 mile excursion this summer I put the recommended doses of 9300 and 9100 in a fresh change of T6 (Rotella). I did not give my wife any indication something had been altered or introduced. About 4 hours into our drive my wife asked if I fixed something because it was much quieter and smoother. I had noticed as well, but since the placebo effect could be assigned to my own perception it was interesting to note that she noticed a difference as well.
 
Originally Posted By: SR1919
I am hoping that some of the users of Archoil 9300 come back to this thread and report on their UOA besides the 'feel' of the car.

Besides the high cost cost of AR9300 (around $70 per treatment in an average car engine), would there be a reason not to use it in automotive applications due to unintended 'restoration' of the engine surfaces in which the OEM clearances are compromised? Is this even possible with a product such as Archoil 9300?

It seems to me that the main focus of AR9300 is heavy equipment, industrial applications, NOT cars.


There's nothing in a UOA that would show the "effectiveness" of this additive, even if you had a definition of what effective meant.

And as for as restoration of engine surfaces...
 
Intake track is completely clean. Never before. Ever. No crankcase blowby. No turbo blowby. Completely clean after 7K miles. Incredible...
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: keesue
Intake track is completely clean. Never before. Ever. No crankcase blowby. No turbo blowby. Completely clean after 7K miles. Incredible...


Thanks for sharing your experience. Did you use Archoil 9300? And is your car a diesel?
 
Originally Posted By: kschachn
Originally Posted By: SR1919
I am hoping that some of the users of Archoil 9300 come back to this thread and report on their UOA besides the 'feel' of the car.

Besides the high cost cost of AR9300 (around $70 per treatment in an average car engine), would there be a reason not to use it in automotive applications due to unintended 'restoration' of the engine surfaces in which the OEM clearances are compromised? Is this even possible with a product such as Archoil 9300?

It seems to me that the main focus of AR9300 is heavy equipment, industrial applications, NOT cars.


There's nothing in a UOA that would show the "effectiveness" of this additive, even if you had a definition of what effective meant.

And as for as restoration of engine surfaces...


I was thinking more in the line of more than one UOA with and without Archoil 9300 to compare. This is assuming a similar, on the average, driving pattern between oil changes.
 
Originally Posted By: SR1919
I was thinking more in the line of more than one UOA with and without Archoil 9300 to compare. This is assuming a similar, on the average, driving pattern between oil changes.


OK, well let me put it this way, what parameter(s) of a UOA would you be comparing that would show effectiveness?
 
Originally Posted By: kschachn
Originally Posted By: SR1919
I was thinking more in the line of more than one UOA with and without Archoil 9300 to compare. This is assuming a similar, on the average, driving pattern between oil changes.


OK, well let me put it this way, what parameter(s) of a UOA would you be comparing that would show effectiveness?


Wear metals for example.
 
Originally Posted By: SR1919
Originally Posted By: kschachn
Originally Posted By: SR1919
I was thinking more in the line of more than one UOA with and without Archoil 9300 to compare. This is assuming a similar, on the average, driving pattern between oil changes.


OK, well let me put it this way, what parameter(s) of a UOA would you be comparing that would show effectiveness?


Wear metals for example.


Not true for driveline components. As we have seen in some past UOA's, there were very few wear metals showing just before a major component failure.

A UOA, when compared to a VOA, shows how well the TBN is holding up or if there is any coolant intrusion.

One must have a VOA of any mix, so you have a baseline for comparison, or the UOA is virtually useless.


Quote:
Besides the high cost cost of AR9300 (around $70 per treatment in an average car engine), would there be a reason not to use it in automotive applications due to unintended 'restoration' of the engine surfaces in which the OEM clearances are compromised? Is this even possible with a product such as Archoil 9300?

It seems to me that the main focus of AR9300 is heavy equipment, industrial applications, NOT cars.


And what chemical components ar in Archoil that would show any tribological improvements over a good conventional or synthetic engine oil?
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
SR1919 said:
kschachn said:
SR1919 said:
And what chemical components ar in Archoil that would show any tribological improvements over a good conventional or synthetic engine oil?


Good question. I had to guess a combination of WS2 and borate esters maybe. I have not found a VOA for Archoil 9300 yet.

I was trying to see if those folks that have used Archoil 9300 in their cars have observed any negative effects. For example some unintended reaction with seals, leaks or anything else that can be reported.

I would say that as a start one needs the VOA of the base oil that you are going to add Archoil 9300 to and then compare it so many miles/hours/cycles later via a UOA. Also there are some forums that contain databases of UOAs for specific range of engines (TDIs, CDIs, etc.) that one can analyze and compare averages (IF for the same kind of engine).

I agree that it is not an easy way to come to compare and draw conclusions.
 
Quote:
I would say that as a start one needs the VOA of the base oil that you are going to add Archoil 9300 to and then compare it so many miles/hours/cycles later via a UOA.


The better way would be to mix the additive with the formulated engine oil and obtain a VOA analysis of the mix. That way you have a firm and accurate baseline.


Quote:
Also there are some forums that contain databases of UOAs for specific range of engines (TDIs, CDIs, etc.) that one can analyze and compare averages (IF for the same kind of engine).


The problem with that is there are just too many variables such as:

1. different driving styles

2. different engine and driveline designs

3. different fuels,

4. different engine oil formulations,

5. different climatic conditions
 
Yes good suggestion about getting a VOA with the Archoil additive mixed in. The tricky part is how to do it proportionally with such a small amount of additive such as the Archoil 9300 (100 ml).

In terms of the UOA database I agree that in order to minimize variability you need a as many data points as you can get and that is not always possible or practical.

In any case from a qualitative point of view I appreciate folks who come here and report back on their experience with the Archoil products such as the 9300.

Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Quote:
I would say that as a start one needs the VOA of the base oil that you are going to add Archoil 9300 to and then compare it so many miles/hours/cycles later via a UOA.


The better way would be to mix the additive with the formulated engine oil and obtain a VOA analysis of the mix. That way you have a firm and accurate baseline.


Quote:
Also there are some forums that contain databases of UOAs for specific range of engines (TDIs, CDIs, etc.) that one can analyze and compare averages (IF for the same kind of engine).


The problem with that is there are just too many variables such as:

1. different driving styles

2. different engine and driveline designs

3. different fuels,

4. different engine oil formulations,

5. different climatic conditions
 
Originally Posted By: SR1919
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
SR1919 said:
kschachn said:
SR1919 said:
And what chemical components ar in Archoil that would show any tribological improvements over a good conventional or synthetic engine oil?


Good question. I had to guess a combination of WS2 and borate esters maybe. I have not found a VOA for Archoil 9300 yet.

I was trying to see if those folks that have used Archoil 9300 in their cars have observed any negative effects. For example some unintended reaction with seals, leaks or anything else that can be reported.

I would say that as a start one needs the VOA of the base oil that you are going to add Archoil 9300 to and then compare it so many miles/hours/cycles later via a UOA. Also there are some forums that contain databases of UOAs for specific range of engines (TDIs, CDIs, etc.) that one can analyze and compare averages (IF for the same kind of engine).

I agree that it is not an easy way to come to compare and draw conclusions.


The problem is that the 9300 product is SO durned costly that even the small amount needed for a VOA is costing the sender a very pretty penny.
frown.gif
 
Originally Posted By: SR1919
Originally Posted By: keesue
Intake track is completely clean. Never before. Ever. No crankcase blowby. No turbo blowby. Completely clean after 7K miles. Incredible...


Thanks for sharing your experience. Did you use Archoil 9300? And is your car a diesel?


Sure thing. Archoil 9100. Gasoline turbocharged engine (The 1981 TurboVolvo). I have no explanation for this other than the rings are sealing better and the turbo bearing is cleaner. All I know is what I've observed.
 
Last edited:
Great info guys. Have been interested in trying Archoil 9100 in my 2014 powerstroke 6.7 F550. Mainly for its cleaning abilities and potential lubrication (improvements?) for the turbo. Been trying to find real world (data) that it actually works. Most compelling evidence is how it helps Powerstoke 6.0 with cold injector stiction which may or may not translate into anything (proof wise). Thanks for sharing your experience Keesue.

Has anyone looked into the Archoil case studies (I believe found on their EU site)? Do they appear to be extensive enough to be creditable?
 
I was doing some reading on Archoil products and found where I had posted when we got our first gallon of AR9100 and quart of AR6200. Recently we started on our second gallon of AR9100 but still have AR6200 left.

The AR9100 does seem to clean the crankcase of a dirty engine from just looking inside with the oil fill cap removed.

I used Lubegard Red and Platinum for the first time last week. I put it in an Aisin Warner AWF21 six speed transmission in the 2006 Ford Five Hundred we purchased a couple weeks ago. The owner said the ATF had never been changed but the oil was changed every 5K miles at the Ford dealer where he worked as a salesman.

My point is like AR9100 the Lubegard marketing materials talks about the esters is what cleans up cleans up the valve body, servos, etc in an automatic transmission. Archoil talks about adding 3 oz of AR9100 per gallon of ATF in the system to make it work better. I expect the esters play a role but I have never put AR9100 in a transmission yet.

What I still do not know about AR9100 is its long term effect. I think the esters in it and Lubegard may be a major value in both products.

The 3.0L Ford V6 engine is clean as a new one and from the Ford dealer OCI sticker they used the 5W-20 Motor Craft blend. Using quality motor oil and filter seems to be all that it takes to keep a new engine clean for its first 110K miles.
smile.gif


The transmission seemed to be shifting fine. Before I do bucket flushes by removing ATF cooling lines at the cooler I like to run Seafoam and now Seafoam Trans Tune for 200-300 miles before doing the flush when it is hot.

I noticed especially hard downshifting and some tach flickering when shifting from 4th to OD1 but not to OD2 or any other shifts. I took the flickering to be some slipping going on. I was not paying attention and had just bought the car so I do not this was from adding 8 oz of Seafoam or not.

I had purchased 2 quarts of Lubegard Red and 1 quart of Lubegard Platinum so I put in 8 oz of Lubegard Red and the other half of can of Seafoam Trans Tune. The hard down shifting stopped within 50 miles.

It has D and 1 options and it was using the 1 position where I learned about the hard downshifting. As it turns out in position 1 only gears 1 and 2 are active. When the tack hits 3700 RPM it will shift to 2nd gear but not more at higher RPM's. The computer will down shift to 1st gear when the RPM's drop to 1700 RPM's. Before I added the 8 oz of Lubegard that computer controlled downshift was HARSH. After driving it 50 miles I used position 1 again an while it was fast and positive it did not hammer like before adding the Lubegard Red.

After I pushed out a gallon of the old ATF I then pushed out 2 gallons of new Mobil 3309 ATF out and then refilled with about a total of 3.5 quarts topping it off with 16 oz of Lubegard Platinum. By mouth I blew the ATF out of the cooler and return line before the first pump down is how I got a gallon out on the first pumping by starting the engine.

The oil change per the window sticker had 3K miles on the last change and the oil looked clean when I added 8 oz of AR9100 to the crankcase and I have driven it about 600 miles and the oil still looks fairly clean but then there was no signs of build up in the engine when we got the car. I have an appointment with the local Ford dealer for service tomorrow.

Saturday we leave for St. Paul MN and should put 2000 miles on it by this time next week. I will dump 8 more oz of AR9100 after the oil change tomorrow. I know the computer reports 30 MPG on relative level roads at 55 MPH and will be interested what it will report at Interstate speeds.

It had high end tires with the thread at the wear markers but I lucked out and got a nearly new set Arctic Claw Winter TXI M&S tires for $125 from a tire store I have been doing business with for years. No one around here runs snow tires because we just do not get much snow but the next day we got a big snow and that car would go and stop better than anything I ever drove. Yes the snow tires make a little noise but I only notice it at lower speeds. This is the wrong time of the year for a redneck from KY to be going almost to Canada but that is where the MN Mutual Insurance Carriers hold their annual meeting.
smile.gif
 
Originally Posted By: SR1919
GaleHawkins, any thoughts about Archoil AR9200 and AR9300?


SR1919 I have not worked with the AR9200 or AR9300 but have received our 5th gallon jug of Archoil AR9100.

I am doing a full car use test (2010 Subaru Forester 2.5X with 105K miles as of Aug 2017) of AR9100 by adding 1 oz. to the oil power steering fluid (plan to flush it some day) but we it hot drain of engine, 4EAT ATF (bucket flush actually), and both front and rear differentials and refilled with owner manual spec fluids and added the Archoil AR9100 to specs on the jug in all five fluids.

So far all is well. Auto transmission up shifts were fine but driving it in Manual shifting mode initially the forced down shifts were HARD but now they are smooth. Keep in mind just flushing out the old fluids and going back with new could have done the trick.

We just picked up a 1966 Ford 3000 diesel tractor two weeks ago that we are rehabing and AR9100 is going into everything except the radiator and fuel tank. It is now in the engine, injector pump, power steering, transmission and differential/lift system.

We do not know the hours on the tractor but the engine pulls strongly and is relative clean (major oil leaks) compared to other 51 year old diesel tractors we looked at recently.

I did add a quart of AR9100 to the hydraulic/gear box common sump of the 1983 John Deere 310B backhoe but after a few hours of usage I have not noticed anything different.

We use AR9100 in about 10 engines around the place. It seems the diesel engines oil stays clear longer now.

All I can say after a few years of using Archoil AR9100 is I have not had any negative experiences. It really went against the grain to add it to a working 8 year old Subaru automatic transmission but Archoil has it as a labeled use so I went full bore in this Subaru and now Ford 3000 tractor.
 
Originally Posted By: kschachn
Even worse than trying to interpret a wear metal number from a UOA would be trying to attribute the difference to the additive.


thumbsup2.gif
thumbsup2.gif
thumbsup2.gif
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top