Bashers against snake oil additives
- Thread starter southernjeeper
- Start date
- Status
What a huge paragraph full of nothing, complete with your bigoted religious views.
So please tell us in concise technical terms what additives you use and exactly how they influence the oil you are using to improve their mechanical properties. Leave out the bashing of other manufacturer's terms, and try and leave politics and religion out too. Adding that as a postscript to your tome doesn't help your cause one bit.
Originally Posted By: mr_blackstock
Garak,You make a fair point, and an interesting observation about taxis. It is normal for taxis to get very high mileages. Why so high when most peoples cars manage on average 350,000? because the taxis usually are left running for most of their work day. Whereas a normally used car will be started and stopped numerous times a day.
Most damage to engines occurs at start up, almost everyone would agree to this. Garak, you have been using oil additives all your life, they are already in the oil. But the additive percentages are designed to satisfy all automotive applications, one oil "formula" to suit every car, this is different from viscosity. Additive only manufacturers are servicing the market that needs a specific need fulfilled. Chefs don't buy their knives from the supermarket, they see a specialist store. The oil you buy, with it's "perfect" formula of additives already added, is intended to suit any car, in general, so do you think the additives that are in your oil will offer the best protection for your needs? Maybe you 4Wheel drive all weekend? And yet you use the same oil as "Karen" who drops the kids off to school in the morning and collects them in the arvo in her 95' Honda Accord.
Now, the term "stabilser", while being a bloody odd name for an additive, may actually mean something. While I am not an expert on oils, I will bluster along. "Sheer" is something you do not want to occur to your oil, something like the tiny film that protects the metal surfaces gets thinner and thinner as the oil breaks down. From what little I know, gearbox or diff oil has a very high sheer factor in the oil. From what I know, "stabilsers" supposedly contain high levels of additives to prevent oil sheer. So, the term "stabilser" may mean "prevent continued decay or breakdown of oil". Or like in a hospital ward, "his condition has stabilsed, not improved, nor worsened"
Now, if you change your oil every 5000 miles or kms, regardless of what oil, you most likely do not need additional additives, as your oil is just starting to break down. If you are lazy and want to change less, use synthetic. Anyway, for those whose lubricant needs exceed what the big companies offer, use additives! I use them because my bikes are very high revving, quite old, and air cooled. So, engineering tolerances are alot looser than modern water cooled bike engines, hence the need for an extra thick layer of oil film between my metal bits.
people who dislike additives, not just Garak, keep harping on about the names or terms the makers use for their products, "stabilser" and god knows what other weird names, superman sperm or shark gill slippery....whatever. It does seem a bit suss. However, pay attention to the manufacturers you do like, they use just as many odd and confusing terms, one such example "magnatech" "molecules that are magnetically charged" Really?! And this does'nt sound like a "snake oil"? people who live in glass houses should not throw stones. Before you harp on about odd terms, look to the big manufacturers.
For the rest of people who like to jump into forums and discuss topics they have no interest in, bugger off. Go find a Christian forum and hassle them about believing in a God, or go annoy the Budhists, and the Islamics, they love a good discussion about their God. Or even better go join the Republicans forum, no one likes them....
So please tell us in concise technical terms what additives you use and exactly how they influence the oil you are using to improve their mechanical properties. Leave out the bashing of other manufacturer's terms, and try and leave politics and religion out too. Adding that as a postscript to your tome doesn't help your cause one bit.
Originally Posted By: mr_blackstock
Garak,You make a fair point, and an interesting observation about taxis. It is normal for taxis to get very high mileages. Why so high when most peoples cars manage on average 350,000? because the taxis usually are left running for most of their work day. Whereas a normally used car will be started and stopped numerous times a day.
Most damage to engines occurs at start up, almost everyone would agree to this. Garak, you have been using oil additives all your life, they are already in the oil. But the additive percentages are designed to satisfy all automotive applications, one oil "formula" to suit every car, this is different from viscosity. Additive only manufacturers are servicing the market that needs a specific need fulfilled. Chefs don't buy their knives from the supermarket, they see a specialist store. The oil you buy, with it's "perfect" formula of additives already added, is intended to suit any car, in general, so do you think the additives that are in your oil will offer the best protection for your needs? Maybe you 4Wheel drive all weekend? And yet you use the same oil as "Karen" who drops the kids off to school in the morning and collects them in the arvo in her 95' Honda Accord.
Now, the term "stabilser", while being a bloody odd name for an additive, may actually mean something. While I am not an expert on oils, I will bluster along. "Sheer" is something you do not want to occur to your oil, something like the tiny film that protects the metal surfaces gets thinner and thinner as the oil breaks down. From what little I know, gearbox or diff oil has a very high sheer factor in the oil. From what I know, "stabilsers" supposedly contain high levels of additives to prevent oil sheer. So, the term "stabilser" may mean "prevent continued decay or breakdown of oil". Or like in a hospital ward, "his condition has stabilsed, not improved, nor worsened"
Now, if you change your oil every 5000 miles or kms, regardless of what oil, you most likely do not need additional additives, as your oil is just starting to break down. If you are lazy and want to change less, use synthetic. Anyway, for those whose lubricant needs exceed what the big companies offer, use additives! I use them because my bikes are very high revving, quite old, and air cooled. So, engineering tolerances are alot looser than modern water cooled bike engines, hence the need for an extra thick layer of oil film between my metal bits.
people who dislike additives, not just Garak, keep harping on about the names or terms the makers use for their products, "stabilser" and god knows what other weird names, superman sperm or shark gill slippery....whatever. It does seem a bit suss. However, pay attention to the manufacturers you do like, they use just as many odd and confusing terms, one such example "magnatech" "molecules that are magnetically charged" Really?! And this does'nt sound like a "snake oil"? people who live in glass houses should not throw stones. Before you harp on about odd terms, look to the big manufacturers.
For the rest of people who like to jump into forums and discuss topics they have no interest in, bugger off. Go find a Christian forum and hassle them about believing in a God, or go annoy the Budhists, and the Islamics, they love a good discussion about their God. Or even better go join the Republicans forum, no one likes them....
Originally Posted By: mr_blackstock
Now, the term "stabilser", while being a bloody odd name for an additive, may actually mean something. While I am not an expert on oils, I will bluster along. "Sheer" is something you do not want to occur to your oil, something like the tiny film that protects the metal surfaces gets thinner and thinner as the oil breaks down. From what little I know, gearbox or diff oil has a very high sheer factor in the oil. From what I know, "stabilsers" supposedly contain high levels of additives to prevent oil sheer. So, the term "stabilser" may mean "prevent continued decay or breakdown of oil". Or like in a hospital ward, "his condition has stabilsed, not improved, nor worsened"
Stabilizers are meant to stabilize the oil for extended periods from chemical breakdown. I'm not sure how that name could be construed to be odd since it describes exactly what it does. Oil shear is a function of the viscosity modifier used to build viscosity and is a mechanical process that no degree of additive will stop from happening. Stabilizers generally stop chemical reactions such as oxidation and acidification from affecting the oil.
Now, the term "stabilser", while being a bloody odd name for an additive, may actually mean something. While I am not an expert on oils, I will bluster along. "Sheer" is something you do not want to occur to your oil, something like the tiny film that protects the metal surfaces gets thinner and thinner as the oil breaks down. From what little I know, gearbox or diff oil has a very high sheer factor in the oil. From what I know, "stabilsers" supposedly contain high levels of additives to prevent oil sheer. So, the term "stabilser" may mean "prevent continued decay or breakdown of oil". Or like in a hospital ward, "his condition has stabilsed, not improved, nor worsened"
Stabilizers are meant to stabilize the oil for extended periods from chemical breakdown. I'm not sure how that name could be construed to be odd since it describes exactly what it does. Oil shear is a function of the viscosity modifier used to build viscosity and is a mechanical process that no degree of additive will stop from happening. Stabilizers generally stop chemical reactions such as oxidation and acidification from affecting the oil.
Originally Posted By: mr_blackstock
Why so high when most peoples cars manage on average 350,000? because the taxis usually are left running for most of their work day. Whereas a normally used car will be started and stopped numerous times a day.
Of course, all of that is true. Also, however, note that the same thing applies to taxis as to regular cars. How many cars do people get rid of because of engine problems? It's usually something else that causes people to get rid of the car - notably it's old and looking ratty and/or they're bored of it. If it's mechanical, it's transmission, or massive suspension problems. Or, the body is rusting.
Originally Posted By: mr_blackstock
Most damage to engines occurs at start up, almost everyone would agree to this. Garak, you have been using oil additives all your life, they are already in the oil.
When the damage happens isn't terribly relevant, since none of the oil additive people have ever been able to demonstrate actually assisting in preventing startup wear, much less assisting in preventing startup wear all the while not being deleterious at any other time.
These additives have been tested, including by people here, some of whom are actual formulators. Most of these additives aren't even additives, but diluents. They use poor base stocks and virtually nothing in the way of additives.
With respect to odd terminology and marketing, at least fully formulated motor oils meet standards. There are builder approvals and API approvals and ACEA sequences. These additives meet no standards, and do not help an oil meet these standards, and probably actually would make an oil company buck if one tried to make a claim for damages in an approved application.
What specific ingredients do you think are missing in fully formulated motor oils, that I should be buying and mixing into my oil? What are the chemists and chemical engineers missing? What are the OEMs missing, since they generally forbid additives?
Why so high when most peoples cars manage on average 350,000? because the taxis usually are left running for most of their work day. Whereas a normally used car will be started and stopped numerous times a day.
Of course, all of that is true. Also, however, note that the same thing applies to taxis as to regular cars. How many cars do people get rid of because of engine problems? It's usually something else that causes people to get rid of the car - notably it's old and looking ratty and/or they're bored of it. If it's mechanical, it's transmission, or massive suspension problems. Or, the body is rusting.
Originally Posted By: mr_blackstock
Most damage to engines occurs at start up, almost everyone would agree to this. Garak, you have been using oil additives all your life, they are already in the oil.
When the damage happens isn't terribly relevant, since none of the oil additive people have ever been able to demonstrate actually assisting in preventing startup wear, much less assisting in preventing startup wear all the while not being deleterious at any other time.
These additives have been tested, including by people here, some of whom are actual formulators. Most of these additives aren't even additives, but diluents. They use poor base stocks and virtually nothing in the way of additives.
With respect to odd terminology and marketing, at least fully formulated motor oils meet standards. There are builder approvals and API approvals and ACEA sequences. These additives meet no standards, and do not help an oil meet these standards, and probably actually would make an oil company buck if one tried to make a claim for damages in an approved application.
What specific ingredients do you think are missing in fully formulated motor oils, that I should be buying and mixing into my oil? What are the chemists and chemical engineers missing? What are the OEMs missing, since they generally forbid additives?
Originally Posted By: mr_blackstock
Most damage to engines occurs at start up, almost everyone would agree to this.
First 20 mins, not the start per se.
Originally Posted By: mr_blackstock
Garak, you have been using oil additives all your life, they are already in the oil. But the additive percentages are designed to satisfy all automotive applications, one oil "formula" to suit every car, this is different from viscosity. Additive only manufacturers are servicing the market that needs a specific need fulfilled. Chefs don't buy their knives from the supermarket, they see a specialist store. The oil you buy, with it's "perfect" formula of additives already added, is intended to suit any car, in general, so do you think the additives that are in your oil will offer the best protection for your needs? Maybe you 4Wheel drive all weekend? And yet you use the same oil as "Karen" who drops the kids off to school in the morning and collects them in the arvo in her 95' Honda Accord.
So what additives ARE lacking from a "universal" oil that would be needed either for your weekend of 4WDing, and Karen's Honda ?
It's a nonsensical argument.
Originally Posted By: mr_blackstock
Now, the term "stabilser", while being a bloody odd name for an additive, may actually mean something. While I am not an expert on oils, I will bluster along. "Sheer" is something you do not want to occur to your oil, something like the tiny film that protects the metal surfaces gets thinner and thinner as the oil breaks down. From what little I know, gearbox or diff oil has a very high sheer factor in the oil. From what I know, "stabilsers" supposedly contain high levels of additives to prevent oil sheer. So, the term "stabilser" may mean "prevent continued decay or breakdown of oil". Or like in a hospital ward, "his condition has stabilsed, not improved, nor worsened"
Firstly "shear" is certainly undesirable, not sure how you would address that through additives.
The most common "stabiliser" has nothing that resembles an additive in it, it just dilutes that additives in the oil...an oil that you've already declared lacking in addiitves specific for either 4WDing, or Karen's Honda.
why would you want to dilute them more ?
There's also evidence that thicker basestocks tear apart (shear) VM additives easier as well...a "stabiliser", is basically a thickener, so it's potentially more damaging to these additive as well.
Originally Posted By: mr_blackstock
Now, if you change your oil every 5000 miles or kms, regardless of what oil, you most likely do not need additional additives, as your oil is just starting to break down. If you are lazy and want to change less, use synthetic.
really, "only just starting to breakdown"...in what way ?
If you are lazy and trying to extend use synthetic...
Then [censored] for is the additive...is that for "lazy people" (want to extend), who think that they are clever chemists (through the use of additives to get that extension), and have more money to blow (additive prices of $20-$35 add up quickly when comparing the price break between mineral and synthetic.
Originally Posted By: mr_blackstock
Anyway, for those whose lubricant needs exceed what the big companies offer, use additives! I use them because my bikes are very high revving, quite old, and air cooled. So, engineering tolerances are alot looser than modern water cooled bike engines, hence the need for an extra thick layer of oil film between my metal bits.
You can get everything in one bottle up to a nominated "80 grade" here in Oz... the majors do 50 and 60 grades in the states...are you saying that your bikes need thicker than that ?
...through additives ?
Most damage to engines occurs at start up, almost everyone would agree to this.
First 20 mins, not the start per se.
Originally Posted By: mr_blackstock
Garak, you have been using oil additives all your life, they are already in the oil. But the additive percentages are designed to satisfy all automotive applications, one oil "formula" to suit every car, this is different from viscosity. Additive only manufacturers are servicing the market that needs a specific need fulfilled. Chefs don't buy their knives from the supermarket, they see a specialist store. The oil you buy, with it's "perfect" formula of additives already added, is intended to suit any car, in general, so do you think the additives that are in your oil will offer the best protection for your needs? Maybe you 4Wheel drive all weekend? And yet you use the same oil as "Karen" who drops the kids off to school in the morning and collects them in the arvo in her 95' Honda Accord.
So what additives ARE lacking from a "universal" oil that would be needed either for your weekend of 4WDing, and Karen's Honda ?
It's a nonsensical argument.
Originally Posted By: mr_blackstock
Now, the term "stabilser", while being a bloody odd name for an additive, may actually mean something. While I am not an expert on oils, I will bluster along. "Sheer" is something you do not want to occur to your oil, something like the tiny film that protects the metal surfaces gets thinner and thinner as the oil breaks down. From what little I know, gearbox or diff oil has a very high sheer factor in the oil. From what I know, "stabilsers" supposedly contain high levels of additives to prevent oil sheer. So, the term "stabilser" may mean "prevent continued decay or breakdown of oil". Or like in a hospital ward, "his condition has stabilsed, not improved, nor worsened"
Firstly "shear" is certainly undesirable, not sure how you would address that through additives.
The most common "stabiliser" has nothing that resembles an additive in it, it just dilutes that additives in the oil...an oil that you've already declared lacking in addiitves specific for either 4WDing, or Karen's Honda.
why would you want to dilute them more ?
There's also evidence that thicker basestocks tear apart (shear) VM additives easier as well...a "stabiliser", is basically a thickener, so it's potentially more damaging to these additive as well.
Originally Posted By: mr_blackstock
Now, if you change your oil every 5000 miles or kms, regardless of what oil, you most likely do not need additional additives, as your oil is just starting to break down. If you are lazy and want to change less, use synthetic.
really, "only just starting to breakdown"...in what way ?
If you are lazy and trying to extend use synthetic...
Then [censored] for is the additive...is that for "lazy people" (want to extend), who think that they are clever chemists (through the use of additives to get that extension), and have more money to blow (additive prices of $20-$35 add up quickly when comparing the price break between mineral and synthetic.
Originally Posted By: mr_blackstock
Anyway, for those whose lubricant needs exceed what the big companies offer, use additives! I use them because my bikes are very high revving, quite old, and air cooled. So, engineering tolerances are alot looser than modern water cooled bike engines, hence the need for an extra thick layer of oil film between my metal bits.
You can get everything in one bottle up to a nominated "80 grade" here in Oz... the majors do 50 and 60 grades in the states...are you saying that your bikes need thicker than that ?
...through additives ?
So, the Lubegard Bio/Tech treatment I added to my engine looks like it improved oil consumption. So the first oil I ran in the car, Mobil 5000, I was burning a quart every 1000 miles. I went to Maxlife and that slowed to a quart every 2500-2750. I kept track of my mileage and would check it in that range; It would be a quart down like clockwork. I did 14k on that ruin of maxlife filling it up that often. Went through 5 quarts of oil.
So far, Ive gone 3000 into this OCI and it looks like its about 2/3 of a quart down. So I might get like 4500? That'd be awesome! Ill be very happy if that keeps up.
So far, Ive gone 3000 into this OCI and it looks like its about 2/3 of a quart down. So I might get like 4500? That'd be awesome! Ill be very happy if that keeps up.
Last edited:
First off with “kschachn” –I think it is great that you start off your post stating that mine is “full of nothing”, yet it seems you failed to read any part of mine. Please point out my “bigoted” religious views? I simply told people like you, who dislike additives, and only seem to enter additive forums with the intention of deriding people for using additives, to bugger off to other forums, and tell them what they are doing is wrong, such as a Christian forum. Honestly, if reading is a problem I will make this post shorter.
My posts had nothing to do with what additives I use, stick to the topic. And do not tell me to leave out what oil manufacturers say about their products, if you do not like what you read, don’t enter the forum.
Read the posts, if you have something to say, do so. If not…. Well I have said it once already.
Shannow, I did not use the term “universal”. I was illustrating that oil manufacturers have to design their oils to suit the needs of multiple applications. A branded 10w-30 will be sold to be used in many types of vehicles, in general regardless of what is expected to be normal use, ie non-competition, but may range from hard use, the 4wd, or light use, Karen’s car. Try reading what is written…
For the rest of what you say, you have created a false premise by indicating something I have NOT said, and then structured an argument around something I did NOT say, to supposedly win an argument I was not arguing. Great work.
And how do you interpret “an extra think layer of oil film” as meaning I need thicker oil? You made the statement that stabliser “is basically a thickener” I did not, and never implied it was.
Seriously, try actually reading what I have said, there is no need to make stuff up about what I have said. If the language I use is confusing, I will dumb it down alittleif that’swhatssome boysneedtoseethebloodywritting….
My posts had nothing to do with what additives I use, stick to the topic. And do not tell me to leave out what oil manufacturers say about their products, if you do not like what you read, don’t enter the forum.
Read the posts, if you have something to say, do so. If not…. Well I have said it once already.
Shannow, I did not use the term “universal”. I was illustrating that oil manufacturers have to design their oils to suit the needs of multiple applications. A branded 10w-30 will be sold to be used in many types of vehicles, in general regardless of what is expected to be normal use, ie non-competition, but may range from hard use, the 4wd, or light use, Karen’s car. Try reading what is written…
For the rest of what you say, you have created a false premise by indicating something I have NOT said, and then structured an argument around something I did NOT say, to supposedly win an argument I was not arguing. Great work.
And how do you interpret “an extra think layer of oil film” as meaning I need thicker oil? You made the statement that stabliser “is basically a thickener” I did not, and never implied it was.
Seriously, try actually reading what I have said, there is no need to make stuff up about what I have said. If the language I use is confusing, I will dumb it down alittleif that’swhatssome boysneedtoseethebloodywritting….
There is good safety margings to add additives. OTC oils are pretty slim in additives. Ive seen oils with 1,700ppm of ZDDP pretty stable, also oils with 1,000 ppm of Moly, even UOAs with 6,000 ppm of lead from avgas. 600ppm of sodium in new oils. 1,100 ppm of Mg... None had special issues, like falling in dispersancy or deposits prone.
So the dead horse story of messing with the balance of add pack is a little overwhelmed. Take more than a can of commercial additive to ruin the oil.
So the dead horse story of messing with the balance of add pack is a little overwhelmed. Take more than a can of commercial additive to ruin the oil.
Originally Posted By: mr_blackstock
I was illustrating that oil manufacturers have to design their oils to suit the needs of multiple applications. A branded 10w-30 will be sold to be used in many types of vehicles, in general regardless of what is expected to be normal use, ie non-competition, but may range from hard use, the 4wd, or light use, Karen’s car.
How does a mass produced additive solve the problem of mass produced oil, though? Personally, if I'm not convinced of the suitability or robustness of the OEM's oil specification, there are more than enough fully formulated alternatives on the shelf to address that.
I was illustrating that oil manufacturers have to design their oils to suit the needs of multiple applications. A branded 10w-30 will be sold to be used in many types of vehicles, in general regardless of what is expected to be normal use, ie non-competition, but may range from hard use, the 4wd, or light use, Karen’s car.
How does a mass produced additive solve the problem of mass produced oil, though? Personally, if I'm not convinced of the suitability or robustness of the OEM's oil specification, there are more than enough fully formulated alternatives on the shelf to address that.
Originally Posted By: mr_blackstock
Shannow, I did not use the term “universal”. I was illustrating that oil manufacturers have to design their oils to suit the needs of multiple applications. A branded 10w-30 will be sold to be used in many types of vehicles, in general regardless of what is expected to be normal use, ie non-competition, but may range from hard use, the 4wd, or light use, Karen’s car. Try reading what is written…
What is your problem with MY use of universal to describe YOUR wording that they are sold to go into everything ?
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/universal
look for the words next to the "2"
Originally Posted By: mr_blackstock
And how do you interpret “an extra think layer of oil film” as meaning I need thicker oil? You made the statement that stabliser “is basically a thickener” I did not, and never implied it was.
Sorry, that was the engineer training coming out in me.
When you state that you need an "extra thick layer of oil film", I naturally went to hydrodynamic theory which in order to GIVE a thicker oil film needs
* higher viscosity, through higher viscosity
* higher viscosity, through lower operating temperature
* lower bearing loads,
* higher differential speeds between surfaces.
The last three are engine design issues, and don't come in a can at REPCO, so I was left with Viscosity...and for e.g. Lucas "oil stabiliser", that's ALL it does.
So as I don't misinterpret you again, please tell me how you obtain this "extra thick layer of oil film" from a can ?
without viscosity being involved.
Shannow, I did not use the term “universal”. I was illustrating that oil manufacturers have to design their oils to suit the needs of multiple applications. A branded 10w-30 will be sold to be used in many types of vehicles, in general regardless of what is expected to be normal use, ie non-competition, but may range from hard use, the 4wd, or light use, Karen’s car. Try reading what is written…
What is your problem with MY use of universal to describe YOUR wording that they are sold to go into everything ?
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/universal
look for the words next to the "2"
Originally Posted By: mr_blackstock
And how do you interpret “an extra think layer of oil film” as meaning I need thicker oil? You made the statement that stabliser “is basically a thickener” I did not, and never implied it was.
Sorry, that was the engineer training coming out in me.
When you state that you need an "extra thick layer of oil film", I naturally went to hydrodynamic theory which in order to GIVE a thicker oil film needs
* higher viscosity, through higher viscosity
* higher viscosity, through lower operating temperature
* lower bearing loads,
* higher differential speeds between surfaces.
The last three are engine design issues, and don't come in a can at REPCO, so I was left with Viscosity...and for e.g. Lucas "oil stabiliser", that's ALL it does.
So as I don't misinterpret you again, please tell me how you obtain this "extra thick layer of oil film" from a can ?
without viscosity being involved.
Originally Posted By: Pontual
There is good safety margings to add additives. OTC oils are pretty slim in additives. Ive seen oils with 1,700ppm of ZDDP pretty stable, also oils with 1,000 ppm of Moly, even UOAs with 6,000 ppm of lead from avgas. 600ppm of sodium in new oils. 1,100 ppm of Mg... None had special issues, like falling in dispersancy or deposits prone.
So the dead horse story of messing with the balance of add pack is a little overwhelmed. Take more than a can of commercial additive to ruin the oil.
If it were a dead horse then people wouldn't need constant reminders about it. Because it is fact, not opinion.
Adding additives, especially dispersants, detergent and surface active chemicals like ZDDP will affect how an oil performs. Could it slightly improve performance? Possibly. Could it ruin the original performance? Absolutely.
Let's say someone decides the ZDDP level is too low, so they put and additive in. The original additive in the oil that was used to replace the ZDDP is now being displaced on the surfaces. If that additive was a synergist with another additive (which is extremely common) that synergy is now lost as well. So you've now paid extra money to lose two performance characteristics to add ZDDP to an oil that didn't need it in the first place.
Any decent oil will have a well balanced formula, and top treating additives is a gamble in a best case scenario.
There is good safety margings to add additives. OTC oils are pretty slim in additives. Ive seen oils with 1,700ppm of ZDDP pretty stable, also oils with 1,000 ppm of Moly, even UOAs with 6,000 ppm of lead from avgas. 600ppm of sodium in new oils. 1,100 ppm of Mg... None had special issues, like falling in dispersancy or deposits prone.
So the dead horse story of messing with the balance of add pack is a little overwhelmed. Take more than a can of commercial additive to ruin the oil.
If it were a dead horse then people wouldn't need constant reminders about it. Because it is fact, not opinion.
Adding additives, especially dispersants, detergent and surface active chemicals like ZDDP will affect how an oil performs. Could it slightly improve performance? Possibly. Could it ruin the original performance? Absolutely.
Let's say someone decides the ZDDP level is too low, so they put and additive in. The original additive in the oil that was used to replace the ZDDP is now being displaced on the surfaces. If that additive was a synergist with another additive (which is extremely common) that synergy is now lost as well. So you've now paid extra money to lose two performance characteristics to add ZDDP to an oil that didn't need it in the first place.
Any decent oil will have a well balanced formula, and top treating additives is a gamble in a best case scenario.
Garak
“How does a mass produced additive solve the problem of mass produced oil, though? Personally, if I'm not convinced of the suitability or robustness of the OEM's oil specification, there are more than enough fully formulated alternatives on the shelf to address that.”
I never said there was a problem of mass produced oil, and I never insinuated a mass produced additive would solve any such issue?! Is what I am writing so hard to understand that people keep mis-quoting me? I used a really simple example of how one product, any brand 10W-40, is sold to service the needs of drivers requiring that particular grade oil, and yet may have very different uses, one may be very hard on their oil, ie: 4wd every weekend, and the other use may be quite mild, ie: picking up the kids from school etc. Two different uses of an oil product. I was trying, and obviously failed, to illustrate how a company tries to cater for all purposes when it markets it’s product. I was trying to put forward the idea that people who require more protection for their engine, may want more than the standard formula that a company provides.
I cannot believe I have to re-iterate this over and over!? Do you think drag racers chuck in the same oil they use in their Honda Civic, Shell 10W-30? And Garak, how can you suggest that an oil product offered off the shelf not convince you “of the suitability or robustness of the OEM's oil specification” are you suggesting an oil company offer a product that would not satisfy your needs?! “there are more than enough fully formulated alternatives on the shelf to address that.” So are you suggesting that there are lesser formulated products on the shelf? If you are an avid 4wd driver, why would you not trust the same oil you would put in Karen’s Honda? The company sells the oil to service both cars, it meets all the hallowed standards, is fully tested, owns valuable market share, and has provided you with everything you need in an oil container for either 4wd or suburban use. Why would you suspect that a product being sold by a large oil company be “lesser formulated” than others?
Shannow
“What is your problem with MY use of universal to describe YOUR wording that they are sold to go into everything ?” I will tell you what my problem is, I used the term “perfect”, the reason I did so was to describe the ideal formula a company might use to service the needs of a general use application, non-competition engine. That which might be used for either 4wd or suburban use. Companies sell a variety of formulas, each one judged ideal by the company for their intended uses, bike oil into bikes, diesel oil into diesels, etc. I never once said such an oil formula would be “universal” and “go into everything”
“The last three are engine design issues, and don't come in a can at REPCO, so I was left with Viscosity...and for e.g. Lucas "oil stabiliser", that's ALL it does…So as I don't misinterpret you again, please tell me how you obtain this "extra thick layer of oil film" from a can ?...without viscosity being involved.”
You know what, I am not going to be drawn into a discussion about what additives I use. From the above patronising quote, you have already decided what you will be saying. Keep the discussion on topic, instead of looking for an easy way to poke holes in my argument or belittle me for what products I use. If you look at my posts in this discussion, you will notice that I have not actually said additives are better, or best, or that people should buy them, or that I use them, or that I think they are all great. Go back and have a read, and then read them again. You are making assumptions.
For the rest of you, if you want to know about the stuff I use and why, look my posts up, it’s bloody easy. As I will not be continuing to answer idiots who cannot actually read a post without re-interpreting or incorrectly paraphrasing what I have said just so they can bring up another argument they feel they can win even if it has little to do with the original discussion.
If you do not think additives are worth any use, why do you enter a forum where people positively discuss additives and their uses and try to gain some knowledge? Do you think you are offering any constructive advice by ear bashing people with the same old tired phrases “if it was good, the big companies would use it”, “snake oil is for stupid people”, “if you hate your car, put [censored] in it called snake oil”, “I don’t have to know anything about it to know it’s rubbish” Or do you think you are offering anything new by re-quoting company advertising, and selling it back to us as “fact”?
Or maybe you are the type of people who get off by telling everyone else they are wrong?
“How does a mass produced additive solve the problem of mass produced oil, though? Personally, if I'm not convinced of the suitability or robustness of the OEM's oil specification, there are more than enough fully formulated alternatives on the shelf to address that.”
I never said there was a problem of mass produced oil, and I never insinuated a mass produced additive would solve any such issue?! Is what I am writing so hard to understand that people keep mis-quoting me? I used a really simple example of how one product, any brand 10W-40, is sold to service the needs of drivers requiring that particular grade oil, and yet may have very different uses, one may be very hard on their oil, ie: 4wd every weekend, and the other use may be quite mild, ie: picking up the kids from school etc. Two different uses of an oil product. I was trying, and obviously failed, to illustrate how a company tries to cater for all purposes when it markets it’s product. I was trying to put forward the idea that people who require more protection for their engine, may want more than the standard formula that a company provides.
I cannot believe I have to re-iterate this over and over!? Do you think drag racers chuck in the same oil they use in their Honda Civic, Shell 10W-30? And Garak, how can you suggest that an oil product offered off the shelf not convince you “of the suitability or robustness of the OEM's oil specification” are you suggesting an oil company offer a product that would not satisfy your needs?! “there are more than enough fully formulated alternatives on the shelf to address that.” So are you suggesting that there are lesser formulated products on the shelf? If you are an avid 4wd driver, why would you not trust the same oil you would put in Karen’s Honda? The company sells the oil to service both cars, it meets all the hallowed standards, is fully tested, owns valuable market share, and has provided you with everything you need in an oil container for either 4wd or suburban use. Why would you suspect that a product being sold by a large oil company be “lesser formulated” than others?
Shannow
“What is your problem with MY use of universal to describe YOUR wording that they are sold to go into everything ?” I will tell you what my problem is, I used the term “perfect”, the reason I did so was to describe the ideal formula a company might use to service the needs of a general use application, non-competition engine. That which might be used for either 4wd or suburban use. Companies sell a variety of formulas, each one judged ideal by the company for their intended uses, bike oil into bikes, diesel oil into diesels, etc. I never once said such an oil formula would be “universal” and “go into everything”
“The last three are engine design issues, and don't come in a can at REPCO, so I was left with Viscosity...and for e.g. Lucas "oil stabiliser", that's ALL it does…So as I don't misinterpret you again, please tell me how you obtain this "extra thick layer of oil film" from a can ?...without viscosity being involved.”
You know what, I am not going to be drawn into a discussion about what additives I use. From the above patronising quote, you have already decided what you will be saying. Keep the discussion on topic, instead of looking for an easy way to poke holes in my argument or belittle me for what products I use. If you look at my posts in this discussion, you will notice that I have not actually said additives are better, or best, or that people should buy them, or that I use them, or that I think they are all great. Go back and have a read, and then read them again. You are making assumptions.
For the rest of you, if you want to know about the stuff I use and why, look my posts up, it’s bloody easy. As I will not be continuing to answer idiots who cannot actually read a post without re-interpreting or incorrectly paraphrasing what I have said just so they can bring up another argument they feel they can win even if it has little to do with the original discussion.
If you do not think additives are worth any use, why do you enter a forum where people positively discuss additives and their uses and try to gain some knowledge? Do you think you are offering any constructive advice by ear bashing people with the same old tired phrases “if it was good, the big companies would use it”, “snake oil is for stupid people”, “if you hate your car, put [censored] in it called snake oil”, “I don’t have to know anything about it to know it’s rubbish” Or do you think you are offering anything new by re-quoting company advertising, and selling it back to us as “fact”?
Or maybe you are the type of people who get off by telling everyone else they are wrong?
Last edited:
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: MotoTribologist
Originally Posted By: Pontual
There is good safety margings to add additives. OTC oils are pretty slim in additives. Ive seen oils with 1,700ppm of ZDDP pretty stable, also oils with 1,000 ppm of Moly, even UOAs with 6,000 ppm of lead from avgas. 600ppm of sodium in new oils. 1,100 ppm of Mg... None had special issues, like falling in dispersancy or deposits prone.
So the dead horse story of messing with the balance of add pack is a little overwhelmed. Take more than a can of commercial additive to ruin the oil.
If it were a dead horse then people wouldn't need constant reminders about it. Because it is fact, not opinion.
Adding additives, especially dispersants, detergent and surface active chemicals like ZDDP will affect how an oil performs. Could it slightly improve performance? Possibly. Could it ruin the original performance? Absolutely.
Let's say someone decides the ZDDP level is too low, so they put and additive in. The original additive in the oil that was used to replace the ZDDP is now being displaced on the surfaces. If that additive was a synergist with another additive (which is extremely common) that synergy is now lost as well. So you've now paid extra money to lose two performance characteristics to add ZDDP to an oil that didn't need it in the first place.
Any decent oil will have a well balanced formula, and top treating additives is a gamble in a best case scenario.
Originally Posted By: Pontual
There is good safety margings to add additives. OTC oils are pretty slim in additives. Ive seen oils with 1,700ppm of ZDDP pretty stable, also oils with 1,000 ppm of Moly, even UOAs with 6,000 ppm of lead from avgas. 600ppm of sodium in new oils. 1,100 ppm of Mg... None had special issues, like falling in dispersancy or deposits prone.
So the dead horse story of messing with the balance of add pack is a little overwhelmed. Take more than a can of commercial additive to ruin the oil.
If it were a dead horse then people wouldn't need constant reminders about it. Because it is fact, not opinion.
Adding additives, especially dispersants, detergent and surface active chemicals like ZDDP will affect how an oil performs. Could it slightly improve performance? Possibly. Could it ruin the original performance? Absolutely.
Let's say someone decides the ZDDP level is too low, so they put and additive in. The original additive in the oil that was used to replace the ZDDP is now being displaced on the surfaces. If that additive was a synergist with another additive (which is extremely common) that synergy is now lost as well. So you've now paid extra money to lose two performance characteristics to add ZDDP to an oil that didn't need it in the first place.
Any decent oil will have a well balanced formula, and top treating additives is a gamble in a best case scenario.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: mr_blackstock
I was trying to put forward the idea that people who require more protection for their engine, may want more than the standard formula that a company provides.
Then they should use a more robust, properly formulated, lubricant. Dropping in "Wizards in a can" has more of a likelihood of buggering up the balanced product than it does improving it.
Originally Posted By: mr_blackstock
Do you think drag racers chuck in the same oil they use in their Honda Civic, Shell 10W-30?
Yes, plenty of them do use plain-Jane conventional 10w-30 actually. Drag racing isn't particularly hard on oil as oil temperature doesn't get very high in 1,320ft. Road racing is much harder on oil.
Originally Posted By: mr_blackstock
Why would you suspect that a product being sold by a large oil company be “lesser formulated” than others?
It isn't a suspicion, certain OEM specifications/approvals are much harder to meet than others resulting in a more robust product. Now whether the additional capability of the lubricant is necessary for a specific application, well that's another question all together.
Originally Posted By: mr_blackstock
As I will not be continuing to answer idiots who cannot actually read a post without re-interpreting or incorrectly paraphrasing what I have said just so they can bring up another argument they feel they can win even if it has little to do with the original discussion.
Calling people idiots doesn't further your points or make them more clear. Getting frustrated because you feel what you've attempted to convey is being misconstrued doesn't either. If your points are not being properly interpreted then make an attempt to improve your articulation so that it is more clear.
Originally Posted By: mr_blackstock
If you do not think additives are worth any use, why do you enter a forum where people positively discuss additives and their uses and try to gain some knowledge? Do you think you are offering any constructive advice by ear bashing people with the same old tired phrases “if it was good, the big companies would use it”, “snake oil is for stupid people”, “if you hate your car, put [censored] in it called snake oil”, “I don’t have to know anything about it to know it’s rubbish” Or do you think you are offering anything new by re-quoting company advertising, and selling it back to us as “fact”?
Or maybe you are the type of people who get off by telling everyone else they are wrong?
Because people join this board to LEARN. Just because the additive section exists doesn't mean it needs to be all Unicorns and Rainbows. New members may be inclined to believe others who are pandering a product that consists of heavy Group I bright stock and tackifier as "beneficial" where there is no tangible evidence to support that it is. Anecdotes that their vehicle didn't blow up are not proof. Listening to these anecdotes also doesn't result in one gaining knowledge, as knowledge is based on fact.
New members deserve to see both sides of these arguments and make an informed decision based on that. This means that they are entitled to hear both the glowing reviews from the pro-additive advocates as well as the potential condemnation of these same products from a more analytical and less cheerleading-oriented perspective. Perhaps one you would call pessimistic and demands proof of benefit.
These discussions, and that is what they are, are a good thing, nobody is required to believe you, me, Shannow, Garak....etc but instead are able to see all that is being debated and take away their own conclusion from the exchange. That is, ideally, how these forums work
I was trying to put forward the idea that people who require more protection for their engine, may want more than the standard formula that a company provides.
Then they should use a more robust, properly formulated, lubricant. Dropping in "Wizards in a can" has more of a likelihood of buggering up the balanced product than it does improving it.
Originally Posted By: mr_blackstock
Do you think drag racers chuck in the same oil they use in their Honda Civic, Shell 10W-30?
Yes, plenty of them do use plain-Jane conventional 10w-30 actually. Drag racing isn't particularly hard on oil as oil temperature doesn't get very high in 1,320ft. Road racing is much harder on oil.
Originally Posted By: mr_blackstock
Why would you suspect that a product being sold by a large oil company be “lesser formulated” than others?
It isn't a suspicion, certain OEM specifications/approvals are much harder to meet than others resulting in a more robust product. Now whether the additional capability of the lubricant is necessary for a specific application, well that's another question all together.
Originally Posted By: mr_blackstock
As I will not be continuing to answer idiots who cannot actually read a post without re-interpreting or incorrectly paraphrasing what I have said just so they can bring up another argument they feel they can win even if it has little to do with the original discussion.
Calling people idiots doesn't further your points or make them more clear. Getting frustrated because you feel what you've attempted to convey is being misconstrued doesn't either. If your points are not being properly interpreted then make an attempt to improve your articulation so that it is more clear.
Originally Posted By: mr_blackstock
If you do not think additives are worth any use, why do you enter a forum where people positively discuss additives and their uses and try to gain some knowledge? Do you think you are offering any constructive advice by ear bashing people with the same old tired phrases “if it was good, the big companies would use it”, “snake oil is for stupid people”, “if you hate your car, put [censored] in it called snake oil”, “I don’t have to know anything about it to know it’s rubbish” Or do you think you are offering anything new by re-quoting company advertising, and selling it back to us as “fact”?
Or maybe you are the type of people who get off by telling everyone else they are wrong?
Because people join this board to LEARN. Just because the additive section exists doesn't mean it needs to be all Unicorns and Rainbows. New members may be inclined to believe others who are pandering a product that consists of heavy Group I bright stock and tackifier as "beneficial" where there is no tangible evidence to support that it is. Anecdotes that their vehicle didn't blow up are not proof. Listening to these anecdotes also doesn't result in one gaining knowledge, as knowledge is based on fact.
New members deserve to see both sides of these arguments and make an informed decision based on that. This means that they are entitled to hear both the glowing reviews from the pro-additive advocates as well as the potential condemnation of these same products from a more analytical and less cheerleading-oriented perspective. Perhaps one you would call pessimistic and demands proof of benefit.
These discussions, and that is what they are, are a good thing, nobody is required to believe you, me, Shannow, Garak....etc but instead are able to see all that is being debated and take away their own conclusion from the exchange. That is, ideally, how these forums work
I started using LM MOS2 in my old well maintained 200K car because of the anecdotal and real world experience expressed here. Not scientific granted, but I figured that I had nothing to lose. I drove this car regularly on an 800 mile trip and I checked the mpg consistently. 24mpg. After the MOS2, I get 26mpg consistently. I understand that there are numerous variables but I had numerous trips both with MOS2 and without MOS2. In my mind, it paid for itself and must have reduced friction. The only other additive that I tried was Lubeguard in a friend's transmission because of this forum. It stopped a developing whine.
Morey's ?
its a thickener with a dash of antimony AW additive.
If you genuinely feel that you need a thicker oil film, any one of Penrite's thicker, fully additised offerings would be better than anything thickened (and additive diluted) by Moreys.
Per their PDS
chrome-http://www.moreyoil.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/HDOS-properties.pdf
"Increases oil viscosity by one to two grades"
its a thickener with a dash of antimony AW additive.
If you genuinely feel that you need a thicker oil film, any one of Penrite's thicker, fully additised offerings would be better than anything thickened (and additive diluted) by Moreys.
Per their PDS
chrome-http://www.moreyoil.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/HDOS-properties.pdf
"Increases oil viscosity by one to two grades"
Oh, and I've got some in the shed, plus used it (and Lucas) extensively during turbine overhauls.
So thick that once applied to the area between the turbine shaft and bearing, we could still turn them (with a crane) for a good 24 hours...had to flush them off so that I could get a good alignment figure...they are thick !!!
So thick that once applied to the area between the turbine shaft and bearing, we could still turn them (with a crane) for a good 24 hours...had to flush them off so that I could get a good alignment figure...they are thick !!!
Originally Posted By: mr_blackstock
I never said there was a problem of mass produced oil, and I never insinuated a mass produced additive would solve any such issue?! Is what I am writing so hard to understand that people keep mis-quoting me?
Actually, you weren't quoted, but when someone disagrees with you, complaining that they didn't understand or misquoted you isn't being helpful. This is especially true since you're arguing at the outliers of the point.
Okay. Let's take your hypothetical 10w-40, that's pass produced to meet exactly what it is, a 10w-40, with a basic API specification, such as SN, for instance. Of course, it's not ideal for every engine out there specifying 10w-40 or every usage pattern. For one, I'd never use such a product. A 10w-40 is simply asking for trouble in a Saskatchewan winter, even in an older gasoline engine that would permit the grade. General Motors, too, has historically forbidden that grade. So, while my F-150 could use the grade, I'd never choose it. I have different needs. If I want a 40 grade for that vehicle, I'd go with a 15w-40 in the summer (or a 5w-40 or a 0w-40 year round) and do something different in the winter. I'd make a different choice in oils. I wouldn't try to modify an unsuitable oil by some additive.
And, of course, what someone uses in a Honda Civic isn't necessarily applicable to what gets used in a race engine or a diesel engine. But, the guy who has a Honda Civic and a Ford Powerstroke and a race car doesn't start with Honda 0w-20 and then pile in different types of additives for the Powerstroke and for the race car. Nor should such a hypothetical person take his high zinc, low TBN race oil and dump it in his Civic or his Powerstroke, no matter what he adds to it.
And yes, oil companies offer products that don't meet my needs. They also offer products that do meet my needs. They have various products, after all. I have no use for an ILSAC 0w-20. Many millions of people do, however. Neither my G37 nor my F-150 will like it; of that, I'm fairly certain. Similarly, a person driving only a Prius all year in this city would have absolutely no use for a 20w-50.
Further, if I do feel an oil is short something for a specific application, I can always bump upwards, as it were. If I had a vehicle calling for a 0w-20, and I thought my driving patterns were too hard on the vehicle, or I thought the specification was weak, or my OCIs too long, there are plenty of motor oils on the shelf already that address that. I could run an ILSAC 5w-30 conventional. I could run an A5/B5 5w-30, or a C3 5w-30. I could run an A3/B4 5w-30. I could run a CJ-4/SN E6, E7, E9 5w-30. I could go to a 40. I could try a monograde. If I had a race car, I'd buy an appropriate racing oil for the application, not an ordinary motor oil and some additive.
If the 4wd and Karen's Honda call for the same oil and the same specification, and I am satisfied with that, I will use the same oil in both applications. If I'm not satisfied with that, I will switch oils. With the above noted choices, I know, within reason, what I'm getting. I can have a ballpark figure of phosophorus content and SA. I'll have a very good idea of HTHS. I'll know whether I'll have appropriate cold cranking performance. I'll probably know starting TBN. I will also know exactly which specifications are met, and there will be evidence that the oil meets that specification.
Additives are filled with vague promises or unrealistic promises, and do not alter the oil in a predictable way, other than to generally dilute and thicken them. If I want a thicker oil, I can find one. If I want an oil with fewer additives, they are available. If I want more additives, such oils are available, too. You talk about company advertising being sold as a fact, but that's the SOP of additive companies. There's no science whatsoever. There is no repeatable testing, no independent testing, or independent licensing.
As for snake oils being bashed here in what you call an additive forum, it's going to continue to happen. This is Bob is the Oil Guy, not Bob is the Additive Testimonial Guy. People have pushed harmful some harmful products here, and a pile of useless ones. So, when additives are discussed, I'm going to provide my opinion, particularly when no one can demonstrate any tangible effects, aside from wallet draining.
I never said there was a problem of mass produced oil, and I never insinuated a mass produced additive would solve any such issue?! Is what I am writing so hard to understand that people keep mis-quoting me?
Actually, you weren't quoted, but when someone disagrees with you, complaining that they didn't understand or misquoted you isn't being helpful. This is especially true since you're arguing at the outliers of the point.
Okay. Let's take your hypothetical 10w-40, that's pass produced to meet exactly what it is, a 10w-40, with a basic API specification, such as SN, for instance. Of course, it's not ideal for every engine out there specifying 10w-40 or every usage pattern. For one, I'd never use such a product. A 10w-40 is simply asking for trouble in a Saskatchewan winter, even in an older gasoline engine that would permit the grade. General Motors, too, has historically forbidden that grade. So, while my F-150 could use the grade, I'd never choose it. I have different needs. If I want a 40 grade for that vehicle, I'd go with a 15w-40 in the summer (or a 5w-40 or a 0w-40 year round) and do something different in the winter. I'd make a different choice in oils. I wouldn't try to modify an unsuitable oil by some additive.
And, of course, what someone uses in a Honda Civic isn't necessarily applicable to what gets used in a race engine or a diesel engine. But, the guy who has a Honda Civic and a Ford Powerstroke and a race car doesn't start with Honda 0w-20 and then pile in different types of additives for the Powerstroke and for the race car. Nor should such a hypothetical person take his high zinc, low TBN race oil and dump it in his Civic or his Powerstroke, no matter what he adds to it.
And yes, oil companies offer products that don't meet my needs. They also offer products that do meet my needs. They have various products, after all. I have no use for an ILSAC 0w-20. Many millions of people do, however. Neither my G37 nor my F-150 will like it; of that, I'm fairly certain. Similarly, a person driving only a Prius all year in this city would have absolutely no use for a 20w-50.
Further, if I do feel an oil is short something for a specific application, I can always bump upwards, as it were. If I had a vehicle calling for a 0w-20, and I thought my driving patterns were too hard on the vehicle, or I thought the specification was weak, or my OCIs too long, there are plenty of motor oils on the shelf already that address that. I could run an ILSAC 5w-30 conventional. I could run an A5/B5 5w-30, or a C3 5w-30. I could run an A3/B4 5w-30. I could run a CJ-4/SN E6, E7, E9 5w-30. I could go to a 40. I could try a monograde. If I had a race car, I'd buy an appropriate racing oil for the application, not an ordinary motor oil and some additive.
If the 4wd and Karen's Honda call for the same oil and the same specification, and I am satisfied with that, I will use the same oil in both applications. If I'm not satisfied with that, I will switch oils. With the above noted choices, I know, within reason, what I'm getting. I can have a ballpark figure of phosophorus content and SA. I'll have a very good idea of HTHS. I'll know whether I'll have appropriate cold cranking performance. I'll probably know starting TBN. I will also know exactly which specifications are met, and there will be evidence that the oil meets that specification.
Additives are filled with vague promises or unrealistic promises, and do not alter the oil in a predictable way, other than to generally dilute and thicken them. If I want a thicker oil, I can find one. If I want an oil with fewer additives, they are available. If I want more additives, such oils are available, too. You talk about company advertising being sold as a fact, but that's the SOP of additive companies. There's no science whatsoever. There is no repeatable testing, no independent testing, or independent licensing.
As for snake oils being bashed here in what you call an additive forum, it's going to continue to happen. This is Bob is the Oil Guy, not Bob is the Additive Testimonial Guy. People have pushed harmful some harmful products here, and a pile of useless ones. So, when additives are discussed, I'm going to provide my opinion, particularly when no one can demonstrate any tangible effects, aside from wallet draining.
MolaKule
Staff member
Originally Posted By: Garak
...Additives are filled with vague promises or unrealistic promises, and do not alter the oil in a predictable way, other than to generally dilute and thicken them. If I want a thicker oil, I can find one. If I want an oil with fewer additives, they are available. If I want more additives, such oils are available, too. You talk about company advertising being sold as a fact, but that's the SOP of additive companies. There's no science whatsoever. There is no repeatable testing, no independent testing, or independent licensing.
As for snake oils being bashed here in what you call an additive forum, it's going to continue to happen. This is Bob is the Oil Guy, not Bob is the Additive Testimonial Guy. People have pushed harmful some harmful products here, and a pile of useless ones. So, when additives are discussed, I'm going to provide my opinion, particularly when no one can demonstrate any tangible effects, aside from wallet draining.
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
...Because people join this board to LEARN. Just because the additive section exists doesn't mean it needs to be all Unicorns and Rainbows. New members may be inclined to believe others who are pandering a product that consists of heavy Group I bright stock and tackifier as "beneficial" where there is no tangible evidence to support that it is. Anecdotes that their vehicle didn't blow up are not proof. Listening to these anecdotes also doesn't result in one gaining knowledge, as knowledge is based on fact.
New members deserve to see both sides of these arguments and make an informed decision based on that. This means that they are entitled to hear both the glowing reviews from the pro-additive advocates as well as the potential condemnation of these same products from a more analytical and less cheerleading-oriented perspective. Perhaps one you would call pessimistic and demands proof of benefit.
These discussions, and that is what they are, are a good thing, nobody is required to believe you, me, Shannow, Garak....etc but instead are able to see all that is being debated and take away their own conclusion from the exchange. That is, ideally, how these forums work smile
...Additives are filled with vague promises or unrealistic promises, and do not alter the oil in a predictable way, other than to generally dilute and thicken them. If I want a thicker oil, I can find one. If I want an oil with fewer additives, they are available. If I want more additives, such oils are available, too. You talk about company advertising being sold as a fact, but that's the SOP of additive companies. There's no science whatsoever. There is no repeatable testing, no independent testing, or independent licensing.
As for snake oils being bashed here in what you call an additive forum, it's going to continue to happen. This is Bob is the Oil Guy, not Bob is the Additive Testimonial Guy. People have pushed harmful some harmful products here, and a pile of useless ones. So, when additives are discussed, I'm going to provide my opinion, particularly when no one can demonstrate any tangible effects, aside from wallet draining.
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
...Because people join this board to LEARN. Just because the additive section exists doesn't mean it needs to be all Unicorns and Rainbows. New members may be inclined to believe others who are pandering a product that consists of heavy Group I bright stock and tackifier as "beneficial" where there is no tangible evidence to support that it is. Anecdotes that their vehicle didn't blow up are not proof. Listening to these anecdotes also doesn't result in one gaining knowledge, as knowledge is based on fact.
New members deserve to see both sides of these arguments and make an informed decision based on that. This means that they are entitled to hear both the glowing reviews from the pro-additive advocates as well as the potential condemnation of these same products from a more analytical and less cheerleading-oriented perspective. Perhaps one you would call pessimistic and demands proof of benefit.
These discussions, and that is what they are, are a good thing, nobody is required to believe you, me, Shannow, Garak....etc but instead are able to see all that is being debated and take away their own conclusion from the exchange. That is, ideally, how these forums work smile
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
