Adding Tranny Fluid in Before Oil change to clean?

[jgscott]

Originally Posted By: Wolf359
Originally Posted By: jgscott
LOL!

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/theory

I didn't see anyone else post that they, use/used Trans Fluid in their Oil?

I did post that I had actually performed, not just "Theorized". And........ I'm not talking about back when trans fluid had................ I mentioned the exact time frame I performed.

And I have basically the same You did it, but had no evidence of benefit or harm as other posters here. The difference is, "I have", responders not saying they have, or have not.


Its actually like one say they can run the 40 yards dash in x.x seconds, or no need to run it because they can beat everyone else, and running is a waste of time because. blah, blah, blah, blah. But never run it, or state when they did? At least I can say I ran the 40 yard dash, and made it past the finish line with no problems and believe I experienced. That's just the facts I see here reading into the actual facts, cutting out the difference in theories.

Let me sum it up please:
I've done it. I've experienced no adverse affects or known damage. Is it? Does it make it better?
Other's = its worst, or a waste of time w/ No experience or real Scientific data or test. "Just trust my expert Theory".


You got a good start, but try looking up the scientific method. One use doesn't prove anything.


Its not one use. I've used it in my car the last 2-3 years 80k plus miles. 3-4k oil changes. Ford Motorcraft 5w-20 Sys Blend. I've yet to find ant Scientific proof of yay or nay. But...... I do have my own test bed. Running trouble free. Let say you put Window Washer Fluid in the Oil? Sure you would see the result.

What I think I will do next, is a Oil Analysis, Compression and leak down. Problem is I don't have a before wear - before/prior Trans Fluid add to compare with.

 

[Wolf359]

Originally Posted By: jgscott
Its not one use. I've used it in my car the last 2-3 years 80k plus miles. 3-4k oil changes. Ford Motorcraft 5w-20 Sys Blend. I've yet to find ant Scientific proof of yay or nay. But...... I do have my own test bed. Running trouble free. Let say you put Window Washer Fluid in the Oil? Sure you would see the result.

What I think I will do next, is a Oil Analysis, Compression and leak down. Problem is I don't have a before wear - before/prior Trans Fluid add to compare with.


I didn't really want to get into it, but the scientific method is about repeated, reproducible results. Part of it also involves sample size. You have a sample size of one which is your car. Normally you'd run a few hundred or a few thousand and then look at the results controlling for various variables and running controls also. That's way too expensive so it's not done unless there's some good preliminary evidence that it would work.

Originally Posted By: jgscott
Without knowing Molakule, I never doubted or proposed that Molakule does not know is stuff. Based on your post I'm confident that He must, and do respect that. But...... others are entitled to their own opinion, but.... not their own facts. Discussion of counter is good. And I am entitled to my opinion with the same due respect here as I have given all other posters.

One is entitled to have a difference of opinion about today's current transmission fluids as opposed to, years ago. Same as some here point out oils today and the benefits. Are whale products still used in the current transmission fluids I used in my application and experience? NO. Are Old oils the ones I am using (by date purchased)? NO.


No one is saying that you're not entitled to your opinion. They're just saying that in their opinion, your opinion is wrong. And they're also entitled to say that. When people make dubious claims, people tend to rightly suspect their credibility. I suggest you read the wiki on snake oil. That's why most people are dubious about various claims unless there's actual evidence. Most snake oils sold in the automotive aisle are there because people buy them, not because they work.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snake_oil

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: jgscott
What I think I will do next, is a Oil Analysis, Compression and leak down. Problem is I don't have a before wear - before/prior Trans Fluid add to compare with.

Now, aside from the scientific method issues already pointed out, what exactly are you trying to demonstrate? You clear won't be able to demonstrate that it's a good engine flush. Are you trying to demonstrate it's harmless, or that it's harmful? At the very least, it's harmful simply because it's a waste of money and time.

 

[MolaKule]

Originally Posted By: jgscott

Great point. By the counter, do you have proof the counter...?


...One is entitled to have a difference of opinion about today's current transmission fluids as opposed to, years ago. Same as some here point out oils today and the benefits. Are whale products still used in the current transmission fluids I used in my application and experience? NO. Are Old oils the ones I am using (by date purchased)? NO.


I have used ATF (350ci engine in a Suburban) in an attempt to clean an engine and it had no cleaning effect that I could detect. It did thin out the oil. The reason I tried it was because of an old wives tale my grandfather related to me.

Show me where I said you used a 1950's ATF?

In case you didn't catch it, I was explaining the background of why it once worked in the past: Old ATF formulations had High Detergency because of the naphthenic base oils and the animal-derived liquid wax ester; past motors oils did not have high detergency. Today's ATF's have little detergency, current motor oils have high detergency, 24 times the detergency of current ATFs. Got it?

Now, one can always say, "I used such and such and in my opinion, it did so and so, but I have no analysis or other data to SUBSTANTIATE my observations," and few people would take an issue with it.

But don't attempt to make assertions and sound scientific without data or facts.

BITOG is not your third-world automotive Blog.

 

[MolaKule]

Originally Posted By: jgscott


...What I think I will do next, is a Oil Analysis, Compression and leak down. Problem is I don't have a before wear - before/prior Trans Fluid add to compare with.



And what do you expect to show from an Oil Analysis, Compression and leak down?

What regime will you use to elicit some meaningful data?

 

[jgscott]

Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Originally Posted By: jgscott


...What I think I will do next, is a Oil Analysis, Compression and leak down. Problem is I don't have a before wear - before/prior Trans Fluid add to compare with.



And what do you expect to show from an Oil Analysis, Compression and leak down?

What regime will you use to elicit some meaningful data?


The answer is the result that you do a compression and leak down to get. Its that simple.

I guess the best counter you all have is infatic theory. Any data on damage, or failure, or documented studies/test, that show no benefit, other than when there were Whale by-products in Transmission fluid?

 

[jgscott]

Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Originally Posted By: jgscott
I'll content that no one posted here has any real data to say yes or no either way. Don't mean to stir up a Hornets Nest, but link me to some data on the Trans added being bad or a waste of time? Not to how good oil is today but..... Trans adding being what ever comment you made against it. Bust the myth with some facts.

And.... Transmission fluid does have cleaning agents for the Valve bodies to not stick up/clog if I am correct. Not saying it works in the oil or does not work, but lots of opinions here.


And where are your data to back up your assertions to the contrary?

BTW, this topic has been beaten to death many times but here it is again:


In the early days of ATF when it contained an ester called, "Sperm Whale Oil," and a naphthenic base oil, motor oils at the same time had little or no detergency additive.

When added to the poor Group I mineral base oil it did do some cleaning because it was thinner than the old motor oil, the naphthenic base oil and Sperm Whale Oil made a good cleaner.

Today's ATF has only 4.2% of the detergency as do current motor oils and little to no naphthenics. Saying it differently, current Motor Oils average 24 times the detergency of current ATF's.

Naphthenic base oils have poor Viscosity Indices and tend to oxidize quicker than do Group II through IV base oils, which is why Naphthenics are rarely used, except as "solvers," and only in very low amounts.

Naphthenics HAD to be used back then in ATF's in order to bring the Sperm Whale OIL into solution.


/\ This.

With all due respect, you did ask.

 

[jgscott]

Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Furthermore (Time-Out got me) today's Synthenic ATF's contain less than 5% of any type of ester and average about 1%, depending on the formulation.

Sperm Whale Oil was actually the "Liquid Waxy Ester" derived from the spermaceti organ of the Whale's head.

Liquid Wax Esters today are synthesized (reacted) using bio-acids and selected alcohols.


/\ And this?

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: jgscott
I'll content that no one posted here has any real data to say yes or no either way. Don't mean to stir up a Hornets Nest, but link me to some data on the Trans added being bad or a waste of time?


Asking people to rove the null hypothesis is a logical fallacy.

I can speculate that there are chlorine breathing ants the size of St Bernards somewhere in the universe, and if I use the argument for you to PROVE that there aren't, I'm using bassackward, and false "logic" to reinforce my made up postition...you CAN'T prove it, unles you have access to every square centimeter of the universe, all at the same time, but you have wasted my time in a fruitless endeavour, when it's YOUR role to support your argument.

Seriously, the SAE, API, the OEM's are going to fund research into adding ATF to engine oil, for us to find a paper to convince you ?

That's exactly the same.

Firstly, why would they do such a study, when there's engine oils for the engine compartment, and transmission oils for the transmission compartnment ?

The absence of these studies in general, and specifically studies showing detrimental effects does not make your assertion correct, or even valid.

 

[zrxkawboy]

An acquaintance got drunk one time and whizzed in his gas tank. That truck ran 100,000 more miles and was sent to the junkyard because it got totaled in an accident. Now, it's up to you guys to provide scientific evidence that urine is bad for an ICE. Remember, I want proof!

 

[jgscott]

Guess the Thread has now Degraded to Flaming [censored] Matchs without facts, insults, and borderline immature comments.

As if there are not any Oil additive that have applications that exist? And today Oils are at a peak dead end in Technology and they will forever never change again to be better in the future.

Maybe the thread should be moved to gas additives?

 

[jgscott]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: jgscott
I'll content that no one posted here has any real data to say yes or no either way. Don't mean to stir up a Hornets Nest, but link me to some data on the Trans added being bad or a waste of time?


Asking people to rove the null hypothesis is a logical fallacy.

That's exactly the same.

Firstly, why would they do such a study, when there's engine oils for the engine compartment, and transmission oils for the transmission compartnment ?

The absence of these studies in general, and specifically studies showing detrimental effects does not make your assertion correct, or even valid.


Fairly you should add Debatably ......... or incorrect, or not valid, being you are talking pure theory, based on lacking data. IMO.

 

[Wolf359]

Originally Posted By: jgscott


Fairly you should add Debatably ......... or incorrect, or not valid, being you are talking pure theory, based on lacking data. IMO.


Do you really think that because people can't disprove your theory that it is in any way valid? The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. If I accuse you of being a thief, I'd better have proof that you're a thief. Or do you believe that because I claim you're a thief that it's now up to you to prove that you're not? Because that's what your argument boils down to.

 

[kschachn]

Originally Posted By: jgscott
Fairly you should add Debatably ......... or incorrect, or not valid, being you are talking pure theory, based on lacking data. IMO.

Originally Posted By: jgscott
Guess the Thread has now Degraded to Flaming [censored] Matchs without facts, insults, and borderline immature comments.

As if there are not any Oil additive that have applications that exist? And today Oils are at a peak dead end in Technology and they will forever never change again to be better in the future.

Maybe the thread should be moved to gas additives?


Your responses in this thread remind me of another user on here who doesn't seem to be around anymore. You aren't him, are you?

I mean it's kind of uncanny the resemblance.

 

[MolaKule]

Originally Posted By: jgscott
Guess the Thread has now Degraded to Flaming [censored] Matchs without facts, insults, and borderline immature comments.


If it has degraded it is because of two things: 1) your lack of proof that ATF in an engine oil has any benefits. Sure, it will mix with the engine oil and thin it out but that is it, 2) your ignorance of lubricant chemistry.

Originally Posted By: jgscott
As if there are not any Oil additive that have applications that exist? And today Oils are at a peak dead end in Technology and they will forever never change again to be better in the future...



Not sure what your first sentence was really trying to convey (sounded completely off topic but not sure), but the second sentence again shows your ignorance of lubricant chemistry. Additive chemistry and base oil technology are improving engine oils all the time.

Your string of absurd remarks thus far simply shows you want to vacuously argue from ignorance without any factual statements to support your mind numbing comments.

Strongly suggest you go to some other automotive website where they primarily discuss how much torque to apply to Aluminum wheel lugnuts.

 

[MolaKule]

Originally Posted By: jgscott
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Originally Posted By: jgscott


...What I think I will do next, is a Oil Analysis, Compression and leak down. Problem is I don't have a before wear - before/prior Trans Fluid add to compare with.



And what do you expect to show from an Oil Analysis, Compression and leak down?

What regime will you use to elicit some meaningful data?


The answer is the result that you do a compression and leak down to get. Its that simple.

I guess the best counter you all have is infatic theory. Any data on damage, or failure, or documented studies/test, that show no benefit, other than when there were Whale by-products in Transmission fluid?


So I go out to my car and do a compression test and then wait for leakdown. And what baseline or engine parameters do I use for comparison?

Also, are you sure you didn't mean "emphatic" instead of infatic?

Now there is a medical term in the English language which means, "dead tissue: an area of tissue that has recently died as a result of the sudden loss of its blood supply, e.g. following blockage of an artery by a blood clot," and that is infarct or infarction.

Could you have possibly suffered from this medical anamoly when you first started this thread?

 

[spasm3]

GHT ?

 

[jgscott]

Yep really really Degraded. Now lacking Debate of the subject to personal attacks. Wow I'm surprised at the lack of accepting difference of opinion. I'll keep my level of Maturity. Carry on.

 

[jgscott]

Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Originally Posted By: jgscott
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Originally Posted By: jgscott


...What I think I will do next, is a Oil Analysis, Compression and leak down. Problem is I don't have a before wear - before/prior Trans Fluid add to compare with.



And what do you expect to show from an Oil Analysis, Compression and leak down?

What regime will you use to elicit some meaningful data?


The answer is the result that you do a compression and leak down to get. Its that simple.

I guess the best counter you all have is infatic theory. Any data on damage, or failure, or documented studies/test, that show no benefit, other than when there were Whale by-products in Transmission fluid?


So I go out to my car and do a compression test and then wait for leakdown. And what baseline or engine parameters do I use for comparison?

Also, are you sure you didn't mean "emphatic" instead of infatic?

Now there is a medical term in the English language which means, "dead tissue: an area of tissue that has recently died as a result of the sudden loss of its blood supply, e.g. following blockage of an artery by a blood clot," and that is infarct or infarction.

Could you have possibly suffered from this medical anamoly when you first started this thread?

Excuse me, but I'm not the one posting internet temper tantrums and childish insults. Nor would I respond in a thread I thought as you think, if you must know.

 

[zrxkawboy]

Originally Posted By: spasm3
GHT ?


I don't think so. I mean, I see your point...GHT used similar, umm, "logic". This guy's tone just strikes me as different.