Ceratec tested looks like a snake oil result.
- Thread starter tempnexus
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2006
- Messages
- 29,558
The test bearing with the plain 10W30 oil looked the best out of the three.
Snake oil result? Definitely not. If anything, it does appear to have improve a few things, if only a little bit.
Results showing a definite, marked increase? I would not say so. The differences in the measurable numbers are pretty darned small, and IMHO, could easily be taken as data noise.
Results showing a definite, marked increase? I would not say so. The differences in the measurable numbers are pretty darned small, and IMHO, could easily be taken as data noise.
Not a valid test for these type of additives. They do not work instantly and need time to "plate" the metal surfaces and build up a anti-wear layer.
Kestas
Staff member
Part of my job is to examine surfaces at high magnification and analyze them. If I saw some evidence shown in pictures and written in a language that I understand of how these wear surfaces are affected, I may believe this. I've seen too many snake oil products out there that I am now skeptical of any such claim.
I always follow the same mantra... if the product is as good as claimed, why aren't the auto manufacturers using it to help with their EPA mileage and CAFE ratings?
Of course there's always people who think they are singularly smarter than the collective of 30,000 engineers in Detroit.
I always follow the same mantra... if the product is as good as claimed, why aren't the auto manufacturers using it to help with their EPA mileage and CAFE ratings?
Of course there's always people who think they are singularly smarter than the collective of 30,000 engineers in Detroit.
Originally Posted By: CT8
Originally Posted By: racin4ds
Not a valid test for these type of additives. They do not work instantly and need time to "plate" the metal surfaces and build up a anti-wear layer.
Plate?
Fill nano sized irregularities is a better way to say it.
Originally Posted By: racin4ds
Not a valid test for these type of additives. They do not work instantly and need time to "plate" the metal surfaces and build up a anti-wear layer.
Plate?
Fill nano sized irregularities is a better way to say it.
Originally Posted By: Kestas
Part of my job is to examine surfaces at high magnification and analyze them. If I saw some evidence shown in pictures and written in a language that I understand of how these wear surfaces are affected, I may believe this. I've seen too many snake oil products out there that I am now skeptical of any such claim.
I always follow the same mantra... if the product is as good as claimed, why aren't the auto manufacturers using it to help with their EPA mileage and CAFE ratings?
Of course there's always people who think they are singularly smarter than the collective of 30,000 engineers in Detroit.
It's a additive that they would have to provide if they made claims with it.
Part of my job is to examine surfaces at high magnification and analyze them. If I saw some evidence shown in pictures and written in a language that I understand of how these wear surfaces are affected, I may believe this. I've seen too many snake oil products out there that I am now skeptical of any such claim.
I always follow the same mantra... if the product is as good as claimed, why aren't the auto manufacturers using it to help with their EPA mileage and CAFE ratings?
Of course there's always people who think they are singularly smarter than the collective of 30,000 engineers in Detroit.
It's a additive that they would have to provide if they made claims with it.
Kestas
Staff member
They would only have to use it for factory fill, which is what the EPA requires for certification. Ford would then only have to say it's "recommended" instead of "required" in the service booklet.
Originally Posted By: Kestas
Part of my job is to examine surfaces at high magnification and analyze them. If I saw some evidence shown in pictures and written in a language that I understand of how these wear surfaces are affected, I may believe this. I've seen too many snake oil products out there that I am now skeptical of any such claim.
I always follow the same mantra... if the product is as good as claimed, why aren't the auto manufacturers using it to help with their EPA mileage and CAFE ratings?
Of course there's always people who think they are singularly smarter than the collective of 30,000 engineers in Detroit.
The same reason they don't simply require premium gas instead of trying to get premium as the standard grade. It's complicated. The 30000 engineers aren't there to make the best quality product. They're there to make the best quality product that conforms to a hundred other requirements.
Part of my job is to examine surfaces at high magnification and analyze them. If I saw some evidence shown in pictures and written in a language that I understand of how these wear surfaces are affected, I may believe this. I've seen too many snake oil products out there that I am now skeptical of any such claim.
I always follow the same mantra... if the product is as good as claimed, why aren't the auto manufacturers using it to help with their EPA mileage and CAFE ratings?
Of course there's always people who think they are singularly smarter than the collective of 30,000 engineers in Detroit.
The same reason they don't simply require premium gas instead of trying to get premium as the standard grade. It's complicated. The 30000 engineers aren't there to make the best quality product. They're there to make the best quality product that conforms to a hundred other requirements.
Originally Posted By: Kestas
I always follow the same mantra... if the product is as good as claimed, why aren't the auto manufacturers using it to help with their EPA mileage and CAFE ratings?
Originally Posted By: Kestas
They would only have to use it for factory fill, which is what the EPA requires for certification. Ford would then only have to say it's "recommended" instead of "required" in the service booklet.
For all we know, they DO use it, or at least something like it, as part of their factory fill.. I have never seen the stuff that goes into the engine at the factory. I do know that I've seen UOAs on at least 1 or 2 factory fill oils that look like it's got some sort of extra mojo in it compared to over-the-counter stuff.
Not saying they do, of course, but who is to say they don't?
I always follow the same mantra... if the product is as good as claimed, why aren't the auto manufacturers using it to help with their EPA mileage and CAFE ratings?
Originally Posted By: Kestas
They would only have to use it for factory fill, which is what the EPA requires for certification. Ford would then only have to say it's "recommended" instead of "required" in the service booklet.
For all we know, they DO use it, or at least something like it, as part of their factory fill.. I have never seen the stuff that goes into the engine at the factory. I do know that I've seen UOAs on at least 1 or 2 factory fill oils that look like it's got some sort of extra mojo in it compared to over-the-counter stuff.
Not saying they do, of course, but who is to say they don't?
Originally Posted By: hatt
The same reason they don't simply require premium gas instead of trying to get premium as the standard grade. It's complicated. The 30000 engineers aren't there to make the best quality product. They're there to make the best quality product that conforms to a hundred other requirements.
The difference here being that there is no proof that it would make a better factory fill than "plain" oil.
The same reason they don't simply require premium gas instead of trying to get premium as the standard grade. It's complicated. The 30000 engineers aren't there to make the best quality product. They're there to make the best quality product that conforms to a hundred other requirements.
The difference here being that there is no proof that it would make a better factory fill than "plain" oil.
Unfortunately this test inst statistically significant. But its still cool that someone is testing something with some sense.
I use it. Tried it first in the cantankerous manual trans on my Gen Coupe and it was an immediate improvement in easy of shifting. I have since drained and refilled with another treatment of Ceratec. I'll skip it the next fill.
So I tried it in the 2L turbo on the Gen Coupe and you could see an immediate uptick in the gas mileage. It's 1-2 mpg above the long term average.
Then I added some to the old Accent, it too went up 1-2 mpg.
It does settle out but is immediately remixed with any fluid flow.
So I tried it in the 2L turbo on the Gen Coupe and you could see an immediate uptick in the gas mileage. It's 1-2 mpg above the long term average.
Then I added some to the old Accent, it too went up 1-2 mpg.
It does settle out but is immediately remixed with any fluid flow.
Not according to liquid moly. They said it works instantly.
Find me any other 3rd party non sponsored test and stop spreading the: "oh it doesn't work because it requires 89393 miles to bind with the engine" bull [censored]. Besides he ran it for 5 hours I thinks that's enough time given to "bind on GASP..Super Nano Hydro Molecular Bovine Lupine layer"...oh forgot...ceramic boron super snaketate.
Believe me I was a liquid moly user for many years and a defender or their products but after the MOS2 and now Ceratec fail, I will save my money and direct it to more frequent oil changes.
Find me any other 3rd party non sponsored test and stop spreading the: "oh it doesn't work because it requires 89393 miles to bind with the engine" bull [censored]. Besides he ran it for 5 hours I thinks that's enough time given to "bind on GASP..Super Nano Hydro Molecular Bovine Lupine layer"...oh forgot...ceramic boron super snaketate.
Believe me I was a liquid moly user for many years and a defender or their products but after the MOS2 and now Ceratec fail, I will save my money and direct it to more frequent oil changes.
Originally Posted By: SHOZ
Originally Posted By: CT8
Originally Posted By: racin4ds
Not a valid test for these type of additives. They do not work instantly and need time to "plate" the metal surfaces and build up a anti-wear layer.
Plate?
Fill nano sized irregularities is a better way to say it.
Did you see it fill in any irregularities in the cylinder walls after 5 hour run?! I didn't, they looked exactly the same and besides the compression was the same so nothing after 5 hours of "filling in" the irregularities has actually occured.
Originally Posted By: CT8
Originally Posted By: racin4ds
Not a valid test for these type of additives. They do not work instantly and need time to "plate" the metal surfaces and build up a anti-wear layer.
Plate?
Fill nano sized irregularities is a better way to say it.
Did you see it fill in any irregularities in the cylinder walls after 5 hour run?! I didn't, they looked exactly the same and besides the compression was the same so nothing after 5 hours of "filling in" the irregularities has actually occured.
Nano- (symbol n) is a unit prefix meaning "one billionth". Used primarily with the metric system, this prefix denotes a factor of 10−9 or 0.000000001. It is frequently encountered in science and electronics for prefixing units of time and length.
I didn't require a definition of nano. What nano is used in science vs marketing are two different animals. In marketing I am 1.92e9 nanometers tall and that's what everyone of those snake oils use...big words describing nothing besides scientific terms
Kestas
Staff member
Originally Posted By: SHOZ
Then I added some to the old Accent, it too went up 1-2 mpg.
I find that hard to believe.
Then I added some to the old Accent, it too went up 1-2 mpg.
I find that hard to believe.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked