Information for this article was compiled from reports and studies by
The University of Nevada Desert Research Center,
DuPont Chemical Company,
Avco Lycoming (aircraft engine manufacturers),
North Dakota State University,
Briggs and Stratton (engine manufacturers),
The University of Utah Engineering Experiment Station,
California State Polytechnic College and
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration's
Lewis Research Center.
You Can't Tell The Players Without A Program
============================================
On starting this project, we set out to find as many different oil
additives as we could buy. That turned out to be a mistake. There
were simply too many avail able! At the very first auto parts store
we visited, there were over two-dozen different brand names
available. By the end of the day, we had identified over 40
different oil additives for sale and realized we needed to rethink
our strategy.
First of all, we found that if we checked the fine print on the
packages, quite a number of the additives came from the same
manufacturer. Also, we began to notice that the additives could be
separated into basic "groups" that seemed to carry approximately the
same ingredients and the same promises.
In the end, we divided our additives into four basic groups and
purchased at least three brands from three different manufacturers
for each group. We defined our four groups this way:
1.) Products that seemed to be nothing more than regular 50-rated
engine oil (including standard additives) with PTFE (Teflon TM)
added.
2.) Products that seemed to be nothing more than regular 50-rated
engine oil (including standard additives) with zinc
dialkyldithiophosphate added.
3.) Products containing (as near as we could determine) much the
same additives as are already found in most major brands of
engine oil, though in different quantities and combinations.
4.) Products made up primarily of solvents and/or detergents.
There may be some differences in chemical makeup within groups,
but that is impossible to tell since the additive manufacturers
refuse to list the specific ingredients of their products. We will
discuss each group individually.
The PTFE Mystery
================
Currently, the most common and popular oil additives on the market
are those that contain PTFE powders suspended in a regular,
over-the-counter type, 50-rated petroleum or synthetic engine
oil. PTFE is the common abbreviation used for
Polytetrafloeraethylene, more commonly known by the trade name
"Teflon," which is a registered trademark of the DuPont Chemical
Corporation. Among those oil additives we have identified as
containing PTFE are: Slick 50, Liquid Ring, Lubrilon, Microlon,
Matrix, Petrolon (same company as Slick 50), QMl, and T-Plus
(K-Mart). There are probably many more names in use on many more
products using PTFE. We have found that oil additive makers like
to market their products under a multitude of "private brand" names.
While some of these products may contain other additives in
addition to PTFE, all seem to rely on the PTFE as their primary
active ingredient and all, without exception, do not list what
other ingredients they may contain.
Though they have gained rather wide acceptance among the motoring
public, oil additives containing PTFE have also garnered their
share of critics among experts in the field of lubrication. By far
the most damning testimonial against these products originally
came from the DuPont Chemical Corporation, inventor of PTFE and
holder of the patents and trademarks for Teflon. In a statement
issued about ten years ago, DuPont's Fluoropolymers Division
Product Specialist, J.F. Imbalzano said, "Teflon is not useful as
an ingredient in oil additives or oils used for internal
combustion engines."
At the time, DuPont threatened legal action against anyone who
used the name "Teflon" on any oil product destined for use in an
internal combustion engine, and refused to sell its PTFE powders
to any one who intended to use them for such purposes.
After a flurry of lawsuits from oil additive makers, claiming
DuPont could not prove that PTFE was harmful to engines, DuPont
was forced to once again begin selling their PTFE to the additive
producers. The additive makers like to claim this is some kind of
"proof' that their products work, when in fact it is nothing more
than proof that the American legal ethic of "innocent until proven
guilty" is still alive and well. The decision against DuPont
involved what is called "restraint of trade." You can't refuse to
sell a product to someone just because there is a possibility they
might use it for a purpose other than what you intended it for.
It should be noted that DuPont's official position on the use of
PTFE in engine oils remains carefully aloof and noncommittal, for
obvious legal reasons. DuPont states that though they sell PTFE to
oil additive producers, they have "no proof of the validity of the
additive makers' claims." They further state that they have "no
knowledge of any advantage gained through the use of PTFE in
engine oil."
Fear of potential lawsuits for possible misrepresentation of a
product seem to run much higher among those with the most to
lose.
After DuPont's decision and attempt to halt the use of PTFE in
engine oils, several of the oil additive companies simply went
elsewhere for their PTFE powders, such as purchasing them in other
countries. In some cases, they disguise or hype their PTFE as
being something different or special by listing it under one of
their own tradenames. That doesn't change the fact that it is
still PTFE.
In addition, there is some evidence that certain supplies of PTFE
powders (from manufacturers other than DuPont) are of a cruder
version than the original, made with larger sized flakes that are
more likely to "settle out" in your oil or clog up your filters.
One fairly good indication that a product contains this kind of
PTFE is if the instructions for its use advise you to "shake well
before using." It only stands to reason that if the manufacturer
knows the solids in his product will settle to the bottom of a
container while sitting on a shelf, the same thing is going to hap
pen inside your engine when it is left idle for any period of
time.
The problem with putting PTFE in your oil, as explained to us by
several industry experts, is that PTFE is a solid. The additive
makers claim this solid "coats" the moving parts in an engine (though
that is far from being scientifically proven). Slick 50 is currently
both the most aggressive advertiser and the most popular seller, with
claims of over 14 million treatments sold. However, such solids seem
even more inclined to coat non-moving parts, like oil passages and
filters. After all, if it can build up under the pressures and
friction exerted on a cylinder wall, then it stands to reason it
should build up even better in places with low pressures and
virtually no friction.
This conclusion seems to be borne out by tests on oil additives
containing PTFE conducted by the NASA Lewis Research Center, which
said in their report, "In the types of bearing surface contact we
have looked at, we have seen no benefit. In some cases we have seen
detrimental effect. The solids in the oil tend to accumulate at
inlets and act as a dam, which simply blocks the oil from entering.
Instead of helping, it is actually depriving parts of lubricant."
Remember, PTFE in oil additives is a suspended solid. Now think
about why you have an oil filter on your engine. To remove
suspended solids, right? Right. Therefore it would seem to follow
that if your oil filter is doing its job, it will collect as much
of the PTFE as possible, as quickly as possible. This can result
in a clogged oil filter and decreased oil pres sure throughout
your engine.
In response to our inquiries about this sort of problem, several
of the PTFE pushers responded that their particulates were of a
sub-micron size, capable of passing through an ordinary oil filter
unrestricted. This certainly sounds good, and may in some cases
actually be true, but it makes little difference when you know the
rest of the story. You see, PTFE has other qualities besides being
a friction reducer: It expands radically when exposed to heat. So
even if those particles are small enough to pass through your
filter when you purchase them, they very well may not be when your
engine reaches normal operating temperature.
Here again, the' scientific evidence seems to support this, as in
tests conducted by researchers at the University of Utah
Engineering Experiment Station involving Petrolon additive with
PTFE. The Petrolon test report states, "There was a pressure
drop across the oil filter resulting from possible clogging of
small passageways." In addition, oil analysis showed that iron
contamination doubled after using the treatment, indicating that
engine wear didn't go down - it appeared to shoot up.
This particular report was paid for by Petrolon (marketers of
Slick 50), and was not all bad news for their products. The tests,
conducted on a Chevrolet six-cylinder automobile engine, showed
that after treatment with the PTFE additive the test engine's
friction was reduced by 13.1 percent. Also, output horsepower
increased from 5.3 percent to 8.1 percent, and fuel economy
improved from 11.8 percent under light load to 3.8 percent under
heavy load.
These are the kind of results an aggressive marketing company like
Petrolon can really sink their teeth into. If we only reported the
results in the last paragraph to you, you'd be inclined to think
Slick 50 was indeed a magic engine elixir. What you have to keep
in mind is that often times the benefits (like increased horse
power and fuel economy)may be out weighed by some serious
drawbacks (like the indications of reduced oil pressure and
increased wear rate).
The Plot Thickens
=================
Just as we were about to go to press with this article, we were
contacted by the public relations firm of Trent and Company, an
outfit with a prestigious address in the Empire State Building, New
York. They advised us they were working for a company called QMI out
of Lakeland, Florida, that was marketing a "technological
breakthrough" product in oil additives. Naturally, we asked them to
send us all pertinent information, including any testing and research
data.
What we got was pretty much what we expected. QMI's oil additive,
according to their press release, uses "ten times more PTFE resins
than its closest competitor." Using the "unique SX-6000 formula,"
they say they are the only company to use "aqueous dispersion
resin which means the microns (particle sizes) are extensively
smaller and can penetrate tight areas." This, they claim,
"completely eliminates the problem of clogged filters and oil
passages."
Intrigued by their press release, we set up a telephone interview
with their Vice-President of Technical Services, Mr. Owen
Heatwole. Mr. Heatwole's name was immediately recognized by us as
one that had popped in earlier research of this subject as a
former employee of Petrolon, a company whose name seems
inextricably linked in some fashion or another with virtually
every PTFE-related additive maker in the country.
Mr. Heatwole was a charming and persuasive talker with a knack for
avoiding direct answers as good as any seasoned politician. His
glib pitch for his product was the best we've ever heard, but when
dissected and pared down to the verifiable facts, it actually said
very little.
When we asked about the ingredients in QMI's treatments, we got
almost exactly the response we expected. Mr. Heatwole said he
would "have to avoid discussing specifics about the formula, for
proprietary reasons." After telling us that QMI was being used
by "a major oil company," a "nuclear plant owned by a major
corporation" and a "major engine manufacturer," Mr. Heatwole
followed up with, "Naturally, I can't reveal their names - for
proprietary reasons."
He further claimed to have extensive testing and research data
available from a "major laboratory," proving conclusively how
effective QMI was. When we asked for the name of the lab, can you
guess? Yup, "We can't give out that information, for proprietary
reasons."
What QMI did give us was the typical "testimonials," though we
must admit theirs came from more recognizable sources than usual.
They seem to have won over the likes of both Team Kawasaki and
Bobby Unser, who evidently endorse and use QMI in their racing
engines. Mr. Heatwole was very proud of the fact that their
product was being used in engines that he himself admitted are
"torn down and completely inspected on a weekly basis." Of course,
what he left out is that those same engines are almost totally
rebuilt every time they're torn down. So what does that prove in
terms of his product reducing wear and promoting engine
longevity?
Virtually nothing.
Mr. Heatwole declined to name the source of QMI's PTFE supply "for
proprietary reasons." He bragged that their product is sold under
many different private labels, but refused to identify those
labels "for proprietary reasons." When asked about the actual size
of the PTFE particles used in QMI, he claimed they were measured
as "sub-micron in size" by a "major motor laboratory" which he
couldn't identify - you guessed it - for "proprietary reasons."
After about an hour of listening to "don't quote me on this,"
"I'll have to deny that if you print it," and "I can't reveal
that," we asked Mr. Heatwole if there was something we could
print. "Certainly," he said, "Here's a good quote for you: 'The
radical growth in technology has overcome the problem areas
associated with PTFE in the 1980s'" "Not bad," we said. Then we
asked to whom we might attribute this gem of wisdom. DuPont
Chemical, perhaps?
"Me," said Mr. Heatwole. "I said that."
QMI's press releases like to quote the Guinness Book Of Records in
saying that PTFE is "The slickest substance known to man." Far be
it from us to take exception to the Guinness Book, but we doubt
that PTFE is much slicker than some of the people marketing it.
The Zinc Question
=================
The latest "miracle ingredient" in oil additives, attempting to
usurp PTFE's cure-all throne, is zinc dialkyldithiophosphate,
which we will refer to here after as simply "zinc."
Purveyors of the new zinc-related products claim they can prove
absolute superiority over the PTFE-related products. Naturally, the
PTFE crowd claim exactly the same, in reverse.
Zinc is contained as part of the standard additive package in
virtually every major brand of engine oil sold today, varying from a
low volume of 0.10 per cent in brands such as Valvoline All Climate
and Chevron l5W-50, to a high volume of 0.20 percent in brands such
as Valvoline Race and Pennzoil GT Performance.
Organic zinc compounds are used as extreme pressure, anti-wear
additives, and are therefore found in larger amounts in oils
specifically blended for high-revving, turbocharged or racing
applications. The zinc in your oil comes into play only when there is
actual metal-to-metal contact within your engine, which should never
occur under normal operating conditions. However, if you race your
bike, or occasionally play tag with the redline on the tach, the zinc
is your last line of defense. Under extreme conditions, the zinc
compounds react with the metal to prevent scuffing, particularly
between cylinder bores and piston rings.
However - and this is the important part to remember - available
research shows that more zinc does not give you more protection, it
merely prolongs the protection if the rate of metal-to-metal contact
is abnormally high or extended. So unless you plan on spending a
couple of hours dragging your knee at Laguna Seca, adding extra zinc
compounds to your oil is usually a waste. Also, keep in mind that
high zinc content can lead to deposit formation on your valves, and
spark plug fouling.
Among the products we found containing zinc dialkyldithiophosphate
were Mechanics Brand Engine Tune Up, K Mart Super Oil Treatment,
and STP Engine Treatment With XEP2. The only reason we can easily
identify the additives with the new zinc compounds is that they
are required to carry a Federally mandated warning label
indicating they contain a hazardous substance. The zinc phosphate
they contain is a known eye irritant, capable of inflicting severe
harm if it comes in contact with your eyes.
If you insist on using one of these products, please wear protective
goggles and exercise extreme caution.
As we mentioned, organic zinc compounds are already found in
virtually every major brand of oil, both automotive and
motorcycle. However, in recent years the oil companies voluntarily
reduced the amount of zinc content in most of their products after
research indicated the zinc was responsible for premature
deterioration and damage to catalytic converters. Obviously this
situation would not affect 99 percent of all the motorcycles on
the road - however, it could have been a factor with the newer BMW
converter - equipped bikes.
Since the reduction in zinc content was implemented solely for the
protection of catalytic converters, it is possible that some
motorcycles might benefit from a slight increase in zinc content
in their oils. This has been taken into account by at least one
oil company, Spectro, which offers 0.02 to 0.03 percent more zinc
compounds in its motorcycle oils than in its automotive oils.
Since Spectro (Golden 4 brand, in this case) is a synthetic blend
lubricant designed for extended drain intervals, this increase
seems to be wholly justified. Also, available research indicates
that Spectro has, in this case, achieved a sensible balance for
extended application without increasing the zinc content to the
point that it is likely to cause spark plug fouling or present a
threat to converter-equipped BMW models.
It would appear that someone at Spectro did their homework.
Increased Standard Additives (More Is Not Necessarily Better)
=============================================================
Though some additives may not contain anything harmful to your
engine, and even some things that could be beneficial, most
experts still recommend that you avoid their use. The reason for
this is that your oil, as purchased from one of the major oil
companies, already contains a very extensive additive package.
This package is made up of numerous, specific additive components,
blended to achieve a specific formula that will meet the
requirements of your engine. Usually, at least several of these
additives will be synergistic. That is, they react mutually, in
groups of two or more, to create an effect that none of them could
attain individually. Changing or adding to this formula can upset
the balance and negate the protective effect the formula was meant
to achieve, even if you are only adding more of something that was
already included in the initial package.
If it helps, try to think of your oil like a cake recipe. Just
because the original recipe calls for two eggs (which makes for a
very moist and tasty cake), do you think adding four more eggs is
going to make the cake better? Of course not. You're going to
upset the carefully calculated balance of ingredients and magnify
the effect the eggs have on the recipe to the point that it ruins
the entire cake. Adding more of a specific additive already
contained in your oil is likely to produce similar results.
This information should also be taken into account when adding to
the oil already in your bike or when mixing oils for any reason,
such as synthetic with petroleum. In these cases, always make sure
the oils you are putting together have the same rating (SA, SE,
SC, etc.). This tells you their additive packages are basically
the same, or at least compatible, and are less likely to upset the
balance or counteract each other.
Detergents And Solvents
=======================
Many of the older, better-known oil treatments on the market do
not make claims nearly so lavish as the new upstarts. Old standbys
like Bardahl, Rislone and Marvel Mystery Oil, instead offer things
like "quieter lifters," "reduced oil burning" and a "cleaner
engine."
Most of these products are made up of solvents and detergents
designed to dissolve sludge and carbon deposits inside your engine
so they can be flushed or burned out. Wynn's Friction Proofing
Oil, for example, is 83 percent kerosene. Other brands use
naphthalene, xylene, acetone and isopropanol. Usually, these
ingredients will be found in a base of standard mineral oil.
In general, these products are designed to do just the opposite of
what the PTFE and zinc phosphate additives claim to do. Instead of
leaving behind a "coating" or a "plating" on your engine surfaces,
they are designed to strip away such things.
All of these products will strip sludge and deposits out and clean
up your engine, particularly if it is an older, abused one. The
problem is, unless you have some way of determining just how much
is needed to remove your deposits without going any further, such
solvents also can strip away the boundary lubrication layer
provided by your oil. Overuse of solvents is an easy trap to fall
into, and one which can promote harmful metal-to-metal contact
within your engine.
As a general rule of thumb these products had their place and were
at least moderately useful on older automobile and motorcycle
engines of the Fifties and Sixties, but are basically unneeded on
the more efficient engine designs of the past two decades.
The Infamous "No Oil" Demo
==========================
At at least three major motorcycle rallies this past year, we have
witnessed live demonstrations put on to demonstrate the
effectiveness of certain oil additives. The demonstrators would
have a bench-mounted engine which they would fill with oil and a
prescribed dose of their "miracle additive." After running the
engine for a while they would stop it, drain out the oil and start
it up again. Instant magic! The engine would run perfectly well
for hours on end, seemingly proving the effectiveness of the
additive which had supposedly "coated" the inside of the engine so
well it didn't even need the oil to run. In one case, we saw this
done with an actual motorcycle, which would be ridden around the
parking lot after having its oil drained. A pretty convincing
demonstration - until you know the facts.
Since some of these demonstrations were conducted using Briggs and
Stratton engines, the Briggs and Stratton Company itself decided
to run a similar, but somewhat more scientific, experiment. Taking
two brand-new, identical engines straight off their assembly line,
they set them up for bench-testing. The only difference was that
one had the special additive included with its oil and the other
did not. Both were operated for 20 hours before being shut down
and having the oil drained from them. Then both were started up
again and allowed to run for another 20 straight hours. Neither
engine seemed to have any problem performing this "minor miracle."
After the second 20-hour run, both engines were completely torn
down and inspected by the company's engineers. What they found was
that both engines suffered from scored crankpin bearings, but the
engine treated with the additive also suffered from heavy cylinder
bore damage that was not evident on the untreated engine.
This points out once again the inherent problem with particulate
oil additives: They can cause oil starvation. This is particularly
true in the area of piston rings, where there is a critical need
for adequate oil flow. In practically all of the reports and
studies on oil additives, and particularly those involving
suspended solids like PTFE, this has been reported as a major area
of engine damage.
The Racing Perspective
======================
Among the most convincing testimonials in favor of oil additives
are those that come from professional racers or racing teams. As
noted previously, some of the oil additive products actually are
capable of producing less engine friction, better gas mileage and
higher horsepower out put. In the world of professional racing,
the split-second advantage that might be gained from using such a
product could be the difference between victory and defeat.
Virtually all of the downside or detrimental effects attached to
these products are related to extended, long-term usage. For
short-life, high-revving, ultra-high performance engines designed
to last no longer than one racing season (or in some cases, one
single race), the long-term effects of oil additives need not even
be considered.
Racers also use special high-adhesion tires that give much better
traction and control than our normal street tires, but you
certainly wouldn't want to go touring on them, since they're
designed to wear out in several hundred (or less) miles. Just
because certain oil additives may be beneficial in a competitive
context is no reason to believe they would be equally beneficial
in a touring context.
The Best of The Worst
=====================
Not all engine oil additives are as potentially harmful as some of
those we have described here. However, the best that can be said
of those that have not proved to be harmful is that they haven't
been proved to offer any real benefits, either. In some cases,
introducing an additive with a compatible package of components to
your oil in the right proportion and at the right time can
conceivably extend the life of your oil. However, in every case we
have studied it proves out that it would actually have been
cheaper to simply change the engine oil instead.
In addition, recent new evidence has come to light that makes
using almost any additive a game of Russian Roulette. Since the
additive distributors do not list the ingredients contained within
their products, you never know for sure just what you are putting
in your engine.
Recent tests have shown that even some of the most inoffensive
additives contain products which, though harmless in their initial
state, convert to hydrofluoric acid when exposed to the temperatures
inside a firing cylinder. This acid is formed as part of the exhaust
gases, and though it is instantly expelled from your engine and seems
to do it no harm, the gases collect inside your exhaust system and
eat away at your mufflers from the inside out.
Whatever The Market Will Bear
=============================
The pricing of oil additives seems to follow no particular pattern
whatsoever. Even among those products that seem to be almost
identical, chemically, retail prices covered an extremely wide
range. For example: One 32-ounce bottle of Slick 50 (with PTFE)
cost us $29.95 at a discount house that listed the retail price as
$59.95, while a 32-ounce bottle of T-Plus (which claims to carry
twice as much PTFE as the Slick 50) cost us only $15.88.
A 32-ounce bottle of STP Engine Treatment (containing what they
call XEP2), which they claim they can prove "outperforms leading
PTFE engine treatments," cost us $17.97. Yet a can of K Mart Super
Oil Treatment, which listed the same zinc-derivative ingredient as
that listed for the XEP2, cost us a paltry $2.67.
Industry experts estimate that the actual cost of producing most
oil additives is from one-tenth to one-twentieth of the asking
retail price.
Certainly no additive manufacturer has come forward with any exotic,
high-cost ingredient or list of ingredients to dispute this claim. As
an interesting note along with this, back before there was so much
competition in the field to drive prices down, Petrolon (Slick 50)
was selling their PTFE products for as much as $400 per treatment!
The words "buyer beware" seem to take on very real significance when
talking about oil additives.
The Psychological Placebo
=========================
You have to wonder, with the volume of evidence accumulating
against oil additives, why so many of us still buy them. That's
the million-dollar question, and it's just as difficult to answer
as why so many of us smoke cigarettes, drink hard liquor or engage in
any other number of questionable activities. We know they aren't good
for us - but we go ahead and do them anyway.
Part of the answer may lie in what some psychiatrists call the
"psychological placebo effect." Simply put, that means that many of
us hunger for that peace of mind that comes with believing we have
purchased the absolute best or most protection we can possibly get.
Even better, there's that wonderfully smug feeling that comes with
thinking we might be a step ahead of the pack, possessing
knowledge of something just a bit better than everyone else.
Then again, perhaps it comes from an ancient, deep-seated need we
all seem to have to believe in magic. There has never been any
shortage of unscrupulous types ready to cash in on our willingness
to believe that there's some magical mystery potion we can buy to
help us lose weight, grow hair, attract the opposite sex or make
our engines run longer and better. I doubt that there's a one of
us who hasn't fallen for one of these at least once in our
lifetimes. We just want it to be true so bad that we can't help
ourselves.
Testimonial Hype vs. Scientific Analysis
========================================
In general, most producers of oil additives rely on personal
"testimonials" to advertise and promote their products. A typical
print advertisement will be one or more letters from a satisfied
customer stating something like, "1 have used Brand X in my engine
for 2 years and 50,000 miles and it runs smoother and gets better gas
mileage than ever before. I love this product and would recommend it
to anyone."
Such evidence is referred to as "anecdotal" and is most commonly
used to pro mote such things as miracle weight loss diets and
astrology.
Whenever I see one of these ads I am reminded of a stunt played
out several years ago by Allen Funt of "Candid Camera" that
clearly demonstrated the side of human nature that makes such
advertising possible.
With cameras in full view, fake "product demonstrators" would
offer people passing through a grocery store the opportunity to
taste-test a "new soft drink." What the victims didn't know was
that they were being given a horrendous concoction of castor oil,
garlic juice, tabasco sauce and several other foul-tasting
ingredients. After taking a nice, big swallow, as instructed by
the demonstrators, the unwitting victims provided huge laughs for
the audience by desperately trying to conceal their anguish and
disgust. Some literally turned away from the cameras and spit the
offending potion on the floor.
The fascinating part came when about one out of four of the
victims would actually turn back to the cameras and proclaim the
new drink was "Great" or "Unique" or, in several cases, "One of
the best things I've ever tasted!" Go figure.
The point is, compiling "personal testimonials" for a product is
one of the easiest things an advertising company can do - and one
of the safest, too. You see, as long as they are only expressing
some one else's personal opinion, they don't have to prove a
thing! It's just an opinion, and needs no basis in fact
whatsoever.
On the other hand, there has been documented, careful scientific
analysis done on numerous oil additives by accredited institutions
and researchers.
For example:
Avco Lycoming, a major manufacturer of aircraft engines, states,
"We have tried every additive we could find on the market, and
they are all worthless."
Briggs and Stratton, renowned builders of some of the most durable
engines in the world, says in their report on engine oil
additives, "They do not appear to offer any benefits."
North Dakota State University conducted tests on oil additives and
said in their report, "The theory sounds good - the only problem
is that the products simply don't work."
And finally, Ed Hackett, chemist at the University of Nevada
Desert Research Center, says, "Oil additives should not be used.
The oil companies have gone to great lengths to develop an
additive pack age that meets the vehicle's requirements. If you
add anything to this oil you may upset the balance and prevent the
oil from performing to specification."
Petrolon, Inc., of Houston, Texas, makers of Petrolon and
producers of at least a dozen other lubrication products
containing PTFE, including Slick 50 and Slick 30 Motorcycle
Formula, claim that, "Multiple tests by independent laboratories
have shown that when properly applied to an automotive engine,
Slick 50 Engine Formula reduces wear on engine parts.
Test results have shown that Slick 50 treated engines sustained 50
percent less wear than test engines run with premium motor oil
alone."
Sounds pretty convincing, doesn't it?
The problem is, Petrolon and the other oil additive companies that
claim "scientific evidence" from "independent laboratories," all
refuse to identify the laboratories that conducted the tests or
the criteria under which the tests were conducted. They claim they
are "contractually bound" by the laboratories to not reveal their
identities.
In addition, the claim of "50 percent less wear" has never been
proven on anything approaching a long-term basis. Typical examples
used to support the additive makers' claims involve engines run
from 100 to 200 hours after treatment, during which time the
amount of wear particles in the oil decreased. While this has
proven to be true in some cases, it has also been proven that
after 400 to 500 hours of running the test engines invariably
reverted to producing just as many wear particles as before
treatment, and in some cases, even more.
No matter what the additive makers would like you to believe,
nothing has been proven to stop normal engine wear.
You will note that all of the research facilities quoted in this
article are clearly identified. They have no problem with making
their findings public. You will also note that virtually all of their
findings about oil additives are negative. That's not because we
wanted to give a biased report against oil additives - it's because
we couldn't find a single laboratory, engine manufacturer or
independent research facility who would make a public claim, with
their name attached to it, that any of the additives were actually
beneficial to an engine. The conclusion seems inescapable.
As a final note on advertising hype versus the real world, we saw
a television ad the other night for Slick 50 oil additive. The ad
encouraged people to buy their product on the basis of the fact
that, "Over 14 million Americans have tried Slick 50!" Great.
We're sure you could just as easily say, "Over 14 million
Americans have smoked cigarettes!"-but is that really any reason
for you to try it? Of course not, because you've seen the
scientific evidence of the harm it can do.
The exact same principle applies here.
In Conclusion
=============
The major oil companies are some of the richest, most powerful and
aggressive corporations in world. They own multi-million dollar
research facilities manned by some of the best chemical engineers
money can hire.
It is probably safe to say that any one of them has the capabilities
and resources at hand in marketing, distribution, advertising,
research and product development equal to 20 times that of any of the
independent additive companies. It therefore stands to reason that if
any of these additive products were actually capable of improving the
capabilities of engine lubricants, the major oil companies would have
been able to determine that and to find some way to cash in on it.
Yet of all the oil additives we found, none carried the name or
endorsement of any of the major oil producers.
In addition, all of the major vehicle and engine manufacturers
spend millions of dollars each year trying to increase the
longevity of their products, and millions more paying off warranty
claims when their products fail. Again, it only stands to reason
that if they thought any of these additives would increase the
life or improve the performance of their engines, they would be
actively using and selling them - or at least endorsing their
use.
Instead, many of them advise against the use of these additives
and, in some cases, threaten to void their warranty coverage if
such things are found to be used in their products.
In any story of this nature, absolute "facts" are virtually
impossible to come by. Opinions abound. Evidence that points one
direction or the other is avail able, but has to be carefully
ferreted out, and is not always totally reliable or completely
verifiable.
In this environment, conclusions reached by known, knowledgeable
experts in the field must be given a certain amount of weight.
Conclusions reached by unknown, unidentifiable sources must be
discounted almost totally. That which is left must be weighed, one
side against the other, in an attempt to reach a "reasonable"
conclusion.
In the case of oil additives, there is a considerable volume of
evidence against their effectiveness. This evidence comes from
well-known and identifiable expert sources, including independent
research laboratories, state universities, major engine
manufacturers, and even NASA.
Against this rather formidable barrage of scientific research,
additive makers offer not much more than their own claims of
effectiveness, plus questionable and totally unscientific personal
testimonials. Though the purveyors of these products state they have
studies from other independent laboratories supporting their claims,
they refuse to identify the labs or provide copies of the research.
The only test results they will share are those from their own
testing departments, which must, by their very nature, be taken with
a rather large grain of salt.
Sidebar: Synthetic Oils
=======================
Whenever we talk about oil additives, the subject of synthetic
oils inevitably crops up. Actually, the tow subjects have very
little to do with each other, but since many riders seem to equate
additives and synthetics together in their minds, we will take a
few lines just to clear the air.
Synthetic oils were originally developed for use in gas turbine
engines. In most cases they are capable of maintaining their
viscosity for longer periods of use and under much greater
temperatures and pressures than petroleum products. Commons
synthetics used for engine lubrication today are Polyalphaolefin
(like Mobil 1) or Dibasic Organic Esters (like AMSOIL). They are
fully compatible with conventional oils and can be mixed, providing
their ratings match. Probably the best situation is a blend of
synthetics and mineral oils, such as Golden Spectro and AGIP Sint
2000. These products seem to offer the best of both worlds in
protection and extended service life. They may cost considerably more
than standard petroleum products, but they also can be used for much
longer periods between oil changes without losing their protective
capabilities.
Synthetics and synthetic blends offer a wider range of protection
than standard petroleum products. However, it should be noted that
this extended range of protection reaches into an area of
temperatures and pressures virtually impossible to attain inside
most motorcycle engines and transmissions. In other words, if you
use them, you are buying a sort of "overkill protection." It's
certainly not going to hurt anything - it's just unnecessary. That
is, unless it makes you feel better knowing the extra protection
is on board, in which case the added expense may be well
justified.
As a basic rule of thumb, using the standard engine oil
recommended by your bike's manufacturer and changing it about
every 3000 miles will afford you all the protection you'll ever
need. But if you feel better knowing you have more protection than
you need or, if you like the extended service-life feature,
there's certainly nothing wrong with using a premium grade
synthetic blend lubricant.
---------------------------------------- Steven St.Laurent C4i System Engineer C4i Engineering Branch, PSD, MCTSSA MARCORSYSCOM, U.S. Marine Corps Office (760) 725-2506 (DSN Prefix: 365) "Never be content with somebody else definition of you. Instead, define yourself by your own beliefs, your own truths, your own understanding of who you are. Never be content until you are happy with the unique person GOD has created you to be."
.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 12:04:22 EDT