Addatives - Don't do it!
Discussion
This may be of interest to someone.............comments on zddp from our favorite chemist.
Zinc dithiophosphates, more correctly known as zinc di-alkyl di-thiophosphates,(ZDDPs) are very beneficial anti-wear/antioxidant compounds that have been used in engine oils since the 1950s. There is not the slightest evidence that they combine with combustion by-products to form acidic compounds. In fact, they also act as corrosion inhibitors. ZDDPs are the only phosphorus-containing compounds used in engine oils. As the name suggests, they also contain alkyl (hydrocarbon) groups, sulphur (‘thio-‘) and zinc, needless to say. Under pressure, they decompose at metal surfaces to form iron phosphide and sulphide layers which prevent micro-welding at contact points. (A.k.a. ‘wear’!).
The only problem with ZDDPs used to be that they formed heavy combustion chamber/piston crown/spark plug deposits of zinc oxide and sulphate in engines that burned a lot of oil. (They are not used in 2-stroke oil.) In modern oil-miser 4-strokes this is not a problem, but even small amounts of relatively volatile phosphates that escape down the exhaust can, in the long term, deactivate the catalyst.
So there is a trend towards minimising ZDDP content in the latest petrol engine lubricants.
Very fine graphite (colloidal graphite) as an oil additive was occasionally used in the 1930s. It is never used now, because it is not very effective as an anti-wear, and it can block oil filters and narrow oil passages.
One of the very few effective replacements for ZDDPs are the oil-soluble molybdenum dithiocarbamates. These are now used in some oils (such as Ford standard factory fill) along with ZDDP.
Acidic compounds arising from the combustion of high-sulphur fuels are very effectively neutralised by a completely different range of additive compounds called overbased calcium (or magnesium) sulphonates. These have also been in use since the 1950s. they are present in substantial quantities in all good quality modern motor oils.
So stop worrying! 50 years on, oils are still looking after engines, and making a pretty good job of it.
Cheers
Zinc dithiophosphates, more correctly known as zinc di-alkyl di-thiophosphates,(ZDDPs) are very beneficial anti-wear/antioxidant compounds that have been used in engine oils since the 1950s. There is not the slightest evidence that they combine with combustion by-products to form acidic compounds. In fact, they also act as corrosion inhibitors. ZDDPs are the only phosphorus-containing compounds used in engine oils. As the name suggests, they also contain alkyl (hydrocarbon) groups, sulphur (‘thio-‘) and zinc, needless to say. Under pressure, they decompose at metal surfaces to form iron phosphide and sulphide layers which prevent micro-welding at contact points. (A.k.a. ‘wear’!).
The only problem with ZDDPs used to be that they formed heavy combustion chamber/piston crown/spark plug deposits of zinc oxide and sulphate in engines that burned a lot of oil. (They are not used in 2-stroke oil.) In modern oil-miser 4-strokes this is not a problem, but even small amounts of relatively volatile phosphates that escape down the exhaust can, in the long term, deactivate the catalyst.
So there is a trend towards minimising ZDDP content in the latest petrol engine lubricants.
Very fine graphite (colloidal graphite) as an oil additive was occasionally used in the 1930s. It is never used now, because it is not very effective as an anti-wear, and it can block oil filters and narrow oil passages.
One of the very few effective replacements for ZDDPs are the oil-soluble molybdenum dithiocarbamates. These are now used in some oils (such as Ford standard factory fill) along with ZDDP.
Acidic compounds arising from the combustion of high-sulphur fuels are very effectively neutralised by a completely different range of additive compounds called overbased calcium (or magnesium) sulphonates. These have also been in use since the 1950s. they are present in substantial quantities in all good quality modern motor oils.
So stop worrying! 50 years on, oils are still looking after engines, and making a pretty good job of it.
Cheers
Qoute"turbospud said:
why does just about every garage that services your car want to sell you an engine flush,they even tell you the manufactures recommend them?
Money.
They cost pence to buy trade, and charge a fortune for it.
Good margins.
Cheers
Guy."Qoute
I dont Agree I think A engine Flush at least on a old car is a good thing Gets ridd of a lot of Gunk, and i also think with most modern oils not containing alot of ZDDP so a additive is needed, i own a rotory and ZDDP is a good thing to have in your engine alogh not all additives are good
why does just about every garage that services your car want to sell you an engine flush,they even tell you the manufactures recommend them?
Money.
They cost pence to buy trade, and charge a fortune for it.
Good margins.
Cheers
Guy."Qoute
I dont Agree I think A engine Flush at least on a old car is a good thing Gets ridd of a lot of Gunk, and i also think with most modern oils not containing alot of ZDDP so a additive is needed, i own a rotory and ZDDP is a good thing to have in your engine alogh not all additives are good
Edited by chrisc1988 on Thursday 24th July 23:01
Whilst this thread is revived I ought to stick my £0.02 in.
I've seen engine flush kill an engine by washing out the oilways of what was a very worn TR7 that had previously been running just fine- this was 20 years ago when i was an apprentice and I've never recommended the stuff since.
however, one thing has intruiged me. Cheap oil. A while ago Tesco were selling their own brand oil (which is obviously not made by them- I'm guessing it might be Morris or similar) which meets all the specs.
Are these specs laughable like so many other standards or are they actually relevant?
Actually, while I'm here: What oil would you recommend for a Volvo B234 engine (normally aspirated as standard) running beyond 8000rpm and having around 30psi of boost?
I've seen engine flush kill an engine by washing out the oilways of what was a very worn TR7 that had previously been running just fine- this was 20 years ago when i was an apprentice and I've never recommended the stuff since.
however, one thing has intruiged me. Cheap oil. A while ago Tesco were selling their own brand oil (which is obviously not made by them- I'm guessing it might be Morris or similar) which meets all the specs.
Are these specs laughable like so many other standards or are they actually relevant?
Actually, while I'm here: What oil would you recommend for a Volvo B234 engine (normally aspirated as standard) running beyond 8000rpm and having around 30psi of boost?
Here ya go...
A WORD OF CAUTION ON ADDITIVES!
This is the transcript of an AA article published in Motor May 10th 1986.
The widely-advertised oil additive Slick 50 has been soundly slammed by the AA’s Technical Services.
The AA claim that their tests show Slick 50 provides no fuel savings when it is added to a cars engine oil – and there is no evidence of any other benefits under normal operating conditions.
The AA have made no press or public announcement of their report, but have produced a leaflet for the benefit of any paid-up members who apply for one. An AA member on Motor’s staff applied for a report in the normal way.
The report states that whilst there is no evidence the product will do harm to the engine, one good point is that most of it will be very rapidly removed by the oil filter. “At about £12 per treatment”, say the AA, “it is a very expensive way of coating your oil filter element”.
The AA performed tests by taking three identical cars and carefully running them in, splitting the driving equally among their test drivers. Oils were changed at 1500 miles, the cars were run a further 500 miles to stabilise the oils’ viscosity, the cars’ tuning was carefully checked and steady speed fuel consumptions and power outputs were measured.
The report says: “The procedure is so sensitive that, for instance, leaving the headlamps of the car switched on will make a nonsense of the results due to the extra drag of the charging system”.
Engineers added Slick 50 to two of the cars in the recommended way at 3000 miles.
After a further 2000 miles, further dynamometer tests were carried out. “One car should show the sort of gradual change expected of a car in good condition” says the report, “whereas two should show a noticeable improvement . Here came the big disappointment. After our several months of careful testwork, we could not distinguish any difference between the three cars.”
The AA claimed that all cars were performing well, but performance was remarkably consistent , within a few percent.
The AA say that a detailed examination of the claims made for the product will explain what happens when Slick 50 is added to an engine. Of one gallon of petrol burnt in an engine, says the report, some 60 percent of the energy will be lost as heat from the exhaust and cooling system. That leaves 40 percent and some 25 percent is used to drive the car and its accessories. The remaining 15 percent goes to losses such as pumping air into the engine (6 percent) and some 9 percent is lost as engine friction. Of that 9 percent, 6 percent is lost in churning the oil and only 3 percent of the total input goes into the sort of “boundary” friction that a solid lubricant could affect. “If tests of Slick 50 did show a 16 percent decrease in this friction, as claimed in current advertisements”, says the report, “it would only affect the car’s overall consumption by a half of one percent”.
The AA also claim that their tests show there is no evidence that Slick 50 produces a surface layer on the engine wearing surfaces, let alone one that could last for 100,000 miles.
On questioning John Rowland, Silkolene/Fuchs Chief R&D Chemist for 40 years about additives, I received the following reply.
Quote:
The AA report encapsulates my opinion of Slick 50, it is an expensive way of blocking your oil filter, Believe me, it does precisely nothing beneficial. It has been proven time and time again that it just blocks oil filters and oilways.
For all other “magic” additives, most are based on 1930’s technology corrosive chlorinated paraffins. (synthetic anti-seize compounds originally made 70 years ago. They are cheap, toxic and corrosive. We use them in certain types of cutting oil!) Do not touch them with somebody else’s bargepole!
UCL’s on the other hand can be useful. After all, 2-strokes in effect run entirely on UCL. So……the best UCL’s are 2-stroke oils! I always tell people to use a decent 2-stroke at 0.5% or 1%, because they are superior to the UCL’s sold as UCL’s if you get my drift. A litre of Super 2 Injector or Comp-2 will be better than a cupful of cheap mineral oil dyed red (no prizes for guessing the name) any day.
Vee engines (twins, to V8’s) benefit from UCL’s because the upper walls of the RH cylinder bank, looking from the front, always run dry. Think about it!
Unquote:
So, there you have it.
Cheers
Guy
A WORD OF CAUTION ON ADDITIVES!
This is the transcript of an AA article published in Motor May 10th 1986.
The widely-advertised oil additive Slick 50 has been soundly slammed by the AA’s Technical Services.
The AA claim that their tests show Slick 50 provides no fuel savings when it is added to a cars engine oil – and there is no evidence of any other benefits under normal operating conditions.
The AA have made no press or public announcement of their report, but have produced a leaflet for the benefit of any paid-up members who apply for one. An AA member on Motor’s staff applied for a report in the normal way.
The report states that whilst there is no evidence the product will do harm to the engine, one good point is that most of it will be very rapidly removed by the oil filter. “At about £12 per treatment”, say the AA, “it is a very expensive way of coating your oil filter element”.
The AA performed tests by taking three identical cars and carefully running them in, splitting the driving equally among their test drivers. Oils were changed at 1500 miles, the cars were run a further 500 miles to stabilise the oils’ viscosity, the cars’ tuning was carefully checked and steady speed fuel consumptions and power outputs were measured.
The report says: “The procedure is so sensitive that, for instance, leaving the headlamps of the car switched on will make a nonsense of the results due to the extra drag of the charging system”.
Engineers added Slick 50 to two of the cars in the recommended way at 3000 miles.
After a further 2000 miles, further dynamometer tests were carried out. “One car should show the sort of gradual change expected of a car in good condition” says the report, “whereas two should show a noticeable improvement . Here came the big disappointment. After our several months of careful testwork, we could not distinguish any difference between the three cars.”
The AA claimed that all cars were performing well, but performance was remarkably consistent , within a few percent.
The AA say that a detailed examination of the claims made for the product will explain what happens when Slick 50 is added to an engine. Of one gallon of petrol burnt in an engine, says the report, some 60 percent of the energy will be lost as heat from the exhaust and cooling system. That leaves 40 percent and some 25 percent is used to drive the car and its accessories. The remaining 15 percent goes to losses such as pumping air into the engine (6 percent) and some 9 percent is lost as engine friction. Of that 9 percent, 6 percent is lost in churning the oil and only 3 percent of the total input goes into the sort of “boundary” friction that a solid lubricant could affect. “If tests of Slick 50 did show a 16 percent decrease in this friction, as claimed in current advertisements”, says the report, “it would only affect the car’s overall consumption by a half of one percent”.
The AA also claim that their tests show there is no evidence that Slick 50 produces a surface layer on the engine wearing surfaces, let alone one that could last for 100,000 miles.
On questioning John Rowland, Silkolene/Fuchs Chief R&D Chemist for 40 years about additives, I received the following reply.
Quote:
The AA report encapsulates my opinion of Slick 50, it is an expensive way of blocking your oil filter, Believe me, it does precisely nothing beneficial. It has been proven time and time again that it just blocks oil filters and oilways.
For all other “magic” additives, most are based on 1930’s technology corrosive chlorinated paraffins. (synthetic anti-seize compounds originally made 70 years ago. They are cheap, toxic and corrosive. We use them in certain types of cutting oil!) Do not touch them with somebody else’s bargepole!
UCL’s on the other hand can be useful. After all, 2-strokes in effect run entirely on UCL. So……the best UCL’s are 2-stroke oils! I always tell people to use a decent 2-stroke at 0.5% or 1%, because they are superior to the UCL’s sold as UCL’s if you get my drift. A litre of Super 2 Injector or Comp-2 will be better than a cupful of cheap mineral oil dyed red (no prizes for guessing the name) any day.
Vee engines (twins, to V8’s) benefit from UCL’s because the upper walls of the RH cylinder bank, looking from the front, always run dry. Think about it!
Unquote:
So, there you have it.
Cheers
Guy
opieoilman said:
Many of the specs are a bit of a joke, ACEA specs are harder to pass then API so look out for those.
What year is your volvo engine?
Cheers
Guy.
It's a 1993 engine (the 16v used by Volvo for oone year in 1989 and again in 1993) running with modern (CP) forged pistons. The hydraulic lifters have been removed and replaced with solid, but also the block is being retrofitted with piston oil squirters. Turbo is a Holset off a bus. Volvo states that the standard oil pump has an output 360l/min at an engine speed of 4000rpm, if that helps.What year is your volvo engine?
Cheers
Guy.
Personally I use the Forte fuel additive every once in a blue moon to run through and clean the sensors, in particular the lambda sensors (i've always had issues on my 323CI with lower MPG that I should be getting and using this stuff does improve it by a few MPG for a few months...)
However, engine flush is a no no for me. I once made the mistake of using it on a 140000 mile Vauxhall 20XE engine that was sweet as a nut. It must have cleaned every bit of sludge and oil that was happily keeping it running sweet as a nut to see it's life out, as the hydraulic tappets, that were silent before, tappets like a bugger even when warm. The engine also sounds a hell of a lot rougher. In the end I had to switch to some 20W50 to quieten it down so I could sell it. The same car ended up in the hands of my mate 12 months later on 144k as scrap. It was strong as an Ox between 120k and 140k...
As has been discussed, any reputable oil contains all the cleaners and detergents necessary to keep the engine in peak condition. Changing oil regularly and making sure the levels are always where they should be is infinately more important in the longetivity of an engine.
However, engine flush is a no no for me. I once made the mistake of using it on a 140000 mile Vauxhall 20XE engine that was sweet as a nut. It must have cleaned every bit of sludge and oil that was happily keeping it running sweet as a nut to see it's life out, as the hydraulic tappets, that were silent before, tappets like a bugger even when warm. The engine also sounds a hell of a lot rougher. In the end I had to switch to some 20W50 to quieten it down so I could sell it. The same car ended up in the hands of my mate 12 months later on 144k as scrap. It was strong as an Ox between 120k and 140k...
As has been discussed, any reputable oil contains all the cleaners and detergents necessary to keep the engine in peak condition. Changing oil regularly and making sure the levels are always where they should be is infinately more important in the longetivity of an engine.
BB-Q said:
opieoilman said:
Many of the specs are a bit of a joke, ACEA specs are harder to pass then API so look out for those.
What year is your volvo engine?
Cheers
Guy.
It's a 1993 engine (the 16v used by Volvo for oone year in 1989 and again in 1993) running with modern (CP) forged pistons. The hydraulic lifters have been removed and replaced with solid, but also the block is being retrofitted with piston oil squirters. Turbo is a Holset off a bus. Volvo states that the standard oil pump has an output 360l/min at an engine speed of 4000rpm, if that helps.What year is your volvo engine?
Cheers
Guy.
http://www.opieoils.co.uk
Cheers
Guy.
Hi there, I'm not likely to post in these Forums again but ask your indulgence and hear me out on my experiences with Molyslip.
I first added Molyslip to the engines of the boat I owned back in the 1990s. This was a Broom Ocean 37 powered by twin Perkins HT6.354 turboed diesels (145hp each). I immediately noticed an improvement of 16% on fuel consumption. In landlubber terms I got 1.16 miles to the gallon whereas I had been getting 1 mile per gallon. Just as importantly my cruising speeds were increased by one knot.
In about the year 2000 I bought a Princess 435 (about 44 feet) powered by two Turboed Volvos rated at 306hp each. Here again I added Molyslip and found a similar increase in miles per gallon. Amazingly my cruising speed increased by so much that my pals exact same boat but fitted with the 360 hp option would gradually be left behind. Also I had tested the boat against the Ramsgate Lifeboat, prior to adding Molyslip they lifeboat was marginally faster than me, after Molyslip I was marginally faster than them.
I do know that it is considered vitally important only to add Molyslip to well worn engines. It should never be added to newer ones. Also one should never exceed the advised doses.
Just my two penneth worth. I am not a techie person and the above is only based on my experiences with boats, not cars.
I first added Molyslip to the engines of the boat I owned back in the 1990s. This was a Broom Ocean 37 powered by twin Perkins HT6.354 turboed diesels (145hp each). I immediately noticed an improvement of 16% on fuel consumption. In landlubber terms I got 1.16 miles to the gallon whereas I had been getting 1 mile per gallon. Just as importantly my cruising speeds were increased by one knot.
In about the year 2000 I bought a Princess 435 (about 44 feet) powered by two Turboed Volvos rated at 306hp each. Here again I added Molyslip and found a similar increase in miles per gallon. Amazingly my cruising speed increased by so much that my pals exact same boat but fitted with the 360 hp option would gradually be left behind. Also I had tested the boat against the Ramsgate Lifeboat, prior to adding Molyslip they lifeboat was marginally faster than me, after Molyslip I was marginally faster than them.
I do know that it is considered vitally important only to add Molyslip to well worn engines. It should never be added to newer ones. Also one should never exceed the advised doses.
Just my two penneth worth. I am not a techie person and the above is only based on my experiences with boats, not cars.
opieoilman said:
riveting said:
What about moly slip? Is that good or bad?
Not too good really, it’s not chlorinated paraffin, it’s a few pence worth of heavy moly disulphide powder in a few pence worth of oil. It is fairly harmless, but no benefit. Being heavy, it centrifuges out in crank oilways and can cause blockage. (Claims about running for miles with an empty sump are fraudulent.)
Cheers.
Guy.
cheers
Never had a problem flushing out old oil in the past with a pint of paraffin and latterly with ATF (occasional freebie pint from the works garage in my old job). It was always a pleasure to watch the old stuff run out like water and then have it re-filled with the new oil.
Never once had a car suffer from losing its build-up of crud and old oil from its darkest recesses, if a motor was going to fail, it would fail, regardless of how incomplete its oil change process was carried out. However, I have seen a motor fail due to the use of these oil thickener, 'stop smoke' type additives blocking small oil galleries.
Personally, I use ZX1, ...for the simple reason that one of its lubricating properties is good at polishing down 'fired up' metal to metal rough contact. No, it doesn't give extra mpg or bhp, but I do get peace of mind that alls well within my vette's motor and should it suffer catastrophic oil starvation, I'll sleep easy knowing the motor has a better chance of survival.
Never once had a car suffer from losing its build-up of crud and old oil from its darkest recesses, if a motor was going to fail, it would fail, regardless of how incomplete its oil change process was carried out. However, I have seen a motor fail due to the use of these oil thickener, 'stop smoke' type additives blocking small oil galleries.
Personally, I use ZX1, ...for the simple reason that one of its lubricating properties is good at polishing down 'fired up' metal to metal rough contact. No, it doesn't give extra mpg or bhp, but I do get peace of mind that alls well within my vette's motor and should it suffer catastrophic oil starvation, I'll sleep easy knowing the motor has a better chance of survival.
oil and water temp were down i used molyslip about 5k miles ago it took about 500miles of driving for me really to notice the difference have to admit i was sceptical as well but deffo mpg improvement and engine is smoother, i plan to use it every 20k miles
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Molyslip-2001-slick-engine-r...
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Molyslip-2001-slick-engine-r...
exitwound said:
Never had a problem flushing out old oil in the past with a pint of paraffin and latterly with ATF (occasional freebie pint from the works garage in my old job). It was always a pleasure to watch the old stuff run out like water and then have it re-filled with the new oil.
Never once had a car suffer from losing its build-up of crud and old oil from its darkest recesses, if a motor was going to fail, it would fail, regardless of how incomplete its oil change process was carried out. However, I have seen a motor fail due to the use of these oil thickener, 'stop smoke' type additives blocking small oil galleries.
Personally, I use ZX1, ...for the simple reason that one of its lubricating properties is good at polishing down 'fired up' metal to metal rough contact. No, it doesn't give extra mpg or bhp, but I do get peace of mind that alls well within my vette's motor and should it suffer catastrophic oil starvation, I'll sleep easy knowing the motor has a better chance of survival.
This is a joke right? You willingly poured paraffin in to an engine??Never once had a car suffer from losing its build-up of crud and old oil from its darkest recesses, if a motor was going to fail, it would fail, regardless of how incomplete its oil change process was carried out. However, I have seen a motor fail due to the use of these oil thickener, 'stop smoke' type additives blocking small oil galleries.
Personally, I use ZX1, ...for the simple reason that one of its lubricating properties is good at polishing down 'fired up' metal to metal rough contact. No, it doesn't give extra mpg or bhp, but I do get peace of mind that alls well within my vette's motor and should it suffer catastrophic oil starvation, I'll sleep easy knowing the motor has a better chance of survival.
I'd love to know how you got all that out before refilling with oil! Most normal people try to avoid getting fuels in to oil as it decreases the lubrication ability of it.
Gassing Station | Engines & Drivetrain | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff