Addatives - Don't do it!
Discussion
I see this topic arise frequently and would like to put forward the Chemists view - Scary stuff and the main reason we neither recommend nor sell these magic addatives. Use a decent oil as it has plenty of the right addatives!
General Remarks on Chlorinated Additives.
A number of ‘add-on’ additives intended to improve the performance of commercially available automotive lubricants have been marketed in recent years, under such names as ‘Xxtralube ZX-1’, ‘Metol FX-1’, ‘PPL Anti-Friction’ and ‘Activ-8’.All such products share the following characteristics with ‘X-1R Friction Eliminator’:-
1)They all contain chlorinated paraffin ‘exteme pressure’(EP) compounds first used in the 1930s in heavily-loaded industrial gearboxes, and in some automotive transmission applications, mainly hypoid gears.
2)They all corrode copper-based alloys at moderate temperatures, easily exceeded in all engine, and most transmission applications.This problem was recognised in the 1930s, and chlorinated compounds were never used in transmissions with bronze bearings or gears. No responsible manufacturer ever suggested using them in engines where their increasing activity at high temperatures could lead to piston ring corrosion and bore glazing. (For the same reason, modern ‘hypoid’ additives are not used in engines, even though they are much safer than any chlorinated additive.)
3)X-1R Friction Eliminator and its clones are based upon very outdated technology, which was abandoned by responsible lubricant manufacturers for automotive transmission uses in the 1950s. Chlorinated compounds still find applications in metal working, but their use is on the decline because of health and safety considerations.
4)When burnt, chlorinated paraffins produce corrosive hydrochloric acid, and organo-chlorine compounds including the highly poisonous phosgene gas. Apart from these corrosion and health hazards, with petrol engines the deactivation of exhaust catalysts is also a problem.
5)Unfortunately, these additives give spectacular results in simple EP test machines such as the ‘Falex’. As a marketing ploy, a demonstration of this type looks impressive to those not aquainted with the above facts. Also attractive is the low cost of chlorinated compounds, allowing profits of several thousand percent to be made.
Cheers
Guy
General Remarks on Chlorinated Additives.
A number of ‘add-on’ additives intended to improve the performance of commercially available automotive lubricants have been marketed in recent years, under such names as ‘Xxtralube ZX-1’, ‘Metol FX-1’, ‘PPL Anti-Friction’ and ‘Activ-8’.All such products share the following characteristics with ‘X-1R Friction Eliminator’:-
1)They all contain chlorinated paraffin ‘exteme pressure’(EP) compounds first used in the 1930s in heavily-loaded industrial gearboxes, and in some automotive transmission applications, mainly hypoid gears.
2)They all corrode copper-based alloys at moderate temperatures, easily exceeded in all engine, and most transmission applications.This problem was recognised in the 1930s, and chlorinated compounds were never used in transmissions with bronze bearings or gears. No responsible manufacturer ever suggested using them in engines where their increasing activity at high temperatures could lead to piston ring corrosion and bore glazing. (For the same reason, modern ‘hypoid’ additives are not used in engines, even though they are much safer than any chlorinated additive.)
3)X-1R Friction Eliminator and its clones are based upon very outdated technology, which was abandoned by responsible lubricant manufacturers for automotive transmission uses in the 1950s. Chlorinated compounds still find applications in metal working, but their use is on the decline because of health and safety considerations.
4)When burnt, chlorinated paraffins produce corrosive hydrochloric acid, and organo-chlorine compounds including the highly poisonous phosgene gas. Apart from these corrosion and health hazards, with petrol engines the deactivation of exhaust catalysts is also a problem.
5)Unfortunately, these additives give spectacular results in simple EP test machines such as the ‘Falex’. As a marketing ploy, a demonstration of this type looks impressive to those not aquainted with the above facts. Also attractive is the low cost of chlorinated compounds, allowing profits of several thousand percent to be made.
Cheers
Guy
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.
I couldnt agree more, oil companies spend a fortune blending addative and detergent packs for oil, as with everthing else they come in varying qualities, the best addatives are saved for the true synthetics these days. By introducing a second addative pack you run the risk of upsetting the original addative pack contained within the oil, effectively achieving nothing and shorting the life of the oil.
Oil comapanies can think of not much else other than money so if these addatives were any good, they would be doing it themselves.
Cheers
Guy.
Oil comapanies can think of not much else other than money so if these addatives were any good, they would be doing it themselves.
Cheers
Guy.
All I have is chemical anlasys of these products, and information from Atuomotive Lubricant Chemists, who when you talk to them about these you might as well worship the Devil.
The main application for these is for cutting tools, back in the 70's when this test was done they were using mineral oils and probably basic ones at that, so the high lubrication properties proabaly looked good, remember these people are experts and developing simple tests that are usless but make the product look great.
Without any oil in the engines, they should not have run at all, it is oil that allows the engine to turn.
I am sceptical of that test to be honest.
Cheers
Guy.
The main application for these is for cutting tools, back in the 70's when this test was done they were using mineral oils and probably basic ones at that, so the high lubrication properties proabaly looked good, remember these people are experts and developing simple tests that are usless but make the product look great.
Without any oil in the engines, they should not have run at all, it is oil that allows the engine to turn.
I am sceptical of that test to be honest.
Cheers
Guy.
Wow, you dug this one up!
Yes true ZDDP has been reduced, it has been on the decline for many years to meet various emmisions etc. However ZDDP is not the only antiwear additive in an oil and any decent oil company will make up the down fall with something else, its not a problem.... Unless of course you are in America it seems.
Cheers
Guy.
Ps The molyslip wont do any harm, it wont really do anything at all except make someone some money.
Yes true ZDDP has been reduced, it has been on the decline for many years to meet various emmisions etc. However ZDDP is not the only antiwear additive in an oil and any decent oil company will make up the down fall with something else, its not a problem.... Unless of course you are in America it seems.
Cheers
Guy.
Ps The molyslip wont do any harm, it wont really do anything at all except make someone some money.
Edited by opieoilman on Wednesday 23 July 16:37
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
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
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.
seagrey said:
what about manufacturers additives,like the diff additive in my 07 chrysler auto transaxle?(lsd)
This is just the US way of doing things. In the diff they use a normal SEA90 or 75w-90 and in some 75w-140 and then add the LSD additive, here in Europe we tend to have the additive already in the oil so you dont have to bother with mixing additives. Looking at the US market, they love them additives.Cheers
Guy
Gassing Station | Engines & Drivetrain | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff