How significant is this "test" of oil and additives?
Discussion
Recently, I saw a demonstration of the superior qualities of a certain oil, that used a rig to force a fixed roller bearing against a rotating sleeve. "Ordinary" oil caused the rig to seize quickly, with an obvious wear scar on the roller, but when repeated with the "better" oil it withstood much more pressure, with only a minor witness mark on the roller. I was impressed, but suspicious. Oil in an engine is supposed to prevent metal-to-metal contact by hydrodynamic lubrication.
I did some searching, and found two things. First there are a large number of tests and test rigs that are standard in the oil industry for determining oil perfomance - and this test is not one of them! EG: https://www.api.org/~/media/Files/Certification/En...
Then, this test is used by other companies, promoting their "better" oils in exactly the same way. So is it a scam, a bit of snake-oil (!) salesmanship? This video claims that repeating the 'test', even with the same oil, will produce better results: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ne7ayhPVVYY
But when I saw it done, live, and in other online demos, the operators carefully used new surfaces for second and subsequent 'tests'. So how valid is the method? Does it have any significance in a real engine?
John
PS watch the video right through - the sting is in the tail!
I did some searching, and found two things. First there are a large number of tests and test rigs that are standard in the oil industry for determining oil perfomance - and this test is not one of them! EG: https://www.api.org/~/media/Files/Certification/En...
Then, this test is used by other companies, promoting their "better" oils in exactly the same way. So is it a scam, a bit of snake-oil (!) salesmanship? This video claims that repeating the 'test', even with the same oil, will produce better results: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ne7ayhPVVYY
But when I saw it done, live, and in other online demos, the operators carefully used new surfaces for second and subsequent 'tests'. So how valid is the method? Does it have any significance in a real engine?
John
PS watch the video right through - the sting is in the tail!
Edited by tapkaJohnD on Monday 8th October 10:42
tapkaJohnD said:
So is it a scam, a bit of snake-oil (!) salesmanship?
Aftermarket oil additives are IMO generally a scam and likely to do more harm than good unless the oil supplier recommends specific additives for specific applications. A good quality oil will already have a carefully chosen set of chemicals in it and adding 3rd party mixtures to that without understanding the underlying chemistry is asking for trouble.There was even one outfit that claimed their oil additive could magically repair worn and damaged bearings. Haven't seen anything from them recently and hopefully that's because they've stopped peddling it.
tapkaJohnD said:
Recently, I saw a demonstration of the superior qualities of a certain oil, that used a rig to force a fixed roller bearing against a rotating sleeve. "Ordinary" oil caused the rig to seize quickly, with an obvious wear scar on the roller, but when repeated with the "better" oil it withstood much more pressure, with only a minor witness mark on the roller. I was impressed, but suspicious. Oil in an engine is supposed to prevent metal-to-metal contact by hydrodynamic lubrication.
I did some searching, and found two things. First there are a large number of tests and test rigs that are standard in the oil industry for determining oil perfomance - and this test is not one of them! EG: https://www.api.org/~/media/Files/Certification/En...
Then, this test is used by other companies, promoting their "better" oils in exactly the same way. So is it a scam, a bit of snake-oil (!) salesmanship? This video claims that repeating the 'test', even with the same oil, will produce better results: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ne7ayhPVVYY
But when I saw it done, live, and in other online demos, the operators carefully used new surfaces for second and subsequent 'tests'. So how valid is the method? Does it have any significance in a real engine?
John
PS watch the video right through - the sting is in the tail!
Millions of vehicles are on the road running for the most part the oil the automaker recommends and there are no real reports of any problems. I mean with that number of vehicles if the oil was not any good the sides of roads would be thick with broken down cars if anyone still bought the brand/model of car.I did some searching, and found two things. First there are a large number of tests and test rigs that are standard in the oil industry for determining oil perfomance - and this test is not one of them! EG: https://www.api.org/~/media/Files/Certification/En...
Then, this test is used by other companies, promoting their "better" oils in exactly the same way. So is it a scam, a bit of snake-oil (!) salesmanship? This video claims that repeating the 'test', even with the same oil, will produce better results: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ne7ayhPVVYY
But when I saw it done, live, and in other online demos, the operators carefully used new surfaces for second and subsequent 'tests'. So how valid is the method? Does it have any significance in a real engine?
John
PS watch the video right through - the sting is in the tail!
Edited by tapkaJohnD on Monday 8th October 10:42
Oil makers are pretty particular about mixing oils because the additives are critical to the oil's proper performance and different oils when mixed can upset the additive package and the resulting oil blend is less than either oil had it been used alone.
For example while all oils approved by Porsche are miscible and Porsche says to switch from one oil to another doesn't require an engine "flush" beforehand, when adding oil it is preferred the same oil be used that is currently in the engine. 'course, in an emergency any approved oil can be used to top the engine oil level.
The best advice I can offer regarding oil additives is don't use any. Use the oil recommended by the auto maker and this includes the viscosity. Change the oil and filter at least on the factory's schedule, either based on miles, or time, or some oil service warning.
My only deviation from the above would be to advise one to consider changing the oil more often. For instance one of my cars the oil change schedule was 15K miles with a 30K mile filter change. Due to the results of an oil analysis at 4K miles which found a considerable amount of water in the oil I opted for a 5K mile oil and filter service. With over 317K miles on the engine after 16 years the engine still ran good didn't show any indication the miles had affected it at all. Ditto the car with 160K miles on its engine; the one with 50K miles; with 150K miles; with 28K miles (in 4 months); and with 150K miles.
blueST said:
Does anyone remember that old thread with that bloke hawking a miracle oil additive called Engine Restore? One of the best threads in PH history.blueST said:
blueST said:
Does anyone remember that old thread with that bloke hawking a miracle oil additive called Engine Restore? One of the best threads in PH history.Defcon5 said:
15k oil change but only requires a filter every 30?
Why on earth would anyone not change the filter considering the cost of them
Because pumping the oil out is a 10 minute job, and gets rid of 85% of the volume straight into a container without taking the undertrays off and messing with ramps and sump plugs and drip trays and mess, and turning it into a morning's work (depending on the car, obviously).Why on earth would anyone not change the filter considering the cost of them
I used to agree, and my interim changes (usually half the manufacturer's recommended period) always included new filter. Now I stick to the schedule for filters, and change the oil only out the top in between. It's literally a 10 minute job. I can do it more often because it's so easy. So the oil, overall, is cleaner.
PositronicRay said:
blueST said:
blueST said:
Does anyone remember that old thread with that bloke hawking a miracle oil additive called Engine Restore? One of the best threads in PH history.
blueST said:
That doesn't mention the additive used in the Millers CFS NT+ that they sell.My own web trawling was inconclusive, though with enough positive evidence for me to use it.
As already mentioned the additives in a modern oil are a very fine balance that takes lots of experience and millions of pounds worth of testing to perfect so suddenly adding a large % of one type of additive will undoubtedly hinder the effect of other additives.
I am sure that the additive shown does provide extra protection in that one test but there will already be the correct amount of this type in a modern oil.
I am sure that the additive shown does provide extra protection in that one test but there will already be the correct amount of this type in a modern oil.
Gassing Station | Engines & Drivetrain | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff