Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

Fuel and Oil Additives

1…2021222426

Comments

  • shiposhipo Member Posts: 9,148
    I've opened up way too many engines that used STP and Pennsylvania Grade Crude (i.e. Quaker State, Pennzoil, and Wolf's Head), and each and every time I did, that "patented" smell would nearly make me puke. The flip side is opening up an engine run on something like Valvoline or Havoline (for the conventionals) or pretty much any synthetic, and you usually find a nice clean engine and just that good old fashioned grease smell. :)

    Just before I stopped wrenching for a living, one guy brought me an engine that had been abused with STP and Quaker State and I asked him to take it to someone else.

    Best regards,
    Shipo
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    When I was working on cars at a friend's shop, I also refused to deal with an engine that was doped with STP. I told them to have it all dunked chemically before I touched it...or I told them I'd just open the engine and shake all the parts into the trash can and start from scratch.
  • isellhondasisellhondas Member Posts: 20,342
    Valvoline used to yield the same results as the Penn brands.

    Havoline was the best! You take apart a 100,000 miles engine and with a shop rag, wipe out the oil pan!

    STP was the WORST stuff yet there was a time it was quite popular.
  • shiposhipo Member Posts: 9,148
    Interesting, back in the 1970s when I was wrenching I never once saw a sludged Valvoline motor (errr, at least one that had oil that had been changed at reasonable intervals). I agree though, back then the Havoline was the best of the mineral oils. :)

    Best regards,
    Shipo
  • bassprobasspro Member Posts: 34
    Hi all, I just read a article in "Lubes and Greases" where RP got their respective slick words in the ringer. They(RP) have agreed to back off on how great the oil is. I have been using the stuff for years and all my oil analysis say my engines like it too.
    I have always found it interesting that oil company's cannot help slicking it up in their ads and I guess we ask for it, by increasing their sales when they do it.
    I assume that BP filed the law suit because PR must be getting thir sales up enough to have an impact on some of the other big guys.
  • kurtamaxxxguykurtamaxxxguy Member Posts: 1,798
    One oil engineer I've talked to says RP's pretty decent, as did a Rally group here in Portland.

    But I'm not using synthetics. Stuff I use helps oil resist high temperatures and slows Oxidation; company's light on testimonials and heavy on what appears to be solid engineering data (as chem tech, I did some of the high temperature tests they describe).
  • kurtamaxxxguykurtamaxxxguy Member Posts: 1,798
    These folks introduced in 2/09 a zinc-replacement oil additive called ZINC.

    It claims it's a polymer product that reduces engine friction, but does not add zinc or phosphorus to the oil (the latter 2 can apparently poison cat converters).

    Comments?

    FYI, their other products had a look and "viscosity feel" similar to STP.
  • shiposhipo Member Posts: 9,148
    Why on Earth would someone consider using a product such as this when engines will already outlast the rest of the vehicle with just regular maintenance?
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    A question I ask myself frequently. It's really the *rest* of your car, not the engine, that needs help getting to old age.

    I guess the reason is that no one has invented an expensive front suspension & brake additive? How about a pill that extends the life of your electric windows?
  • kurtamaxxxguykurtamaxxxguy Member Posts: 1,798
    The only product I would (and do) use is one that helps prevent oil breakdown/coking at high temperatures (my motor has a turbo).
    That product received actual testing, not glorified worthless "testimonials".

    For sure, the FTC tested many additives and found them worthless.

    http://www.hotrod.com/pitstop/hrdp_0702_pitstop_zinc_oil_additive/index.html

    describes how zinc protects engines.
    This has nothing to do with hy-per lube's additive, btw, because hy-per lube Zinc has no zinc. ;)

    http://skepdic.com/slick50.html

    explains what's in many of the additives, and how ineffective it is.
  • shiposhipo Member Posts: 9,148
    What you're missing in all of this is that Zinc is poisonous to your catalytic converter and that new oils are formulated to provide the same protection without zinc. Said another way, there's no way I'd use this product in my engines.

    As for a product that prevents oil breakdown / coking at high temperatures, to say that I'm skeptical is a gross understatement. From my perspective after owning a number of turbocharged engines, use the manufacturer recommended oil with no additives (I suspect that your Owner's Manual recommends against additives) and you should be good to go.
  • kurtamaxxxguykurtamaxxxguy Member Posts: 1,798
    repeating part of my previous post:

    It claims it's a polymer product that reduces engine friction, but does not add zinc or phosphorus to the oil (the latter 2 can apparently poison cat converters).

    My comment did say zinc and phosphorus can poison cat converters, and that the additive does not have zinc.
    Whether that additive is of any real use, I cannot say. They offer some rudimentary test data, but nowhere as thorough as that presented by the stuff I actually use.

    And yes, I agree that following manufacturer recommendations is very important.
  • shiposhipo Member Posts: 9,148
    "Whether that additive is of any real use, I cannot say. They offer some rudimentary test data, but nowhere as thorough as that presented by the stuff I actually use.

    And yes, I agree that following manufacturer recommendations is very important."

    If you agree with following the manufacturer recommendations they why do you use an additive? :confuse:
  • kurtamaxxxguykurtamaxxxguy Member Posts: 1,798
    ...because a number of conversations with the engineer who developed the product (his other products work well and are used by the US Military, etc), and reviewing the extensive engineering presentations, suggested his product was well tested and does what it claims (improve oil's resistance to oxidation/heat, helped reduce engine friction, helped protect seals).

    As synthetic's not recommended for my engine, and would be very expensive to use on the recommended schedule, the additive seemed the best cost effective "extra insurance" for turbo bearing failure.

    Here's a posting of the engineer on the superclub.org forum (and note: the engineer said the product, though originally designed for aircraft engines, offers similar benefits for auto engines) :

    I was very pleased by the tone of the article (Light Plane Maintenance) and I feel he got it right with the corrosion prevention aspect. This was by far the top priority followed by deposit control, wear protection and seal conditioning.

    Ed
  • shiposhipo Member Posts: 9,148
    I have a number of problems with the things you just wrote...

    A conversation with an engineer is in no way a proof that his product does anything even remotely resembling the claims for said product, regardless of whether we're talking about aircraft engines (which I am more than a bit familiar with as well) or for cars.

    Synthetic oil NOT being recommended for your engine? I'm not buying that either. Just because a manufacturer allows you to run conventional oil in your turbocharged engine (dumb move in my opinion) in no way means that synthetic oil isn't recommended for use.

    Regarding working __fine__ in automotive engines, ummm, you do realize that oil for IC aircraft engines needs to fulfil a very different set of criteria than does an oil for a modern automobile engine, not the least of which is to hold tetraethyl lead (TEL) in suspension. Even if this stuff does work (something I highly doubt) in aircraft engines, I'm even more doubtful that it will work properly in an automobile engine, turbocharged or otherwise.

    Edit:

    Is this the stuff you're talking about? http://www.aslcamguard.com/

    If so, then it seems highly improbable that it has any of the properties that you've ascribed to it.
  • kurtamaxxxguykurtamaxxxguy Member Posts: 1,798
    http://www.avweb.com/news/maint/oil_myths_debunked_197096-1.html

    explains the chemists' rational for the product. That info is presented at the Camguard site in various ways.

    Yes, aircraft engines are different - I knew that when researching the product.
    But:
    The chemist told me several times that despite differences between aircraft and automotive oils (both of which he has formulated - he was a petroleum research chemist for Exxon), his product is beneficial for the reasons explained on the Camguard website, for both forms of engines, and especially turbos.

    However, your comment inspired me to recheck the Subaru info I'd received.
    I was partially incorrect :blush: (advice I got from my dealer, who is a top tier Subaru service center, warned me of possible seal leakage if switching to synthetic - that info clouded the info Subaru had sent me).

    This was Subaru's actual response.
    Synthetic engine oils can be used in our engines if the user follows the engine oil recommendations prescribed in the Owner's Manual. Subaru has not tested the compatibility of all synthetic oils with engine seals, but the petroleum industry does adhere to standards for the refining process which meet Subaru requirements. Subaru does not guarantee the performance of any brand of any engine oil.

    They added this for good measure (the CAPS are theirs, not mine :blush: ):
    Engine Oil Guidelines: - only use engine oil that meets or exceeds the API classification designated in the Owner's Manual for the vehicle - only use engine oil that meets the VISCOSITY requirements for the ambient temperatures under which the vehicle will be operated as outlined in the Owner's Manual - THE ENGINE OIL MUST BE CHANGED AT THE INTERVALS SPECIFIED IN THE WARRANTY AND MAINTENANCE BOOKLET FOR THE VEHICLE. SOME SYNTHETIC OIL REFINERS RECOMMEND EXTENDED OIL CHANGE INTERVALS. SUBARU DOES NOT RECOMMEND ANY DEVIATION FROM THE SPECIFIED INTERVALS IN THE OWNER'S MANUAL.

    And BTW, nowhere in Subaru literature or service info does it say that Synthetic oil should be used with a turbo.

    My apologies for attempting to explain this additive's background.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    I think the biggest "problem" if you will about all this is that it seems to be the answer to a question no one is asking, or rather the solution to a problem no one is having. Modern turbos rarely fail or coke up anymore. All that was worked out a decade ago. If you opened up a turbo rebuilding shop these days you'd starve, unless you did modification/speed work.

    This sounds analogous to when you had to buy lead additive to protect valves in engines using unleaded gas. Nowadays you don't have to do that anymore, due to advances in valve metallurgy.
  • roland3roland3 Member Posts: 431
    ... I agree about the modern turbos. I don't know that zinc (or derivatives) ever helped shaft problems. The main problem, as far as I know, was the removal of the zinc compound for sensor or cat problems. This was a big problem for flat tappet cams; especially in racing; and extremely so in the NASCAR big boys that still are required to run flat tappet cams. This led to a bonanza for Brad Penn and even Joe Gibbs and others started selling huge amounts of racing, zinc laden oil. There were of course many other attempts to add zinc all the way to home brew and even some guys adding heavy gear oil to get the precious boundary layer back.
    ..
    ... It appears that most all the majors (oil giants) in the last six months have some new additive that is a replacement for or a safe (for the tailpipe) compound of the zinc. Some of this is quite expensive, some might not be so well advertised. And I have not seen any mention of turbo shafts. These partial truths and myths usually get blown out of proportion, and all it seems to take is a little true publicity to start the snow-ball down hill. Now, with all that, I think the best turbo shaft protection, is a quality full synthetic, because of it's higher heat capabilities. My stuff is years old, original, and way out of warranty.
  • kurtamaxxxguykurtamaxxxguy Member Posts: 1,798
    The problem's synthetics vary widely in corrosion protection and resistance to heat. Some are contaminated very quickly and will happily circulate hydrochloric and nitric acid through the engine for their change interval.

    Very few oil additives make any claims of neutralizing acids, preventing corrosion/sludge, or adding heat resistance. They focus on wear and performance.

    Granted, aircraft engines pollute their oil much faster than auto engines, because of blowby and higher temperature differentials. But it happens with cars too.

    There have been TSB's regarding Subaru turbos getting cooked because banjo bolt filters get plugged. Subaru also does not cover the turbo with extended warranty. Hence the interest in the best oil protection possible.

    As for Camguard, its engineer / maker will be posting an auto version website very soon. He told me it will offer explanations why current version works for autos, and how new version is improved.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    Sounds like Camguard is for engines that sit a long time without use, such as aircraft and marine. Seems like a waste of money for a modern car in daily use. $25 a PINT!!!
  • kurtamaxxxguykurtamaxxxguy Member Posts: 1,798
    BTW, the chemist I've mentioned has done extensive analysis on a few popular additives:

    MMO (Marvel Mystery Oil) contains mineral spirits, 30 wt baseoil, red dye and wintergreen fragrance.

    STP contains ZDDP zinc anti-wear, over-based calcium detergent and a huge slug of cheap viscosity modifier.

    Wintergreen fragrance??
    Is that to suggest to those following, your car is "green" ?? :confuse:
  • shiposhipo Member Posts: 9,148
    "Sounds like Camguard is for engines that sit a long time without use, such as aircraft and marine."

    To refine that even further, I'd say that Camguard was originally designed for the Lycoming boxer four engines that were suffering frequent cam failures due to the fact that the cam sits high and dry when the engine isn't operating, and is highly prone to rust.

    Putting cam guard in an automobile engine is simply a waste of time and money as it is highly unlikely to add even an extra mile to the life of the engine.

    Best regards,
    Shipo
  • kurtamaxxxguykurtamaxxxguy Member Posts: 1,798
    While Camguard was designed for aircraft engines like the Lycoming, the engineer who made it repeatedly says it is not a waste of money for automotive use.

    http://www.aslcamguard.com/faq.php (the FAQ section) explains why.

    Meanwhile, here is his latest response to me:

    It can be frustrating dealing with all the "experts" on forums. I am busy
    putting together the website info for the Auto Camguard so I don't have time
    (I don't write very fast) to change the aircraft site to reflect what you're
    asking for. Because it involves a bit of explanation, I leave it at the
    information in the FAQ.
    Just know you are doing the best you can do for your car.
    Regards, Ed

    If people reading the FAQ believe it's a waste of money, they should not buy it.
  • shiposhipo Member Posts: 9,148
    The engineers for the companies that bring us Slick-50 and the Tornado Fuel Saver say glowing things about their products as well. There are even suckers that "claim" that these products cause their vehicles to perform amazing feats of fuel consumption and such. Do I believe any of it? Not a chance.

    Long story short, the only thing I can see Cam Guard being good for is to lighten your wallet while enriching the folks who make it.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    Well he says himself "Infrequently used engines will be the greatest benefactors".

    So can we not infer "frequently used engines will receive the least benefit"?

    I don't see why that inference makes me a forums dope. :surprise:
  • kurtamaxxxguykurtamaxxxguy Member Posts: 1,798
    I chatted with both my service advisers today and they told me that if I use Synthetic oil in my '09 Forester, the engine __will__ burn a lot more oil. :sick:
    As Subaru warranty _requires_ change every 3000 to 3750 miles and Synthetic costs 2X regular, it's not solution for me.

    For those who can run Synthetic 10K or up is Phillips, Royal Purple, Mobil 1 or Red Line appear good choices (info's from advisors and Ed).

    Ok, Changing gears:

    Any opinions on Hy-Per Lube products? Lucas Oil? Are they as worthless as MMO, STP, ZMAX, Prolong Restore, and possibly every other additive out there?

    How about fuel additives? Auto shelves are groaning with "octane boosters" and "nitro in a can" (and no, I don't use that stuff).
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    Oddly enough, as weird as it sounds, when I put synthetic in my Subaru, it did in fact use more oil. So I switched out. I'm not sure if this has anything to do with Subarus in particular, or with boxer engines.....or it could be entirely bogus and my one time anecdotal experience proves nothing.

    The only prohibition on synthetic oil that I ever heard that made any sense was for Mazda rotary engines, and it came from a very credible Mazda source.
  • shiposhipo Member Posts: 9,148
    "I chatted with both my service advisers today and they told me that if I use Synthetic oil in my '09 Forester, the engine __will__ burn a lot more oil."

    I've heard a lot of dumb things come from dealership personell over the years, and that's one of the dumbest. If a service advisor had tried to tell me that, I would have asked him to put it in writing so that I could send it to the parent company.

    As for the other additive products, Snake Oil, every one of them. The absolute best fluids for your car are unaltered oil and unaltered fuel. Period, full stop, the end.

    In the end, I simply don't understand is your need to look for ways of wasting your money on such products.
  • kurtamaxxxguykurtamaxxxguy Member Posts: 1,798
    Oddly enough, as weird as it sounds, when I put synthetic in my Subaru, it did in fact use more oil. So I switched out. I'm not sure if this has anything to do with Subarus in particular, or with boxer engines.....or it could be entirely bogus and my one time anecdotal experience proves nothing.

    My advisors found the same for their Subarus; one said he noticed oil burning was mostly during startups/cold engines.
    He did not have any answer as to the cause; the engines did not exhibit any symptoms when using "natural" oil.

    Subaru Corporate says while they do not specifically recommend synthetic, they allow it provided it's changed per factory schedule (no 10K oil changes for them. :blush: ). Corporate also says their engine becomes "accustomed" to a specific oil (use synth or natural; don't switch), and __not__ to use synthetic before engine is broken in (1000 miles minimum).

    Out of curiosity, why does Mazda not recomend Synthetic oil for the Rotary?
    What I briefly read mentioned issues with seals or improper burnoff.
    Mobil one posted this comment at their site:

    Mazda does not recommend the use of synthetic oils in its rotary engines. To help maintain your vehicle's warranty coverage, we suggest that you follow your car builder's engine oil recommendation.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    Mazda didn't ban it, but Mazdatrix posted a caution about it based on their tear down of numerous engines run on synthetic. Something about leaving residue on the apex seals. Do I know what I'm talking about? Not really. :blush:

    I tried synthetic in the Subaru because I thought it might diminish Subaru's notorious piston slap on cold start-up (short-skirted women might be attractive but not short-skirt pistons). Didn't work and starting eating a quart every 1,000. Now with regular oil I get about a quart every 1500--2000.

    I have no idea why this happened.
  • kurtamaxxxguykurtamaxxxguy Member Posts: 1,798
    Something about leaving residue on the apex seals

    Yes, I saw some comments like that on the Mazda forums too.

    The Subaru advisors suspect their Synthetic usage is seal leakage, but aren't curious enough to tear their ride apart to find it.

    For that matter, I'm not sure how mechanics find seal leakage (compression tests might find valve seal leakage, but how to check crank/camshalf ? )

    This web site came up in a "fix auto seals" search; appears to be an engine cleaning and seal rejuvenation compound using esters rather than solvents. Site's a mix of tests and testimonials;

    http://www.auto-rx.com/pages/how-auto-rx-works.html

    and explanation from the chemist himself:

    http://www.mx6.com/forums/general-automotive/94615-autorx-chemist-explains-how-w- orks.html
  • kurtamaxxxguykurtamaxxxguy Member Posts: 1,798
    FYI:

    http://www.magnalabs.com/aslcamguard/formula.php

    was a surprise find as it's about autos and the FTC lawsuits - they've a separate page dealing with aircraft.
    ....and if I am accused of backsliding, so be it. It discussed autos.
    ....last mention until new version. :-)

    Changing gears again:

    What's going on with Audi? I read on one consumer affairs web page that Audi now recommends synthetic oil changed at 5K miles, but Audi owners manuals (some of them, anyway) recommend any premium oil changed at 10K miles.
    The latter procedure usually brought about sludge.

    Manufacturers really confuse things when their manuals say one thing, and the advisors say something else. :confuse:
  • shiposhipo Member Posts: 9,148
    "What's going on with Audi? I read on one consumer affairs web page that Audi now recommends synthetic oil changed at 5K miles, but Audi owners manuals (some of them, anyway) recommend any premium oil changed at 10K miles.
    The latter procedure usually brought about sludge."

    I'm not sure where you got that. Audi has required the use of synthetic oil that meets at least the VW 502.00 oil specification (which most synthetic oils are incapable of meeting) for years now. As far as I know, there hasn't been a single Audi sold in North America that allowed the use of "any premium oil" since at least 2003.
  • kurtamaxxxguykurtamaxxxguy Member Posts: 1,798
    As far as I know, there hasn't been a single Audi sold in North America that allowed the use of "any premium oil" since at least 2003.

    That explains it as most of the forum entries were about older Audis.

    http://www.consumeraffairs.com/automotive/audi_sludge.html

    is the web page I saw.
    I also see that there's a 503 spec for VW oils that's for their higher powered engines, learning that from a Shipo post on the Edmunds VW Passat Oil Issues forum.
    Would be interesting to know if there's been publication or analysis explaining exactly how it differs from 502 spec.
  • roland3roland3 Member Posts: 431
    ... Mobil gave up on trying to solve the aircraft (piston) (gasoline) problem with their synthetic product, about four years ago. I believe it has to do with keeping the lead compounds in suspension. Or the necessary change levels there-of.
  • shiposhipo Member Posts: 9,148
    Just as a point of reference; Mobil withdrew the Mobil AV 1 Synthetic Aviation oil during the summer of 1994, fifteen years ago. And yes, the inability of synthetic oil to hold TEL in suspension was a huge factor in the problems engines lubricated with that oil were dealing with.

    Best regards,
    Shipo
  • kurtamaxxxguykurtamaxxxguy Member Posts: 1,798
    http://www.avweb.com/news/savvyaviator/savvy_aviator_52_thinking_about_oil_chang- es_196730-1.html

    talks about TEL (am surprised they're still using TEL in Aviation fuel), acid attacks on engines, and ways oil can get contaminated.

    Granted, article pertains mainly to Aircraft, but is interesting wrt oil breakdown.

    Aside; how many countries on Earth still use Leaded gasoline?
  • roland3roland3 Member Posts: 431
    ... The aviation industry hangs on to tetraethyl-lead for some of these reasons: known standardized octane(s), potential valve seat and face erosion in thirty to fifty plus year old designs, and certified outlets. Quite a bit of the Experimental and a few (probably illegally) General Aviation, use pump unleaded. If you have enough octane and hard valve seat faces it really is not a problem. Of course if you get a batch of 87 and your engine needs ninety plus octane you could have major problems. Av-gas is also formulated for higher altitudes, and quite expensive.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    Aviation and marine engines run under such different conditions than automobiles that I'm not surprised they adhere to different standards. Besides all that, the consequences of failure must be taken into account. Experimentation is not a great idea in aviation. When I worked in Alaska, "tried and true" was more than good enough for us. Old beat up Cessna 180s and 185s did (and still do) the job the best IMO.
  • kurtamaxxxguykurtamaxxxguy Member Posts: 1,798
    Thinking about aircraft engines reminds me that a number of European auto engines consume quite a bit of oil (Various reports suggest some Audis and BMW's burn a quart or so every 4 - 5000 miles).

    I assume this oil consumption is not from bad tolerances, but design strategy.
    Where is the oil consumed from? The valve seals? The piston walls/rings?

    If from walls/rings, perhaps the oil consumption is to provide more thorough lubrication and/or piston cooling?
  • isellhondasisellhondas Member Posts: 20,342
    I once sold my sweet running 1984 RX7 to a guy I knew.

    This car ran like a dream until one day he had his oil changed and the shop suggested he use synthetic instead of the regular stuff I had always used.

    Several hundred miles later, he blew the engine. He had it towed to a well known shop in the area that only works on RX-7's. And the first question they asked him was had he put synthetic oil in it ?

    I know how wonderful a lot of people think synthetics are but I won't use them. For me the regualr oil works just fine!
  • shiposhipo Member Posts: 9,148
    Don't you think that story is more than a bit disingenuous? The fact is that Mazda expressly forbids the use of synthetic oil in their rotary engines to this day. Why? As I understand it, it keeps the engine too clean and that in turn causes the apex seals to fail.

    Said another way, trying to use a failed rotary engine (or even hundreds of failed rotary engines) as the basis for not using synthetic oil in piston engines is completely irrelevant. At this point in time there is such a huge body of scientific and empirical data that proves how well synthetic oil performs in pistons engines, even after ten to fifteen thousand miles, that to dismiss their use for anything other than personal/emotional/religious reasons is, well, disingenuous.

    Best regards,
    Shipo
  • isellhondasisellhondas Member Posts: 20,342
    The RX-7 story happened probably 15 years ago. At the time, I had no idea that Mazda was saying not to use synthetics in their rotarys.

    Call it disingenous if you wish,or call me old fashioned but, I just don't see the need for synthetics but that's me.

    I don't keep my cars forever nor do I drive 40,000 miles a year so for me, there would be no real benefit.

    I use top quality dino oil, I don't use additives and I change my oil using a quality filter every 4000-4500 miles. A couple of years ago, I pulled a valve cover on one of my cars that had over 100,000 miles and there wasn't a speck of gum or sludge to be found.

    So, if you want to use synthetics, go for it! To me, I just can't see any benefits and, yeah, the RX-7 incident still nags at me a bit.
  • bassprobasspro Member Posts: 34
    I'm coming in late,but wankels are much different engine technology and it is very difficult to stretch the concept that due to a wankel engine demise all syn oil is bad and should never be used.
    That would be kinda like saying "since all engines are not wankels then I will not buy a vehicle"!!
    All that said, everyone should be able to have their opinion. Mine is that because dino oil is an inferior product to syn. engine oil and I want to change my oil as little as possible for many reasons no matter how many miles I drive a year,syn. is the best way to achieve that goal. I do not want to pull my valve covers either at a 100,000 or 200,000 plus miles and my best chance to do that is with syn oil and OA's.
    Bottom line is different strokes for different folks. We are both right, just different goals.
  • isellhondasisellhondas Member Posts: 20,342
    I didn't say that all synthetic oil is bad. I just said that I don't see enough of a benefit to use it. But that's me!

    And, I didn't pull my valve cover just to look for sludge. It had a gasket starting to leak.

    I like the concept of clean fresh oil in my cars and that's why I change it as often as I do. I do have my opinion and that's what it is!
  • euphoniumeuphonium Member Posts: 3,425
    recommended to be used in pre cat classics. It is recommended by Mustang Monthly and when you investigate their website, you will maybe (perhaps) understand it is not Snake Oil. ;)
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    I think it is snake oil, because they are making a "claim by assertion", which is, that modern oils will wear out older flat tappet engines. And this assertion, while compelling, has no basis whatsoever in fact. So the basis for needing the product is not tenable.

    Ergo, snake oil.
  • euphoniumeuphonium Member Posts: 3,425
    Your consistent skepticism is understood & accepted.

    Please read an extensive article on page 46, July 2009, Mustang Monthly & advise if their presentation changes your mind about the product.

    I read, understand, bought, & installed it in my 66 Mustang GT for reasons cited in their piece.

    Thank you for giving it your reading. :)
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    I'd like to, but I don't have that magazine, sorry.

    I can say, though that it IS an additive, and my general attitude is that you don't "play chemist" with additives to an already good oil. "Extra" amounts of phosphorus or zinc don't necessarily offer "more" protection. More is not better chemically, although that is the "common sense" of snake oil products----that if X is good, MORE X is even better. I don't see anything scientifically-based that suggests that modern oils don't have "enough" what your old Mustang needs.

    If people can vintage-race reliably in club events with old Mustangs on normal oils, I don't see why anyone on the street needs ZDD. Just pick the best oil for your situation and you're good to go IMO.
  • isellhondasisellhondas Member Posts: 20,342
    One person's opinion who wrote an article doesn't mean much.

    Some people used to swear by STP too and I can't even guess at the number of engines that miserable stuff gunked up!

    I suppose if it makes you feel better to use this stuff, it probably won't cause any harm. Any "benefit" will be a placebo effect.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles