• 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Review Of Engine Oil Additives

Check out this You tube on the Engine oil additives. This looks really interesting.

Engine Oil Additive that REALLY WORKS


mustang7173 Big Grin
Wow that is a good video of the most important part of our engine :-D But what was the name of the product it's not easy to hear that? ;-) Regards Lars DK73

So I'm a proud owner of one Mach 1 73! Regards Lars DK73whistling
This is the oldest gimmick there is. Every major additive ( Slick 50, Dura-Lube, Pro-Long, Z-Max, etc...) seller has trotted out the old timken-bearing test machine at one time or another.
There are several reasons why this is a meaningless test. First and foremost, it is a static bench test that in no way represents the conditions within any typical engine. No roller bearing is designed to abrade against another bearing at an oblique or right angle. The wear event profile is not cosistent with any engine component design.
The FTC does not recognize ANY bench test as having any proveable value as to the useabilty of a motor oil lubricant.
The only tests that are legally allowed to support any claims of improved lubrication abilities over motor-oil are actual real-world tests within actual engines. Each part is precisely weighed before and then again after each test and the amount of material lost is the total wear.

Every additive that has used the timken test has been predominantly a zinc and/ or chlorine-based additive.
If you see someone doing this test, put some "Head and Shoulders" shampoo on the bearing...you will get the same results as the amazing "Bestline" ( or whatever snake oil they are selling).
Are you going to put shampoo in your engine because it makes a timken tester work so well?

Most oil additive marketers were slammed by the FTC back in the late 80's/ early 90's for making "unsubstantiated claims". They were especially harsh on the multiple depictions of engines running at high RPM for extended time with no oil in it.
The EU is even more strict than what America allows as trade advertisements. Castrol's "Syntech" synthetic motor oil ( the American name) was not allowed to use that name by the EU. Since it actually has 0% synthetic oil in its formula, it was not allowed to use the "Syntech" name or be described as any kind of synthetic oil. In the UK, it was known as "Magna-Tech". Same oil, different name.

You can still buy most of the bigger-named additives today, but they no longer make hardly any specific claim as to what they do. Just vague references to "improved lubrication" and ringing ( and paid) endorsements from well-known celebrities.
Most of these sellers rely on an endless string of "testimonials" from product users to sing the praises of the wonderful prodect. There are no regulations as to what a user says in an endorsement, since they don't work for the company and are not making any "official" claims on the company's behalf.

No serious test has ever been able to definitively prove that any magic additive will give any additional benefits over and above proper maintenance with quality oil.

Be aware of any product sold predominantly by the use of glowing endorsements.
Hi Kit okay thank you four solid Responce on this video Thanks Lars DK73

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Regards DK73

So I'm a proud owner of one Mach 1 73! Regards Lars DK73whistling

Found this article http://www.skepdic.com/slick50.html. Kit Sullivan pretty much said it all. I have been using the STP oil treatment in my 2007 F-150 for sometime. I am now going to stop using it.

By the way, I did put this in my F150 and have not noticed any difference in gas mileage!

You have many manufacturers such as Wynn's or Marly.
I attended such a demonstration in the early 90's of Wynn's, which consisted of draining the engine oil + Wynn's oil additive and then run the engine without oil for 30 minutes ranging from 2000 to 3500 rpm.
Share Thread:  

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)