[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

FAQ part 3/10

- - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chapter 12.0: Engine

+ Section 12.1:	How do i choose a motor oil?

< Since this article is now a FAQ posted monthly on rec.autos.tech, I
no longer feel the need to put it here. I am including the header from
the FAQ to give you an idea >

- - - - - - - - -
To help fill the never-ending search for knowledge which is USENET:-}, the
following info sheet (FAQ if you wish) is being posted to rec.motorcycles
and rec.autos.tech monthly. Any updated information would be greatly
appreciated.

=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
           More Than You Ever Wanted to Know About Motor Oil
                  By Ed Hackett <edh@domain.elided>

Edits: v1.0 First there was 1.0. Before that there was darkness.
       v1.1 Change in description of viscosity.
       v1.2 Updated info on AMSOIL (courtesy of Morgan McArthur
<mgn@domain.elided>)
- - - - - - - - -


< from Steven J. Bernstein   bernstein@domain.elided >

I got this article off of the Electric-Vehicle list, where friction is the
enemy. 8^) (not in an EV motor, but diffs and stuff).  Since there have
been many discussions here asking for real statistics on these products, I
hope you find it useful.  It was rather long, sorry.

This was posted on rec.motorcycles...

Snake Oil!
Is That Additive Really A Negative?
Article and Photos by Fred Rau
ROAD RIDER/August 1992/Pg 15

   Information for this article was compiled from reports and studies by
the University of Nevada Desert Research Center, DuPont Chemical Company,
Avco Lycoming (aircraft engine manufacturers), North Dakota State
University, Briggs and Stratton (engine manufacturers), the University of
Utah Engineering Experiment Station, California State Polytechnic College
and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's Lewis Research
Center.

   Road Rider does not claim to have all the answers. Nor do we care to
presume to tell you what to do. We have simply tried to provide you with
all the information we were able to dredge up on this subject, in hopes
it will help you in making your own, informed decision.

You Can't Tell The Players Without A Program

   On starting this project, we set out to find as many different oil
additives as we could buy. That turned out to be a mistake. There were
simply too many avail able! At the very first auto parts store we
visited, there were over two dozen different brand names available. By
the end of the day, we had identified over 40 different oil additives for
sale and realized we needed to rethink our strategy.
   First of all, we found that if we checked the fine print on the
packages, quite a number of the additives came from the same
manufacturer. Also, we began to notice that the additives could be
separated into basic "groups" that seemed to carry approximately the same
ingredients and the same promises.
   In the end, we divided our additives into four basic groups and
purchased at least three brands from three different manufacturers for
each group. We defined our four groups this way:
   1.) Products that seemed to be nothing more than regular 50-rated
engine oil (including standard additives) with PTFE (Teflon TM) added.
   2.) Products that seemed to be nothing more than regular 50-rated
engine oil (including standard additives) with zinc dialkyldithiophosphate
added.
   3.) Products containing (as near as we could determine) much the same
additives as are already found in most major brands of engine oil, though
in different quantities and combinations.
   4.) Products made up primarily of solvents and/or detergents.
   There may be some differences in chemical makeup within groups, but
that is impossible to tell since the additive manufacturers refuse to
list the specific ingredients of their products. We will discuss each
group individually.

 The PTFE Mystery

   Currently, the most common and popular oil additives on the market are
those that contain PTFE powders suspended in a regular, over-the-counter
type, 50-rated petroleum or synthetic engine oil. PTFE is the common
abbreviation used for Polytetrafloeraethylene, more commonly known by the
trade name "Teflon," which is a registered trademark of the DuPont
Chemical Corporation. Among those oil additives we have identified as
containing PTFE are: Slick 50, Liquid Ring, Lubrilon, Microlon, Matrix,
Petrolon (same company as Slick 50), QMl, and T-Plus (K-Mart). There are
probably many more names in use on many more products using PTFE. We have
found that oil additive makers like to market their products under a
multitude of "private brand" names.
   While some of these products may contain other additives in addition
to PTFE, all seem to rely on the PTFE as their primary active ingredient
and all, without exception, do not list what other ingredients they may
contain.
   Though they have gained rather wide acceptance among the motoring
public, oil additives containing PTFE have also garnered their share of
critics among experts in the field of lubrication. By far the most
damning testimonial against these products originally came from the
DuPont Chemical Corporation, inventor of PTFE and holder of the patents
and trademarks for Teflon. In a statement issued about ten years ago,
DuPont's Fluoropolymers Division Product Specialist, J.F. Imbalzano said,
"Teflon is not useful as an ingredient in oil additives or oils used for
internal combustion engines."
   At the time, DuPont threatened legal action against anyone who used
the name "Teflon" on any oil product destined for use in an internal
combustion engine, and refused to sell its PTFE powders to any one who
intended to use them for such purposes.
   After a flurry of lawsuits from oil additive makers, claiming DuPont
could not prove that PTFE was harmful to engines, DuPont was forced to
once again begin selling their PTFE to the additive producers. The
additive makers like to claim this is some kind of "proof' that their
products work, when in fact it is nothing more than proof that the
American legal ethic of "innocent until proven guilty" is still alive and
well. The decision against DuPont involved what is called "restraint of
trade." You can't refuse to sell a product to someone just because there
is a possibility they might use it for a purpose other than what you
intended it for.
   It should be noted that DuPont's official position on the use of PTFE
in engine oils remains carefully aloof and noncommittal, for obvious
legal reasons. DuPont states that though they sell PTFE to oil additive
producers, they have "no proof of the validity of the additive makers'
claims." They further state that they have "no knowledge of any advantage
gained through the use of PTFE in engine oil."
   Fear of potential lawsuits for possible misrepresentation of a product
seem to run much higher among those with the most to lose.
   After DuPont's decision and attempt to halt the use of PTFE in engine
oils, several of the oil additive companies simply went elsewhere for
their PTFE powders, such as purchasing them in other countries. In some
cases, they disguise or hype their PTFE as being something different or
special by listing it under one of their own tradenames. That doesn't
change the fact that it is still PTFE.
   In addition, there is some evidence that certain supplies of PTFE
powders (from manufacturers other than DuPont) are of a cruder version
than the original, made with larger sized flakes that are more likely to
"settle out" in your oil or clog up your filters. One fairly good
indication that a product contains this kind of PTFE is if the
instructions for its use advise you to "shake well before using." It only
stands to reason that if the manufacturer knows the solids in his product
will settle to the bottom of a container while sitting on a shelf, the
same thing is going to hap pen inside your engine when it is left idle
for any period of time.
   The problem with putting PTFE in your oil, as explained to us by
several industry experts, is that PTFE is a solid. The additive makers
claim this solid "coats" the moving parts in an engine (though that is
far from being scientifically proven). Slick 50 is currently both the
most aggressive advertiser and the most popular seller, with claims of
over 14 million treatments sold. However, such solids seem even more
inclined to coat non-moving parts, like oil passages and filters. After
all, if it can build up under the pressures and friction exerted on a
cylinder wall, then it stands to reason it should build up even better in
places with low pressures and virtually no friction.
   This conclusion seems to be borne out by tests on oil additives
containing PTFE conducted by the NASA Lewis Research Center, which said
in their report, "In the types of bearing surface contact we have looked
at, we have seen no benefit. In some cases we have seen detrimental
effect. The solids in the oil tend to accumulate at inlets and act as a
dam, which simply blocks the oil from entering. Instead of helping, it is
actually depriving parts of lubricant."
   Remember, PTFE in oil additives is a suspended solid. Now think about
why you have an oil filter on your engine. To remove suspended solids,
right? Right. Therefore it would seem to follow that if your oil filter
is doing its job, it will collect as much of the PTFE as possible, as
quickly as possible. This can result in a clogged oil filter and
decreased oil pres sure throughout your engine.
   In response to our inquiries about this sort of problem, several of
the PTFE pushers responded that their particulates were of a sub-micron
size, capable of passing through an ordinary oil filter unrestricted.
This certainly sounds good, and may in some cases actually be true, but
it makes little difference when you know the rest of the story. You see,
PTFE has other qualities besides being a friction reducer: It expands
radically when exposed to heat. So even if those particles are small
enough to pass through your filter when you purchase them, they very well
may not be when your engine reaches normal operating temperature.
   Here again, the' scientific evidence seems to support this, as in
tests conducted by researchers at the University of Utah Engineering
Experiment Station involving Petrolon additive with PTFE.
   The Petrolon test report states, "There was a pressure drop across the
oil filter resulting from possible clogging of small passageways." In
addition, oil analysis showed that iron contamination doubled after using
the treatment, indicating that engine wear didn't go down - it appeared
to shoot up.
   This particular report was paid for by Petrolon (marketers of Slick
50), and was not all bad news for their products. The tests, conducted on
a Chevrolet six-cylinder automobile engine, showed that after treatment
with the PTFE additive the test engine's friction was reduced by 13.1
percent. Also, output horsepower increased from 5.3 percent to 8.1
percent, and fuel economy improved from 11.8 percent under light load to
3.8 percent under heavy load.
   These are the kind of results an aggressive marketing company like
Petrolon can really sink their teeth into. If we only reported the
results in the last paragraph to you, you'd be inclined to think Slick 50
was indeed a magic engine elixir. What you have to keep in mind is that
often times the benefits (like increased horse power and fuel economy)
may be out weighed by some serious drawbacks (like the indications of
reduced oil pressure and increased wear rate).

The Plot Thickens
   Just as we were about to go to press with this article, we were
contacted by the public relations firm of Trent and Company, an outfit
with a prestigious address in the Empire State Building, New York. They
advised us they were working for a company called QMI out of Lakeland,
Florida, that was marketing a "technological breakthrough" product in oil
additives. Naturally, we asked them to send us all pertinent information,
including any testing and research data.
   What we got was pretty much what we expected. QMI's oil additive,
according to their press release, uses "ten times more PTFE resins than
its closest competitor." Using the "unique SX-6000 formula," they say
they are the only company to use "aqueous dispersion resin which means
the microns (particle sizes) are extensively smaller and can penetrate
tight areas." This, they claim, "completely eliminates the problem of
clogged filters and oil passages."
   Intrigued by their press release, we set up a telephone interview with
their Vice-President of Technical Services, Mr. Owen Heatwole. Mr.
Heatwole's name was immediately recognized by us as one that had popped
in earlier research of this subject as a former employee of Petrolon, a
company whose name seems inextricably linked in some fashion or another
with virtually every PTFE-related additive maker in the country.
   Mr. Heatwole was a charming and persuasive talker with a knack for
avoiding direct answers as good as any seasoned politician. His glib
pitch for his product was the best we've ever heard, but when dissected
and pared down to the verifiable facts, it actually said very little.
   When we asked about the ingredients in QMI's treatments, we got almost
exactly the response we expected. Mr. Heatwole said he would "have to
avoid discussing specifics about the formula, for proprietary reasons."
   After telling us that QMI was being used by "a major oil company," a
"nuclear plant owned by a major corporation" and a "major engine
manufacturer," Mr. Heatwole followed up with, "Naturally, I can't reveal
their names - for proprietary reasons."
   He further claimed to have extensive testing and research data
available from a "major laboratory," proving conclusively how effective
QMI was. When we asked for the name of the lab, can you guess? Yup, "We
can't give out that information, for proprietary reasons."
   What QMI did give us was the typical "testimonials," though we must
admit theirs came from more recognizable sources than usual. They seem to
have won over the likes of both Team Kawasaki and Bobby Unser, who
evidently endorse and use QMI in their racing engines. Mr. Heatwole was
very proud of the fact that their product was being used in engines that
he himself admitted are "torn down and completely inspected on a weekly
basis." Of course, what he left out is that those same engines are almost
totally rebuilt every time they're torn down. So what does that prove in
terms of his product reducing wear and promoting engine longevity?
Virtually nothing.
   Mr. Heatwole declined to name the source of QMI's PTFE supply "for
proprietary reasons." He bragged that their product is sold under many
different private labels, but refused to identify those labels "for
proprietary reasons." When asked about the actual size of the PTFE
particles used in QMI, he claimed they were measured as "sub-micron in
size" by a "major motor laboratory" which he couldn't identify - you
guessed it - for "proprietary reasons."
   After about an hour of listening to "don't quote me on this," "I'll
have to deny that if you print it," and "I can't reveal that," we asked
Mr. Heatwole if there was something we could print. "Certainly," he said,
"Here's a good quote for you: 'The radical growth in technology has
overcome the problem areas associated with PTFE in the 1980s'"
   "Not bad," we said. Then we asked to whom we might attribute this gem
of wisdom. DuPont Chemical, perhaps?
   "Me," said Mr. Heatwole. "I said that."
   QMI's press releases like to quote the Guinness Book Of Records in
saying that PTFE is "The slickest substance known to man." Far be it from
us to take exception to the Guinness Book, but we doubt that PTFE is much
slicker than some of the people marketing it.

The Zinc Question
   The latest "miracle ingredient" in oil additives, attempting to usurp
PTFE's cure-all throne, is zinc dialkyldithiophosphate, which we will
refer to here after as simply "zinc."
   Purveyors of the new zinc-related products claim they can prove
absolute superiority over the PTFE-related products. Naturally, the PTFE
crowd claim exactly the same, in reverse.
   Zinc is contained as part of the standard additive package in
virtually every major brand of engine oil sold today, varying from a low
volume of 0.10 per cent in brands such as Valvoline All Climate and
Chevron l5W-50, to a high volume of 0.20 percent in brands such as
Valvoline Race and Pennzoil GT Performance.
   Organic zinc compounds are used as extreme pressure, anti-wear
additives, and are therefore found in larger amounts in oils specifically
blended for high-revving, turbocharged or racing applications. The zinc
in your oil comes into play only when there is actual metal-to-metal con
tact within your engine, which should never occur under normal operating
conditions. However, if you race your bike, or occasionally play tag with
the redline on the tach, the zinc is your last line of defense. Under
extreme conditions, the zinc compounds react with the metal to prevent
scuffing, particularly between cylinder bores and piston rings.
   However - and this is the important part to remember - available
research shows that more zinc does not give you more protection, it
merely prolongs the protection if the rate of metal-to-metal contact is
abnormally high or extended. So unless you plan on spending a couple of
hours dragging your knee at Laguna Seca, adding extra zinc compounds to
your oil is usually a waste. Also, keep in mind that high zinc content
can lead to deposit formation on your valves, and spark plug fouling.
   Among the products we found containing zinc dialkyldithiophosphate
were Mechanics Brand Engine Tune Up, K Mart Super Oil Treatment, and STP
Engine Treatment With XEP2. The only reason we can easily identify the
additives with the new zinc compounds is that they are required to carry
a Federally mandated warning label indicating they contain a hazardous
substance. The zinc phosphate they contain is a known eye irritant,
capable of inflicting severe harm if it comes in contact with your eyes.
If you insist on using one of these products, please wear protective
goggles and exercise extreme caution.
   As we mentioned, organic zinc compounds are already found in virtually
every major brand of oil, both automotive and motorcycle. However, in
recent years the oil companies voluntarily reduced the amount of zinc
content in most of their products after research indicated the zinc was
responsible for premature deterioration and damage to catalytic
converters. Obviously this situation would not affect 99 percent of all
the motorcycles on the road - however, it could have been a factor with
the newer BMW converter - equipped bikes.
   Since the reduction in zinc content was implemented solely for the
protection of catalytic converters, it is possible that some motorcycles
might benefit from a slight increase in zinc content in their oils. This
has been taken into account by at least one oil company, Spectro, which
offers 0.02 to 0.03 percent more zinc compounds in its motorcycle oils
than in its automotive oils.
   Since Spectro (Golden 4 brand, in this case) is a synthetic blend
lubricant designed for extended drain intervals, this increase seems to
be wholly justified. Also, available research indicates that Spectro has,
in this case, achieved a sensible balance for extended application
without increasing the zinc content to the point that it is likely to
cause spark plug fouling or present a threat to converter-equipped BMW
models.
   It would appear that someone at Spectro did their homework.

Increased Standard Additives (More Is Not Necessarily Better)
   Though some additives may not contain anything harmful to your engine,
and even some things that could be beneficial, most experts still
recommend that you avoid their use. The reason for this is that your oil,
as purchased from one of the major oil companies, already contains a very
extensive additive package.
   This package is made up of numerous, specific additive components,
blended to achieve a specific formula that will meet the requirements of
your engine. Usually, at least several of these additives will be
synergistic. That is, they react mutually, in groups of two or more, to
create an effect that none of them could attain individually. Changing or
adding to this formula can upset the balance and negate the protective
effect the formula was meant to achieve, even if you are only adding more
of something that was already included in the initial package.
   If it helps, try to think of your oil like a cake recipe. Just because
the original recipe calls for two eggs (which makes for a very moist and
tasty cake), do you think adding four more eggs is going to make the cake
better? Of course not. You're going to upset the carefully calculated
balance of ingredients and magnify the effect the eggs have on the recipe
to the point that it ruins the entire cake. Adding more of a specific
additive already contained in your oil is likely to produce similar
results.
   This information should also be taken into account when adding to the
oil already in your bike or when mixing oils for any reason, such as
synthetic with petroleum. In these cases, always make sure the oils you
are putting together have the same rating (SA, SE, SC, etc.). This tells
you their additive packages are basically the same, or at least
compatible, and are less likely to upset the balance or counteract each
other.

Detergents And Solvents
   Many of the older, better-known oil treatments on the market do not
make claims nearly so lavish as the new upstarts. Old standbys like
Bardahl, Rislone and Marvel Mystery Oil, instead offer things like
"quieter lifters," "reduced oil burning" and a "cleaner engine."
   Most of these products are made up of solvents and detergents designed
to dissolve sludge and carbon deposits inside your engine so they can be
flushed or burned out. Wynn's Friction Proofing Oil, for example, is 83
percent kerosene. Other brands use naphthalene, xylene, acetone and
isopropanol. Usually, these ingredients will be found in a base of
standard mineral oil.
   In general, these products are designed to do just the opposite of
what the PTFE and zinc phosphate additives claim to do. Instead of
leaving behind a "coating" or a "plating" on your engine surfaces, they
are designed to strip away such things.
   All of these products will strip sludge and deposits out and clean up
your engine, particularly if it is an older, abused one. The problem is,
unless you have some way of determining just how much is needed to remove
your deposits without going any further, such solvents also can strip
away the boundary lubrication layer provided by your oil. Overuse of
solvents is an easy trap to fall into, and one which can promote harmful
metal-to-metal contact within your engine.
   As a general rule of thumb these products had their place and were at
least moderately useful on older automobile and motorcycle engines of the
Fifties and Sixties, but are basically unneeded on the more efficient
engine designs of the past two decades.

*** Article To be continued! ***

- ------- End of Forwarded Message