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

FAQ part 4

*** Continuation of the "snake-oil" article ***

The Infamous "No Oil" Demo
   At at least three major motorcycle rallies this past year, we have
witnessed live demonstrations put on to demonstrate the effectiveness of
certain oil additives. The demonstrators would have a bench-mounted
engine which they would fill with oil and a prescribed dose of their
"miracle additive." After running the engine for a while they would stop
it, drain out the oil and start it up again. Instant magic! The engine
would run perfectly well for hours on end, seemingly proving the
effectiveness of the additive which had supposedly "coated" the inside of
the engine so well it didn't even need the oil to run. In one case, we
saw this done with an actual motorcycle, which would be rid den around
the parking lot after having its oil drained. A pretty convincing
demonstration - until you know the facts.
   Since some of these demonstrations were conducted using Briggs and
Stratton engines, the Briggs and Stratton Company itself decided to run a
similar, but somewhat more scientific, experiment. Taking two brand-new,
identical engines straight off their assembly line, they set them up for
bench-testing. The only difference was that one had the special additive
included with its oil and the other did not. Both were operated for 20
hours before being shut down and having the oil drained from them. Then
both were started up again and allowed to run for another 20 straight
hours. Neither engine seemed to have any problem performing this "minor
miracle."
   After the second 20-hour run, both engines were completely torn down
and inspected by the company's engineers. What they found was that both
engines suffered from scored crankpin bearings, but the engine treated
with the additive also suffered from heavy cylinder bore damage that was
not evident on the untreated engine.
   This points out once again the inherent problem with particulate oil
additives: They can cause oil starvation. This is particularly true in
the area of piston rings, where there is a critical need for adequate oil
flow. In practically all of the reports and studies on oil additives, and
particularly those involving suspended solids like PTFE, this has been
reported as a major area of engine damage.

The Racing Perspective
   Among the most convincing testimonials in favor of oil additives are
those that come from professional racers or racing teams. As noted
previously, some of the oil additive products actually are capable of
producing less engine friction, better gas mileage and higher horsepower
out put. In the world of professional racing, the split-second advantage
that might be gained from using such a product could be the difference
between victory and defeat.
   Virtually all of the downside or detrimental effects attached to these
products are related to extended, long-term usage. For short-life,
high-revving, ultra-high performance engines designed to last no longer
than one racing season (or in some cases, one single race), the long-term
effects of oil additives need not even be considered.
   Racers also use special high-adhesion tires that give much better
traction and control than our normal street tires, but you certainly
wouldn't want to go touring on them, since they're designed to wear out
in several hundred (or less) miles. Just because certain oil additives
may be beneficial in a competitive context is no reason to believe they
would be equally beneficial in a touring context.

The Best of The Worst
   Not all engine oil additives are as potentially harmful as some of
those we have described here. However, the best that can be said of those
that have not proved to be harmful is that they haven't been proved to
offer any real benefits, either. In some cases, introducing an additive
with a compatible package of components to your oil in the right
proportion and at the right time can conceivably extend the life of your
oil. However, in every case we have studied it proves out that it would
actually have been cheaper to simply change the engine oil instead.
   In addition, recent new evidence has come to light that makes using
almost any additive a game of Russian Roulette. Since the additive
distributors do not list the ingredients contained within their products,
you never know for sure just what you are putting in your engine.
   Recent tests have shown that even some of the most inoffensive
additives contain products which, though harmless in their initial state,
convert to hydrofluoric acid when exposed to the temperatures inside a
firing cylinder. This acid is formed as part of the exhaust gases, and
though it is instantly expelled from your engine and seems to do it no
harm, the gases collect inside your exhaust system and eat away at your
mufflers from the inside out.

Whatever The Market Will Bear
   The pricing of oil additives seems to follow no particular pattern
whatsoever. Even among those products that seem to be almost identical,
chemically, retail prices covered an extremely wide range. For example:
   One 32-ounce bottle of Slick 50 (with PTFE) cost us $29.95 at a
discount house that listed the retail price as $59.95, while a 32-ounce
bottle of T-Plus (which claims to carry twice as much PTFE as the Slick
50) cost us only $15.88.
   A 32-ounce bottle of STP Engine Treatment (containing what they call
XEP2), which they claim they can prove "outperforms leading PTFE engine
treatments," cost us $17.97. Yet a can of K Mart Super Oil Treatment,
which listed the same zinc-derivative ingredient as that listed for the
XEP2, cost us a paltry $2.67.
   Industry experts estimate that the actual cost of producing most oil
additives is from one-tenth to one-twentieth of the asking retail price.
Certainly no additive manufacturer has come forward with any exotic,
high-cost ingredient or list of ingredients to dispute this claim. As an
interesting note along with this, back before there was so much
competition in the field to drive prices down, Petrolon (Slick 50) was
selling their PTFE products for as much as $400 per treatment! The words
"buyer beware" seem to take on very real significance when talking about
oil additives.

The Psychological Placebo
   You have to wonder, with the volume of evidence accumulating against
oil additives, why so many of us still buy them. That's the
million-dollar question, and it's just as difficult to answer as why so
many of us smoke cigarettes, drink hard liquor or engage in any other
number of questionable activities. We know they aren't good for us - but
we go ahead and do them anyway.
   Part of the answer may lie in what some psychiatrists call the
"psychological placebo effect." Simply put, that means that many of us
hunger for that peace of mind that comes with believing we have purchased
the absolute best or most protection we can possibly get.
   Even better, there's that wonderfully smug feeling that comes with
thinking we might be a step ahead of the pack, possessing knowledge of
something just a bit better than everyone else.
   Then again, perhaps it comes from an ancient, deep-seated need we all
seem to have to believe in magic. There has never been any shortage of
unscrupulous types ready to cash in on our willingness to believe that
there's some magical mystery potion we can buy to help us lose weight,
grow hair, attract the opposite sex or make our engines run longer and
better. I doubt that there's a one of us who hasn't fallen for one of
these at least once in our lifetimes. We just want it to be true so bad
that we can't help ourselves.

Testimonial Hype vs. Scientific Analysis
   In general, most producers of oil additives rely on personal
"testimonials" to advertise and promote their products. A typical print
advertisement will be one or more letters from a satisfied customer
stating something like, "1 have used Brand X in my engine for 2 years and
50,000 miles and it runs smoother and gets better gas mileage than ever
before. I love this product and would recommend it to anyone."
   Such evidence is referred to as "anecdotal" and is most commonly used
to pro mote such things as miracle weight loss diets and astrology.
   Whenever I see one of these ads I am reminded of a stunt played out
several years ago by Allen Funt of "Candid Camera" that clearly
demonstrated the side of human nature that makes such advertising
possible.
   With cameras in full view, fake "product demonstrators" would offer
people passing through a grocery store the opportunity to taste-test a
"new soft drink." What the victims didn't know was that they were being
given a horrendous concoction of castor oil, garlic juice, tabasco sauce
and several other foul-tasting ingredients. After taking a nice, big
swallow, as instructed by the demonstrators, the unwitting victims
provided huge laughs for the audience by desperately trying to conceal
their anguish and disgust. Some literally turned away from the cameras
and spit the offending potion on the floor.
   The fascinating part came when about one out of four of the victims
would actually turn back to the cameras and proclaim the new drink was
"Great" or "Unique" or, in several cases, "One of the best things I've
ever tasted!" Go figure.
   The point is, compiling "personal testimonials" for a product is one
of the easiest things an advertising company can do - and one of the
safest, too. You see, as long as they are only expressing some one else's
personal opinion, they don't have to prove a thing! It's just an opinion,
and needs no basis in fact whatsoever.
   On the other hand, there has been documented, careful scientific
analysis done on numerous oil additives by accredited institutions and
researchers.
   For example:
   Avco Lycoming, a major manufacturer of aircraft engines, states, "We
have tried every additive we could find on the market, and they are all
worthless."
   Briggs and Stratton, renowned builders of some of the most durable
engines in the world, says in their report on engine oil additives, "They
do not appear to offer any benefits."
   North Dakota State University conducted tests on oil additives and
said in their report, "The theory sounds good - the only problem is that
the products simply don't work."
   And finally, Ed Hackett, chemist at the University of Nevada Desert
Research Center, says, "Oil additives should not be used. The oil
companies have gone to great lengths to develop an additive pack age that
meets the vehicle's requirements. If you add anything to this oil you may
upset the balance and prevent the oil from performing to specification."
   Petrolon, Inc., of Houston, Texas, makers of Petrolon and producers of
at least a dozen other lubrication products containing PTFE, including
Slick 50 and Slick 30 Motorcycle Formula, claim that, "Multiple tests by
independent laboratories have shown that when properly applied to an
automotive engine, Slick 50 Engine Formula reduces wear on engine parts.
Test results have shown that Slick 50 treated engines sustained 50
percent less wear than test engines run with premium motor oil alone."
   Sounds pretty convincing, doesn't it?
   The problem is, Petrolon and the other oil additive companies that
claim "scientific evidence" from "independent laboratories," all refuse
to identify the laboratories that conducted the tests or the criteria
under which the tests were conducted. They claim they are "contractually
bound" by the laboratories to not reveal their identities.
   In addition, the claim of "50 percent less wear" has never been proven
on anything approaching a long-term basis. Typical examples used to
support the additive makers' claims involve engines run from 100 to 200
hours after treatment, during which time the amount of wear particles in
the oil decreased. While this has proven to be true in some cases, it has
also been proven that after 400 to 500 hours of running the test engines
invariably reverted to producing just as many wear particles as before
treatment, and in some cases, even more.
   No matter what the additive makers would like you to believe, nothing
has been proven to stop normal engine wear.
   You will note that all of the research facilities quoted in this
article are clearly identified. They have no problem with making their
findings public. You will also note that virtually all of their findings
about oil additives are negative. That's not because we wanted to give a
biased report against oil additives - it's because we couldn't find a
single laboratory, engine manufacturer or independent research facility
who would make a public claim, with their name attached to it, that any
of the additives were actually beneficial to an engine. The conclusion
seems inescapable.
   As a final note on advertising hype versus the real world, we saw a
television ad the other night for Slick 50 oil additive. The ad
encouraged people to buy their product on the basis of the fact that,
"Over 14 million Americans have tried Slick 50!" Great. We're sure you
could just as easily say, "Over 14 million Americans have smoked
cigarettes!"-but is that really any reason for you to try it? Of course
not, because you've seen the scientific evidence of the harm it can do.
The exact same principle applies here.

In Conclusion
   The major oil companies are some of the richest, most powerful and
aggressive corporations in world. They own multi-million dollar research
facilities manned by some of the best chemical engineers money can hire.
It is probably safe to say that any one of them has the capabilities and
resources at hand in marketing, distribution, advertising, research and
product development equal to 20 times that of any of the independent
additive companies. It therefore stands to reason that if any of these
additive products were actually capable of improving the capabilities of
engine lubricants, the major oil companies would have been able to
determine that and to find some way to cash in on it.
   Yet of all the oil additives we found, none carried the name or
endorsement of any of the major oil producers.
   In addition, all of the major vehicle and engine manufacturers spend
millions of dollars each year trying to increase the longevity of their
products, and millions more paying off warranty claims when their
products fail. Again, it only stands to reason that if they thought any
of these additives would increase the life or improve the performance of
their engines, they would be actively using and selling them - or at
least endorsing their use.
   Instead, many of them advise against the use of these additives and,
in some cases, threaten to void their warranty coverage if such things
are found to be used in their products.
   In any story of this nature, absolute "facts" are virtually impossible
to come by. Opinions abound. Evidence that points one direction or the
other is avail able, but has to be carefully ferreted out, and is not
always totally reliable or completely verifiable.
   In this environment, conclusions reached by known, knowledgeable
experts in the field must be given a certain amount of weight.
Conclusions reached by unknown, unidentifiable sources must be discounted
almost totally. That which is left must be weighed, one side against the
other, in an attempt to reach a "reasonable" conclusion.
   In the case of oil additives, there is a considerable volume of
evidence against their effectiveness. This evidence comes from well-known
and identifiable expert sources, including independent research
laboratories, state universities, major engine manufacturers, and even
NASA.
   Against this rather formidable barrage of scientific research,
additive makers offer not much more than their own claims of
effectiveness, plus questionable and totally unscientific personal
testimonials. Though the purveyors of these products state they have
studies from other independent laboratories supporting their claims, they
refuse to identify the labs or provide copies of the research. The only
test results they will share are those from their own testing
departments, which must, by their very nature, be taken with a rather
large grain of salt.

Sidebar: Synthetic Oils
   Whenever we talk about oil additives, the subject of synthetic oils
inevitably crops up. Actually, the tow subjects have very little to do
with each other, but since many riders seem to equate additives and
synthetics together in their minds, we will take a few lines just to
clear the air.
   Synthetic oils were originally developed for use in gas turbine
engines. In most cases they are capable of maintaining their viscosity
for longer periods of use and under much greater temperatures and
pressures than petroleum products. Commons synthetics used for engine
lubrication today are Polyalphaolefin (like Mobil 1) or Dibasic Organic
Esters (like AMSOIL). They are fully compatible with conventional oils
and can be mixed, providing their ratings match.
   Probably the best situation is a blend of synthetics and mineral oils,
such as Golden Spectro and AGIP Sint 2000. These products seem to offer
the best of both worlds in protection and extended service life. They may
cost considerably more than standard petroleum products, but they also
can be used for much longer periods between oil changes without losing
their protective capabilities.
   Synthetics and synthetic blends offer a wider range of protection than
standard petroleum products. However, it should be noted that this
extended range of protection reaches into an area of temperatures and
pressures virtually impossible to attain inside most motorcycle engines
and transmissions. In other words, if you use them, you are buying a sort
of "overkill protection." It's certainly not going to hurt anything -
it's just unnecessary. That is, unless it makes you feel better knowing
the extra protection is on board, in which case the added expense may be
well justified.
   As a basic rule of thumb, using the standard engine oil recommended by
your bike's manufacturer and changing it about every 3000 miles will
afford you all the protection you'll ever need. But if you feel better
knowing you have more protection than you need or, if you like the
extended service-life feature, there's certainly nothing wrong with using
a premium grade synthetic blend lubricant.


==============================
Section 12.2:	Should i use synthetic oil?

==============================
Section 12.3:	Tackling overheating problems

A: 	(by Dave Foster: ifoster@domain.elided)

- - -had the radiator removed and cleaned
- - -replaced every hose in the sucker except the little-tiny one behind the
 water-pump
- - -replace the radiator cap with a new one
- - -flushed and refreshed the system

No one thing did it: each item improved it a little bit although I would
have to say the radiator cap was the biggest improvement.

<<<<<	(by Paul O'Donnell: pod@domain.elided: edited)

>On both of our big sixes, 528i and 533i, they usually run a bit
>hot in slow street traffic. Once they got on the expressway, the temp
>returns to normal.  You might want to check the fan clutch.

These are exactly the opposite symptoms to those described by Ian.
At high speeds, the fan is irrelevant and so the fan is unlikely
to be the problem.  Similarly, water pump problems would show up
at lower speeds.  I have had two cars which exhibited the symptoms
Ian described - overheating at HIGH speed.  In both cases the
problem was a radiator with insufficient capacity.  This is caused
either by a blockage, or just a radiator that is too small.

<<<<<	(by Jor ??: HARRIS.JTHOMP01@domain.elided)

I'm not too sure about BMW's, but most engines
have a thermostat that regulates the engine temperature.
This is just a tempurature-controled valve that opens at a
fixed temperature (you buy the valve designed for a given
operating temperature).  It is usually located on the top of
the head where the water flows out and back into the
radiator.  It is easily removed.  Put it into a pot
of water on the stove.  Raise the temperature of the water
and note what temperature the valve opens.  Compare this to
the temperature stamped on the valve and the temperature in
the manual.  You could even operate the car with the valve
removed with no harm to the engine (it will take longer for
the engine to warm up)

<<<<<	(by Rick Kjeldsen: kjeldsen@domain.elided)

A common problem with later BMWs is that the auxilary (electrical)
cooling fan doesn't work.  It is supposed to come on at low speed
when the air conditioner is turned on or when a tempature threshold
is reached (~190 degrees F).  It is supposed to come on at high
speed at a higher temp threshold (~200).  A common problem is that
the low speed resistor burns out, so it never turns on low, then
when it turns on high, the load of starting at high speed from a
complete standstill takes out the fuse.  However it isn't unknown for
the fan itself to be bad.
Symptoms of this are poor AC performance at low speeds and a tendency
to overheat at idle on a hot day.
The fan is behind the grill, in front of the AC condensor.  The
manuals say to pull the radiators to get at it, but if you are careful
you can get at it by removing the grill and sliding it out torward
the ground (E30).
You can tell if the problem is the resistor or the fan by bypassing
the thermo switch which turns it on high and checking if the fan turns.
(details available on request).
If the resistor is bad, it is relatively easy to replace.  The resistor
is .6 ohm (THE E30 ETM IS WRONG, saying it is a 6 ohm resistor!).  It
is a rectangle about .5"x.5"x2" attached to the fan housing.  You can
play with standard resistors, but I've only had lasting success using
dealer parts (about $25). You may have to cut and splice the wires to
install the new resistor (depending on the model, year and fan
manufacturer).

==============================