YIKES! on oil additives, etc. I got all excited when PTFE treatements came out, only to be disappointed in the side effects that surfaced later concerning gunking up everything. Then I got all excited when I saw the first ad for Castrol Syntec: "Protects in ways other oils can't." Yeah, you're right . . . other oils can't leave a bearing wear scar the size of the Grand Canyon that's bigger than other syn's AND reg. oils!!! (see Amsoil comparison chart). Talk about putting a "spin" on the facts . . .

Then I read about zMax, and it's FAA approval for aircraft and all it's bold statements & endorsements and was once more impressed, only to discover that recently it's being shot down by the fed's too. Besides vastly inconsistent results, there's a big issue of bearing corrosion that zMax conveniently left out of their ad campaign! And to think I almost put it in my baby . . .

Here's an article sent to my brother, Rick, from an Amsoil rep. (see next post)

 

Subject: Fwd: Aftermarket Oil Additives: An Industry's Shame (Part Two)


However, Ed Rachanski Sr., Oil-Chem's Research director, and
LePera say there are a number of other tests, vehicle field
tests, engine dynamometer tests and lab bench tests which
they say, certainly prove zMax to provide beneficial
effects. Further, to subject zMax to the laboratory and
engine dynamometer testing required for PI SL/GF-3 would be
inappropriate as it is neither an engine oil nor an additive
system. See, zMax is not an automotive engine oil or an
engine additive that is required to pass API/SAE/ILSAC
specifications and undergo the certification process, the
two reiterate. zMax by both public and industry concepts is
not an additive. Rather, it is in a unique field of its own,
as it treats the metal and not the engine oil.

Got that? They can test it, you can't.

Inside The Box: how is zMax used? Take a look at its
marketing program and product packaging. Which bears its
full title, zMax Micro-Lubricant Power System, selling for
$41.77. First zMax promises to increase gas mileage by 5-13
percent, soak into metal and protect the engine form inside
out, restore power and improve performance, reduce wear and
friction, lengthen engine life, prevent blow by and reduce
carbon formation, reduce emissions, protect vital engine
parts and is capable of lowering the coefficient of friction
between two sliding metal surfaces.

Lots of other claims, too, but you get the idea. NASCAR
legend A.J. Foyt plans to use it for the rest of my life.

The Slick packaging includes an API-like star burst
promising an iron clad 150,000 mile no-non-sense GUARANTEE,
when properly used every six thousand miles or every six
months which ever comes first. Another GUARANTEE: Better
fuel mileage or your money back. The product promises a
complete treatment for just about every conceivable kind of
engine from chain saws, leaf blowers, jet skis to gasoline
and diesel engines.

The package contains three bottles of fluid, one for the
engine, one for the transmission and one for the fuel tank.
(Directions for using them are tightly sealed inside the
tamper evident box they come in (no peaking!) For ground
transportation vehicle engines, LePera explained the
recommended treatment is to add zMax at the 6,000 mile drain
interval (i.e., It is added after the new oil has been
charged to the engine) or add zMax every six months, which
ever comes first.

Keep in mind that the $41.77 a zMax treatment cost could buy
a consumer four full crankcases of brand new, conventional
API-licensed SL oil, or close to two full crankcases of
premium priced Mobil 1 synthetic.

Next month we'll look at how automobile manufacturers and
the oil industry approach the ALA issue. Meanwhile, anyone
who buys ALA gets an automatic "A" in Professor P.T.
Barnum's introductory class, titled, There's a sucker born
every minute.


Sincerely,

Dave Mann
Lubrication Specialist - Truck/Automotive Engineer
Performance Oil Technology, L.L.C.
1-888-879-1362
Detroit Office:
2125 Newport Ct.
Wolverine Lake, MI 48390
Northern Office:
3698 Leeside Lane
Traverse City, MI 49686
http://www.performanceoiltechnology.com

 

Hmmm . . . Part One disappeared when I put Part Two up. Oh well, I'll try again.
Here's Part One:


From: "AMSOIL- Performance Oil Technology" <dave@performanceoiltechnology.com>
Date: October 30, 2004 10:09:05 AM EDT
To: "Rick" <ramblingsham@charter.net>
Subject: Aftermarket Oil Additives: An Industry's Shame


Aftermarket Lube Additives: An Industry's Shame

By David McFall

Dear Rick, This article is from Lubes and Greases
Magazine and is in my opinion precisely states the facts
about aftermarket oil additives. Here's the article:

Tucked into a musty corner of the massive petroleum
industry, sheltered by the indifference of oil marketers,
auto makers, retailers and the American Petroleum Institute,
is the $150 million aftermarket lube additive market a
virtual plague of engine oil additives, supplemental
additives, oil treatments and engine treatments.

Question One: What real benefits does this mouse milk (to
use the oil industry's own snickering phrase) provide?

The Answer: None, nada zip, zero.

Question Two: Do ALA's cause any harm?

The Answer: To engines, some probably do. To consumers and
their wallets, yes. And to the environment, a resounding
yes.

Shelves of the Northern Virginia Pep Boys store sport
bottles of Shell oil's newly acquired Slick 50 engine
treatment, Valvoline's SynPower Oil Treatment, STP Oil
Treatment, the ubiquitous Prolong and the latest Federal
Trade Commission target, zMax.

Also in this dubious assembly is the low-price entry,
Proline Oil Treatment; only 99 cents per oil change, for
which you'll get your noisy engine quieted, a reduction in
oil burning and increased compression.

Finally, there's the real howler, Marvel Mystery oil, from
USA Hardware in Minneapolis, at $1.99 an oil change. It will
combat internal motor rust and corrosion, lubricate valves,
piston rings and upper cylinder and eliminate valve
sticking, keep rings free and reduce piston and cylinder
wear, retard formation of power dissipating motor deposits
such as gum, varnish and sludge and will neutralize acid
formation and improve viscosity index.

In its owner's manual, Ford Motor Co. recommends against the
use of aftermarket lubricant additives (ALAs) for engines,
transmissions, transaxles, etc. For example, the engine oil
section in the 2003 Ranger pickups manual states twice, for
emphasis, on the same page, Do not use supplemental engine
oil additives, cleaners or other engine treatments. They are
unnecessary and could lead to engine damage that is not
covered by Ford warranty.

Don't add anything to you oil. 1998 Buick Regal owners
manual.

Do not add any material (other than leak detection dyes) to
engine oil. Engine oil is an engineered product and its
performance may be impaired by supplemental additives. 2003
Daimler Chrysler owners manual

Using supplemental additives is generally unnecessary and
can even be harmful (emphasis added). One should never use
an additive to fix a mechanical problem. Detroit Diesel
bulletin several years ago

ExxonMobil does not recommend (additive supplements and/or
engine treatments). Mobil 1 website

Du-uhh, isn't that what motor oil does? The real mystery is
why anyone would buy this product or reputable stores would
stock it.

Not yet on the Pep Boys shelf, but just off stage is another
truly revolutionary new technology. LuBoron Advanced
Lubrication Technology was, according to it promotional
literature, developed by the Department of Energy's Argonne
National Laboratories; its fully degradable products
literally change the surface characteristics of all metals
and reduce friction up to a staggering 80 percent, reduce
wear up to 90 percent, and reduce internally generated
friction heat by 40 percent to 50 percent. These dramatic
claims are fully documented.

LuBoron declined to respond to the issue of OEM concern over
log term engine durability (or any other issue, for that
matter) or possible harm from using aftermarket additives
such as LuBoron product.

In The Government's Sights. Beginning about a decade ago the
Federal Trade Commission mounted a long-term attack on
false, misleading and unsubstantiated performance claims
made by manufacturers of ALAs.

Such claims are at the center of all the FTC suits over
these products. When companies settle a suit they agree to
stop making false and misleading claims, and in many cases
pay a fine or a civil penalty.

Three of the more famous ALA manufacturers got nailed by the
FTC in the late 1990s. In 2000, Dura Lube settled and paid a
2 million dollar fine, and Motor Up settled, too, after
agreeing not to make claims it could it could not
scientifically support, and not to misrepresent tests,
studies or data on its product's performance. In 1999,
Prolong settled without a fine, also agreeing not to make
unsupported claims. Earlier, in 1995, First Brands paid a
$888,000 fine settle what the FTC said were misleading
claims for STP Oil Treatment. Each of these companies
continues to market ALAs.

Also, Quaker State (now part of Shell Oil) agreed to make at
least $10 million in consumer redress, over allegedly
deceptive advertising for Slick 50. And Ashland Inc.,

Valvoline's parent company, settled without a fine in 1997
on TM8, a PTFE-containing ALA it no longer markets (although
it has others on the retail shelves).

The FTC has only one active ALA case currently. Two years
ago it brought suit against Speedway Motorsports Inc. (which
owns and operates six NASCAR race tracks), alleging that the
company used false and misleading advertising for zMax auto
additives. ZMax is a product of Oil Chem Research Corp., a
wholly owned Speedway subsidiary. The suit was based on 1997
data from two L-38 engine tests, which measures bearing
corrosion.

These two tests, according to the FTC's initial complaint,
actually demonstrated that motor oil treated with zMax
produced more then twice as much bearing corrosion that
motor oil alone. The FTC complaint also charged Speedway and
Oil-Chem with fabricating one report from the two test
reports, eliminating the bearing corrosion results and all
other negative test results, and then used that report and
the officiallaboratory results - similarly edited to remove
detrimental data results as sales tools.

At press time, Lubes & Greases learned that the FTC has
withdrawn the suit from litigation and that the parties had
reached a settlement. Details of the agreement were
unavailable from FTC staff, however, until a judge finalized
it.

In the interim, Oil-Chem Research blusters that it will be
vindicated, thanks to a barrage of testing data it supplied.
The FTC's experts witnesses, it says, were unsuccessful to
discredit the completed tests where zMax had been shown a
reduce friction, increase horsepower, dissipate engine heat,
improve fuel economy, extend engine life, etc. Had the
witnesses been able to discredit the accumulated testing,
zMax would most certain have gone the same route of Prolong,
Slick 50, Motor Up and the rest.

It's likely, however, that zMax may be enjoined from hanging
a percentage on its fuel economy claim, one observer said.
(That is, increases gas mileage: would be OK; (Increases gas
mileage by 5-13 percent, as it now claims, would be
verboten.)

Not An Additive- Throughout the case, Speedway Motorsports
vigorously disputed the FTC charge. Speedway's consultant,
Mario LePera, formally with the U.S. Army's Mobility
Technology Center at Ft. Belvior, Va., noted; The L-38 tests
which the FTC relied on were run on oils formulated for
aircraft piston engines (i.e. meeting SAEJ1899) and that
although the test showed increased bearing corrosion, it did
not exceed the specifications limits for that product.

LePera presented Lubes & Greases with a list of six
additional L-38 (now renamed the Sequence VIII) engine
tests, which were conducted on zMax between November 2001
and January 2003. These were so called A/B testes, where the
tests runs first with engine oil alone, then with zMax
added. The oil used differed each time but one, as did the
treat rate with the zMax. Some results are widely
impressive, others impressively wild. Bearing weight loss
might go down 73.8 percent or up 8 percent, for example.
Blow by could increase 1.1 percent, or drop 3.5 percent. But
since every test is on different viscosity oil, or at a
different treat rate, how to compare them? And why the
differing treat rates anyway? Can't Oil-Chem settle on the
right one for these oils? The tests also don't speak to
Max's long-term effect on engine durability.

In every case, there were no increases in bearing corrosion,
LePera said, adding, all of the test, using wither SJ or SL
quality oils, were done in Oil-Chem's lab, by Oil-Chem
employees in stands calibrated according to ASTM D6709. (The
stands had not been referenced by the Test Monitoring
Center, as is done with independent engine test labs.)

If engine oils want to claim fuel economy benefits, they
must perform the difficult, expensive and finicky Sequence
VIB test. Should zMax be allowed to claim fuel economy
enhancements based on various oils and treat levels in the
L-38/Sequence VIII? (That's a question the FTC asked, too.
It'll be interesting to hear what the judge says.)

 

We have a 1994 Q45 customer with 341,000 miles on the engine on conventional oil [Valvoline 10w/30] changed every 90 days or 3,750 miles ..........that's 91 oil changes in 11 years ~~8 per year.

The absolute best oil additive is to just replace the oil and filter frequently!

My 270,000 mile Q [1990] still requires no make up oil between 90 day changes.

Oh yes and still accelerates frm 50-80 mph in 5.6 seconds [+- 0.3 seconds depending on temperature] the same as it did 10 years ago with 50,000 miles on engine. Current tranny has about the same 50k on it.

 

exactly....why are people surprised by this crap?

snake oil has been sold for ages

 

Q, I just spent a while reading the posts about reg. oil vs. synthetics, and the general consensus was as you say especially if you drive "normally" and change your oil regularly. However, my driving doesn't qualify for "normal," to say the least. Bottom line: My mom's Caddy would do just as well on reg. oil changed regularly (she drives like a little old lady because she IS a little old lady!). But this Z & my driving habits call for a bit more protection, in my humble personal opinion. I broke it in on conventional oil, but at 7,500 miles just changed over to Amsoil fully synthetic.
I feel this was a good decision considering my driving habits. But the main thing this post was for is to warn people about the Additive scams out there, with possible engine DAMAGE as a result. Not providing the listed benefits is one thing, but permanent engine damage is a whole different animal. If I can keep even one person from making a fatal mistake like I almost did, mission accomplished.

 

I honestly, truly believe it's all up to the user. I won a ~600 hp car, and have always used and will always use dino oil (castrol gtx)..I use the same on my 350, which I take care fo very well, but don't baby. Neither of our race cars (325 is ITS car and 330i Speed Cup car) use synthetic either and they are literally flogged all season long.

I am sure that for every horror story, there are success stories. Same goes for Amsoil honestly....I have seen it wreak havoc on some cars and on others its worked well.

 

True . . . "snake oil" indeed. However with the advanced technology of today you would think that an additive with truly beneficial properties such as those claimed would be possible, at least to some degree. And when a manufacturer such as zMax proclaims FAA approval if not endoresement, well, it got my attention.

 

Wow . . . that's the first bad thing I've ever heard said about Amsoil. What did you see happen?

PS- Put Amsoil synthetic (similar-weight) in the 6 spd. and it definitely shifts smoother and better (so far that is; just put it in). The whine that I though was the ring & pinion was actually the tranny, and now it's all but vanished too (at 40-70 mph that is; still hear it from 70-90 but less so). Also, the input shaft bearings on the tranny were noisy and were made much more noisy when I put the Nismo light (er) weight flywheel, but the Amsoil really dampened that down too (thank God).

 

One more note: I've always heard that short-trips are hardest on an engine and it seems logical. 90% of the places I usually go (bank, grocery store, etc.) are within a mile or two from me. This would make me think that I need all the protection I can get, especially from condensation and startup friction. Actually, this issue is probably much more pertinent to this discussion than occasional romping is.

According to a McDonnell-Douglas study, roughly 90% of all engine wear comes at initial startup.

 

(PS- That M-D study was concerning everyday passenger cars using conventional oil.)

 

z1, I'm also wondering why you've stuck with dino? Not knocking it; just curious.
And any more info. on the Amsoil incident would be great as well.

 

A few things on this subject:

Oils will not break down at any of the normal operating tempratures you will find in a street engine. Even racing engines see very little breakage caused by oil failure. The weak link in engine lubrication is actually the oil filter.

As the filter does it's job of taking blowby and naturally occuring minerals from your lubricant it's flow becomes more and more restricted. The reason a 3,000 mile/90 day replacement schedual is recommended isn't due to oil break down, it is to keep oil flowing freely through your filter.

I've done a lot of research and have come to the conclusion that on anything short of a top fuel dragster, dino oil is all you need. In all the research I have seen the best synthetic oil for a extreme condition engine is Redline synthetic products. They offer the best thermal break down protection and is the most common synthetic used by teams not sponsered by an oil company (talking top fueler here).

You want an Amsoil horror story? I've got one for ya.

While working as a Motorcycle mechanic at Tri-City Honda, our parts manager brought in his Honda CB400 hawk. He had developed a very loud clacking sound that he could not locate. With my stethascope diagnostic tool, I narrowed the sound down to the bottom end. There was more noise than normal occuring in the top end as well, however, the very loud "clatter" was coming from the crankcase.

After I completed the engine tear down I found a badly scored main bearing, a burnished main bearing, obvious wear on the connecting rod bearing, minor scoring on 2 cam bearings, the journals on the cam and almost every lifter and cam lobe. Johnny was really good at making his oil changes. He almost never got to 3000 miles but always changed his oil and filter prior to 90 days.

He broke his bike in on dino oil and as an Amsoil distributer he switched to Amsoil right after the break in period. The bike only had 8,000ish miles on it so the problem should never have happened.

Since Amsiol offers a warrenty on their products Johnny grabbed the warranty and went over the procedures for reimbursement. Here is what Amsoil requires on any claim:

In the event of a claim against AMSOIL INC., the procedure below must be completely followed.

a. Where the original warranty from the equipment manufacturer is still in effect, the customer shall file a warranty claim with the Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) in accordance with the OEM warranty procedure.

No OEM warranty will replace a complete engine caused by oil failure. I have no idea where they came up with this stipulation!

b. Customer shall retain failed parts for inspection by AMSOIL INC. unless given to the OEM.

I bagged up the main bearings and the con rod bearing for him to ship to them.

c. Customer shall also, within 30 days of failure, notify AMSOIL INC. and provide the following:

(a.) An eight (8) ounce representative oil sample taken from the failed equipment and put into a clean container.

We put more than 8 ounces of his oil into an Amsoil bottle for them to "analyze".

(b.) Documentation including make, model, and year of equipment, total accumulated miles and/or hours, and duty cycle or service environment.

(c.) Equipment or vehicle maintenance history documentation including miles or hours at the time of AMSOIL lubricant installation, general equipment repairs, and oil analysis results if available.

No problem there since he worked at the shop and we had all his service records to prove that he more than followed prescribed oil changes.

(d.) Proof of purchase for AMSOIL lubricant.

(e.) Batch number from oil container or Certificate of Analysis


We followed all the directions and sent in the massive amount of required documentation and/or parts and fluids.

His bike remained a basket case while he waited for a response. After numerous phone conversations and a three month wait he got a letter that basically stated that the failure was not caused by Amsoil and it had to be a manufacture defect in the machine itself!

Almost every bearing surface?! A failure or damage on almost every surface that requires lubrication would sure show a problem with the lubricant. If it were blocked oil paths (not the case) then the failures/damage would have been local and not occuring in both the top and bottom end of the engine. If there had been a bad bearing lot, then you would expect to find Main bearings only or con rod bearings only. Surely not both and certainly not both bottom end and top end! (The cam bearings on a CB400 are a intregal part of the head)

By the way, I have to wonder about a guy that lists A. J. Foyt as a "NASCAR legend". A. J.'s claim to fame was his Indy Car career. He only had 7 NASCAR wins. Better yet how about A. J. Foyt: The only man to win the Indy 500, Daytona 500 and 24 hours of Lemans -or- A. J. Foyt the only driver to win the Indy 500 four times?

If you really want to use a synthetic, go with Redline. But as I mentioned, it's really not needed unless you have an engine that builds up huge heat and pounds the bearing like there is no tomorrow.

This is because at start up there is very little oil on some surfaces of the engine. No matter whether you use synthetic or dino oil, this still holds true. The biggest problem area for lack of lubrication at start up is the rings themselves. Lubrication for the rings and thus the cylinder walls come from small holes under the rings in the ring grooves. Oil is forced through those holes and provides a small film of oil between the rings and the cylinder. It takes quite a bit of time before enough oil can be pushed through these oil paths to properly lubricate the rings and cylinder.

 

Kumacho, 1st, about the filter; why are they making them so small these days? It looks as if they've developed more efficiency by design but instead of using it to do a better job, they used it to make a smaller cheaper filter to do the SAME job.
The Mobil 1 filter I just put on this Z looks like it belongs on my lawnmower. Does anybody make a good, BIG filter using the latest design technology? Amsoil makes a bypass filter setup that looked like a good idea; have you seen that and if so, comments?

2nd, about the truly horrible horror story (appropriatly delivered on Halloween!), was this an iso. incident or do you know of more, and why do the Harley shops like the stuff so much? I realize Harley's & Honda's are not the same, but this ordeal sounds so bad I want to know more. That's highly ironic that Amsoil boasts their bearing wear charts all in your face, then renigs on something like that! What's Johnny's attorney got to say about it?

3rd, since as you say the startup wear is from lack of enough oil on bearing surfaces, why aren't pre-oilers more popular? Been curious about that, since often my car sits for a couple of days or more. Hmmm . . . is it the additives that they put in dino or syn that determines the startup wear resistance (I see claims on both sides)? Lemme guess . . . it's ALL bs!

 

The important part of the filter is... Does it filter! With newer filters they material inside is so superior that you do not need as much of it to do the same job. The only thing a larger filter does for you is give you more oil capacity in the filter and thus in the engine. If you change the filther every 3000 then the size means nothing of importance.


He never went as far as a lawyer. We did not keep an oil sample for an independant analysis. Lesson learned by the both of us. He should have paid the $45.00 to have a sample tested by another company. It was more than obvious to everyone at the shop, the damage was oil related. So we never thought that Amsoil would pull that on him. Bear in mind this was back in the '80s and I don't have any further communication with Johnny.


Actually the bearings are not the part of the engine that takes the most wear at start up. Main and connecting rod bearing normally keep a pretty good coat of oil on them because of where they are located. Cams on overhead cam engines normally have reseviors near the cam bearings and they also normally do not have no oil during start up. The biggest point of wear is rings and cylinder walls. This is the area that lacks oil the most after a vehicle sits for any amount of time. In fact one of the storage tips for an engine that will be unused for 3 months or more is to remove the spark plugs and poor about an ounce of oil into the cylinder. When you get ready to bring the engine out of lay-up you remove the plugs again and crank the engine over several times to coat the cylinder with oil. Then place the plugs back in and start (hopefully!) the vehicle.

 

If there was actually a decent additive out there, wouldn't the oil manufacturers be using it already?

It's stupid for people to think that you can actually improve upon a formula that the oil companies worked hard to perfect with some quack additive that a no-name company has come up with. How could this additive work the same on every type of oil that's available? It doesn't make any sense!

 

I see where you're coming from on that, but things don't always work that way (like they should). Like for example, I've heard that the stock oil filter is cheap & crappy compared to others avail. like Mobil 1. It's the bean counters' fault!
Their job is to cut corners and save a few beans, so that's what they do.
Another thing I heard recently (indirectly, but from a good source) from a Shell oil rep., is that often the auto makers will buy fluid in bulk that is cheaper because it doesn't have all the same (expensive) additives, and is inferior to the same brand oil WITH all the additives bought from your local KMart. Nissan knows it'll be changed in around 3k miles anyway, so how much harm can it do to scrimp on the extra additives for just these few miles, ONE time? Not much, one would be lead to beleive, based on their actions (assuming this is indeed true).

My point is that it isn't all that uncommon for the bean counters to occasionally put cheaper parts on in places if it saves them a nickel. We, the auto owners, have to then hash it all out and decide for ourselves whether to leave it be or get something more suitable and better.

 

Yeah, I've heard of that trick too, which brings me back to pre-oilers; would they not be the way to go on this dillema? Or is there some catch like there seems to be on everything else?

 

There are numerous good reasons for using a Pre-oiler. While most oil pans have built in baffles to keep oil starvation from happening, there are certain situations where the oil can move away from the pick up tube causing a momentary lack of lubrication.

One such cause is long sweeping turns and/or multiple turns in the same direction. Gone are the old days when simply long periods of braking can cause oil starvation.

The other cause we have already discussed. 50% of engine wear happens when you start an engine. Until oil pressure builds up and oil reaches all parts of the engine, you are basically running your engine with no oil.

A pre-oiler is really only needed if you are running extreme conditions on the track and even then it's debatable or if you are going to keep a vehicle for a very long time and are concerned with keeping the engine running well for many miles. When an engine run under normal maintenance and conditions can go 200,000 miles without a rebuild why be overly concerned about that 50% wear caused by start up? 200,000 miles vs. 300,000 miles, is it worth it?

If you decide you do want a pre-oiler, this is the best one I have found so far.. A good pre-oiler runs about $125.00 to $300.00. That's pretty cheap for adding 100,000 miles of life to an engine.

A few things on oil additives:

There are four basic variations on oil additives. There are your PTFE based additives (slick50 type), zinc dialkyldithiophosphate based (I'll call these Zinc only from now on), the same additives as are already found in most major brands of engine oil and those containing nothing but solvents and/or detergents.

The PTFE based additives (simply put) have a resin containing Teflon powder added to 50w motor oil.

While on the surface adding a Teflon coating to your metallic surfaces sounds good there are many problems that have developed.

The gunking problem that was already brought up by Shamblin, is caused when the Teflon powder builds up on itself. The Teflon attaches itself to the metals inside the engine and once all the metal is coated it starts to attach to itself. This chokes off some of the very small ports and paths that oil must flow through -- like the very small holes in the ring grooves -- and actually diminishes the amounts of oil delivered.

These PTFE particles are of a size that they are even trapped in the oil filter and render an oil filter pretty useless in a very short period of time.

When PTFE products first hit the market the inventors of Teflon, the DuPont Chemical Corporation, issued the following statement:

"Teflon is not useful as an ingredient in oil additives or oils used for internal combustion engines."

Now you have to ask yourself, why would the company that stands to gain the most from the proliferation of PTFE based products speak out against it? The monetary gains must not have outweighed the possible losses from bad press and/or lawsuits.

As a matter of fact, for a while Dupont refused to sell PTFE powders to anyone that intended to use them on internal combustion engines. Only after long court battles were they forced to start selling it to the additive manufacturers again.

The use of zinc in additives is also of great debate. All motor oils (except some synthetics) contain zinc. Zinc acts in a similar fashion to PTFE. It coats your engine parts with a softer metal than those parts creating a microscopic barrier between metal to metal. However, this zinc particulate does not attach to itself well and once the engine has this coat of zinc there is no need to have excess zinc. There is more than enough zinc in most motor oils to serve the purpose. So additives with zinc in them are a waste of money. The old adage if some is good then a lot is better, does not work here.

Too much zinc can lead to deposits on your valve faces, fouling of spark plugs and premature deterioration and damage to catalytic converters.

Those additives containing ingredients already found in your oil as just a sham. Oil companies have spent billions on developing formula for the right mixture and ratio of these additives. If more were needed to extend the life of an engine, the oil companies would be the ones doing it.

The final category of additives is the ones containing solvents and/or detergents. 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.

Oil additives? We dun' need no stinkin' oil additives!

 

"EBaDENTly . . ."

BTW; what do you use in your z and in what climate are you (what oil, & what filter)?