oil additive cleaners....good or bad?
11-19-2005, 08:07 AM
#1
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 625
oil additive cleaners....good or bad?
a mechanic told me that when adding those engine cleaner additives to ur crankcase before an oil change to clean ur motor isnt a good thing.
he made a lot of sense. so now i turn to the org for their 2cents.
he said that when the additive is added prior to an oil change and u let ur car run for 10 minutes with this additive in the crankcase, all the sludge and debris that may breakloose due to the additive isnt a good thing.
he said that some of this debris will remain in the bottom of the oil pain and not drain out when the oil is drained. it will next recirculate with the new oil and over time cause damage and clogs here and there.
what he recommends is adding the cleaner and when draining the oil.....drop the oil pan lastly and clean it out thouroughly
what do u guys think about this? it makes alot of sense to me atleast. but is it worth adding those engine cleaner additives prior to an oil change?
he made a lot of sense. so now i turn to the org for their 2cents.
he said that when the additive is added prior to an oil change and u let ur car run for 10 minutes with this additive in the crankcase, all the sludge and debris that may breakloose due to the additive isnt a good thing.
he said that some of this debris will remain in the bottom of the oil pain and not drain out when the oil is drained. it will next recirculate with the new oil and over time cause damage and clogs here and there.
what he recommends is adding the cleaner and when draining the oil.....drop the oil pan lastly and clean it out thouroughly
what do u guys think about this? it makes alot of sense to me atleast. but is it worth adding those engine cleaner additives prior to an oil change?
11-19-2005, 09:28 AM
#3
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 291
The only engine cleaner that I recommend is auto rx. It is non solvent based and cleans slowly without "shocking" the engine. It is not cheap but it works.
http://www.auto-rx.com/
If you decide to use it, follow the instructions to the letter especially regarding the filter changes.
http://www.auto-rx.com/
If you decide to use it, follow the instructions to the letter especially regarding the filter changes.
11-19-2005, 10:17 AM
#4
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 6,190
Like johnny says follow the AutoRX instructions to the T. Another product worthy of consideration following AutoRX on a maintenance basis is LubeControl LC20 -see www.lubecontrol.com.
Also see www.bobistheoilguy.com and go the Additives forum and run a search on both products.
If you use AutoRX and then LC20 on a maintenance basis, there is no need to drop the oil pan.
Also see www.bobistheoilguy.com and go the Additives forum and run a search on both products.
If you use AutoRX and then LC20 on a maintenance basis, there is no need to drop the oil pan.
11-19-2005, 12:37 PM
#8
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 291
No it does not have to be solvent based.
It is not a petroleum based product. It is made from lanolin esters from plants and/or animal byproducts.
It slowly breaks down carbon over several thousand miles in the ring packs versus the 20 minute shock treatment of kerosene based flushes.
It is not a petroleum based product. It is made from lanolin esters from plants and/or animal byproducts.
It slowly breaks down carbon over several thousand miles in the ring packs versus the 20 minute shock treatment of kerosene based flushes.
11-19-2005, 02:11 PM
#10
Originally Posted by staticlag
Hmm, thought about this for a second.
You guys are totally right, Its probably just an emulsifier.
You guys are totally right, Its probably just an emulsifier.
That was the best end to a dispute ive ever seen on maxima.org, usually everyones like "yea well i had sex with your mom so who cares if its ester or not?"
Im impressed
11-19-2005, 03:29 PM
#11
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 6,190
Originally Posted by kcryan
That was the best end to a dispute ive ever seen on maxima.org, usually everyones like "yea well i had sex with your mom so who cares if its ester or not?"
Im impressed
Im impressed
11-19-2005, 07:04 PM
#12
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 210
That's part of why I like this site (notwithstanding its wrong-wheel-drive orientation) -- even at age 44, I don't feel like Methuselah as I do at so many others. Thanks Bobo.
Now brace yourself. The active component of ARX is a "synthetic ester of a naturally occurring fatty acid". Near as I can tell, the actual "naturally occurring fatty acid is lanolin fatty acid, derived from, you guessed it, sheep's skin secretions* (if you're going "yuk" right about now, at least they use the pharmaceutical grade of the stuff, which probably accounts for much of the high price...). Anyone who's really curious should check out the U.S. Patent paperwork, easily available on line (U.S. Patent Number 6,544,349). Actually, just click here to see the whole eyeball melting, brain bending thing yourself. If you've read these things before, you'll immediately recognize the artful writing, a common skill amongst patent lawyers, which is designed to be specific enough to get the patent, but also obscure enough to keep from giving away the company secrets. In short, it doesn't get much denser than this. . .
The unfortunate, disappointing thing about this is that it never actually gets to the precise cleaning "mechanism" involved. It's definitely not a simple solvent process. Emulsification would seem more an answer to what to do with the crud once it's removed from the metal. Given the nature of the substances, I have a hunch that it does something along the lines of "competing" with the bond between the crud and the metal surface, but I'm certainly not sure about that. I would welcome a true chemist to look at the stuff at the above link and comment.
*EDIT: I would also add that ARX's processing leaves it smelling like fresh Orange peel, not dirty sheep, if that's any consolation to anyone...
Now brace yourself. The active component of ARX is a "synthetic ester of a naturally occurring fatty acid". Near as I can tell, the actual "naturally occurring fatty acid is lanolin fatty acid, derived from, you guessed it, sheep's skin secretions* (if you're going "yuk" right about now, at least they use the pharmaceutical grade of the stuff, which probably accounts for much of the high price...). Anyone who's really curious should check out the U.S. Patent paperwork, easily available on line (U.S. Patent Number 6,544,349). Actually, just click here to see the whole eyeball melting, brain bending thing yourself. If you've read these things before, you'll immediately recognize the artful writing, a common skill amongst patent lawyers, which is designed to be specific enough to get the patent, but also obscure enough to keep from giving away the company secrets. In short, it doesn't get much denser than this. . .
The unfortunate, disappointing thing about this is that it never actually gets to the precise cleaning "mechanism" involved. It's definitely not a simple solvent process. Emulsification would seem more an answer to what to do with the crud once it's removed from the metal. Given the nature of the substances, I have a hunch that it does something along the lines of "competing" with the bond between the crud and the metal surface, but I'm certainly not sure about that. I would welcome a true chemist to look at the stuff at the above link and comment.
*EDIT: I would also add that ARX's processing leaves it smelling like fresh Orange peel, not dirty sheep, if that's any consolation to anyone...
11-20-2005, 02:42 PM
#13
Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 82
I think its funny that you say that its not emulsfication, yet your description "I have a hunch that it does something along the lines of "competing" with the bond between the crud and the metal surface, but I'm certainly not sure about that. I would welcome a true chemist to look at the stuff at the above link and comment."
Exactly describes emulsfication
Exactly describes emulsfication
11-20-2005, 06:25 PM
#14
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 210
Originally Posted by staticlag
I think its funny that you say that its not emulsfication, yet your description "I have a hunch that it does something along the lines of "competing" with the bond between the crud and the metal surface, but I'm certainly not sure about that. I would welcome a true chemist to look at the stuff at the above link and comment."
Exactly describes emulsfication
Exactly describes emulsfication
What I WAS talking about was the actual removal of crud from metal surfaces themselves, before it gets carried off in whatever fashion. When it comes right down to it, you've got to do something to make the metal and the crud let go of one another. The synthetic ester in ARX must, in some way, act to interfere with that metal-to-crud bond. That's the process to which I was referring, and it has zip to do with emulsification, the process of one fluid "holding" another substance which it can't dissolve. So unless you've got another, more expansive definition of "emulsification", I don't think you read my post carefully enough. . .
11-20-2005, 06:36 PM
#15
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 210
Now, static, what I in turn find funny is that you don't seem to have taken the time to read the ARX patent info as I did. I invite you to do so, the link is just a few posts up. Then perhaps, since you seem to have some knowledge in the subject matter, you can shed some light on the actual question at hand. 
11-21-2005, 12:44 AM
#16
Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 82
1) I read the patent the first time you posted it.
2) Your statement does describe emulsification, but in a sort of inverted sense. The Auto-rx doesn't compete with anything to bond with the metal, it instead competes to adhere to the surface of the deposits, causing them to break off in small pieces
On to the explanations,
Firstly, a solvent is anthing that you can dissolve something else in. Water is a solvent. My first line of my first post was "I love the jargon." Several concepts were correct but the terminiology was mislaid in the preceeding posts.
Now this is how I see Auto-RX to work.
The fatty acids in auto-rx serve as an emulsifier to the carbon deposits. What an emuslifier does to the carbon and other deposits is disrupt the oil/deposit membrane, allowing other very mild soaps and compounds in the auto-rx/oil mixture to slowly break them away, just as you use would use dishsoap to remove stuck on grease from a pan, which according to the patent's chemisty information, is exactly the type of substance auto-rx contains.
Imagine you smeared thick grease all over your hand. Soap will remove it, but it will be a very slow process as it can only break away and isolate small potions of the grease at a time, now you could use methanol(strong solvent to greases) to remove the grease extremely easily, as it would quickly dissolve the grease, but if you've ever been in a lab and have acutally used methanol on your skin you would know it dries the heck out of your skin just as it would wreak havoc on the entire lube system and all the organic seals in the engine if used there.
This whole thing really makes sense, in that you have to change your oil filter so many times during the process, if a strong solvent was used you would not have to change your oil filter because the residues would be dissolved completely, but if your used an emulsifier, small particles of the substrate would still be suspended having to be filtered out. But of course you could never use a strong solvent in your car and have it running at the same time, unless you wanted to buy a new engine.
The reason why they say to use regular old dino oil is twofold:
1) It would be unpopular to have your customers buy synthetic and just throw it away after 1.5K miles
2) Very generally: the heavy detergent packages in the synthetic oil somehow must effect the auto-rx forumla in some cases.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saponification
Organic Chemistry I & II are good courses.
2) Your statement does describe emulsification, but in a sort of inverted sense. The Auto-rx doesn't compete with anything to bond with the metal, it instead competes to adhere to the surface of the deposits, causing them to break off in small pieces
On to the explanations,
Firstly, a solvent is anthing that you can dissolve something else in. Water is a solvent. My first line of my first post was "I love the jargon." Several concepts were correct but the terminiology was mislaid in the preceeding posts.
Now this is how I see Auto-RX to work.
The fatty acids in auto-rx serve as an emulsifier to the carbon deposits. What an emuslifier does to the carbon and other deposits is disrupt the oil/deposit membrane, allowing other very mild soaps and compounds in the auto-rx/oil mixture to slowly break them away, just as you use would use dishsoap to remove stuck on grease from a pan, which according to the patent's chemisty information, is exactly the type of substance auto-rx contains.
Imagine you smeared thick grease all over your hand. Soap will remove it, but it will be a very slow process as it can only break away and isolate small potions of the grease at a time, now you could use methanol(strong solvent to greases) to remove the grease extremely easily, as it would quickly dissolve the grease, but if you've ever been in a lab and have acutally used methanol on your skin you would know it dries the heck out of your skin just as it would wreak havoc on the entire lube system and all the organic seals in the engine if used there.
This whole thing really makes sense, in that you have to change your oil filter so many times during the process, if a strong solvent was used you would not have to change your oil filter because the residues would be dissolved completely, but if your used an emulsifier, small particles of the substrate would still be suspended having to be filtered out. But of course you could never use a strong solvent in your car and have it running at the same time, unless you wanted to buy a new engine.
The reason why they say to use regular old dino oil is twofold:
1) It would be unpopular to have your customers buy synthetic and just throw it away after 1.5K miles
2) Very generally: the heavy detergent packages in the synthetic oil somehow must effect the auto-rx forumla in some cases.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saponification
Organic Chemistry I & II are good courses.
11-21-2005, 04:09 AM
#17
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 210
Static:
Maybe I'm splitting hairs, and I'll readily admit that the last time I took a chemistry class of any description was around 1980, but I see the process as 1) slow reaction (ooops, perhaps I should just say "action") that removes crud from metal (whether it's ARX vs. crud, ARX vs. metal, or both), and then 2) removed crud carried away from site of its former attachment (and it may be dissolved, emulsified or both in the process). BTW, yes, I do understand solvents, solutes and solutions. I guess we could call the first part "emulsification in reverse"; I'm simply trying to maintain the distinction, perhaps slim, between the two steps I described above.
Second, unfortunately, I'll have to wait a couple days to post an article I've got on my computer at home. It addresses the advantages of ultra-high viscosity index (UHVI) Group-III hydrocracked oils, but in it, it also discusses the relative advantages and disadvantages of each type of base oil. While Groups IV and V (roughly, PAO and ester respectively) are preferred by many as lube bases, one of the (maybe the only) advantage retained by good old petro Group I distillate oil is its superiority as a solvent, relative to the others (this, btw, is why the additive carrier oil for so many syn brands remained petro for so long, M1 was a good example, only dropping the petro "carrier" oil about 10 years ago). If you contact the ARX guys, they'll confirm that this is a key reason for going with petro in the rinse phase. I'll see if I can post the paper later this week (I'm stuck in New Orleans at the moment using a 14.4k cellular modem. . .).
Maybe I'm splitting hairs, and I'll readily admit that the last time I took a chemistry class of any description was around 1980, but I see the process as 1) slow reaction (ooops, perhaps I should just say "action") that removes crud from metal (whether it's ARX vs. crud, ARX vs. metal, or both), and then 2) removed crud carried away from site of its former attachment (and it may be dissolved, emulsified or both in the process). BTW, yes, I do understand solvents, solutes and solutions. I guess we could call the first part "emulsification in reverse"; I'm simply trying to maintain the distinction, perhaps slim, between the two steps I described above.
Second, unfortunately, I'll have to wait a couple days to post an article I've got on my computer at home. It addresses the advantages of ultra-high viscosity index (UHVI) Group-III hydrocracked oils, but in it, it also discusses the relative advantages and disadvantages of each type of base oil. While Groups IV and V (roughly, PAO and ester respectively) are preferred by many as lube bases, one of the (maybe the only) advantage retained by good old petro Group I distillate oil is its superiority as a solvent, relative to the others (this, btw, is why the additive carrier oil for so many syn brands remained petro for so long, M1 was a good example, only dropping the petro "carrier" oil about 10 years ago). If you contact the ARX guys, they'll confirm that this is a key reason for going with petro in the rinse phase. I'll see if I can post the paper later this week (I'm stuck in New Orleans at the moment using a 14.4k cellular modem. . .).
12-07-2005, 01:17 PM
#18
Newbie - Just Registered
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 10
Originally Posted by Torkaholic
While Groups IV and V (roughly, PAO and ester respectively) are preferred by many as lube bases, one of the (maybe the only) advantage retained by good old petro Group I distillate oil is its superiority as a solvent, relative to the others (this, btw, is why the additive carrier oil for so many syn brands remained petro for so long, M1 was a good example, only dropping the petro "carrier" oil about 10 years ago).
Carrier oils in synthetics made since 2001 probably deserves another topic and back to topic we go .
The Lubegard Engine Flush is a patented bio chemistry and very good engine cleaner for those who need it . It is cost effective at 7.00 per treatment . If your using a real pao/ester synthetic , treating once every 100k should do with the Lubegard . Thats just for good measure . The engine might not even need it at those miles but hey , treat it well if it is a keeper .
Using mineral oil even as good as they are these days , 7.00 spent every once in awhile is not much to insure a cleaner engine .
12-07-2005, 01:29 PM
#19
Newbie - Just Registered
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 10
I just wanted to add that there is no harm in using the lower cost engine flushes like Gunk , B-12 and others as long as the engine is not a super sludge bucket in which as time goes by most of those will have died out anyway due to the newer engines using superior groupII and better engine oils since new . Also , Berrymans B-12 has cut oil consumption by 60-90% in many of the Saturns with oil ring problems . Those owners are very happy with the results and have not had any oil pick up screen clogging or problems with the engine seals after use . Price , 2.00 per cleaning . Amsoil sells a engine flush as well so there are many products out there .
Simply follow directions , put the cleaner in a well warmed engine and follow with a shorter interval after use and the going is good .
Simply follow directions , put the cleaner in a well warmed engine and follow with a shorter interval after use and the going is good .
12-08-2005, 06:39 AM
#20
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 210
SS:
No confusion about the distinctions (at least some of them...) within several of the "groups". That said, I readily admit I'm neither a chemist nor a chemical engineer (I didn't even stay at a Holiday Inn last night). This is a topic that is already generating some pretty long posts. I didn't think it was really necessary to get that far into the weeds with this question. Frank Miller (the ARX guy) feels that the dinos as a group exhibit sufficient solubility that it's not necessary to specify only certain types of Group I or II oils for use in the rinse phase. Otherwise, your point is well taken.
You're right about the less expensive flush products, but I still fear that over use of these might be a problem, where that's probably not the case for ARX (except for the harm that ARX over-use will do to the wallet). Some of these solvents are pretty "aggressive" and I'm not completely convinced that too much use might dissolve more than just the sludge and varnish the user is trying to be rid of.
No confusion about the distinctions (at least some of them...) within several of the "groups". That said, I readily admit I'm neither a chemist nor a chemical engineer (I didn't even stay at a Holiday Inn last night). This is a topic that is already generating some pretty long posts. I didn't think it was really necessary to get that far into the weeds with this question. Frank Miller (the ARX guy) feels that the dinos as a group exhibit sufficient solubility that it's not necessary to specify only certain types of Group I or II oils for use in the rinse phase. Otherwise, your point is well taken.
You're right about the less expensive flush products, but I still fear that over use of these might be a problem, where that's probably not the case for ARX (except for the harm that ARX over-use will do to the wallet). Some of these solvents are pretty "aggressive" and I'm not completely convinced that too much use might dissolve more than just the sludge and varnish the user is trying to be rid of.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
kjlouis
4th Generation Maxima (1995-1999)
12
10-03-2015 05:29 AM
ag90fox
7th Generation Maxima (2009-2015)
6
09-09-2015 12:22 PM