Engine additives,....worth the $$$

[FUNFER2]

Has there been any scientific studies done by non-bias company's, away from the oil company's, that show negitive or positive wear results when using engine additives ?

Aside from zinc for solid flat tappet's, cam lube ect. for engine break in.

Many company's like Lucas, STP, slick 50, Prolong, Amsoil ect......Is it worth the expense or is it just a ploy to get our money ?

Or, do you just believe in changing the oil/filter often ?

With the sprint car, we change the 20/50 racing oil after 2 races. We do use methanol so it's a cleaner burning fuel than pump gas, but after the season ending race, we tear down the motor for inspection and maintenance. It's amazing how damn clean all the engine parts are, running methanol.

When I broke a rocker shaft with my 428 FE after only 2,000 miles and removed the heads, the amount of carbon build up was shocking !

Since we buy methanol in 55 gallon drums, I almost put a alcohol carb. on my FE, and sometimes I wish I had but, it would restrict my driving to only local.

Anyway, back to additives.

Yes, we change the oil 20 times more than street driven vehicles ect.. but we've never seen any wear problems only using oil. I wonder if any engine builders like KC have torn down one test engine periodically, just to check for wear using a additive versus not ?

So, what's your thought's with any type,,..... of additives, worth it or not ?

[RedBarchetta]

Kevin, I first started using some of these additives back in '92 when I bought one of the first Ford Explorers. Can't remember the exact brand (Prolong?) but that engine had 128K on it when I sold it. But I'm such a stickler for changing the fluids often and keeping the cooling system clean, so it's hard for me to really determine if the additive actually helped or was it just the regular maintenance? It probably didn't hurt though.

My last three acquisitions (a one owner '02 Z06 that had 19K miles, a new '09 Nissan Rogue for the wife and a '02 Camaro with 52K miles for my oldest son) all I have done is keep the oil and coolant fresh. We'll see what happens over time.

-Dean

EDIT: Actually I used STP Oil Treatment back in the late '70's on my first car ('71 Camaro). I'm not sure if it helped, but everyone that was a motorhead told me to add some so I did.

[Gunner]

I have no doubt that many will ring in here with their praise-jesus stories of how one miracle goo or another saved their engine, or engines, or every engine in their fleet, or whatever. Along with a few stories about how one bottle of miracle goop ruined their zillion-dollar race engine or some such.

Stories is stories. Anecdotal evidence isn't worth the paper it's written on. The only thing that could possibly be meaningful is, say, a fleet manager who ran 25 vehicles with straight oil and 25 with miracle goop added, then kept meticulous records about engine condition over a long, long time. I've seen very few field tests of that caliber; at most we get a serial story about one truck that ran forever and one that blew up the first time it had an oil change. Not meaningful.

Whatever good Marvel Mystery Oil, Slick 50, etc. might have had decades ago when oil formulations were simpler and there were far fewer choices, I think a moment's thought will show that there's no need for any of this stuff any more except *perhaps* in some very specialized situations - hot street and race engines not included in that group.

Oil companies have spent billions of dollars formulating their products and meeting increasingly difficult wear, breakdown and longevity standards in just the last 25 years or so. If there REALLY was some mystery miracle additive that greatly improved oil performance, don't you think they'd have evaluated it and either passed it by as not useful or included it (or some more sophisticated alternative) in their current formulations? Do you really think that every oil seller would market a product obviously missing some miracle ingredient?

Nah. However smart Mr. Marvel or your grandpa or your clever uncle the mechanic might have been 40 years ago, I think oil additives are a moot point, or possibly an active negative, in modern oil. Watching the formulation for older engines (old, or old-tech) as in watching the zinc level is one thing. There are certainly better formulations for one engine and one purpose or another.

But the notion that there is one magic goop that makes oil fabulously better for all engines, or any subset of that idea, is obvious nonsense. Don't waste your money once you've chosen a suitable, quality oil for your engine and purposes.

[madmaxx]

Useless, do not use. Close thread.

[JWilly]

Never used any of the stuff, don't think I ever will. However, I do not accept that the oil companies would automatically add some substance to their product that would make the product better. It's all about profitability, if adding something to the oil to improve it would not make it more profitable, I do not believe they would do it.

[Gunner]

Originally Posted by JWilly

I do not accept that the oil companies would automatically add some substance to their product that would make the product better. It's all about profitability, if adding something to the oil to improve it would not make it more profitable, I do not believe they would do it.

It's easy to take a cynical attitude on this, I admit.

But - just suppose whatever's in Marvel or Lucas really does enhance oil. Neither is terribly expensive, certainly no more expensive on an industrial level than the additives they already use. (I know for a fact that the metalloid stuff is extremely costly and often difficult to handle in manufacturing processes.) If those additives really did something useful, they're either in there, or would be in there, or the oil sellers would be purposely avoiding their use. That last makes no sense at all unless you're going to postulate some kind of back-room deal between oil makers and engine sellers. That's easy to dismiss as nonsense, as manufacturers are intent on extending oil change intervals as far as possible and would happily pay a few percent more for oil that keeps their warrantied engines from wearing out prematurely.

Nah. The additives, barring perhaps specific ZDDP boosters, are hokum and (snicker) snake oil.

[bobcowan]

Consumer reports did a small study quite a while ago. None of the additives they tested made any differance. But, none of them seemed to do any harm, either.

As anectodal evidence, I once used Restore on a '69 Mustang 351W that had about 150K miles on it. I swear it ran a little better. And I know it burned less oil. It allowed me to run it for another year before a rebuild. When I removed the pistons I found 2 bent rods, and three broken rings.

There's a lawsuite going on right now about Z-Max; the stuff Carroll swears by on late night TV. It actually causes engine damage. http://autorepair.about.com/library/.../aa042801a.htm

[tgitchel]

To many peeople, secret ingredients and conspiracy theories are sexy; following the main stream, big corporation party line is boring.

Gunner's points are well stated and hard to ignor. You sir, are a scholar and a gentleman!

[mdross1]

I have tried about everything under the sun for additives,no way could I see any measurable difference.Have been using synthetic oil since the 70's,and yes a very measurable difference in lack of engine wear.Last 10 yrs 100% Amsoil in everything I own,my opinion, the best there is available,bar non.

[Got the Bug]

No oil additives, cheapo dino oil and no name filters in my last two daily drivers. 200K on my Mazda 929 and 202K and counting on my Acura 3.2 TL. My oil change intervals averaged about 5k miles on both cars.

[Dirty Harry]

My wife, kids and I all drive Fords that have 130,000 to 230,000 miles on them. My last T-bird went well over 200,000. My last 2 Taurus company cars went 150,000. All have had zero engine problems. All were maintained with dinosaur oil and regular changes. I can't help but believe that money spent on additives would have just been dumped in the recycling barrel.

[mdross1]

Need to add this about good synthetic oil,and the money savings in oil changes alone.Syn oil change interval 25,000 miles or 1 yr, at approx $60.00 5 qts,1 premium filter.I see some of you go 5,000 miles between changes,what would 5 changes cost you,plus the time spent at the shop? Not selling anything,nor do I need to hear syn bashing, just pointing out the potential savings of green backs.

[Gunner]

I'm not convinced that synthetics are superior from a financial standpoint. They have advantages over dino oil in operation (mostly, better viscosity range and resistance to breakdown), but nothing stops them from accumulating sediment, acids, water and general goop.

There are three reasons to change your oil. One is to replace oil that's worn out through breakdown. Two is to get particulates out of the system. Third is to get toxic goop out of the system. Synthetics in light-duty street engines can tolerate longer change intervals because of the resistance to breakdown and most engines' tolerance for crud. I don't think I'd consider extending the oil change interval in a high-performance, old-tech engine no matter what oil I used - so I'd rather use good dino oil and change at 3-5,000 or once a year rather than "save money" by using more expensive syns and tripling the change interval.

[Fordzilla]

My opinion is exactly the same as Gunner's on this one. (That's rare-LOL).

[SPF2245]

Based off my experience in law enforcment, I'd say "NO"! We have cars that sit at idle for hours, others that go from cold to 5.5K rpms in a few seconds...over and over and over. And I've never blown a motor...EVER. I've run chevy, ford and dodge...and none of them ever got snake oil, and none of them were retired before 150K (then sent onto the next agency to drive another 100K), and none had any major engine failures. Having torn down a couple of my personal engines, I'd say the best thing is to just change the oil every 3K and use good gas (carbon build up seemed highest when I used Shell gas, Chevron doesn't seem to leave as much on the valves).
The only thing I've seen burned up is trannies, brakes and tires. For the record, police use regular oil and the cheapest gas on the planet. Do I think some of those products might do something...sure, but considering thousands of law enforcement and military vehicles go without the stuff with no problems, why waste the money???

[WardL]

Better living through chemistry. If you buy a higher end name brand oil, you do not need any additional oil additives. Lubricants and the additives have improved tremendously over the years. Why do you suppose OEMs recommend you change oil every 7,500 miles in a new car today, much different than 30 years ago? They have found additives perform better in your engine. They did the research, advertise and charge extra for the oil.

Gasoline is so much cleaner burning today than it was 15 years ago and the EPA required Deposit Control Additives (DCA) in gasoline. The EPA requires the gasoline DCA to be certified by actual engine testing to prove it will keep your engine clean.

FunFer2's comment => "When I broke a rocker shaft with my 428 FE after only 2,000 miles and removed the heads, the amount of carbon build up was shocking ! "

What brand of gasoline were you running? I wouldn't use it anymore. I've heard ethanol can cause more valve deposits in an engine than regular gasoline. I don't know about methanol.

[PANAVIA]

I am a big Fan of Mobil1 for my daily drivers. (big german V8s)

- for the Superformance I use the Roush 10-30W with 1200PPM of Zinc in it. or Mobil1 10-30W

-- my older iron engines, (non rollerized) I use 15-W40 Chevron Delo 400 and a shot of ZDDP.

[Gunner]

Originally Posted by PANAVIA

(big german V8s)

Konrad V8?

[WardL]

I was thinking the deposits were on the valves or combustion chambers. That would be controlled by the brand of gasoline used. If there were sludge around the rocker arms, that would be from the oil. I wouldn't expect any oil related problems with Mobil 1.