Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Maintenance & Repair Fuel and Oil Additives
1246 messages, Last post on Sep 28, 2009 at 7:37 AM
You are in the Maintenance & Repair Forum. Your Host is mr_shiftright
|
|
|---|---|
|
Replying to: kurtamaxxxguy (May 03, 2009 9:50 pm) It claims it's a polymer product that reduces engine friction, but does not add zinc or phosphorus to the oil (the latter 2 can apparently poison cat converters). My comment did say zinc and phosphorus can poison cat converters, and that the additive does not have zinc. Whether that additive is of any real use, I cannot say. They offer some rudimentary test data, but nowhere as thorough as that presented by the stuff I actually use. And yes, I agree that following manufacturer recommendations is very important.
|
|
|
Replying to: kurtamaxxxguy (May 04, 2009 11:12 am) And yes, I agree that following manufacturer recommendations is very important." If you agree with following the manufacturer recommendations they why do you use an additive? 
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: shipo (May 04, 2009 11:39 am) As synthetic's not recommended for my engine, and would be very expensive to use on the recommended schedule, the additive seemed the best cost effective "extra insurance" for turbo bearing failure. Here's a posting of the engineer on the superclub.org forum (and note: the engineer said the product, though originally designed for aircraft engines, offers similar benefits for auto engines) : I was very pleased by the tone of the article (Light Plane Maintenance) and I feel he got it right with the corrosion prevention aspect. This was by far the top priority followed by deposit control, wear protection and seal conditioning. Ed
|
|
|
Replying to: kurtamaxxxguy (May 04, 2009 12:11 pm) A conversation with an engineer is in no way a proof that his product does anything even remotely resembling the claims for said product, regardless of whether we're talking about aircraft engines (which I am more than a bit familiar with as well) or for cars. Synthetic oil NOT being recommended for your engine? I'm not buying that either. Just because a manufacturer allows you to run conventional oil in your turbocharged engine (dumb move in my opinion) in no way means that synthetic oil isn't recommended for use. Regarding working __fine__ in automotive engines, ummm, you do realize that oil for IC aircraft engines needs to fulfil a very different set of criteria than does an oil for a modern automobile engine, not the least of which is to hold tetraethyl lead (TEL) in suspension. Even if this stuff does work (something I highly doubt) in aircraft engines, I'm even more doubtful that it will work properly in an automobile engine, turbocharged or otherwise. Edit: Is this the stuff you're talking about? http://www.aslcamguard.com/ If so, then it seems highly improbable that it has any of the properties that you've ascribed to it. |
|
|
|
|
http://www.avweb.com/news/maint/oil_myths_debunked_197096-1.html explains the chemists' rational for the product. That info is presented at the Camguard site in various ways. Yes, aircraft engines are different - I knew that when researching the product. But: The chemist told me several times that despite differences between aircraft and automotive oils (both of which he has formulated - he was a petroleum research chemist for Exxon), his product is beneficial for the reasons explained on the Camguard website, for both forms of engines, and especially turbos. However, your comment inspired me to recheck the Subaru info I'd received. I was partially incorrect  (advice I got from my dealer, who is a top tier Subaru service center, warned me of possible seal leakage if switching to synthetic - that info clouded the info Subaru had sent me). This was Subaru's actual response. Synthetic engine oils can be used in our engines if the user follows the engine oil recommendations prescribed in the Owner's Manual. Subaru has not tested the compatibility of all synthetic oils with engine seals, but the petroleum industry does adhere to standards for the refining process which meet Subaru requirements. Subaru does not guarantee the performance of any brand of any engine oil. They added this for good measure (the CAPS are theirs, not mine ): Engine Oil Guidelines: - only use engine oil that meets or exceeds the API classification designated in the Owner's Manual for the vehicle - only use engine oil that meets the VISCOSITY requirements for the ambient temperatures under which the vehicle will be operated as outlined in the Owner's Manual - THE ENGINE OIL MUST BE CHANGED AT THE INTERVALS SPECIFIED IN THE WARRANTY AND MAINTENANCE BOOKLET FOR THE VEHICLE. SOME SYNTHETIC OIL REFINERS RECOMMEND EXTENDED OIL CHANGE INTERVALS. SUBARU DOES NOT RECOMMEND ANY DEVIATION FROM THE SPECIFIED INTERVALS IN THE OWNER'S MANUAL. And BTW, nowhere in Subaru literature or service info does it say that Synthetic oil should be used with a turbo. My apologies for attempting to explain this additive's background.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: kurtamaxxxguy (May 04, 2009 6:17 pm) This sounds analogous to when you had to buy lead additive to protect valves in engines using unleaded gas. Nowadays you don't have to do that anymore, due to advances in valve metallurgy.
|
|
|
Replying to: Mr_Shiftright (May 04, 2009 8:16 pm) .. ... It appears that most all the majors (oil giants) in the last six months have some new additive that is a replacement for or a safe (for the tailpipe) compound of the zinc. Some of this is quite expensive, some might not be so well advertised. And I have not seen any mention of turbo shafts. These partial truths and myths usually get blown out of proportion, and all it seems to take is a little true publicity to start the snow-ball down hill. Now, with all that, I think the best turbo shaft protection, is a quality full synthetic, because of it's higher heat capabilities. My stuff is years old, original, and way out of warranty. |
|
|
|
|
The problem's synthetics vary widely in corrosion protection and resistance to heat. Some are contaminated very quickly and will happily circulate hydrochloric and nitric acid through the engine for their change interval. Very few oil additives make any claims of neutralizing acids, preventing corrosion/sludge, or adding heat resistance. They focus on wear and performance. Granted, aircraft engines pollute their oil much faster than auto engines, because of blowby and higher temperature differentials. But it happens with cars too. There have been TSB's regarding Subaru turbos getting cooked because banjo bolt filters get plugged. Subaru also does not cover the turbo with extended warranty. Hence the interest in the best oil protection possible. As for Camguard, its engineer / maker will be posting an auto version website very soon. He told me it will offer explanations why current version works for autos, and how new version is improved.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: kurtamaxxxguy (May 10, 2009 11:19 am)
|
|
|
|
|
BTW, the chemist I've mentioned has done extensive analysis on a few popular additives: MMO (Marvel Mystery Oil) contains mineral spirits, 30 wt baseoil, red dye and wintergreen fragrance. STP contains ZDDP zinc anti-wear, over-based calcium detergent and a huge slug of cheap viscosity modifier. Wintergreen fragrance?? Is that to suggest to those following, your car is "green" ??
|
|
You are here:
Forums
Maintenance & Repair Fuel and Oil Additives
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
