They are not specifically calling out which of their HM products since they have both the 75k & 150k versions. The cleaning aspect probably from better base oil in the Restore & Protect. I only compare 150k HM vs R & P add packs. Both the VOA backs that up. Not sure what the add pack is on the 75k HM.I noticed this on the R&P site:
View attachment 216016
From what I understand they're tweaking the detergent/dispersant mix. Doesn't appear to be anything revolutionary.
Wish we knew more about it.
I think the cleaning is coming from the tweaking on the additive side somehow. Just a guess.They are not specifically calling out which of their HM products since they have both the 75k & 150k versions. The cleaning aspect probably from better base oil in the Restore & Protect. I only compare 150k HM vs R & P add packs. Both the VOA backs that up. Not sure what the add pack is on the 75k HM.
You don’t actually know that - you just post that same thing endlessly with zero curiosity … Dull …People are suckers for marketing claims.
Yeah, it’s like saying the oil formulators, the harmonizing agencies, and the OEM’s have stood still in time - but marketing marches on …Yeah I get tired of the "it's all marketing". When you sell a product you have to market it. What needs to be considered is if the marketing is legitimate in terms of the claims made and if so, how.......
Would you be happier if he said "The additive packages as portrayed on their VOAs are nearly identical"? It seems as if you are splitting hairs and not honoring the spirit of his statement.Even if the numbers are identical, you cannot make this type of deduction based on a VOA. You can say "they appear to be similar" but statements like that are a bit on the naive side.
Yes in my opinion that would be a much more accurate statement.Would you be happier if he said "The additive packages as portrayed on their VOAs are nearly identical"? It seems as if you are splitting hairs and not honoring the spirit of his statement.
Or even more accurate, the amounts of certain elements from decomposed compounds. None are "additive packages" and not all elements from the compounds are in the analysis.Yes in my opinion that would be a much more accurate statement.
Maybe fuel is the secret sauce.Top secret ingredients that UOA doesn't detect
but
Notice the 1.3% Fuel Dilution # ?????????
The oil has a very distinct and different smell. Not sure if anything can be deduced from that but yea..Maybe fuel is the secret sauce.
Maybe fuel is the secret sauce.
The oil has a very distinct and different smell. Not sure if anything can be deduced from that but yea..
It has a distinct smell. I can’t quite put my finger on it. Almost a Maxlife ATF, but not quite. I’ve drank the R&P Koolaid, I’m running it in 3 of our carsDoes it smell like mint?
IIRC, Maxlife ATF had a “sardine” like smell to it………does that kinda describe it?It has a distinct smell. I can’t quite put my finger on it. Almost a Maxlife ATF, but not quite. I’ve drank the R&P Koolaid, I’m running it in 3 of our cars
HiTEC® 11180 Passenger Car Engine Oil AdditiveThe only meaningful information that stands out from the other thread is that they seem to claim that it is an additive that is doing the work and not like the Blue Restore product which relied on Esters. That is now very clear from the VOA.
The MSDS discloses "PROPRIETARY SUBSTANCE OF HITEC 11188", but there's no information directly about that additive through Afton website or elsewhere.
That additive appears in all the Restore and Protect grades, but that's not necessarily relevant, it could be something else not even required to be disclosed.
Me too! I’m running it in 3 of ours.Good video. I'm sold.
They confirm there's a proprietary ingredient, and seem to claim that they developed it.
They also seem to claim that the cleaning was intentionally slow so as not to cause other issues, hence the 4 oil change claim. Makes sense on paper.