True, its a word game. Then pick a test your product accels at and use that in you ads, even if the test is meaningless. I still think Sopus is a class act, and makes one of the best oils out there though.
2 more Auto-rx mules, clean phase started 04/05/09
- Thread starter db130
- Start date
- Status
So are we to believe they just arbitrarily chose 40 percent without any testing or evidence of any kind?
IMO they have to much to loose with false advertising suits and the bad publicity that goes with it.
I'm not buying it,the oil must have some cleaning abilities, which would prove the statement by ARX as false regardless of percentage.
IMO they have to much to loose with false advertising suits and the bad publicity that goes with it.
I'm not buying it,the oil must have some cleaning abilities, which would prove the statement by ARX as false regardless of percentage.
Quote:
From my limited experiments, SOPUS's claims are false.
WOW i wonder what the folks at Pennzoil would say about you limited experiments.
They are sponsors here lets ask them about their false claims.
From my limited experiments, SOPUS's claims are false.
WOW i wonder what the folks at Pennzoil would say about you limited experiments.
They are sponsors here lets ask them about their false claims.
I'm not saying SOPUS products don't work like advertised. I use PP and PU exclusively now days. I cannot test every scenario out there. They might be talking about a certain metal type in a completely smooth section under specific temps and pressures to quantify their cleaning abilities. I just don't know.
Whatever specific scenario they used to claim their oils clean or clean up to 40%, I have not ran into in my limited applications.
I was only saying if I "had" to pick between ARX claims being false or SOPUS's claims being false, I'd have to go with SOPUS since I have obtained quantifiable results with ARX and not SOPUS.
Whatever specific scenario they used to claim their oils clean or clean up to 40%, I have not ran into in my limited applications.
I was only saying if I "had" to pick between ARX claims being false or SOPUS's claims being false, I'd have to go with SOPUS since I have obtained quantifiable results with ARX and not SOPUS.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Trav
So are we to believe they just arbitrarily chose 40 percent without any testing or evidence of any kind?
IMO they have to much to loose with false advertising suits and the bad publicity that goes with it.
I'm not buying it,the oil must have some cleaning abilities, which would prove the statement by ARX as false regardless of percentage.
W/out knowing how they quantify those claims, it is impossible to prove the claims are false. It would be easy to setup a lab scenario that produces a certain result that can never be replicated in the real world.
So are we to believe they just arbitrarily chose 40 percent without any testing or evidence of any kind?
IMO they have to much to loose with false advertising suits and the bad publicity that goes with it.
I'm not buying it,the oil must have some cleaning abilities, which would prove the statement by ARX as false regardless of percentage.
W/out knowing how they quantify those claims, it is impossible to prove the claims are false. It would be easy to setup a lab scenario that produces a certain result that can never be replicated in the real world.
Originally Posted By: badtlc
I'm not saying SOPUS products don't work like advertised. I use PP and PU exclusively now days. I cannot test every scenario out there. They might be talking about a certain metal type in a completely smooth section under specific temps and pressures to quantify their cleaning abilities. I just don't know.
Whatever specific scenario they used to claim their oils clean or clean up to 40%, I have not ran into in my limited applications.
I was only saying if I "had" to pick between ARX claims being false or SOPUS's claims being false, I'd have to go with SOPUS since I have obtained quantifiable results with ARX and not SOPUS.
IMO the jury is out on that one.
I'm not saying SOPUS products don't work like advertised. I use PP and PU exclusively now days. I cannot test every scenario out there. They might be talking about a certain metal type in a completely smooth section under specific temps and pressures to quantify their cleaning abilities. I just don't know.
Whatever specific scenario they used to claim their oils clean or clean up to 40%, I have not ran into in my limited applications.
I was only saying if I "had" to pick between ARX claims being false or SOPUS's claims being false, I'd have to go with SOPUS since I have obtained quantifiable results with ARX and not SOPUS.
IMO the jury is out on that one.
Originally Posted By: Trav
So are we to believe they just arbitrarily chose 40 percent without any testing or evidence of any kind?
IMO they have to much to loose with false advertising suits and the bad publicity that goes with it.
I'm not buying it,the oil must have some cleaning abilities, which would prove the statement by ARX as false regardless of percentage.
I don't really care what you choose to believe. I didn't say they were wrong. Nor did I say that they pulled a number out of thin air.
What I said was that their statement is accurate whether it cleans 1%, 20%, any number you choose up to 40%.
Now if it claimed that it "Cleaned 40% of sludge.", and it only cleaned 25%, then it would be a false claim, would it not.
Since it claims to "Clean UP TO 40%", and it only cleaned 25%, it would not be a false claim.
So are we to believe they just arbitrarily chose 40 percent without any testing or evidence of any kind?
IMO they have to much to loose with false advertising suits and the bad publicity that goes with it.
I'm not buying it,the oil must have some cleaning abilities, which would prove the statement by ARX as false regardless of percentage.
I don't really care what you choose to believe. I didn't say they were wrong. Nor did I say that they pulled a number out of thin air.
What I said was that their statement is accurate whether it cleans 1%, 20%, any number you choose up to 40%.
Now if it claimed that it "Cleaned 40% of sludge.", and it only cleaned 25%, then it would be a false claim, would it not.
Since it claims to "Clean UP TO 40%", and it only cleaned 25%, it would not be a false claim.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Originally Posted By: badtlc
I'm not saying SOPUS products don't work like advertised. I use PP and PU exclusively now days. I cannot test every scenario out there. They might be talking about a certain metal type in a completely smooth section under specific temps and pressures to quantify their cleaning abilities. I just don't know.
Whatever specific scenario they used to claim their oils clean or clean up to 40%, I have not ran into in my limited applications.
I was only saying if I "had" to pick between ARX claims being false or SOPUS's claims being false, I'd have to go with SOPUS since I have obtained quantifiable results with ARX and not SOPUS.
IMO the jury is out on that one.
Without a complete tear down and a measuring of the sludge content before and after PZ use, how would one really know anyway.
From what I read, that BMW with the 60K on the same oil, sludged as the pics show, ran fine anyway.
Originally Posted By: badtlc
I'm not saying SOPUS products don't work like advertised. I use PP and PU exclusively now days. I cannot test every scenario out there. They might be talking about a certain metal type in a completely smooth section under specific temps and pressures to quantify their cleaning abilities. I just don't know.
Whatever specific scenario they used to claim their oils clean or clean up to 40%, I have not ran into in my limited applications.
I was only saying if I "had" to pick between ARX claims being false or SOPUS's claims being false, I'd have to go with SOPUS since I have obtained quantifiable results with ARX and not SOPUS.
IMO the jury is out on that one.
Without a complete tear down and a measuring of the sludge content before and after PZ use, how would one really know anyway.
From what I read, that BMW with the 60K on the same oil, sludged as the pics show, ran fine anyway.
This is an actual ARX statement.
Quote:
Lubricating oils can either lubricate or clean. They cannot do both well. Detergents in motor oils are added to try to maintain a clean system, but they do little to nothing on deposits that have already formed.
Lets not make this about false statements by PZ.I'm quite sure PZ can prove their claims and statements.
Is the above statement by ARX false or not?
If not lets see the evidence that motor oils provide little or no cleaning of existing deposits.
Quote:
Lubricating oils can either lubricate or clean. They cannot do both well. Detergents in motor oils are added to try to maintain a clean system, but they do little to nothing on deposits that have already formed.
Lets not make this about false statements by PZ.I'm quite sure PZ can prove their claims and statements.
Is the above statement by ARX false or not?
If not lets see the evidence that motor oils provide little or no cleaning of existing deposits.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Trav
This is an actual ARX statement.
Quote:
Lubricating oils can either lubricate or clean. They cannot do both well. Detergents in motor oils are added to try to maintain a clean system, but they do little to nothing on deposits that have already formed.
Lets not make this about false statements by PZ.I'm quite sure PZ can prove their claims and statements.
Is the above statement by ARX false or not?
If not lets see the evidence that motor oils provide little or no cleaning of existing deposits.
You are still reading the statement incorrectly. In order to disprove the statement you'd have to verify that the oil can both clean better than a product designed to clean and then also protect better than a product designed just to protect.
The statement for the most part is true. Designing oil to both be the best cleaner and the best protection at the same time is very difficult if not impossible.
This is an actual ARX statement.
Quote:
Lubricating oils can either lubricate or clean. They cannot do both well. Detergents in motor oils are added to try to maintain a clean system, but they do little to nothing on deposits that have already formed.
Lets not make this about false statements by PZ.I'm quite sure PZ can prove their claims and statements.
Is the above statement by ARX false or not?
If not lets see the evidence that motor oils provide little or no cleaning of existing deposits.
You are still reading the statement incorrectly. In order to disprove the statement you'd have to verify that the oil can both clean better than a product designed to clean and then also protect better than a product designed just to protect.
The statement for the most part is true. Designing oil to both be the best cleaner and the best protection at the same time is very difficult if not impossible.
Sorry i can read and understand perfectly well.The statement by ARX does not really need to be interpreted,it is self explanatory.
SOPUS has done extensive testing,tear downs,measurements etc and make the following statement.
Quote:
Pennzoil Ultra helps prevent sludge and other deposits, but also cleans up existing sludge. In fact, Pennzoil reports that it cleans out more than 35% more engine sludge than the brand’s next best oil, Pennzoil Platinum. In addition, the company claims that no leading synthetic motor oil provides better wear protection than Pennzoil Ultra.
Please argue this as being false with SOPUS i am sure they will provide all the data you need.
If it really doesn't matter if there are deposits left behind and varnish is just a "cosmetic stain" (another falsehood perpetrated by ARX) then why should someone even bother with ARX instead of a low cost proven safe ring cleaner like Pro-Tec?
ARX has always been very good at making claims and answering questions with vague and sometimes questionable answers like you just did with..
Quote:
You are still reading the statement incorrectly
Instead ARX relies on testimonials and pictures like under the valve cover of the Ford Escort and Aaron's pictures of the valve train.
When people don't get the result under their valve cover being cleaned they are promptly told that area does not get much oil and it doesn't matter anyway.
Personally i believe SOPUS claims and data based not only on their reputation but also the fact they can afford to spend a large fortune developing and testing their product before making these claims.
SOPUS has done extensive testing,tear downs,measurements etc and make the following statement.
Quote:
Pennzoil Ultra helps prevent sludge and other deposits, but also cleans up existing sludge. In fact, Pennzoil reports that it cleans out more than 35% more engine sludge than the brand’s next best oil, Pennzoil Platinum. In addition, the company claims that no leading synthetic motor oil provides better wear protection than Pennzoil Ultra.
Please argue this as being false with SOPUS i am sure they will provide all the data you need.
If it really doesn't matter if there are deposits left behind and varnish is just a "cosmetic stain" (another falsehood perpetrated by ARX) then why should someone even bother with ARX instead of a low cost proven safe ring cleaner like Pro-Tec?
ARX has always been very good at making claims and answering questions with vague and sometimes questionable answers like you just did with..
Quote:
You are still reading the statement incorrectly
Instead ARX relies on testimonials and pictures like under the valve cover of the Ford Escort and Aaron's pictures of the valve train.
When people don't get the result under their valve cover being cleaned they are promptly told that area does not get much oil and it doesn't matter anyway.
Personally i believe SOPUS claims and data based not only on their reputation but also the fact they can afford to spend a large fortune developing and testing their product before making these claims.
Why not just ask the Pennzoil folks right here?They are a site sponsor and have answered any question asked of them.
"up to" is a marvelous advertising phrase. Think about it. "up to 40%" means anything from 0% to 40%. It is essentially meaningless.
Likewise, "35% more than..." is an interesting phrase. If it's "35% more than something we told you would clean up to 40%" you have another meaningless phrase.
Another poster commented about what sort of tests they may or may not have done to establish these numbers. The infamous "4 ball" wear test is instructive to consider when thinking about that.
No knock on Pennzoil, I use it in one of my cars. But everyone should realize that any other manufacturer could legitimately use the same claims in their advertising. And if you think companies are always honest and not deceptive in their advertising you're very naive.
As for Auto-RX, I've used it as a maintenance product in cars that weren't obviously suffering from sludge buildup or leaks. More truly knowledgable people than I believe it works.
jeff
Likewise, "35% more than..." is an interesting phrase. If it's "35% more than something we told you would clean up to 40%" you have another meaningless phrase.
Another poster commented about what sort of tests they may or may not have done to establish these numbers. The infamous "4 ball" wear test is instructive to consider when thinking about that.
No knock on Pennzoil, I use it in one of my cars. But everyone should realize that any other manufacturer could legitimately use the same claims in their advertising. And if you think companies are always honest and not deceptive in their advertising you're very naive.
As for Auto-RX, I've used it as a maintenance product in cars that weren't obviously suffering from sludge buildup or leaks. More truly knowledgable people than I believe it works.
jeff
What about the percentage of sludge ARX removes?
From my observation on more than a dozen engines over a 2 year period or thereabouts (yes Frank i have the receipts) is its probably closer to zero than 40%.
Pennzoil didn't just grab 40 percent out of thin air of that i am 100% certain,if its just advertising as you say then why not 25% 75% or 90%?
Listen its quite simple,if you don't like the phrases Pennzoil uses talk to them and ask to clarify them.They are site sponsors and available and open to questions.
What is beyond me is folks questioning the testing and research methods of one of the world largest and most respected oil refiners and voicing their disbelief at claims it makes regarding its product. Yet these same folks have no problem accepting whatever testimonials (some compensated BTW according to another poster here who claims to have received compensation for his testimony and asked to make false claims) and so called test ARX throws out there.
Believe me many people who are truly more knowledgeable than most and know ARX doesn't do a much of anything,my brother and i spent more then a few hundred dollars trying this stuff out and it didn't come close to some other product costing less than half the price.
BTW i use Pennzoil,Shell,Castrol,Mobil 1 and a few others depending on vehicle requirements.
From my observation on more than a dozen engines over a 2 year period or thereabouts (yes Frank i have the receipts) is its probably closer to zero than 40%.
Pennzoil didn't just grab 40 percent out of thin air of that i am 100% certain,if its just advertising as you say then why not 25% 75% or 90%?
Listen its quite simple,if you don't like the phrases Pennzoil uses talk to them and ask to clarify them.They are site sponsors and available and open to questions.
What is beyond me is folks questioning the testing and research methods of one of the world largest and most respected oil refiners and voicing their disbelief at claims it makes regarding its product. Yet these same folks have no problem accepting whatever testimonials (some compensated BTW according to another poster here who claims to have received compensation for his testimony and asked to make false claims) and so called test ARX throws out there.
Believe me many people who are truly more knowledgeable than most and know ARX doesn't do a much of anything,my brother and i spent more then a few hundred dollars trying this stuff out and it didn't come close to some other product costing less than half the price.
BTW i use Pennzoil,Shell,Castrol,Mobil 1 and a few others depending on vehicle requirements.
The currently vocal contingent has their minds made up about many of these subjects so I won't bother getting into those. But advertising is one we haven't explored in much detail on the site, so here it goes.
Yes, I have a healthy skepticism about the advertising claims of big multinational companies. Words matter and that's why they use ones like "up to".
I'm quite certain Pennzoil conducts a variety of tests during product development. They're a good company putting out good products. I'm also certain that the best results get cherry picked for inclusion in their advertising claims.
Here's an analogy for you. Television manufacturers for the past several years have been advertising higher and higher contrast ratios for their sets. 5, 6, 7 million to one and higher is typical.
Well guess what, actual measurements on those sets show contrast ratios below 10,000:1. Imagine that, the worlds largest and most respected consumer electronics companies (Panasonic, Sony, Samsung, Sharp, LG, et al) would use misleading advertising claims! I'm sure the numbers have some connection to reality, perhaps within one manufacturer's product line the model with 5 mil:1 does have better contrast than one with 2 mil:1. But the numbers themselves are nonsense.
Here's some verbiage from Mobil about my favorite product of theirs, 5W-40 Turbo Diesel Truck. I use it in my '03 Saab 9-5 Aero sludgemobile.
"Mobil 1 Turbo Diesel Truck reduces low-temperature sludge build-up and high-temperature deposits through excellent thermal and oxidation stability. High temperatures pose little threat as Mobil 1 Turbo Diesel Truck fully synthetic motor oil maintains its viscosity and has enhanced oil film strength, which helps to reduce engine scuffing and bore polishing. It also provides wear protection and reduced oil consumption with its shear stability."
They don't call out any percentages, but my inner skeptic asks "reduced oil consumption compared to what?" In what conditions? Enhanced oil film strength? Enhanced compared to what?
Castrol still uses this old goodie for GTX:
"Engineered to provide maximum protection against viscosity and thermal breakdown!"
Maximum? That implies there is is no possibly superior product. dunno if I believe that. They also say:
"Superior deposit protection", as shown by the Sequence VG sludge test. Wait, how can that be? That's the same one Pennzoil cites. They can't both be the best can they?
jeff
Yes, I have a healthy skepticism about the advertising claims of big multinational companies. Words matter and that's why they use ones like "up to".
I'm quite certain Pennzoil conducts a variety of tests during product development. They're a good company putting out good products. I'm also certain that the best results get cherry picked for inclusion in their advertising claims.
Here's an analogy for you. Television manufacturers for the past several years have been advertising higher and higher contrast ratios for their sets. 5, 6, 7 million to one and higher is typical.
Well guess what, actual measurements on those sets show contrast ratios below 10,000:1. Imagine that, the worlds largest and most respected consumer electronics companies (Panasonic, Sony, Samsung, Sharp, LG, et al) would use misleading advertising claims! I'm sure the numbers have some connection to reality, perhaps within one manufacturer's product line the model with 5 mil:1 does have better contrast than one with 2 mil:1. But the numbers themselves are nonsense.
Here's some verbiage from Mobil about my favorite product of theirs, 5W-40 Turbo Diesel Truck. I use it in my '03 Saab 9-5 Aero sludgemobile.
"Mobil 1 Turbo Diesel Truck reduces low-temperature sludge build-up and high-temperature deposits through excellent thermal and oxidation stability. High temperatures pose little threat as Mobil 1 Turbo Diesel Truck fully synthetic motor oil maintains its viscosity and has enhanced oil film strength, which helps to reduce engine scuffing and bore polishing. It also provides wear protection and reduced oil consumption with its shear stability."
They don't call out any percentages, but my inner skeptic asks "reduced oil consumption compared to what?" In what conditions? Enhanced oil film strength? Enhanced compared to what?
Castrol still uses this old goodie for GTX:
"Engineered to provide maximum protection against viscosity and thermal breakdown!"
Maximum? That implies there is is no possibly superior product. dunno if I believe that. They also say:
"Superior deposit protection", as shown by the Sequence VG sludge test. Wait, how can that be? That's the same one Pennzoil cites. They can't both be the best can they?
jeff
So the OP shows oil filters that are filled with gunk, much more than previous but ARX didn't do anything?
ARX has clearly worked for me on my Saturn that was low on power and using some oil. On another car that was running fine I didn't find much improvement, but there wasn't really a problem either.
I think that failing to remove visible sludge quickly is a good thing. Who wants big chunks of crud falling off of the valve cover and clogging all the drain holes. ARX works slowly, I'm OK with that.
ARX has clearly worked for me on my Saturn that was low on power and using some oil. On another car that was running fine I didn't find much improvement, but there wasn't really a problem either.
I think that failing to remove visible sludge quickly is a good thing. Who wants big chunks of crud falling off of the valve cover and clogging all the drain holes. ARX works slowly, I'm OK with that.
Last edited:
All oil companies advertising claims leave a lot to the imagination, and are reviewed by a legal team. IMO Pennzoil is one of the better companies when it comes to advertising, I'd put them up there with Mobil. Both companies are class acts when it comes to advertising.
A-Rx made a lot of claims too, but reading through these pages you can see there are a lot of people who were not happy with the product. I'd put my trust in Pennzoil as being a more solid and reputable company than A-Rx. I also say it is a very safe bet they've spent a lot more in testing and R&D then A-Rx. In the end use whatever makes you happy.
A-Rx made a lot of claims too, but reading through these pages you can see there are a lot of people who were not happy with the product. I'd put my trust in Pennzoil as being a more solid and reputable company than A-Rx. I also say it is a very safe bet they've spent a lot more in testing and R&D then A-Rx. In the end use whatever makes you happy.
westwind,
The current mania as another thread so dubbed it is that AutoRX doesn't work and even if you think it did you could have used something else that's cheaper/faster/smells better. Get with the program ok?
jeff
The current mania as another thread so dubbed it is that AutoRX doesn't work and even if you think it did you could have used something else that's cheaper/faster/smells better. Get with the program ok?
jeff
Then lets look at advertising.
ARX primarily advertises itself as a sludge removal and cleaning product,an area it seems to perform poorly in.
It may or may not clean rings but this is only a so called by product of the cleaning job.
If it claimed "cleans the ring pack and may have additional cleaning benefits in other areas of the engine"
Then had some compression test to back it up i would have no issues whatsoever with this product.
Oil refiners sell oil a product that protects the engine by keeping it lubricated,this is its primary function and advertising claim.The products do this very well,the proof is self evident by the number of vehicles using the product every day without the engine coming apart.
The cleaning claims are a secondary part of the product,no one i know does an oil change thinking the oil is still good but i want to clean my engine today,they change it because the oil is coming to the end of its current life cycle for lubrication the engine.
The ARX brigade has circled the wagons in its defence and that's fine but discrediting major oil refiners products and ripping their advertising apart while pointing the finger at anyone who challenges ARX advertising is a little hypocritical IMO.
ARX primarily advertises itself as a sludge removal and cleaning product,an area it seems to perform poorly in.
It may or may not clean rings but this is only a so called by product of the cleaning job.
If it claimed "cleans the ring pack and may have additional cleaning benefits in other areas of the engine"
Then had some compression test to back it up i would have no issues whatsoever with this product.
Oil refiners sell oil a product that protects the engine by keeping it lubricated,this is its primary function and advertising claim.The products do this very well,the proof is self evident by the number of vehicles using the product every day without the engine coming apart.
The cleaning claims are a secondary part of the product,no one i know does an oil change thinking the oil is still good but i want to clean my engine today,they change it because the oil is coming to the end of its current life cycle for lubrication the engine.
The ARX brigade has circled the wagons in its defence and that's fine but discrediting major oil refiners products and ripping their advertising apart while pointing the finger at anyone who challenges ARX advertising is a little hypocritical IMO.
- Status