2 Valvoline Restore & Protect tests

[buster]

I believe the LSJr R&P vid pistons were all the same. But it’s been a while since I watched it.

After 3k miles.

 

[Glenda W.]

After 3k miles.

View attachment 250452

Those were the ones!

 

[irollo]

Yup, you are 100% right, those are not the same pistons, there are several differences between the top and bottom row.

Could be a FTC issue. Act fast while supplies last.

 

[buster]

My guess is someone at Valvoline marketing dropped the ball. He said their marketing department is in Lexington and lab in Ashland. He sent them a message about it.

 

[Ayrton]

After 3k miles.

View attachment 250452

Or 90 hours at the IIIH testing parameters, 3600 RPM or whatever it is.

I still think the deposits that IIIH accumulates (left) may be easier to remove compared to build up over ten years in everyday driving.

Furthermore, the 90 hours at 3600 RPM for the right piston is not something our cars are going to go through.

Not saying it doesn't work, but the pistons all come from this IIIH testing, not from an on the road test.

 

[buster]

Or 90 hours at the IIIH testing parameters, 3600 RPM or whatever it is.

I still think the deposits that IIIH accumulates (left) may be easier to remove compared to build up over ten years in everyday driving.

Furthermore, the 90 hours at 3600 RPM for the right piston is not something our cars are going to go through.

Not saying it doesn't work, but the pistons all come from this IIIH testing, not from an on the road test.

They said "modified IIIH", but I know what you're saying...I really don't know.

"Real-world testing is crucial. For instance, a Ford Mustang was subjected to extensive testing with Restore and Protect, showing significant reductions in wear and deposit formation. The testing extended to various engine components, including the timing chain cover, oil pan, and valvetrain, demonstrating the comprehensive benefits of the oil. The team also ran Restore and Protect in a Ford Explorer with more than 500,000 miles."

“And we also did a chassis dynamometer test where we put a vehicle on rollers basically and ran it 300,000 miles,” Warholic says. “Restore and Protect actually cleaned up the entire engine.”

 

[Ayrton]

They said "modified IIIH", but I know what you're saying...I really don't know.

"Real-world testing is crucial. For instance, a Ford Mustang was subjected to extensive testing with Restore and Protect, showing significant reductions in wear and deposit formation. The testing extended to various engine components, including the timing chain cover, oil pan, and valvetrain, demonstrating the comprehensive benefits of the oil. The team also ran Restore and Protect in a Ford Explorer with more than 500,000 miles."

“And we also did a chassis dynamometer test where we put a vehicle on rollers basically and ran it 300,000 miles,” Warholic says. “Restore and Protect actually cleaned up the entire engine.”

And yet all the pistons are from the modified IIIH test. I've not seen one part from the dynamometer testing, etc.

There could be other modifications, but I mostly take the "modified" to mean, they're taking pistons that come out of the regular IIIH test with a baseline oil and try to clean em by running R&P. That's a modification. The original test is taking clean pistons and running IIIH.

I don't know either. I'm running the product right now for the second time. I just don't think real world is going to be as dramatic or as fast as that intense IIIH test.

 

[Avery4]

The Motor Oil Geek recently released this video showing that R&P seemingly did a great job of cleaning his engine after only one 5K mile OCI. Assuming his results are legit and the cleaning he saw on his dipstick translates to the rest of the engine, that really goes to show how important a large sample size is when doing this type of testing due to all the countless variables from vehicle to vehicle with varying designs, usage conditions, etc.

 

[jtay2024]

Good point, but if R&P can't remove relatively soft carbon and varnish with reasonable effectiveness, how is it going to clean extremely hard baked on carbon off the rings and out of their grooves with minimal oil exposure? Those deposits are usually so hard they have to be scraped off with the sharp edge of a broken ring or similar and still usually take several passes to fully remove AFTER soaking in a strong solvent. I've seen rings stuck so badly that they are almost impossible to remove.

Here's a picture from Valvoline's website of the type of cleaning R&P supposedly did in one of their tests. Sure looks to me like they are indirectly claiming varnish removal.
View attachment 250105

Still can't get my head around why they have two totally different types of pistons in the before and after shots.

*Edit* - Sorry! Replied to a post in here before I had actually got to the end of the thread it seems. It will be interesting to see what Valvoline say now that people have asked about it.

 

[Jetronic]

It's hard to say which oils do or don't reduce piston deposits since they aren't easy to inspect. Oil consumption can be an indication, but there's still too many other variables to say for sure, especially on a car with unknown history.

Yes, a longer term test would be ideal, but as I said, I'm going to pull the engine for a manual cleaning and refresh shortly, so there wasn't time for long term testing on that.

I personally don't consider that tiny bit of cleaning in 2500 highway miles proof that R&P has some special cleaning ability, especially without knowing the car's history. I've seen other oils do more cleaning over the same mileage in other engines, but that's obviously an apples to oranges comparison.

My friend's CRV is on its 4th OCI on R&P with no change in oil consumption yet. Could that change? Possibly, we'll see what HPL EC30 does. And without tearing down the engine, we don't know for certain that the oil consumption is due to stuck rings, that's just an educated guess since that's by far the most common reason the K series burn oil, especially that era with the warranty extension due to sticking rings.

Independent testing would be nice to see, especially since Valvoline provided no details that I could find on how the test was performed, over what duration, in what engine, etc. Even if the pictures weren't fabricated, that doesn't mean they are at all representative of real world conditions. For all we know, they could have (and likely did) create an unrealistic test just to get impressive looking results.

A control would have really strengthened their marketing too IMO. It would have been nice to see one or more common synthetic oils from other brands put through the same cleanup test on the same deposits formed the same way for the same duration and under the same conditions as a visual comparison of how their oil cleans better than others.

If rings get stuck for long enough, they could be worn to such a degree they won't ever provide an adequate seal again. Out of round so to say. And in turn this could have worn the bores aswell.

 

[Jetronic]

And yet all the pistons are from the modified IIIH test. I've not seen one part from the dynamometer testing, etc.

There could be other modifications, but I mostly take the "modified" to mean, they're taking pistons that come out of the regular IIIH test with a baseline oil and try to clean em by running R&P. That's a modification. The original test is taking clean pistons and running IIIH.

I don't know either. I'm running the product right now for the second time. I just don't think real world is going to be as dramatic or as fast as that intense IIIH test.

Yes that's how I understood the modification aswell. Not starting with a clean engine.

 

[Avery4]

If rings get stuck for long enough, they could be worn to such a degree they won't ever provide an adequate seal again. Out of round so to say. And in turn this could have worn the bores aswell.

Great point, that's yet another potential variable on my friend's CRV. Might be worth doing a compression test and leakdown test to get somewhat of an idea of whether that might have happened. At idle, the blow by seems normal for a K24 and the engine runs pretty well, but a compression test would be interesting.

But even if the rings and/or bores were worn from stuck rings, if the rings were then totally cleaned and freed up, would it not be reasonable to expect even a slight decrease in consumption? Since the start of the testing, his consumption has remained steady at 1 quart per 1K miles.

I guess the fact that the consumption hasn't gotten any worse over the last ~16K miles on R&P could in a way be considered maybe a slight win.

 

[f355spider]

Great point, that's yet another potential variable on my friend's CRV. Might be worth doing a compression test and leakdown test to get somewhat of an idea of whether that might have happened. At idle, the blow by seems normal for a K24 and the engine runs pretty well, but a compression test would be interesting.

But even if the rings and/or bores were worn from stuck rings, if the rings were then totally cleaned and freed up, would it not be reasonable to expect even a slight decrease in consumption? Since the start of the testing, his consumption has remained steady at 1 quart per 1K miles.

I guess the fact that the consumption hasn't gotten any worse over the last ~16K miles on R&P could in a way be considered maybe a slight win.

One other thing to consider: Is the oil consumption diagnosis correct? You are assuming the consumption is due to stuck oil rings. Perhaps it is from ring or cylinder wear. Or valve seal wear or any number of other factors?

 

[Avery4]

One other thing to consider: Is the oil consumption diagnosis correct? You are assuming the consumption is due to stuck oil rings. Perhaps it is from ring or cylinder wear. Or valve seal wear or any number of other factors?

As I said several times, I have no way to know for sure since he's not interested in tearing the engine down at this time. Stuck rings are almost always what causes excessive oil consumption on the K series and it's a common enough issue that Honda issued a warranty extension, but of course that's by no means a verified diagnosis, just an educated guess.
https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/tsbs/2017/SB-10108323-9340.pdf

 

[TwoWheelRider]

But even if the rings and/or bores were worn from stuck rings, if the rings were then totally cleaned and freed up, would it not be reasonable to expect even a slight decrease in consumption? Since the start of the testing, his consumption has remained steady at 1 quart per 1K miles.

Perhaps, as we have seen it in some valve train photos there is a tipping point when the deposits are no longer dissolvable by the oil. The carbonization process is too far gone and the solvents in the oil are unable to attack the polymers created.

I had to do 2 rounds of BG EPR treatment to stop the oil consumption of our 2015 CRV.

 

[Hohn]

I run the oil until science tells me otherwise, there is no basis on beliefs, and such.

Sorry to bump this thread after reading it in the archives, but this comment really illustrates a common myth that people believe: that "science" is self-interpreting. As an engineer who makes a living poring over data, I frequently encounter the phrase "follow where the data leads." And I often must correct that fallacy: data cannot lead. Data doesn't know where you want to go or what you are trying to accomplish. Data has no goals, ethics, morals, budget or schedule. It cannot possible tell you how to use it.

And in reality, if data were self-interpreting, we would need no engineers. A human being ultimately must decide what the data means-- as humans and readers, all the meaning is assigned by us.

As I tell my young engineers, engineering is not science. It is art. Yes, we use science to practice the art. But huge portions of good engineering come from good human judgement and interpretation of data and the science that generated it. It is inherently subjective, however, and it is therefore art. Just as an artist grasps the effects of color temperature or paint texture or an F-stop, an engineer must also master the physics and logic of his art: CFD, FEA, FMEA, etc etc. But using science doesn't make it science any more than using a screwdriver makes you a tool designer.

So don't fall for the fallacy that "science" can tell you when to change your oil. Only a person can make that judgment. It might the person that decided that some TBN or TAN relationship is the point of oil being "used up." Or it might be the person that decided that an oxidation threshold condemns the oil. Or it might just be the person (you) who decided they wanted to drain the oil and try something new.

Regardless of whether that conclusion is contained in an owner's manual, an oil analysis report, or or in the feel of oil rubbed between your fingers-- at some point, the choice of when to change oil is always (and always will be) a discretionary call rendered by human judgment. It IS NOT science. By all means, use whatever scientific methods have earned your trust, but you are still exercising your own judgment. Data is not self-interpreting.

 

[thetricky]

Sorry to bump this thread after reading it in the archives, but this comment really illustrates a common myth that people believe: that "science" is self-interpreting. As an engineer who makes a living poring over data, I frequently encounter the phrase "follow where the data leads." And I often must correct that fallacy: data cannot lead. Data doesn't know where you want to go or what you are trying to accomplish. Data has no goals, ethics, morals, budget or schedule. It cannot possible tell you how to use it.

And in reality, if data were self-interpreting, we would need no engineers. A human being ultimately must decide what the data means-- as humans and readers, all the meaning is assigned by us.

As I tell my young engineers, engineering is not science. It is art. Yes, we use science to practice the art. But huge portions of good engineering come from good human judgement and interpretation of data and the science that generated it. It is inherently subjective, however, and it is therefore art. Just as an artist grasps the effects of color temperature or paint texture or an F-stop, an engineer must also master the physics and logic of his art: CFD, FEA, FMEA, etc etc. But using science doesn't make it science any more than using a screwdriver makes you a tool designer.

So don't fall for the fallacy that "science" can tell you when to change your oil. Only a person can make that judgment. It might the person that decided that some TBN or TAN relationship is the point of oil being "used up." Or it might be the person that decided that an oxidation threshold condemns the oil. Or it might just be the person (you) who decided they wanted to drain the oil and try something new.

Regardless of whether that conclusion is contained in an owner's manual, an oil analysis report, or or in the feel of oil rubbed between your fingers-- at some point, the choice of when to change oil is always (and always will be) a discretionary call rendered by human judgment. It IS NOT science. By all means, use whatever scientific methods have earned your trust, but you are still exercising your own judgment. Data is not self-interpreting.

Ok. I still need the science, the data lent to me by the UOA to make that change or don’t change decision.

 

[blue07silvy]

Okay, I went down that Valvoline Restore & Protect Rabbit Hole and found this. My 2007.5 Silverado 1500 with the 5.3 is starting to develop a lifter tick on cold starts. 121K miles. Wss going to use the Valvoline until I watched this.

 

[Fa24wrx]

Okay, I went down that Valvoline Restore & Protect Rabbit Hole and found this. My 2007.5 Silverado 1500 with the 5.3 is starting to develop a lifter tick on cold starts. 121K miles. Wss going to use the Valvoline until I watched this.

Most synthetic oil will pull sludge out. The benefit of VRP is varnish/deposits that most oils won't clean.

 

[blue07silvy]

Most synthetic oil will pull sludge out. The benefit of VRP is varnish/deposits that most oils won't clean.

More worried about the filter clogging up causing more harm than good. Hard to see myself swapping filters every 500 miles for a few thousand miles