I just wondered if their were any negatives of using auto rx. Like if you though there was sludge in your car and there wasn't or something like that. I have an 88 bronco II with 44,700 it was only driven by the previouis owner once or twice a week. I'm thinking that it may have some sludge since the oil spent a lot of time just sitting their and figured even if it didn't auto rx would help anyway. Does anyone know of any negatives of using auto rx? Have you had any negative experiances?
any negatives of auto rx?
- Thread starter bigwillie
- Start date
- Status
The only negative is if sludge is blocking a leaking gasket, the removal of the sludge will result in that bad gasket leaking.
No other negatives except the cost and bother of the oil changes. I use Auto-Rx in the engine and transmission, and have had good results.
I agree with you...if that 44k engine has been run short & cold, it might benefit from a cleaning.
Ken
No other negatives except the cost and bother of the oil changes. I use Auto-Rx in the engine and transmission, and have had good results.
I agree with you...if that 44k engine has been run short & cold, it might benefit from a cleaning.
Ken
So far, I have treated 2 cars: wifey's 93 Camry Vee6, with over 210,000kms, with mild valve cover leaks (about 1/2 qt every 600kms OCI), no oil burning, unknown OCI and oil quality until we took it in about 2 yrs ago (since then it sees Motomaster/M1 sync oils from weight 10W30 to 5W50)
My 323 with B-6 block, 175kkms on the clock, seen the first 40kkms with Pennzoil dino 10W30, then switched to a steady diet of 6K OCI intervals with Q-state Full Synthetic 10W30 or 5W50, 0 burning oil and no oil leaks during 6k OCI.
Results: completed 1st round of cleaning phase with AutoRx(in sync oil). Also completed rinse phase with Castrol GTX dino 10W30.
After I put in the Rx, I immediately feel the added smoothless when idle and also very smooth acceleration (I have very sensitive hearing due the fact that I'm into ultri-fi audio hobby also) when listening to the subtle exhaust tone. The "smoothness" retains during the rinse phase, indicating that AutoRx does improve the lubricity and Frank's explanation RE: using lanolin oil as esters (polar) is indeed true (polarised oils does enhance the oil film adhesion on metal surfaces, thus improving lubricating properties).
On my 323, similar things happened: during rinse phase, immediately I see improvements on my vaccum gauge (I run a vacuum gauge on my car at all times). Before AutoRx: idle is at -21inHg, engine-braking takes the needle down to -24inHg.
With AutoRx applied to my 5W50 Motomaster Full Synthetic, immediately, idle reads -22inHg, with engine braking taking the needle down to -27inHg!
Now the car has just entered rinse phase with dino GTX 10W30.
I'm currently running a dose of Rx on dad's Civic 1.7L (84kkms on the clock) with dino GTX 5W20....we'll seee what happens.
BTW: Camry sees a significant drop of oil leaks on seals and valve cover gasket leak (used to be I would have to shampoo the engine every 6 mnths due to excessive oil smell coming in from the front vents due to valve cover gasket oil leaks); now the leaks is significantly reduced to the point where I have lost about 1/5qt per 6K OCI, enough to delay the repair!). Best of all, all cars see smoother acceleration and an overall increase of gas mileage of approx. 0.5~1litre every 100kms.
My 323 with B-6 block, 175kkms on the clock, seen the first 40kkms with Pennzoil dino 10W30, then switched to a steady diet of 6K OCI intervals with Q-state Full Synthetic 10W30 or 5W50, 0 burning oil and no oil leaks during 6k OCI.
Results: completed 1st round of cleaning phase with AutoRx(in sync oil). Also completed rinse phase with Castrol GTX dino 10W30.
After I put in the Rx, I immediately feel the added smoothless when idle and also very smooth acceleration (I have very sensitive hearing due the fact that I'm into ultri-fi audio hobby also) when listening to the subtle exhaust tone. The "smoothness" retains during the rinse phase, indicating that AutoRx does improve the lubricity and Frank's explanation RE: using lanolin oil as esters (polar) is indeed true (polarised oils does enhance the oil film adhesion on metal surfaces, thus improving lubricating properties).
On my 323, similar things happened: during rinse phase, immediately I see improvements on my vaccum gauge (I run a vacuum gauge on my car at all times). Before AutoRx: idle is at -21inHg, engine-braking takes the needle down to -24inHg.
With AutoRx applied to my 5W50 Motomaster Full Synthetic, immediately, idle reads -22inHg, with engine braking taking the needle down to -27inHg!
Now the car has just entered rinse phase with dino GTX 10W30.
I'm currently running a dose of Rx on dad's Civic 1.7L (84kkms on the clock) with dino GTX 5W20....we'll seee what happens.
BTW: Camry sees a significant drop of oil leaks on seals and valve cover gasket leak (used to be I would have to shampoo the engine every 6 mnths due to excessive oil smell coming in from the front vents due to valve cover gasket oil leaks); now the leaks is significantly reduced to the point where I have lost about 1/5qt per 6K OCI, enough to delay the repair!). Best of all, all cars see smoother acceleration and an overall increase of gas mileage of approx. 0.5~1litre every 100kms.
typo: my wife's Camry sees OCI of 6000kms OCI with 1/2 quart(approx. 500ml) oil loss due to valve cover leaks. (before AutoRx)
Really the only thing is: It's rather expensive....but that's relative, too.
Here's what I mean: If your engine is in tip-top shape and doesn't need cleaning, AutoRx would be a waste of money. (OTOH - if your rings are sticking, etc - $25 (or whatver) is CHEAP.)
Part II - AutoRx is NOT miracle in a can. It won't fix broken metal stuff. It's just a gentle but extremely thorough cleaner. It's takes patience and possible a SECOND application......
Here's what I mean: If your engine is in tip-top shape and doesn't need cleaning, AutoRx would be a waste of money. (OTOH - if your rings are sticking, etc - $25 (or whatver) is CHEAP.)
Part II - AutoRx is NOT miracle in a can. It won't fix broken metal stuff. It's just a gentle but extremely thorough cleaner. It's takes patience and possible a SECOND application......
It takes a long time to see results on vehicles that arent driven a lot. I'm actually going out of my way to put miles on a vehicle I'm trying to clean. Some people are very impatient, want immediate results. The cost also makes this product hard to justify for a lot of people out there.
I also read on here that autorx doesn't clean areas that do not see a lot of oil pressure. Which is where I have a lot of buildup
I also read on here that autorx doesn't clean areas that do not see a lot of oil pressure. Which is where I have a lot of buildup
Quest -
Perhaps a little Auto-RX in your oil caps would help. Cheaper than tube-rolling.
-- Pat
PS - A little Bottlehead audio humor.
Perhaps a little Auto-RX in your oil caps would help. Cheaper than tube-rolling.
PS - A little Bottlehead audio humor.
One real negative is that you can't really enjoy telling people about it. Most won't believe you and you many not have the technical knowledge to explain how it works and why it's different from the typical harsh solvent they effectively and appropriatly discourage people from using.
The other is price, with the quantity discount you might as well get 4, 5 or 6 bottles, or find a friend and get 3 each.
I've treated two realitivly new engines, and though you don't get much power increase or improved milage, the engine does smothen out like it is new again, and that's worthe something. Plus I would expect you have delayed the carbon buildup and extended compression on that engine even if you never get around to treating it again.
I would think a good plan on a new engine would be to run a maintenace dose from the day it's new, and an even better plan would be for oil companies to provide an oil product with ARX included in the additive package. Maybe we could start with Mobil Drive Cleaner.
The other is price, with the quantity discount you might as well get 4, 5 or 6 bottles, or find a friend and get 3 each.
I've treated two realitivly new engines, and though you don't get much power increase or improved milage, the engine does smothen out like it is new again, and that's worthe something. Plus I would expect you have delayed the carbon buildup and extended compression on that engine even if you never get around to treating it again.
I would think a good plan on a new engine would be to run a maintenace dose from the day it's new, and an even better plan would be for oil companies to provide an oil product with ARX included in the additive package. Maybe we could start with Mobil Drive Cleaner.
I think Auto-RX would be VERY economical if a person started using maintenance doses from the time a car or truck was brand new. It only takes 3 oz. per 4-5 quarts of oil. It is usually cheaper to buy two or three bottles at a time. Even with two vehicles a person could go for a while.
Maybe cleaning with an entire bottle would not be necessary if a person was doing the above. But it probably would not hurt to do a claning at least every 50,000 miles.
Auto-RX is at the top of the very small number of products I am now willing to use for my car. I think I am ready to put Gumout Regaine in the clear bottle in second place. Every time I use that product my car seems to run better. Not much after that-maybe Lubegard for automatic transmissions and Lubegard power steering supplement for power steering units that are making noise in the cold. And that is about it. Short list nowadays.
Maybe cleaning with an entire bottle would not be necessary if a person was doing the above. But it probably would not hurt to do a claning at least every 50,000 miles.
Auto-RX is at the top of the very small number of products I am now willing to use for my car. I think I am ready to put Gumout Regaine in the clear bottle in second place. Every time I use that product my car seems to run better. Not much after that-maybe Lubegard for automatic transmissions and Lubegard power steering supplement for power steering units that are making noise in the cold. And that is about it. Short list nowadays.
Greencrew is on the mark. I no longer try to tell people about it. The think I am nuts.
I have been using it for about 3 years now. I did have one car that developed a bad cranks seal leak with it, but after 2,000 miles on the rinse, it stopped and all is well now.
I just bought another 6 bottles, when they had it on sale. I do use the maintenance doseage too.
I have been using it for about 3 years now. I did have one car that developed a bad cranks seal leak with it, but after 2,000 miles on the rinse, it stopped and all is well now.
I just bought another 6 bottles, when they had it on sale. I do use the maintenance doseage too.
Ain't that the truth. I tell everyone, and I know I get through to some, but I also get a LOT of skeptisicm... I only hope my preaching the message gets a few converts...
I sometimes think that Frank of Auto-RX needs to start selling his product in at least some auto parts stores or places like Wal-Mart. Maybe he gets enough business now-I don't know. But Auto-RX is such a good product that it really should be more common-certainly more common then the junk you typically find in auto parts stores.
Well, odds are that it would sit on the shelf and collect dust, while the $2 a bottle stuff sells.
Then the chain would be unhappy and discontinue it.
Unless someone can explain why the choice is better and worth the extra dollars, forget it.
Look at how long it took AMSOIL and Mobil to build a market--even with Mobil Corp spending millions of dollars in advertising.
Then the chain would be unhappy and discontinue it.
Unless someone can explain why the choice is better and worth the extra dollars, forget it.
Look at how long it took AMSOIL and Mobil to build a market--even with Mobil Corp spending millions of dollars in advertising.
HaHa,
Asking such questions here is like going to the Wednesday night prayer meeting and asking "Should I repent and be saved?"
I would suggest reading this article:
http://www.mustangworks.com/articles/misc/OilTreatment.html
Then go to the Auto-RX website and see what they have to say. I suspect you will find plenty of testimonials and few if zero studies using the scientific method and performed by reputable laboratories with no interest in selling anything but reliable information.
Then you can come to your own conclusions. Perhaps this stuff works, but where's the proof?
My $0.02
Asking such questions here is like going to the Wednesday night prayer meeting and asking "Should I repent and be saved?"
I would suggest reading this article:
http://www.mustangworks.com/articles/misc/OilTreatment.html
Then go to the Auto-RX website and see what they have to say. I suspect you will find plenty of testimonials and few if zero studies using the scientific method and performed by reputable laboratories with no interest in selling anything but reliable information.
Then you can come to your own conclusions. Perhaps this stuff works, but where's the proof?
My $0.02
Well, I don't have any proof that Auto-RX works. I had a leak from an engine seal and I was told it would cost $600.00 to repair (engine would have to be removed). I did an Auto-RX cleaning and the seal leak stopped. That is one thing I know. I also know that lots of people here have gotten good results using Auto-RX.
Just one more thing-that article has been around forever-I remember seeing it on the internet years ago. But I don't see Auto-RX as being one of the products they tested. I also don't see Lubegard for that matter. Let us see them run a test on Auto-RX.
Herky, I suggest you reconsider Auto-RX for valid reasons. Tony that webpage by Aaron is one of many !
I also ask that if you are associated with any competing additive that is manufactured in the NW US please disclose that up front.
Auto-RX is a small company of essentially 2 chemists who developed the technolgy after one of them got cancer ( from what he believes are the solvents used in the printing industry fluids he worked with). They can't afford independent large scale labs to run in depth testing at their expense.
Since they are chemists they understand what the product is capable of. and honestly attempt to share that.
Dyson Analysis was hired to do field testing and interpretive consult in the auto lubes arena because thats all they could afford.
I worked as a hired test consultant with Auto-RX and testing screens Lubrizol corp performed on the products. The independent tests were positive showing the product capable of cleaning WITHOUT affecting the host oil or engines ( gas and HDD) negatively. The added benefit was that the product is inert and safe for humans and the environment.
Problem was that it is expensive to esterify and as such was not accepted as a viable engine oil add for either PCMO or HDD at the time unless Frank wanted to give it to them. Lubrizol owns the test data and all of the people involved are restricted by Lubrizol under non dislcosure agreements.
Lubrizol and others have tremendous testing capabilites but ONLY the heavy hitters with lots of cash can afford the price hurdle to get the products tested.
Now that article you link to is fine but old. news. Major oil companies generally care about capturing market and reselling you the same old junk, until recently ( XOM lubes) attack by selling "quality over quantity".
I disclose who I worked for here and what we did. The fact that only Auto/Cycle-Rx and Lubecontrol are ones I mention publicly should alert the unbiased reader to the others.
You can dismiss lots of things as far as what a smaller company can afford in testing but the fact that RX has proven for a number of years what it advertizes, cleaning without harming, is well worth considering salvation !
BTW I think from what I see of the lubeguard products they are really well built lubricant additives.
Not specifically described or sold as safe bio based CLEANERS, like Auto-RX .
Ask the hundreds of my oil analysis customers what they think of either Auto-RX or Lubecontrol/FP60 and I bet from independent test data on THEIR OWN engines they are impressed.
Note : I worked for both companies who compete with each other in certain markets.
I get paid to test not promote, I promote here because I like a product for myself and my customers.
Terry
[ May 06, 2005, 04:09 PM: Message edited by: Terry ]
I also ask that if you are associated with any competing additive that is manufactured in the NW US please disclose that up front.
Auto-RX is a small company of essentially 2 chemists who developed the technolgy after one of them got cancer ( from what he believes are the solvents used in the printing industry fluids he worked with). They can't afford independent large scale labs to run in depth testing at their expense.
Since they are chemists they understand what the product is capable of. and honestly attempt to share that.
Dyson Analysis was hired to do field testing and interpretive consult in the auto lubes arena because thats all they could afford.
I worked as a hired test consultant with Auto-RX and testing screens Lubrizol corp performed on the products. The independent tests were positive showing the product capable of cleaning WITHOUT affecting the host oil or engines ( gas and HDD) negatively. The added benefit was that the product is inert and safe for humans and the environment.
Problem was that it is expensive to esterify and as such was not accepted as a viable engine oil add for either PCMO or HDD at the time unless Frank wanted to give it to them. Lubrizol owns the test data and all of the people involved are restricted by Lubrizol under non dislcosure agreements.
Lubrizol and others have tremendous testing capabilites but ONLY the heavy hitters with lots of cash can afford the price hurdle to get the products tested.
Now that article you link to is fine but old. news. Major oil companies generally care about capturing market and reselling you the same old junk, until recently ( XOM lubes) attack by selling "quality over quantity".
I disclose who I worked for here and what we did. The fact that only Auto/Cycle-Rx and Lubecontrol are ones I mention publicly should alert the unbiased reader to the others.
You can dismiss lots of things as far as what a smaller company can afford in testing but the fact that RX has proven for a number of years what it advertizes, cleaning without harming, is well worth considering salvation !
BTW I think from what I see of the lubeguard products they are really well built lubricant additives.
Not specifically described or sold as safe bio based CLEANERS, like Auto-RX .
Ask the hundreds of my oil analysis customers what they think of either Auto-RX or Lubecontrol/FP60 and I bet from independent test data on THEIR OWN engines they are impressed.
Note : I worked for both companies who compete with each other in certain markets.
I get paid to test not promote, I promote here because I like a product for myself and my customers.
Terry
[ May 06, 2005, 04:09 PM: Message edited by: Terry ]
Just for the record...I'm not affiliated with any business enterprise. Just an old guy who has made his living by working in military aviation for almost all his adult life.
Have no desire to attack anybody's product or statements in any manner.
Just remain sceptical of ALL advertising claims.
It should be noted that the oil additive article I referred to above may be old or new. I don't know. Still makes sense to me. Take it for what its worth. Ohms law has been around for a while too, but its still useful. Pitiful analogy, I know.
So, the gentleman wanted to know if any negatives associated with using the product. Well, like has been noted...it's pretty expensive.
Some people say that they've seen oil leaks stopped by this product. Others have claimed that oil leaks started after using it. So what does it do start 'em or stop 'em?
In the end, I still think the kind of evidence produced in support of this product (and perhaps all of the other oil additives) is just like the guy in the article says--anecdotes and personal opinions; not scientifically collected.
My $0.02
Have no desire to attack anybody's product or statements in any manner.
Just remain sceptical of ALL advertising claims.
It should be noted that the oil additive article I referred to above may be old or new. I don't know. Still makes sense to me. Take it for what its worth. Ohms law has been around for a while too, but its still useful. Pitiful analogy, I know.
So, the gentleman wanted to know if any negatives associated with using the product. Well, like has been noted...it's pretty expensive.
Some people say that they've seen oil leaks stopped by this product. Others have claimed that oil leaks started after using it. So what does it do start 'em or stop 'em?
In the end, I still think the kind of evidence produced in support of this product (and perhaps all of the other oil additives) is just like the guy in the article says--anecdotes and personal opinions; not scientifically collected.
My $0.02
- Status
Similar threads
