ARX & Aluminum Engines

Status
Not open for further replies.
i don't have a problem w/ the possibly compensated if other regular people also see the same results but i'm talking about positive comments, not bashing
 
I have a problem when people are pushing a product they do not use, they are being compensated, and there posts make it look like the product is fantastic when in reality they are pushing it for the wrong reasons.
 
If you think it is bad here, check the food posts on a dog forum. Most of the premium brands are distributed by a network of small reps.
 
Originally Posted By: c3po
I have a problem when people are pushing a product they do not use, they are being compensated, and there posts make it look like the product is fantastic when in reality they are pushing it for the wrong reasons.


Who is doing this?
 
Originally Posted By: c3po
I have a problem when people are pushing a product they do not use, they are being compensated, and there posts make it look like the product is fantastic when in reality they are pushing it for the wrong reasons.


This begs the question, c3po, have you used Neutra 131? You appear to be pushing it a good bit in this Auto-Rx thread ..along with MMO (which I'm sure that you've used).

Are we to assume that you're on Schaeffer's payroll?

You appear to want to make it sound like something sinister going on. Sprintman uses the stuff by the skid load. I've worked with it a decent amount ..as have you yourself.

..but while you're on the topic of determining who is what by where they post (and I really mean this in the kindest way I can say it) look up your own posts and see where just about all of them reside.

Why not start a Neutra 131 thread of your own?
 
I came on this board in January of 2008, and I had started using arx in May of 2007, I just kept seeing constant fighting on this board about arx. I have cast iron cylinder heads on my El Camino and the block is cast iron, arx seemed to be working for me but not for others. I see pics of cylinder heads that looked the same before and after arx, I kept saying to myself something must be going on with arx that I missed.

I go through the old threads in the oil additive section and I find some posts about arx having problems with aluminum, then it just hits me why there has been so much fighting for years with arx, most of todays engines not only have aluminum cylinder heads, but some also have aluminum blocks.

I find an old thread about Neutra with some pics and I just thought it would be worth sharing with everyone. I have not used Neutra, I have only mentioned MMO when someone has used it in this thread.

I think Neutra does the SAME thing in an engine as MMO, thats just my opinion, I also feel that Neutra works BETTER than arx in an engine.

I defended arx from Janauary of 2008 up until early August of 2009, if arx was such a good product then none of us should have had to defend it. The most important thing for me is to do what is best for my car, if arx was the ultimate oil additive then I along with many other members would not be using other oil additives to achieve the results we did not get with arx.

Gary, I just wanted to point out that when someone like FalconLS shows us bad pics of his valvetrain you always show us the same pics of a clean valvetrain, why are we seeing these bad valvetrain pics from members who have used arx yet your valvetrain pics looks fantastic.

Neutra 131 needs to be in this thread because it WORKS.

Gary, would you like to explain why you have been defending arx since 2005, I think the reason you posted today is becuase you probably got an e-mail from you know who over at arx. I think you remember a few weeks ago when both of us got the same e-mail from arx.
 
Brent, you're obsessively hounding about other products in an Auto-Rx thread. Something you take exception to, except when you're the one doing it.

That's all. Really, try and see this from outside the bubble. What could possibly motivate a disinterested party in doing what you're doing??

I'm outta here.
 
Oil consumption cut in half after 'solvent' flush?
va3ux


Registered: 11/12/05
Posts: 907
Loc: Ontario, Canada Maybe I'm jumpin' the gun here but I thought I'd report it. It's a bit long but I like to provide complete information.

At the last oil change (Dec 30th) I did something I'd never done before : I tried a solvent-type engine flush. Two of them actually. Since then, my oil consumption has dropped 50%, and there's no question about it.

I bought this car (2001 Intrepid with 2.7L V6) 5 years ago with 50K miles on it. It's now approaching 208K. I've done nearly 60 oil changes on this thing. I track oil and gas consumption constantly. When I got the car, it used just about 3/4 quart per 3K miles. This has gradually increased to 1 quart per 3K miles EXCEPT when I use Amsoil 0W30 or Mobil 1 HM 10W30 - in which case the oil consumption increases to 1 quart every 2400 miles. If I switch back to straight dino, like I did during the previous oil change, consumption drops back down to about a quart per 3K miles. Don't ask me why - I don't have any answers. It isn't leakage related, I can tell you that much.

I've done three (3) full ARX cycles on this engine, starting in 2006; ARX #2 and #3 clean & rinse phases were extended to 3K miles each based on my own observations, long before Frank came out with similar recommendations recently. I never did find any real significant deposits or sludge in any of the filters, although there certainly were small amounts (crumbs) at times. But, neither oil consumption or compression changed during this year-long process of 3 ARX cleanings. What I'm establishing here is that I basically had a reasonably clean and mechanically sound engine probably before I ever used ARX, and still did when I tried the solvent flushes 3 weeks ago. So I wasn't worried about sloughing large quantities of deposit and pluggin oil passages.

The previous oil change was a run of Pennzoil 5W30 - my annual run of plain dino just to promote removal of any deposits that maintenance doses of ARX might have loosened during the previous year. Before I changed it out, I ran some solvent type engine flush ('Revive' - made in Canada). Instead of running it for the measly 5 minutes called for on the can, I idled it for about 15 min until it was up to temp. I let it cool for an hour, then did another 15 minutes idling. Then repeated that again. This was to increase the contact time to improve any cleaning activity (if there was any). I then drained it, filled with plain cheap Esso dino and a new filter and ran that for a day as a post-flush flush (about 100 miles). Then, since I had a part can of Seafoam sitting around, I added that to crankcase according to the instructions. I ran that for a few days (another 200 miles), dumped all that, drained the filter, then did one more one-week flush with more virgin Esso 5W30. Finally, I drained it, added 5.5 quarts of Amsoil TSO 0W30 and a new filter, and I'm all set for the cold months ahead. That was on Dec 30th.

As of today (Jan 25th), I've put 3200 miles on the new oil, and I've used just under 1/2 quart of make-up oil ! The last time I used Amsoil TSO, 1/2 quart was getting used every 1200 miles !! Same for Mobil 1 HM 10W30. This is the first time in 5 years - the entire time I've owned the car - that the oil consumption has ever been that low. And it's not just a little bit lower, it's been cut in half. The Amsoil TSO is all the same batch; I bought 40 quarts of it last year all at the same time (real good sale).

Anyhow, for what it's worth, those are the results of my latest 'experiment'. The much maligned solvent type flush appears to have done far more than the BITOG-approved-favorite product ever did - in this particular engine.
_________________________
2001 Chrysler Intrepid 2.7L 421,200 km (261,100 miles)
 
Hmm. Interesting thread.

I'll try to be brief, but in my expereince, AutoRX has done a wonderful jo of cleaning up a disaster. My wife had a 98 Beetle that she drove for 30K miles (that she told me about) without changing the oil. She was one of the "the oil light must mean it needs oil" people. So by the time I met her in 03, the car was a full blown disaster. I ran two extended Auto RX cycles followed by consistent changes with Delo (15-40 in the summer and 10-30 in the winter) with amazing results:

- After the first flush, a significant amount of black sludge was removed and metallic parts of the head were visible for the first time through the oil fill hole. Was noticably better the second time around.
- Blow- by was reduced to the point where I was no longer changing the upstream O2 sensor on a 3 month basis.
- The car ran significantly better by the old seat of the pants on ramp experience.
- The car obviously smoked (blue) when idling and sudden acceleration before the treatments. When warm, the exhaust started to stink like eggs (Cat damage?. The initial reason for all of this work was that it had no chance of passing emissions. The car was able to pass emissions after the first treatment and O2 sensor change. Changed the O2 sensor again (all Bosch) and we were good until we sold the car a few years later. No emission related problems after that.

This car was well beyond the fear of a little visible patina of varnish.

I had a similar, yet watered down experience with my F150 (seat of the pants feel, smoother running engine), but that was well maintained and I expected it to be clean and healthy.

So convince me that I'm wrong and it didn't work? Regardless if other products do work or not. Till then, I'm a satified ARX customer. BTW - both vehicles above had aluminum heads. Varish was visible on non-moving pats of the head in the VW. Clean as a whistle on the Ford.

My thoughts are that ARX is much better at cleaning up a disaster with less risk over a solvent. Solvent cleaners are great if you want the inside of the engine to be spotless on a well maintained vehicle.
 
All posts made by crashz.
Title Forum Post Time
Re: ARX & Aluminum Engines Oil Additives 11/12/09 10:47 AM
Re: Airbound Cooling System in New Beetle Mechanical /Maintenance Forum 05/21/08 09:56 AM

crashz, I see it has almost been 18 months between posts, welcome back.
I have no desire to convince you that arx did not work and that you are wrong. I am glad that you are a satisfied arx customer and that the product worked for you, but there are many members who have posted otherwise.

Neutra and many other oil additives have been deemed solvents for a long time on BITOG, but if they are used correctly then there should not be any problems.

Look at Schaeffer's Neutra, use 1 ounce of Neutra to 1 quart of oil, I never found any posts where someone's engine was hurt by using this product.
 
I can't comment about Neutra since I have never used it, and like to comment about things and products I have used. MMO has been around over 80 years I think. I'm still trying to find someone who ruined an engine because if it??
 
Re: AUTO - RX: Does it do what it claims?? [Re: Tempest]
va3ux


Registered: 11/12/05
Posts: 907
Loc: Ontario, Canada Many people claim that it has worked extremely well, some have reported "luke warm" results and a few have claimed no results at all. It appears that the results depend on the chemistry and amount of deposit, to some degree the type/brand of oil used for clean and rinse, and probably the operating conditions of the engine during the application.

I've done 3 ARX applications in succession. I don't have real any proof that those applications did anything at all, and I don't have any proof that they didn't. I cut open every filter and pulled all the media out - there was nothing significant to see in any of them. I did compression readings on all 6 cylinders every month for 6 months; the number were healthy to begin with but they didn't improve, nor should they if they are already good. One cylinder did come up and stayed up.

I have a test area I can see under the filler cap where there was a small area with a dark, hard deposit probably 50 mils thick. That area has cleaned up quite a bit, revealing part numbers that weren't visible before. But it isn't totally clean, it's had 3 applications, and there is a healthy stream of oil flowing directly on it. So based on that, not stellar results, but certainly some results. What really matters is the rest of the engine. Pulling and replacing valve covers on mine is about a 3 hour job and incurs $100 in gaskets. Consequently I've never pulled them to do a before and after inspection. So I can't say that it did or didn't do some worthwhile cleaning.

There was a post on here a few months back where a guy had a really badly sludged up engine. He had pictures of the valvetrain and it was a mess - soft sludgy poo all over the place. He did one ARX cleaning/rinse and the pictures showed almost no cleaning at all. On the other hand there is that test case with the Mazda where the pictures showed excellent cleaning over a period of a year or so with 2 ARX applications. Why the difference ? [censored] if I know.
_________________________
2001 Chrysler Intrepid 2.7L 421,200 km (261,100 miles)
 
The beauty of the oil (cleaner) additive business is that results for the average person are pretty hard to verify, unless you start pulling valve covers or can easily see via the oil fill hole.
 
Bugger all happens under the valve covers (splash fed area). Ring pack and compression increase is where its at for me and most RX users I know. Dyno improvements (done annually) on my turbo Mazzda show the improvements in performance even as the engine ages. I have not told them what I do, and they are still mystified.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top