On the ARX mega thread there are quite a few users that claim that ARX caused a rear main seal leak. That scares me. What is the explanation?
ARX and Rear Main Seal Leaks
- Thread starter Winston
- Start date
- Status
There is a little more to this. If you had a high milage engine that has never been cleaned you may have a false seal. My Toyota with 250,000 is an example. It did not leak before the auto-rx treatment. It leaked badly during the second cleanning. It stoped leaking during the final rinse and all ended well. I think this may be why user say it caused a leak. Normally if they continue with treatment it goes away but I guess there is way to know for sure.
This is why I don't do an auto-rx on my TR3. To many years and miles to take a chance on a good running engine without any problems.
This is why I don't do an auto-rx on my TR3. To many years and miles to take a chance on a good running engine without any problems.
I wish we could ban the term "false seal" from our vocabularies, permanently. "False seals" are one of those convenient, unproven, amorphous, vague, near-mythical, catch-all terms that are used by those who have already presupposed innocence on the part of a given product based on their own experience with that product to explain apparently opposing experiences by others.
Don't get me wrong: I'm not bashing Auto-RX. I'm just saying that it is possible -- my goodness, you may want to sit down people -- it is POSSIBLE that not all engines are built the same way, and that Auto-RX doesn't necessarily act the same way in each engine. In other words, it is possible that it can cause -- yes cause -- leaks in some situations. Not because the seals are already damaged. Not because there are false seals present. Maybe just because they're old, just-fine-the-way-they-are-right-now-thank-you seals that couldn't quite take the extra umph of the cleaning. Call that you want, but in my book that is NOT a "damaged" seal that was simply "uncovered." It's an otherwise OK seal that responded negatively to a particular chemistry. I know that's blasphemy here, but there you go.
Same goes for Redline possibly causing leaks in some engines too, by the way. I've seen this happen in very well-maintained, clean engines that have been switched over. (Read, NO FALSE SEALS!) I don't know what it's so hard for people to accept as a possibility, but it surely is.
Rant over.
Don't get me wrong: I'm not bashing Auto-RX. I'm just saying that it is possible -- my goodness, you may want to sit down people -- it is POSSIBLE that not all engines are built the same way, and that Auto-RX doesn't necessarily act the same way in each engine. In other words, it is possible that it can cause -- yes cause -- leaks in some situations. Not because the seals are already damaged. Not because there are false seals present. Maybe just because they're old, just-fine-the-way-they-are-right-now-thank-you seals that couldn't quite take the extra umph of the cleaning. Call that you want, but in my book that is NOT a "damaged" seal that was simply "uncovered." It's an otherwise OK seal that responded negatively to a particular chemistry. I know that's blasphemy here, but there you go.
Same goes for Redline possibly causing leaks in some engines too, by the way. I've seen this happen in very well-maintained, clean engines that have been switched over. (Read, NO FALSE SEALS!) I don't know what it's so hard for people to accept as a possibility, but it surely is.
Rant over.
Member
Member # 6588
Icon 14 posted June 19, 2005 12:19 AM Profile for CQUG4R Send New Private Message Edit/Delete Post Reply With Quote ....my oil leak is gone.
I had a main seal leak that I was planning to get repaired when I have the timing belt replaced.
But I wanted to see if ARX could stop seal leaks, and it would help me put off having to pay for the timing belt replacement.
Everyday before I leave work, I would look under my car and see this softball size oil puddle on the parking lot.
So I started using the ARX. I would check under the car to see if the leak stopped, but it was always there. Then during the rinse phase I would still check. Still there.
I finally thought that maybe I had a cracked seal but the treatment would still be good for the inside of the engine.
I didn't check under the car for weeks, but Friday I thought why not give it another look.
BINGO, it was not there. I didn't believe my eyes, so I looked up toward the radiator area then back around the cat area. No signs of any oil at all on the parking lot.
Just thought I would share this info for anyone who might have a similar situation. YMMV.
Member # 6588
Icon 14 posted June 19, 2005 12:19 AM Profile for CQUG4R Send New Private Message Edit/Delete Post Reply With Quote ....my oil leak is gone.
I had a main seal leak that I was planning to get repaired when I have the timing belt replaced.
But I wanted to see if ARX could stop seal leaks, and it would help me put off having to pay for the timing belt replacement.
Everyday before I leave work, I would look under my car and see this softball size oil puddle on the parking lot.
So I started using the ARX. I would check under the car to see if the leak stopped, but it was always there. Then during the rinse phase I would still check. Still there.
I finally thought that maybe I had a cracked seal but the treatment would still be good for the inside of the engine.
I didn't check under the car for weeks, but Friday I thought why not give it another look.
BINGO, it was not there. I didn't believe my eyes, so I looked up toward the radiator area then back around the cat area. No signs of any oil at all on the parking lot.
Just thought I would share this info for anyone who might have a similar situation. YMMV.
Member
Member # 4758
Icon 1 posted June 19, 2005 12:57 AM Profile for Big O Dave Send New Private Message Edit/Delete Post Reply With Quote You caused me to get curious, too. I just went out and looked under my F250, which has had a main seal leak (the main reason I have ARX in it) and - voila! - no leak under the truck!
I'm 300 miles into the cleaning phase.
--------------------
76 Chevy C20, 350, 7500lb GVWR
83 Ford F250 4x4, 460, 8600lb GVWR
95 Explorer 2x4
Posts: 96 | From: Los Angeles | Registered: Aug 2004 | IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Member # 4758
Icon 1 posted June 19, 2005 12:57 AM Profile for Big O Dave Send New Private Message Edit/Delete Post Reply With Quote You caused me to get curious, too. I just went out and looked under my F250, which has had a main seal leak (the main reason I have ARX in it) and - voila! - no leak under the truck!
I'm 300 miles into the cleaning phase.
--------------------
76 Chevy C20, 350, 7500lb GVWR
83 Ford F250 4x4, 460, 8600lb GVWR
95 Explorer 2x4
Posts: 96 | From: Los Angeles | Registered: Aug 2004 | IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
What do you think caused two different successes ?
Whoever posted Auto-Rx causes seal leaks should be redirected over to this thread.These two guys followed the application directions for "How To Stop A Seal Leak" Auto-Rx works if you work it.
Whoever posted Auto-Rx causes seal leaks should be redirected over to this thread.These two guys followed the application directions for "How To Stop A Seal Leak" Auto-Rx works if you work it.
I don't doubt it, but you're sort of missing the point Frank. What good does it do to have a "war of anecdotes" if every time -- EVERY time -- someone says they had a problem with Auto-RX and a leaking seal the answer is that they either didn't apply the product correctly or they had damaged seals to begin with, even when the application IS followed and the seals were otherwise behaving fine? (A "fine-behaving seal" being one that doesn't leak or leaks very little pre-application.) All we're really doing is calling people stupid or telling them that the problem was always there, they just didn't know it was a problem. (?!) There are people who believe your product is a miracle in a bottle. There are people who believe anything in a bottle is worthless. As usual, the truth is somewhere in the middle: There are many people who have NO DOUBT that the people who've had success with Auto-RX have indeed had that success. But because a person hasn't had that success it does not necessarily mean that it is through improper application, or neanderthal-level neglect of engine maintenance.
What good is it when somebody reads a post from who knows who stating Auto-Rx causes seal leaks ? than starts a topic stating he is scared there is nothing anecodotal from these two guys posts below
Kev do you know Auto-Rx won't touch a good seal it passes right by. Do you know you need to use an oil with a simple additive package to restore the seals pliability and if not it will leak again ? I authorized a major coupon in the middle of the FAQ for one purpose make people read and get some knowledge about Auto-Rx before using it.In my humble opinion thats the problem.
Your a good guy however Auto-Rx works if you work it. Think you know Auto-Rx does not swell seals
how many more on this board know that ? posting requests on how to use a company's product instead of taking the time to read and print out the directions causes more misunderstandings than help.
Kev do you know Auto-Rx won't touch a good seal it passes right by. Do you know you need to use an oil with a simple additive package to restore the seals pliability and if not it will leak again ? I authorized a major coupon in the middle of the FAQ for one purpose make people read and get some knowledge about Auto-Rx before using it.In my humble opinion thats the problem.
Your a good guy however Auto-Rx works if you work it. Think you know Auto-Rx does not swell seals
how many more on this board know that ? posting requests on how to use a company's product instead of taking the time to read and print out the directions causes more misunderstandings than help.
If all else fails's "Read The Direction's" is a family quote around here.I would suggest you go to Auto-Rx web site and print out the directions, instead of listening to people that you don't know and that have no vested interested interest in YOUR CAR. Not being mechanicaly inclined, but using simple logic, it would seem that gunk under the seal would wash away with Auto-Rx on the rinse cycle. There fore causing a seal leak, but once the seal is properly conditioned it will settle down and stop the leaking. That is why some people report a leak after using Auto-Rx, but sone how don't get back around to posting it quit leaking.
The difference between genius and stupidity , is genuis has it's limit's....
The difference between genius and stupidity , is genuis has it's limit's....
OK. I was not trying to get everyone riled up. From what I have read here and elsewhere, I believe that ARX is a good product and can fix many issues with engines. However, the occasional anecdotal account pops up where someone says they used the product and a seal started leaking. Remember ALL reports here are anecdotal. Which means we dont really know if we get all of the good OR bad reports.
I can believe that sometimes the seal stops leaking later in the cycle and the user fails to report that the problem was resolved. We also may have the issue where ARX solves problems and then the user posts how great it is then things go to heck and they never return to post the problems. These are the problems with anecdotal evidence. So, yes I believe the reports where someone stated that ARX fixed a seal leak, but posting those successes in response to my question does not eliminate the issue.
I have a hard time believing that there is some gunk that makes a seal work then once ARX washes the gunk away, the seal starts leaking. What I CAN believe is that ARX makes a seal a bit TOO pliable which causes it to start leaking. Then later during the rinse cycle maybe the seal hardens up a bit so it starts working again.
I can believe that sometimes the seal stops leaking later in the cycle and the user fails to report that the problem was resolved. We also may have the issue where ARX solves problems and then the user posts how great it is then things go to heck and they never return to post the problems. These are the problems with anecdotal evidence. So, yes I believe the reports where someone stated that ARX fixed a seal leak, but posting those successes in response to my question does not eliminate the issue.
I have a hard time believing that there is some gunk that makes a seal work then once ARX washes the gunk away, the seal starts leaking. What I CAN believe is that ARX makes a seal a bit TOO pliable which causes it to start leaking. Then later during the rinse cycle maybe the seal hardens up a bit so it starts working again.
Seal fabric has to be clean on both sides of the seal to have and maintain a full contact with the metal. One piece of dirt that gets under the seal can allow oil to escape.(no longer full contact) Auto-Rx is the only product that does not swell seals. We clean (refurbish) both sides of the seal material.That seal is now flabby and will leak until the simple additive package found in non synthetic oil starts to restore full contact. How long ? I don't know sometimes in a 100 miles or 2000 miles drive, that seal will stop leaking and if your going back to a synthetic oil add a few ounces of Auto-Rx with your oil it will keep the seal from starting to weep and maybe leak again. Very inexpensive maitenance.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,793
I don't quite understand your anxiety here. There's no explanation for a seal to leak other than it is deformed or torn. Why would anyone assume that a few "failures to cure" ..or a few "caused my seal to leak" were anything of substance in forming opinion?
Sure when you have an operation where the fatality rate is 2% ..and it's you ...IT'S 100% FOR YOU..but that's hardy a reason not to have it performed if it's needed. For the 2% ..it sucks to be them.
Let's say a seal is deformed with some debris causing the deformation. First, ARX would clean away the debris, which would cause a leak. Then, as ARX conditions the seal, the leak should go away.
Obviously, if there is a false seal, one caused by a debris buildup and the seal behind the false one is already damaged or so badly deformed that it cannot be rejuvenated, then ARX could "cause" a leak.
The truth of the matter is that what you've really had all along is a seal that has needed to be replaced, but there was so much debris built up around it, you didn't know.
That's the downside. The upside is that the rest of the engine is now clean and operating at its best, given its underlying mechanical condition.
So, replace the seal and enjoy the rest of the benefits!
If your goal is "no leaks and no seal repairs" above even a clean engine, then I suppose ARX may not be for you.
I'm new at this, but so far I'm seeing tangible benefits from ARX. I suppose that as I progress through my cleaning and rinsing phases with my F250, it is possible that the main seal leak may return and even worsen, and it may go away again.
If it returns and won't go away, I'll just get it fixed and be glad that the rest of my engine is at its best. If it remains leak-free, then I'll have the double bonus of a clean engine AND a repaired seal.
I see absolutely no downside either way.
Obviously, if there is a false seal, one caused by a debris buildup and the seal behind the false one is already damaged or so badly deformed that it cannot be rejuvenated, then ARX could "cause" a leak.
The truth of the matter is that what you've really had all along is a seal that has needed to be replaced, but there was so much debris built up around it, you didn't know.
That's the downside. The upside is that the rest of the engine is now clean and operating at its best, given its underlying mechanical condition.
So, replace the seal and enjoy the rest of the benefits!
If your goal is "no leaks and no seal repairs" above even a clean engine, then I suppose ARX may not be for you.
I'm new at this, but so far I'm seeing tangible benefits from ARX. I suppose that as I progress through my cleaning and rinsing phases with my F250, it is possible that the main seal leak may return and even worsen, and it may go away again.
If it returns and won't go away, I'll just get it fixed and be glad that the rest of my engine is at its best. If it remains leak-free, then I'll have the double bonus of a clean engine AND a repaired seal.
I see absolutely no downside either way.
First of all, thanks for all the replies. Secondly, I am going to say it again. I do not believe that gunk can form a seal. Sounds like Frank does not think so either.
One more thing;
OK, this explanation makes sense to me. The leak happens because ARX softened the seal a bit too much. Then during the rinsing phase with dino the seal is firmed up again. However, I do not understand the part about the synthetic oil. So, I have done the cleaning(with dino), I have done the rinsing (with dino), and now if I go back to synthetic I have to use ARX to maintain the seal? Why wouldn't synthetic oil be able to maintain the seal?
One more thing;
Every post from a guy stating the product worked well in his application is an anecdote. The only evidence that is not anecdotal is a controlled study that includes a control group.
I have used Auto-RX to great success. I'm not knocking it. I have two bottles sitting in my garage ready to begin another application in my 214,000-mile Saturn: I of all people am certainly not here to steer people away from it, or to bad-mouth it: far be it from me. My point? There are those who have not had such success. Why does this have to automatically be A) A knock against their ability to read, understand, and follow directions; or B) Assigned to an underlying problem that was there to begin with that was simply uncovered? That's all: it's a simple question.
Maybe the problem we're having is semantics, but in my mind, a seal that in all practical terms is working -- "working" meaning not leaking, or leaking very little -- that begins to leak after a FULL, proper, to the T Auto-RX application was not, logically speaking, a "problem" in the first place: the true problem arose after the application. If you want to say that an otherwise working seal was "damaged" beforehand, and a given product uncovered that damage, fine. But in all practical terms, to the guy who did the application, that's all academic: his problem actually started after using the product. We've danced around it a little bit from time-to-time, but I would just like to hear a little more of, "be careful, you may not want to rush into this depending on your application," and a lot less of the knee-jerk, "You didn't follow directions," or "Gee-whiz, must be one of them mystical 'false seals' that only appears and causes trouble when a perfect product reveals it."
Yes, if you don't properly apply the product as directed, you deserve whatever you get. No question. If you put it in a car that sat unused for three years and expect it to make the seals factory-new, of course you're a fool. That's not what I'm talking about. Look, I love synthetic oil: I would never bad-mouth it, or steer people away from it -- but even Frank cautions people away from it in certain applications. (Early formulations certainly caused all sorts of problems. I believe some heavy-hitters here still quietly believe they can cause problems.) Does that make synthetic oil garbage? Of course not. Same goes for Auto-RX.
Maybe the problem we're having is semantics, but in my mind, a seal that in all practical terms is working -- "working" meaning not leaking, or leaking very little -- that begins to leak after a FULL, proper, to the T Auto-RX application was not, logically speaking, a "problem" in the first place: the true problem arose after the application. If you want to say that an otherwise working seal was "damaged" beforehand, and a given product uncovered that damage, fine. But in all practical terms, to the guy who did the application, that's all academic: his problem actually started after using the product. We've danced around it a little bit from time-to-time, but I would just like to hear a little more of, "be careful, you may not want to rush into this depending on your application," and a lot less of the knee-jerk, "You didn't follow directions," or "Gee-whiz, must be one of them mystical 'false seals' that only appears and causes trouble when a perfect product reveals it."
Yes, if you don't properly apply the product as directed, you deserve whatever you get. No question. If you put it in a car that sat unused for three years and expect it to make the seals factory-new, of course you're a fool. That's not what I'm talking about. Look, I love synthetic oil: I would never bad-mouth it, or steer people away from it -- but even Frank cautions people away from it in certain applications. (Early formulations certainly caused all sorts of problems. I believe some heavy-hitters here still quietly believe they can cause problems.) Does that make synthetic oil garbage? Of course not. Same goes for Auto-RX.
AutoRx does not contribute to seal leak, that is the formal answer.
Most folks who haphazardly jump into the AutoRx queue looking for a quick cleaning job to fix certain engine troubles (smoking, leaks, sludged up engines, worn, tired, high mileage engines, etc.) are greeted with disappointment because they failed to realise one thing: some of their engine components are worn out already!
If seals are good and the car is properly maintained, I do not see AutoRx being a further contributor to the problem of seal leaks.
Case to the point: my wifey's 93 Camry Vee6 has close to 200,000kms to date with very little oil seepage on the cam/crank seals. Finished 1st run of AutoRx and the engine purrs nicely. I now have her car on 2nd dose of AutoRx cleaning and we just completed a 1,200kms hiway round trip and the engine behaves as it should. No leaks, no fuss.
Bottomline: if you have bad/questionable seals to begin with, don't expect AutoRx to "fix" your problem.
Most folks who haphazardly jump into the AutoRx queue looking for a quick cleaning job to fix certain engine troubles (smoking, leaks, sludged up engines, worn, tired, high mileage engines, etc.) are greeted with disappointment because they failed to realise one thing: some of their engine components are worn out already!
If seals are good and the car is properly maintained, I do not see AutoRx being a further contributor to the problem of seal leaks.
Case to the point: my wifey's 93 Camry Vee6 has close to 200,000kms to date with very little oil seepage on the cam/crank seals. Finished 1st run of AutoRx and the engine purrs nicely. I now have her car on 2nd dose of AutoRx cleaning and we just completed a 1,200kms hiway round trip and the engine behaves as it should. No leaks, no fuss.
Bottomline: if you have bad/questionable seals to begin with, don't expect AutoRx to "fix" your problem.
Having used ARX in many vehicles, I can only say this:
On those that I have ARXed that had leaking seals, all eventually stopped. I say stopped and not "fixed" or "sealed", because all ARX seems to do is clean contaminates. It cannot "seal" or "fix" a leak that is caused by other than dirt. A seal leaking from wear or damage will not stop leaking with ARX.
I do understand Frank's insistance to follow the directions, as until all the contaminates are removed from a seal area, the leakage may persist or even increase. This may take a full clean and rinse (or more) to happen. But usually in my experience, the leak stops during the cleaning phase.
And I can certainly appreciate the scenario where contaminates are "plugging" leakage from a damaged or worn seal, and the ARX removes that "plug" to ill result. I can't really fault the ARX for merely doing its job in that scenario. Dirt shouldn't be used as a sealant.
The most recent seal leak stopped with ARX: a rear main on a Volvo 850. And for that car, that's a very BIG deal.
On those that I have ARXed that had leaking seals, all eventually stopped. I say stopped and not "fixed" or "sealed", because all ARX seems to do is clean contaminates. It cannot "seal" or "fix" a leak that is caused by other than dirt. A seal leaking from wear or damage will not stop leaking with ARX.
I do understand Frank's insistance to follow the directions, as until all the contaminates are removed from a seal area, the leakage may persist or even increase. This may take a full clean and rinse (or more) to happen. But usually in my experience, the leak stops during the cleaning phase.
And I can certainly appreciate the scenario where contaminates are "plugging" leakage from a damaged or worn seal, and the ARX removes that "plug" to ill result. I can't really fault the ARX for merely doing its job in that scenario. Dirt shouldn't be used as a sealant.
The most recent seal leak stopped with ARX: a rear main on a Volvo 850. And for that car, that's a very BIG deal.
MolaKule
Staff member
Lot's of claims and inuendos but no proof. Claims is the keyword.
Seriously?!?!? Everything posted here is a claim or inuendo without proof. Good and bad claims. The defensiveness of the responses here remind me of FG in the Oil Filters section.
As a side note, I purchased my bottle of ARX last week. Can't wait to put it in to see if it helps with my oil consumption on my 95 Montero with the 3L V6.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,793
Everything posted here is a claim or inuendo without proof.
Well, what would you constitute as "proof"? If you mean documented results, then there are a few "before and after" photos ..some include a rather intense catalogging of compression and visual comparison.
What more do you want? Denture cleaning type testing? How would you determine when a piece of metal was dirty enough? How would you simulate this and that?
I mean, suppose I setup a test bench ..and I grabbed a head from the junkyard ..rigged a time lapse video setup and constantly recirced oil w/Auto-Rx in it and showed you the results? What would you say then? More than likely you would critique the test as being flawed. It wouldn't truly simulate the goings on in an engine ..nor would you be able to determine the level of "how bad was it?" (it was so bad ...). This type of test would appear more snakeoil that the apparent results that get reported here. Placebo effect usually doesn't show results. You can filter the meaningless impressions (it runs smoother, has better accelleration, reduced my cough due to colds, and hemeroid inflamation) and merely look at the visual results.
So ..after I've filtered the bs quotient ..and used it ..and seen the apparent results that can be attributed to no other agent ..what should I conclude
Well, what would you constitute as "proof"? If you mean documented results, then there are a few "before and after" photos ..some include a rather intense catalogging of compression and visual comparison.
What more do you want? Denture cleaning type testing? How would you determine when a piece of metal was dirty enough? How would you simulate this and that?
I mean, suppose I setup a test bench ..and I grabbed a head from the junkyard ..rigged a time lapse video setup and constantly recirced oil w/Auto-Rx in it and showed you the results? What would you say then? More than likely you would critique the test as being flawed. It wouldn't truly simulate the goings on in an engine ..nor would you be able to determine the level of "how bad was it?" (it was so bad ...). This type of test would appear more snakeoil that the apparent results that get reported here. Placebo effect usually doesn't show results. You can filter the meaningless impressions (it runs smoother, has better accelleration, reduced my cough due to colds, and hemeroid inflamation) and merely look at the visual results.
So ..after I've filtered the bs quotient ..and used it ..and seen the apparent results that can be attributed to no other agent ..what should I conclude
- Status
Similar threads
