Gary, thanks for posting your findings. I agree that broad based user level examination of ANY product is healthy and in this case warranted.
After the hissy fit I threw over the possible punitive testing by Aaron I welcome open reviews. I have seen this chemistry stand on its own quite well and highly recommend its continued use periodically in most engines.
Do you have correlated oil analysis to provide in addition to the compression and pix ? That would be most helpful and instructive.
IMO even Frank and the Auto-Rx chemists have somtimes overlooked this aspect of its capabilites.
In order to see the total affectation of auto-rx I suggest that in a well maintained engine with hard varnish deposits and the normal carbonacous type, the results are less spectacular than the heavily sludged, poorly maintained engine.
That does not mean RX is not working as designed.
In our testing we saw a consistant pattern or reduced elemental wear during and after cleaning, increased oxidation during cleaning ( indicating cleaning),reduced or stabilized nitration , and lower insolubles or solids/soot readings.
I disagree with Frank and the chemists in the oil used area too. I have seen through UOA testing ( after my work for Auto-Rx) that even a oil like Redline or any other heavily ester based oil did not negatively affect the cleaning that took place. I surmise that the organic esters in Auto-Rx are much more capable at attacking built up deposits than the synthetic type in all the motor oils you could procure off the shelf.
Now can you SEE that type cleaning in a high mileage but well maintained engine ? Probably not.
Is it taking place , yes in our testing I must say it does.
If we had the same data points of UOA here it would in my opinion be very helpful and reinforce my opinion that RX is a one of a kind product and should not be dismissed lightly as marketing hype.
In this engine your tick may actually be the oil pump and indicates that it is worn, check that out and consider UOA to back up the ID of the issue.
Sincerely, Terry
After the hissy fit I threw over the possible punitive testing by Aaron I welcome open reviews. I have seen this chemistry stand on its own quite well and highly recommend its continued use periodically in most engines.
Do you have correlated oil analysis to provide in addition to the compression and pix ? That would be most helpful and instructive.
IMO even Frank and the Auto-Rx chemists have somtimes overlooked this aspect of its capabilites.
In order to see the total affectation of auto-rx I suggest that in a well maintained engine with hard varnish deposits and the normal carbonacous type, the results are less spectacular than the heavily sludged, poorly maintained engine.
That does not mean RX is not working as designed.
In our testing we saw a consistant pattern or reduced elemental wear during and after cleaning, increased oxidation during cleaning ( indicating cleaning),reduced or stabilized nitration , and lower insolubles or solids/soot readings.
I disagree with Frank and the chemists in the oil used area too. I have seen through UOA testing ( after my work for Auto-Rx) that even a oil like Redline or any other heavily ester based oil did not negatively affect the cleaning that took place. I surmise that the organic esters in Auto-Rx are much more capable at attacking built up deposits than the synthetic type in all the motor oils you could procure off the shelf.
Now can you SEE that type cleaning in a high mileage but well maintained engine ? Probably not.
Is it taking place , yes in our testing I must say it does.
If we had the same data points of UOA here it would in my opinion be very helpful and reinforce my opinion that RX is a one of a kind product and should not be dismissed lightly as marketing hype.
In this engine your tick may actually be the oil pump and indicates that it is worn, check that out and consider UOA to back up the ID of the issue.
Sincerely, Terry
