Auto-RX rinse cycle deviations

[peterr]

I don't mean to provoke a bunch of RTFM replies but have a kinda specific situation that I am looking for feedback. I have read the Auto-RX instructions and have done treatments on two cars in the past.

Short version of the question is "Can i break the rinse cycle into 2 cycles of 1000 miles each on Conventional Oil."

Here is the deal. I normally run Mobil 1 0w40. I ran an Auto-RX Clean cycle for 1420 miles with Castrol 10w40 Conventional. Last weekend I changed oil and filter and added Esso XD-3 Conventional HDEO 15w40 for my clean cycle. So far so good.

I also installed a Fumoto Oil drain valve to replace the stock plug. I seem to have a very slight leak from the Fumoto. I reused the old gasket washer thingy. I think it is just the gasket. I hope it is just the gasket.

Anyhow, I am going to store the car for the Winter, probably in early November. That should give me just enough time to put 2000 miles on it. I plan to change it out to fresh 0w40 Synthetic just before storing. I would much prefer to troubleshoot my oil leak before then, so

Would I decrease the efficacy of Auto RX rinse if I:

Run for 1000 miles on the current 15w40 HDEO.
Drain the oil and replace the gasket on the drain plug. Add fresh Conventional oil. Keep same filter.
Run for another 1000 miles to see if the gasket was the source of the problem. If yes then just change to 0w40 synthetic and store. If no then pull the fumoto valve, replace the stock plug, change to 0w40 synthetic and store. Continue trouble shooting next year.

This would give me a crack at ruling out the source of the leak now, with cheap oil that is really thicker than one would want to run in Canada in November anyhow, and fill with a 5w30 cheap Conventional oil for the last month or so of autumn use.

My concern is that either some feature of my install of the Fumoto valve is the overwhelmingly likely source of the leak, and fixing it before putting in the good oil and storing for winter is much preferred.

My understanding of Frank's description is that the rinse oil is acting as a carrier to remove Auto-RX which has attached itself to metal and sludge, so I would not be harming anything with this two stage approach. Am I wrong?

 

[Frank]

Not at all. Well thought out.Thank you so much for reading applications, if you look again we hopefully made them easier to read for all.

 

[Big O Dave]

Hey! RTFM!!

I just couldn't resist.

Frank's got my curiosity up, now, and I'm gonna have to go over there to www.auto-rx.com and read. Frank, you're such a man of mystery!

 

[JHZR2]

If your claim of the mechanism is correct (oil is a carrier to remove arx that has attached to metal), then it would likely increase the efficiency, since the concentrations would be lower overall on average (thus driving the detachment from the surfaces).

Correct me if Im worng on the mechanism of arx removal.

JMH

 

[Rick20]

The whole deal in the rinse phase is to run a non polar oil to rinse parts clean. Also there is a built in protection from running ARX. In a real filth bucket during the cleaning phase ARX will only load contaminants into the oil. But bear in mind that is a level that is about 5 times higher than what oil would suspend on its own. However, auto-rx has impregnated further into heavy deposits not carried away in the initial cleaning.
By putting in a fresh non polar conventional oil these deposits will be slowly soil loaded into the rinse oil and carried to the filter media.

I hope this explains why many people have reported that their rinse oil turns quite dark in a short period of time. I also hope this explains why two applications are needed for heavily soiled motors.

 

[peterr]

This is consistent with what I have seen anecdotally on my applications. Both the clean cycle oil and the rinse cycle oil appear quite clean until about 300 - 500 miles into the cycle, at which point they turn dark quickly and look pretty bad.

I have no reason to expect that my current engine is sludged. It was rebuilt about 20k ago but is a Turbo and was driven on some short trips by PO. Its more a peace of mind thing for me on this car. (unlike my last one)

 

[Rick20]

I agree turbochargers are tough on oil. Using exhaust flow unfortunetly evolves high heat. Heat is likely to be oils worst enemy.

 

[peterr]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frank:
Not at all. Well thought out.Thank you so much for reading applications, if you look again we hopefully made them easier to read for all.

---

Frank,

Thanks. I think the new instructions are easier to follow, although I think most people's problems have been answerable by reading the instructions. Historically, my uncertainties have been related to interpretation. Initially I thought:
That Conventional oil was required for BOTH clean and rinse cycles, and
Was unsure of whether a Group III "synthetic" like Castrol Syntec would be acceptable as a rinse oil.

You answered both of those questions for me previously. Again I would have considered the first question a result of my misinterpretation, and the latter one a technical detail that was explained by your mechanism of action.

So yes, I think the new instructions are pretty clear, but I did not think the old ones were that unclear. My practice has been to proceed with the most conservative interpretation of your instructions unless specifically told otherwise.

Okay so I admit that I ran my clean cycle for only 1420 miles instead of 1500. But it was either do it on the long weekend at 1420 or wait till about 1800 when I would next have time to do it, so i think I can be forgiven

Anyhow, its a good product, and a great value. Even on a pretty clean engine it is obviously removing something.

 

[JHZR2]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rick20:
But bear in mind that is a level that is about 5 times higher than what oil would suspend on its own.

---

Now thats a tidbit of info that should be plastered all over the place!

JMH