Auto-rx vs LC in a syn oil only engine

[JHZR2]

Hi,

I have, and therefore plan to use LC in my 04 saab (2.0L 4 cyl lp turbo, 6L sump), after my first oil change. This engine is designed to use syn oil ONLY, at OCIs up to 18k miles.

Since it has been said time and time again to NOT use syn oil when ceaning with auto-rx, it then makes sense that auto-rx isnt going to be very useful as a maintenance dose in my car.

Any comments? How well does cleaning functionality correlate to the auto-rx maintenance dosing?

I like LC because itll naturally mesh with the goals of extended drains, which are part of using the mandatory GM-LL-A-025 spec oils that are required for this car. An extra amount of cleanliness would be nice, but I have my doubts if auto-rx is useful or will work well in this application, the way that it seems that LC will.

Any advice would be appreciated.

Thanks,

JMH

 

[Bio-T]

I use an Auto-Rx maintenance dose using synthetic oil. The reason that conventional is preferred for the clean and rinse is to let the Auto-Rx do the cleaning and not compete with the synthetic esters. When doing a maintenance dose using Auto-Rx, the competition is negated by the assumption of a clean engine and Auto-Rx is doing just that, maintaining the cleanliness. This is JMO.

Now, LC will work just fine also for your intended purpose. It will help prevent oxidation and give you the benefits it was designed for, helping extend your drain intervals with minimum wear. Again, JMO

 

[Rick20]

ARX works fine with synthetic oils. Run it on the back end of an oil interval. In otherwords when there is 2000 miles of service life left on your current oil spin on a new filter and add the full cleaning ratio of ARX. Then change out with a new filter on go. 15K is a pretty lengthy change interval. It wouldn't be the first time the manufactuerer overstated an optimal oil change out interval. If you are going to run 15K, then a maintenance dose of ARX or and not both, a dose of LC would pay big dividends.