AutoRX and startup wear!

[kilou]

quote:

---

Originally posted by JAG:
... Even if people point out where you are wrong, you still will be confused unless you have a firm foundation of knowledge....

---

I'd like people to clearly point out where I'm wrong but I couldn't really find this in this thread or couldn't understand it maybe

Although the links you provided are really useful, what I could read up to now doesn't really "satisfy" my curiosity concerning the ability of ARX to not alter anti wear properties of an oil. I think the condition of boundary lubrication can be considered when an engine is first cranked right? If I read what is the "oiliness concept" which appears to be relevant for engines (see http://www.engineersedge.com/lubrication/oiliness_boundary_lubrication.htm ), I understand that AW additive are polar substances that cling to metal "like a magnet" and allow the creation of a plan of slippage between two moving parts when an oil film of sufficient thickness cannot be formed (boundary lubrication). I guess I shouldn't be too wrong in what I understood here right? So if ARX prevent these AW compounds from clinging to metal in the engine (or transmission), what should I understand when you first start your engine (working in boundary lubrication conditions for a short time) and there is no AW compounds attached to the metal because ARX prevented them from doing so????? So what, does ARX itself use its own "special" AW additives that can cling to metal and are not removed by its "cleaning esters" so that the engine remains protected?? Remember one more time that I question the use of ARX as maintenance dose and NOT for a cleaning treatment!

[ August 26, 2006, 03:58 AM: Message edited by: kilou ]

 

[moribundman]

quote:

---

What doesn't sound good ? keeping synthetic esters from holding the oil and what ever dirt etc accumulated in said oil to the metal?

---

If ARX prevents the esters from clinging, what's left on the bare metal? Other, non-ester oil components?

 

[Gary Allan]

Fundamentally, kilou, the term "most wear occurs at start up" is a play on words. Most wear of any kind occurs during the first 20 minutes of operation ..that's considered "startup" vs. "steady state". This is what automotive engineers use for "warm up" in their nomenclature ..and the oil companies have lastched on to it to imply that you'll radically alter your wear profile with using their oil.

Most of your wear is unavoidable. That's the 90% that they're talking about.

[ August 26, 2006, 02:55 PM: Message edited by: Gary Allan ]

 

[kilou]

Right Gary. However it appears that what was originally a potential and badly named "startup wear" concern now becomes a more general concern on the ability of AW additives to work effectively in presence of ARX...and thus does not potentially concern startup only. Well I shouldn't name this a concern but rather just a point I'd like to be clarified before using ARX as a maintenance dose.

Thanks to the links provided by JAG, we now know (well you probably already knew) that AW additives are polar molecules and are needed to protect the engine when boundary lubrication conditions occur...and possibly not only! In order to work, AW additives have to cling to both metal parts to create a plan of slippage between these parts (so no clinging of AW = no protection). The whole point is to know when such boundary lubrication conditions occur and if ARX prevent the AW additives from (partially) doing their job.

So I may reformulate 4 questions as follow as an extention to what Moribundman asked:

- Do boundary lubrication condtions only occur during startup (when engine is first cranked) or during the warmup and when the engine runs at normal operating temp. as well?

- In boundary lubrication conditions, AW additives of the oil are needed. If ARX esters compete with these additives, what should we understand in term of engine wear?

- Does ARX brings its own AW additives? Do these AW additives work differently than those provided in the oil?

- Are AW additives also beneficial even when a complete oil film can be formed (outside the condition of boundary lubrication)? If so and provided that ARX may prevent the AW agents from clinging to metal, then don't we have a much larger ""problem"" where the efficiency of AW agents of the oil is constantly impared by the presence of ARX (not only during startup but anytime)?

Keep it cool, these are just questions

[ August 27, 2006, 07:02 AM: Message edited by: kilou ]

 

[Gary Allan]

quote:

---

Keep it cool, these are just questions

---

"They're only questions Leon. In answer to your query they're written down for me. (pause) It's a test designed to provoke an emotional response. (exhales smoke) Shall we continue (with eyebrows raised and a smile)?"

 

[BrianWC]

Hah! I know that one! Bladerunner!

 

[kilou]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gary Allan:

quote:

---

Keep it cool, these are just questions

---

"They're only questions Leon. In answer to your query they're written down for me. (pause) It's a test designed to provoke an emotional response. (exhales smoke) Shall we continue (with eyebrows raised and a smile)?"

---

I did not really understand what you mean...sorry.

 

[Gary Allan]

My humble appologies, kilou

It was humor. Your "just questions" ending there just gave me one of my, never ending, para-experience spikes of memory. Along the lines of "hmmm, where have I heard this before?". I have a insatiable need to share these random senseless thoughts with others. Some understand them ...others ..especially those who are not likely to watch American made movies, may not

You ask a few good questions. Most of them I don't have a clue to the answers.

 

[BrianWC]

quote:

---

Originally posted by kilou:
I did not really understand what you mean...sorry.

---

He wants to know if you are an android.

 

[MolaKule]

If ARX had any start-up wear issues it would have shown up in used oil analysis. And if ARX components conflicted with AW components in the host oil, I would think IHMO the same answer would apply.

From my observations, I think ARX esters selectively diffuse into polymerized carbonaceous materials and soften and loosen them, so you would prefer no other esters interferring with this process during the rinse phase. I.E, you would prefer only that mineral oils were present to help "wash-out" the softened carbon in ring packs and elsewhere.

 

[JAG]

kilou, esters are great for lubricating at low temps from what I've read (where the anti-wear additives aren't at full effectiveness), so if I had to take a guess, I'd expect a maintenance dose of Auto-RX to lessen start-up wear. Plus the treat level is low enough during maintenance dose that I don't think it's enough to cause competition issues with the anti-wear additives. I think that a maintenance dose actually would usually reduce wear during both startup and during normal operating temps. It keeps engine very clean and adds a little bit of beneficial polarity. My only real world data point is this: did maintenance dose of Auto-RX with Lubromoly 5W-40 oil in my VW 1.8T engine, ran for 5000 miles, and whiped off the removable, oil filter's internal magnet onto a paper towel, and the amount of ferrous debris on it was the least I've seen in the 70k miles I've owned my car. It's not a perfect scientific test (due to not controlling all variables) but it sure bodes well for the wear effects of an Auto-RX maintenance dose.

 

[Rick20]

The aliphatic esters is ARX are in place to assure a more stabile oil film and the prevention of fish eyes in the oil film. This is a polar ingredient and is similar to the base of many aviation motor oils. The secret to start up wear is to leave a film of lubrication behind on the metal parts after shut down. This is a big plus especially with dino users. The polyol esters in auto-rx are extreme pressure ingredients, also polar, also something deireable to be left in the oil film after shut down. If I was a betting man I'd put my money on ARX helping to reduce start up wear.

 

[kgb007stb]

As I have stated in other forums, I have a 10K OCI which spans about 3 years, the time I was in college, car was sitting all week, only used for the weekends as I walked to school and work during the week. During this OCI the car has seen more abuse than probably any other time in its life as driving trips were very short, on cold engine, car sitting all week meaning the oil drained back to the pan and lots of “dry” start ups.

I had a 3oz maintenance dose, along with a minor coolant leak which developed and hence the reason why I had to get rid of the car. Anyways Blackstone did say that wear numbers were very low for a 10OCI sample, they may have been even lower if not for the coolant leak so either Auro-RX contributed something or the engine was worn out. If the engine was indeed worn out, the loser tolerances should have caused more vibration which in turn would have had to show a spike in some wear numbers, right? But what’s also good is that I flew by the smog place and they could not believe how low my emission numbers were.

Thanks Auro-RX.