Combining oil additives...what will work best?

[gotek]

First I will relate my experiences when I started fooling around with some additives a few years ago.

I was driving an '83 280ZX that was tuned to specs and totally stock. In fact I owned 2 of these cars in succession...both '83s 2.8 L straight 6 EFI with manual trans. Both got around 24 mpg mixed.

At some point I started using moly in both the engine and the trans and diff. I changed the oil in the engine every 3K miles at this time...at each oil change I would add some kind of additive...I think I was rotating between moly....teflon...and militec. Also changed the diff/trans oils out and probably had used militec, teflon, and moly...but not at the same time.

The mpg result was around an 8 to 10% gain in mileage...simply from using additives. I haven't been able to duplicate this since though (at least not validate it).

I do use additives in engine/trans/diff with all the vehicles I drive now...but I think it was some combination of additives that caused this obvious mpg gain.

I suspect it might be the militec combined with particulate moly...where the militec treatment is supposed to last for a good while...and the moly needs to be re-added at each oil change.

Also the teflon might have played a part.

My basic guess is that the good result was from a combination of a solid lubricant such as moly (this was particulate moly) and an additive that is supposed to modify the metal surface itself (militec).

There is an additive called TufOil that is supposed to combine several additives....but it is fairly expensive.

http://www.tufoil.net/?gclid=CJedt5qL144CFRAZZwod0Cu_Ww


I'm thinking that a cleaning and additive regimen might work:


Something like this...

* clean engine with water and then add Seafoam or similar thru intake to clean rings and combustion chamber

* do a Zmax treatment thru one oil change

* add militec thru another

* then use a moly treatment each oil change after

* maybe use some teflon now and then


For manual trans/diffs use militec ....then moly or boric acid?


For an auto trans use Mobile 1 synth ATF and Lubegard additive?

I like some intelligent discussion on the possibility of combining additives for mpg gains. I know it works. Just wondering how to repeat it.

 

[POM]

I am A Tufoil fan my self. This additive really works for me, less fuel consumption, better acceleration, less mechanical noise from the motor…
(Many here are sceptical to additives which contain Teflon so I think you will get some recommendation not to use the Tufoil)
I will do an AutoRX treatment if I were you and then start to use Tufoil after that. I think you will not be disappointed.

 

[Frank]

Common Sense would be a start.

Where To Find 'Free' Horsepower
National Dragster, Sep 17, 2004 by Reher, David

I'm told there is no free lunch, but I'm certain there is free horsepower. I define free horsepower as increasing an engine's output by reducing parasitic losses, such as oil windage and internal friction. Piston rings and oil systems are two interrelated areas where horsepower often can be found without changing the basic engine combination.

How important are frictional losses? Consider that an engine with 85 percent mechanical efficiency loses 15 percent of the power produced in its cylinders to friction. In a 1,000-horsepower engine, 150 horsepower never reaches the flywheel.
Related Results


ne are piston skirts and piston rings. You can't do much to affect the skirts, but you do have choices when selecting piston rings. When you rotate the crankshaft assembly in a short block, you can feel just how much drag the piston rings produce. Now imagine the resist ance that must be overcome when the crankshaft assembly is spinning at 7,500 rpm in a thick slurry of oil droplets. It's easy to see where the power goes.
Advertisement

A well-designed oil system with a proper pan, scrapers, and windage tray can produce an increase of between 25 and 30 horsepower over a worst-case oil system. But the gain doesn't stop there. Controlling the oil in the crankcase significantly reduces ring tension to unlock even more power by minimizing friction. That's how the oil system and piston rings are interrelated.

Some racers are concerned when they see a puff of blue smoke from an engine. A little oil smoke isn't anything to worry about (assuming there aren't mechanical problems such as worn valve guides or scuffed piston skirts). All racing engines consume oil. Because drag racing engines don't operate for extended periods, the oil consumption is a lot less than it is for road-race cars. But a little oil consumption is good because it indicates you're right on the edge of the minimum required ring tension. What's important is controlling the amount of oil that reaches the cylinders to prevent contaminating the air/fuel mixture to the point that the engine loses power.

You don't need anything more elaborate than a fish scale to measure piston-ring drag. Assemble the rings on a piston, insert the piston and pin into the cylinder upside down, and push the piston to the bottom of the bore. Note the resistance on the fish scale as you pull the piston smoothly through the bore; most important is the steady pulling resistance, not the breakaway force. If you repeat this experiment with various oil-ring expanders and compression rings, you will see considerable differences in ring drag.

Racers tend to think that the oil ring controls the oil - that's why it's called the oil ring, right? You can put together a ring package with less total friction if you recognize that the second ring plays a significant role in oil control. Think of the second ring as a squeegee: It's a tapered face ring with the leading edge down, and it's very effective in pulling oil off the cylinder walls.

At Reher-Morrison Racing Engines, we use that second ring to fine-tune the ring package. For example, if an engine needs a little more oil control, we might install second rings that have been back-cut to a radial thickness of .175-inch instead of rings with .160-inch radial thickness. Often a small increase in second-ring thickness (and a resulting increase in static tension) will dry up the engine with only a pound or two of additional drag. Getting a comparable gain in oil control by increasing the oil-ring tension could add five or more pounds of drag.

Reducing the tension of the top ring and drilling gas ports is a win-win situation. A standard D-wall .043-inch top compression ring has a .210-inch radial thickness; this ring can be run without gas ports because it has more than enough static radial tension to push the ring face firmly against the cylinder wall. But that radial tension adds to the engine's internal friction because the ring drags against the cylinder wall every time the piston rises and falls. We really only want the top ring to seal against the cylinder wall primarily on the power stroke; on the other three strokes, it's just along for the ride. So in this example, it's an excellent trade-off to use low-tension top rings with a .160-inch or .170-inch radial thickness, then use gas ports to apply cylinder pressure directly to the back of the rings for sealing only when it's needed.

Among the misconceptions about gas ports is the belief that gas ports increase ring wear. In fact, gas ports reduce ring drag while sealing the cylinder mor effectively. All piston rings rely on cylinder pressure for sealing; gas ports just apply the pressure more efficiently. We rebuild hundreds of racing engines, an typically we see less piston-ring wear in engines with gas ports than in engines with conventional rings. That's because the engines with low-tension rings an gas ports have less drag on the three strokes when absolute sealing isn't needed. The gas ports also allow the top rings to depressurize quickly; after the exhaust valve opens, cylinder pressure falls dramatically and the pressure behind the ring dissipates.

 

[gotek]

Quote:

---

Common Sense would be a start.

---

Using "common sense" isn't what lead me to use the various additives in the way I did. When I mentioned my results on a car forum focused on POWER and suggested that additive use might help in their quest for HP...they just about ran me off. Common sense leads to common results?

This "experiment" happened when gas was a lot cheaper and I wasn't that impressed by the 8-10% gain. After being involved in attempts to increase mpg for the last few years...I am now.

I have heard of racers using crankcase vacuum to help with ring sealing and to increase HP.

Though you CAN get a little too far towards the edge...my experience tells me that well running engines as mechanical assemblies are not as fragile as some might think.

Here is an additive that might be doing what I'm talking about?


http://www.vacclaisocryptene.com/


Vacclaisocryptene (QX) is available in a formula mixed with molybdenum disulfide. It is a super concentrate that provides enhanced crankcase lubrication beyond that of oil.

Claims of Vacclaisocryptene and Molybdenum Disulfide

Reduces engine wear up to 90%
Increased lubricity
Reduce long term engine maintenance costs
Boosts MPG
Improves acceleration
Improves cold starts


Vacclaisocryptene & Molybdenum Disulfide

Testing & Evaluation

In-house testing by a major oil producer in southern Texas compared 3 diesel engines wear rates using our formulas with a 4th engine (same size and manufacturer) which was using our formulas. All engines used a high grade of major brand engine oil. Records clearly indicate an average of 14 times greater wear in the 3 engines not using our formulas than the engine that was using our formulas. [Bauerlein Consultants]

Caterpillar 1G-2, Petter AV-1, Commer TS-3, and CRC L-49 performed by well-known diesel engine manufacturer in mid west US. Using the before and after method, BHP was increased an average of 70/o over 50 hours run time and kept between the range of 900 to 1,400 RPM. These engines consumed an average of 43.7% less oil over the 480 hours in the G-2 and also showed transverse cylinder wear decreased by up to 100% with ring gap increase reduced by 67% and ring side clearance was reduced by up to 50%. Peter AV-1 showed 32% to 41% reduction in ring wear, a 59% reduction in piston and fine wear along with a 13% decrease in engine deposits CRC L-49 data indicates a 12.5% improvement in "cold starts".

 

[gotek]

Note: not trying to step on any toes. You can clean the engine any way you want. And use any additives you want.

It's the nature of the combination of additives and the results that I'm interested in.

 

[Shannow]

SF's SX-up dropped wear in my diesel pretty well, and i added Auto-Rx to keep the soot in the oil/filter.

I figured that the two would be comlimentary, as one proves additives, the other dispersents (well sort of).