First results of an Auto-Rx experiment

[Gary Allan]

In some of the things that I ponder from time to time, I had often wondered what would happen if you took two bottles of Auto-Rx and cut the mileage in half (1500 at the time). Now I'd have no problem doing this ..except that I had no vehicles to test it on. I would have used some of the extended fleet ..but most of them had already used Auto-Rx.

I approached Frank for his thoughts and to see if he'd be willing to chip in a bit on the product in terms of reduced costs. It piqued his interest and he agreed. This was a good thing since I was on a hobby budget and his discounts made my $$ go a good bit further.

In any event, I had a good random thought that made Fueltankerman pop into my head. He had often commented that he had a vehicle with advanced mileage and that he didn't use any cleaners and whatnot ..and didn't really see much sense to UOA. It wasn't that he was against any of it, just that he didn't see the point given his success with what he'd been doing.

Now Dan's Escort was well cared for maintenance wise. Here's what he had in accumulations at about 190k. Nothing too serious here. Just what we would consider normal film accumulations over that duration of use with a fair shake at good maintenance.

I think I have them all in the right order here.

The test vehicle:

Dan's words: 1993 Ford Escort. Not a candidate for a likely car jacking.

Dan: Original photo of valve train, before I began AutoRX treatment. Note that this valve train is pretty clean to begin with. Some slight brown varnish coating, but no sludge.


Here's his engine and filter at 750 miles.

Dan: Here is the filter media from the AATG filter used during the cleaning phase. It's got a lot of pasty, syrup looking black goo in it.

Dan: After the test run of AutoRX the darker areas are lightening up. These rockers are bronze in color naturally, I believe... even if you scrape them lightly they don't appear to have varnish on them.

Here's at 1500 into the 3000 miles rinse phase.

Dan: Here is the valve train at about 1500 miles into the rinse phase. It's getting cleaner, and I see some surfaces showing the natural aluminum color of the cast cylinder head, whereas before varnish had coated the whole area.

Filter change @ 1500

Dan: Here are some photos which I took shortly after my ~3200 mile OCI. The top end is getting cleaner all the time. What varnishy like stuff is there can actually be rubbed off with your finger. The rockers are still the same color, but I think that is the natural color of the metal there... what you can see is the aluminum surface of the head getting cleaner, which I would assume means that the inside of the engine is getting cleaner as well.



I can't tell all of you how much of a sport Dan was on this. All that I did was provide some Auto-Rx and a couple of test kits and he was game for it all. I appreciate his willingness to do all the real work in this experiment. I couldn't have asked for a more willing and engaging partner. Truly a great guy.

I also want to thank Frank Miller, inventor of Auto-Rx, in extending me some latitude in pricing so that I could pull this off.

In hindsight, I might have started off at 1000 miles instead of 750. Dan was an ideal test subject in that he really didn't have much wrong, had not too complicated valve cover, advanced mileage ..and the will to do the work. Most importantly, he'd never bothered with any cleaning agents.

Dan reports performance/drivability improvements as well as mpg gains. I'll leave the impressions to him.

Here's the link to his first UOA via Dyson Analysis. He had some issues that he needed to clear up. 750 mile UOA The 3200 mile UOA will follow shortly.

 

[Shannow]

Great work all involved.

 

[Oilgal]

WOW! That is really something. Thanks for sharing that with us.

Are you sure that light coating of dark syrup isn't just very light sludge. Looks goopy from here anyway.

Also, do you think this protocol, is really as effective as the one now in place? Obviously you got good results. I just wonder if the 1 bottle, 2500 clean and 3000 rinse, would have done even more cleaning.

Thanks again Gary and Dan. Great Job!

 

[Gary Allan]

Quote:
Also, do you think this protocol, is really as effective as the one now in place?


Well, that's sorta what I wanted to find out. I wondered how "flexible" the product was. The curious corner that Auto-Rx finds itself in is that it (was) is a delayed gratification niche product. The newer process is more convenient ..especially if you're used to the 3k OCI. Basically, you just throw in a bottle and go about your business ..more or less. The older procedure (1500/2000- iirc) kinda had you tap dancing just a little. Even for a DYI ..who may be on a busier schedule, it may just be too complicated in terms of priorities. The newer procedure has broadened that time frame a good bit. But you've still got the delayed gratification factor that remains. Not bad for those who are willing to wait.

I just wanted to see of you could compress the cleaning phase into something shorter. So a 750 mile bout ...then, essentially, go about your business (for the 3k crowd). For those using synths, it would have them back on track with their extended OCIs in the shortest amount of time.

So, your notion that there may be no "performance" increase with the 2 bottle dose may very well be correct. The object of the test was to get the same (or better) results over a shorter time frame.

Quote:
Are you sure that light coating of dark syrup isn't just very light sludge.


I hold Dan's film accumulations akin to a honey glazed ham

Not so severe to form congealed (and later encrusted) puddling. They basically coat all the surfaces in a fairly even manner. I'm sure that a good % of the total mass was liberated/liquefied during this time. I'm speculating that the syrup that we see in the filter is due to the chelating type effect of Auto-Rx at this concentration level.

The product still appears transparent in usage at this concentration level.

 

[Oilgal]

Gary I surely do agree with your reasoning regarding consumer gratification. If it works, even just near as well as the current protocol, then it could move ARX out of the niche market. That is very desirable, from my perspective, because ARX will have a powerfully positive effect on the world, in so many ways, just a short time after it becomes widely used.

I asked you this question though. "do you think this protocol is really as effective as the one now in place?" I never thought it could do better.

Well, even if it is just 'close enough for horseshoes', I believe it will be good enough. And the directions could read: You may leave ARX in up to 3K miles for a more thorough cleaning. Win win that way.


Gary thanks a heap for your great work.

 

[fuel tanker man]

Thanks Gary, for the opportunity to participate in this test. I have benefited from this greatly. I didn't realize how much power and performance this engine had lost over the years.

My car runs a LOT better than I recall it running in a long, long time. Mileage is definitely up on the order of 7% on average, maybe a little better. I'm still getting over 40 mpg on certain runs that I make to Charlotte, NC from my home here in Wytheville, VA. The car used to get only about 36 to 37 mpg on that trip. I calculated 40.2 mpg on one trip during this latest OCI. Not bad for an engine getting ready to turn 200,000 miles. I'm not saying this will be typical, but this is what I have experienced with my car.

As Gary rightly pointed out, I have long been a skeptic of any kind of "wonder additive" for motor oil. (Search some of my old posts here). I have for some time been in the camp that says "everything your engine needs is already in a good off the shelf motor oil." I do still believe that, for the most part... but this AutoRX stuff is in a class by itself.

I don't know the chemistry--I just know it works. I've used kerosene based engine flushes in other vehicles I've owned over the years. I figured they would flush out the sludge, and maybe free up stuck rings... but apparently they weren't doing much--at least not compared to what AutoRX does.

Let me add this: If you have an old car with a lot of miles on the clock, and it's getting kind of sluggish (and truthfully, you may not even be aware of how sluggish it has gotten, if it's been happening gradually)... an AutoRX treatment will very likely amaze you, and pay for itself in short order by way of improved gas mileage (assuming you have some stuck piston rings, which you probably do have in an older engine)... Even if you don't look under the valve cover, just give it a try and see if I'm not right.

I'm not being paid by anyone to say these things, I assure you. Simply put this is one of those rare oil additive products that actually does do what it says it will do.

Dan

 

[Oilgal]

Well said Dan. I couldn't agree more, as my experience is much like your own.

I too wondered, if people would think I was on their payroll, and I had to use a similar disclaimer about that.

Truth is though the stuff is so amazing you can't help but rave about it.

Thanks for doing this test Dan. Great work.

 

[Gary Allan]

Well, the butt dyno has gotten a bad rap over the years ..but then again, the real dyno isn't always genuine either. Figures don't lie ..but liars sure do (use)figure(s). So what are you gonna do

At least with this product you get some visuals and the people that use it, the vast majority anyway, tend to get benefit/value well in excess of the cost.

This test was almost as fun as my oil filter bypass test ..but somewhat more productive. The bypass test was just to uncover the mystery and reduce some speculation as to what happens inside the magic can. The MMO "no harm" test was easy enough. The Bruceblend® 0w oil test is soon to be sent to UOA...but this was the first time I used others to do the work.

I have a couple of others doing this too, but their results aren't in yet. Rough time of year for some to focus on this type of distraction.

I don't know what I'm gonna do next

Mature and settle down in terms of "quests of lubrication enlightenment"??

 

[JAG]

Keep experimenting Gary! Settling down is boring.

Interesting thread. Thumbs up.

 

[jbl]

Very nice write up.

I had recently poured in ARX in my Volvo XC70 2.5T with 66kkm on odometer and my butt dyno says improved performance. It has only been in for 500km. Im thrilled.

The oil in use is Kendall GT1 syntetich blend 5W30.

Thank you Frank for such a superb product.

 

[badtlc]

Thank you for the experiment! Great reading.

I don't want to nitpick because you two did a great job, but I would have loved to seen some compression numbers before and after. I find those the most fascinating for some reason.

 

[Oilgal]

Originally Posted By: Gary Allan


I don't know what I'm gonna do next

Mature and settle down in terms of "quests of lubrication enlightenment"??



Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

Please don't do that. You will break my widdle heart.

 

[Gary Allan]

Yes, they would have been nice ...but Dan was already neck deep in "work". This all fell in his hands in the form of "elective toil". In a final analysis he ended up with a good deal in the exchange, but there was no assurance of that up front. It's not like he was seeking an outlet for all kinds of pend up energy

I was very lucky to connect with him. ..but I do agree it would have been nice to see them creep up. I actually think that this evolution, the decoking, occurs early on.


..but don't fret. I do have one "compression test only" deal in the works. It may take a while ..but this is on a totally clean, from a visual standpoint, engine. The compression test will be the only indicator of any effect. I just hope that the variance between before and after will be enough to dissuade any nitpicking in terms of

"to do it right, you really needed to pull all the plugs ..run one cylinder ..replace all the plugs ..run it up to full temp again ..pull the next plug ..etc..etc..etc. then do it wet (repeat procedure)".

If I see a baseline of a 25+/- variance and end up with a 5+/- variance with the same tester using the same technique ..then that's more than enough for me. The broader the spread the better ..but how many corners really need to be swept out before one has to concede that there was benefit?

At some point I see many focusing on whether the car did 12.6527 vs. 12.5271 in the quarter mile ..all the while passing right over that its a faster car from it's 15 second origins

(an extreme example, yes). That doesn't mean that I don't understand the insatiable curiosity that burns in most of us to know everything to the finest detail. It's just that many of us hobby grade testers are limited in resources. More in time and will than anything else.

 

[Mystic]

I think this post is an example of Bobistheoilguy.com at it's finest. People actually test a product that a lot of people are using and are interested in. Great, great work.

 

[badtlc]

I wouldnt nitpick at all on compression tests. I really dont care what the results are. I just think they are neat.

I'm definitely interested to see how the tests go on that "clean engine."

I have 2 new (i guess newish might be more appropriate) cars right now. One with 14k on it and one with 25k. Both have only seen synthetics. The 14k car has only seen GrpIII PP5w20. The 25k car has only seen PAO. I'm sure the engines are clean, but I've been thinking a LOT about whether or not to move them both to MC 5w20 (dealer oil) and using Auto-RX if it would be any better. These things keep me up at night!

 

[Gary Allan]

Yes, they are. I'm just lazy

The clean engine test will interest me as well. My two jeep engines are spotless. One has 133k on it and one had 69k on it. They're 99 and 02 respectively. Neither have any consumption of merit. My 02 2.5 consumes maybe 1/2 quart over 7.5k ..

..but I've always considered the maintenance that I do taking care of everything just fine.

I mean, I've thrown it in my older rides ..but I think it's time for the front line engines to get a dental cleaning.

 

[Oilgal]

Gary what oil do you put in those spotless vehicles? I am guessing at least one is Amsoil.

 

[Gary Allan]

Originally Posted By: Oilgal
Gary what oil do you put in those spotless vehicles? I am guessing at least one is Amsoil.


Oddly ..not yet. The trans has it in my jeep. I just became a dealer last April and had a decent inventory ..and I (mostly) do extended drains. Before becoming a dealer, I entered into a 5w-20 experiment with my pushrod tracter engine (4.0 in the wife's jeep) ..basically 3 5k OCI/UOA. That took the good part of a year in the wife's jeep. I was running RTS to 2 back to back one year+ OCI in my short tripper 2.5 jeep. In the meantime, I entered into a 0w-10 test with the minivan ..which a spot UOA had bruce jumping out of his chair with 2400 ppm of copper (it was my copper exchangers) ...and he reformulated ...then I'm all settled down to the new formula ..and the van gets stolen. I wasn't going to waste all that oil from bruce and get nothing out of the testing ...so, after some tweaking with fuel issues in both jeeps ...the original 0w-10 was put in the 4.0 ..and the 0w-20-LITE was put in the 2.5. Those oils are getting close to the 5k and 3k mark for initial testing. If they're good to go, they're staying in for the winter.

I have a case of Amsoil HDD waiting to be put in when I'm through.

Our jeeps have mostly used 5w-40 ..most of them being HDEO. Delvac 1 being the one I consider performing the best over the long distance. I was satisfied, but somewhat dismayed, with RTS. It's a good oil for the money, but I don't think it's nearly as bulletproof as D1. Still a screaming deal ..but with some shortcomings in some areas. ..but I've used AGIP PC 5w-40 ..Pennzoil 5w-40.

Now I've used the BE filters for a long time. I don't have my Dual Guard installed currently ..but it's not for lack of thinking its a good setup. I had planned for using it on the minivan

This extended drain thing can complicate your life when you start buying up good deals and get a good oil stash. I've got green GC that I haven't gotten around to using ..and I've got BC (Belgian Cstrol) 5w-40 that I haven't touched ..and leftover Agip

..and a host of others (PZ LL HDEO in 15w-40, 10w-30, 10w) ..etc..etc. Those too were minivan project oils (filter bypass tests, oil temp tests, fuel economy tests, etc.)

Those things got sorta upset

 

[Oilgal]

Thank you Gary. You surely are adventurous oil wise. I can't imagine trying even 0w 20 let alone 0w 10. Sorry your minivan was stolen. I know that had to hurt.

Thanks again.

And please keep on doing your tests. It's some of the best stuff on the web.

 

[Gary Allan]

Quote:
I can't imagine trying even 0w 20 let alone 0w 10.


You can use a 0w-20/5w-20 in your 3.0 without worries. A few others have tested it with UOA. I ran it for fuel economy testing. It wasn't formal ..just noticing 15+/- mpg vs 18+/- in short trip usage ..to no difference between 20w-50 and 5w-20 in 200 miles one way trips. It should be especially easy with your high volume oil pump. If your lifters are a little beat, you may get some low idle baseline noise (just low background - not annoying). Your oil temp will be based on load more than ambient temp. 5 people ..70mph 220F would not be out of whack. Empty, you may see 215F. Never saw anything outlandish at all.

(visions of Obiwan as he got that suggestive expression as he said to Luke "You must go to Alderan if you're to learn the ways of the force" - and Luke said that he had to get back to "crop dusting" or whatever)

You should try 5w-20 and do UOA on it to prove it to yourself