LCD vs ARX for maintenance.
- Thread starter stang5
- Start date
- Status
dnewton3
Staff member
I am a recent convert to ARX.
I like that it's formulated to compliment the oil and work almost as a ghost agent, rather than trying to muscle in and monopolize the oil.
Am I reading right that your 6 year old Mustang has 10k miles? With that low a yearly average, I'd think a couple of ounces of ARX would make it last indefinitely.
ARX works best with group II or III oils. I had immense success with PP combined with ARX. Not that I'm starting a brand war; just sharing my personal success story. Check out the whole thread I started in this section (Ford 3.0 Vulcan V-6).
I like that it's formulated to compliment the oil and work almost as a ghost agent, rather than trying to muscle in and monopolize the oil.
Am I reading right that your 6 year old Mustang has 10k miles? With that low a yearly average, I'd think a couple of ounces of ARX would make it last indefinitely.
ARX works best with group II or III oils. I had immense success with PP combined with ARX. Not that I'm starting a brand war; just sharing my personal success story. Check out the whole thread I started in this section (Ford 3.0 Vulcan V-6).
You could use either. My Volvo 97 960 (88K) gets 7K miles a year per put on her. 95+ percent of that mileage is interstate highway. I have LC20 in the crank case.
In my 87 745 Turbo (359K miles, 77K on engine) that gets around 12K miles a year mostly short trips I have Auto-Rx in the crankcase.
Both cars are filled with M1 10W30.
The 960 had an Auto-Rx cleaning before I started using the LC20.
In my 87 745 Turbo (359K miles, 77K on engine) that gets around 12K miles a year mostly short trips I have Auto-Rx in the crankcase.
Both cars are filled with M1 10W30.
The 960 had an Auto-Rx cleaning before I started using the LC20.
Last edited:
Are there any engines w/tons of miles and LC use?
Perhaps photos?
Perhaps photos?
I use LC20 regularly and the occasional Auto-Rx treatment separate from LC usage. It seems for me that LC20 helps counteract the tendency for AMSOIL to thicken in my equipment. I agree with ALS that you could use either product.
There's an old post from Terry Dyson buried in this board that explains the characteristics of each product quite thoroughly. A targeted search would likely turn it up.
There's an old post from Terry Dyson buried in this board that explains the characteristics of each product quite thoroughly. A targeted search would likely turn it up.
LC does not bond to engine parts it is a primary anti oxidant for the oil.
It has EP capability but how is proprietary.
There is no reason that BOTH products can't be used properly by those that care more about honest science over marketing.
Just not at the same time in the same unit.
Terry
Dyson Analysis
It has EP capability but how is proprietary.
There is no reason that BOTH products can't be used properly by those that care more about honest science over marketing.
Just not at the same time in the same unit.
Terry
Dyson Analysis
Last edited:
Here is the post I was thinking of, number 289624:
Tracy, please search and read about BOTH these unique and effective products from previous posts by people who test lubricants or have a chemistry background.
FYI, I was hired by both companies to test these products when they were almost completetly unknown.
For a maintenance cleaner I think that it depends on the application and its needs.
For instance we know that Auto-RX is a more methodical and long lasting cleaner of the ring pack area than LC. LC will clean that but it takes much longer. Auto-RX does not wear out, LC needs to be recharged but acts faster in anti- oxidation effectiveness.
LC can strip lighter varnish type coatings faster than RX. RX is extremely lubricious and is a EP add in its own right. LC is more of a traditional inhibited solvent with a excellent anti oxidant capability.
BOTH are exceptionally safe to use in engines, trans, hydraulics , etc.
RX lowers oxidation and nitration by cleaning and enabling better ring seal while LC will do it by lowering the oxidation rates in the host oil, allowing that oil to seal the rings better.
RX IS an ESTER. LC is what I call a NEAR ESTER.
RX can disperse effectively, LC uses the lubricant to do that job.
LC will clean seals but not rejuvinate them like RX can.
Using oil analysis and general observation a person can use both products effectively.
Each one has tremendous strengths ,similar to using appropriate tools for the job, use LC and Auto-X based on the oil and engine combination and the needs of same, backed by oil analysis to verify the regimen.
For example :
If I had a older car that is using oil and has seal leaks I would use the maintenance dose of RX after a good cleaning phase.
If I had a motor oil and engine application that tends to thicken that oil through oxidation I would use 2 ounces of LC per qt capacity and 1000 mile top ups with 3 ounces of LC.
If I had a Cadillac Northstar V8 I would use Auto-RX to lube those rings and assist in oil control.
If I had a 84 302 ford with lots of carbon buildup in the intake manifold I would pour LC down the carb while running and smoke the neigborhood and pour until I kill it and let it soak all night. Just did that today ! I had just finished a Auto-RX cleaning for 1700 miles of driving in 2 days and what a difference in the oil and ring control ! BOTH products work !
No matter which add you use in the oil I would run FP60 every gas fillup !
Enjoy both chemical tools folks.
Terry
[End of quote]
In my opinion there is indeed nothing like Auto-Rx for cleaning the ring packs. I have done two ARX treatments to my '95 Civic and the first treatment dropped my oil consumption from a pint per 4000 miles to ZERO and has remained such. The LC20 may well help in keeping them clean but Auto-Rx got it there in the first place.
Tracy, please search and read about BOTH these unique and effective products from previous posts by people who test lubricants or have a chemistry background.
FYI, I was hired by both companies to test these products when they were almost completetly unknown.
For a maintenance cleaner I think that it depends on the application and its needs.
For instance we know that Auto-RX is a more methodical and long lasting cleaner of the ring pack area than LC. LC will clean that but it takes much longer. Auto-RX does not wear out, LC needs to be recharged but acts faster in anti- oxidation effectiveness.
LC can strip lighter varnish type coatings faster than RX. RX is extremely lubricious and is a EP add in its own right. LC is more of a traditional inhibited solvent with a excellent anti oxidant capability.
BOTH are exceptionally safe to use in engines, trans, hydraulics , etc.
RX lowers oxidation and nitration by cleaning and enabling better ring seal while LC will do it by lowering the oxidation rates in the host oil, allowing that oil to seal the rings better.
RX IS an ESTER. LC is what I call a NEAR ESTER.
RX can disperse effectively, LC uses the lubricant to do that job.
LC will clean seals but not rejuvinate them like RX can.
Using oil analysis and general observation a person can use both products effectively.
Each one has tremendous strengths ,similar to using appropriate tools for the job, use LC and Auto-X based on the oil and engine combination and the needs of same, backed by oil analysis to verify the regimen.
For example :
If I had a older car that is using oil and has seal leaks I would use the maintenance dose of RX after a good cleaning phase.
If I had a motor oil and engine application that tends to thicken that oil through oxidation I would use 2 ounces of LC per qt capacity and 1000 mile top ups with 3 ounces of LC.
If I had a Cadillac Northstar V8 I would use Auto-RX to lube those rings and assist in oil control.
If I had a 84 302 ford with lots of carbon buildup in the intake manifold I would pour LC down the carb while running and smoke the neigborhood and pour until I kill it and let it soak all night. Just did that today ! I had just finished a Auto-RX cleaning for 1700 miles of driving in 2 days and what a difference in the oil and ring control ! BOTH products work !
No matter which add you use in the oil I would run FP60 every gas fillup !
Enjoy both chemical tools folks.
Terry
[End of quote]
In my opinion there is indeed nothing like Auto-Rx for cleaning the ring packs. I have done two ARX treatments to my '95 Civic and the first treatment dropped my oil consumption from a pint per 4000 miles to ZERO and has remained such. The LC20 may well help in keeping them clean but Auto-Rx got it there in the first place.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,798
I've never used LC ..so I really can't comment on its effectiveness. I believe that it is primarily an "oil degradation reducer" if I gathered what it does in effect (reducing oxidation and thickening).
I would imagine that Auto-Rx, which has proven time and time again to be effective in a SUBSTANTIAL way, makes a sensible choice for a perpetual maintenance add.
I don't want to remark too much on it ... just because I like my experiments to stand on their own merits "for what it's worth" ..but finding Dave (dnewton3) was such a jewel of a random collision of obscure conditions. To have a "what the heck ..let's see what happens
" type deal produce bona fide results is amazing, imo. Coked rings cured. I really could not have been more impressed.
As far as "definitive proof" of which is superior in any one instance, there is no such test. I don't think the two are comparable products, for one thing. Second, you have a hard time getting two vehicles with identical severity of conditions. why do you think testimonials are used to such a great extent? Would you have some outfit like SWRI "scientifically degrade" two identical engines to see how each remedied their conditions? I don't know if there are even established protocols to do such a thing.
Hmmm...now I wonder how much it would cost to have another engine run under the Sequence IIIG test protocols ..but have a bottle of Auto-Rx thrown in before the test??
So, I'd have to take all of my experience with Auto-Rx ..add to it its inherent FM properties and say that it would be the one that I'd choose for a continuous add to the oil ...but I'm biased. I've just seen too much substantial results to think otherwise
I would imagine that Auto-Rx, which has proven time and time again to be effective in a SUBSTANTIAL way, makes a sensible choice for a perpetual maintenance add.
I don't want to remark too much on it ... just because I like my experiments to stand on their own merits "for what it's worth" ..but finding Dave (dnewton3) was such a jewel of a random collision of obscure conditions. To have a "what the heck ..let's see what happens
As far as "definitive proof" of which is superior in any one instance, there is no such test. I don't think the two are comparable products, for one thing. Second, you have a hard time getting two vehicles with identical severity of conditions. why do you think testimonials are used to such a great extent? Would you have some outfit like SWRI "scientifically degrade" two identical engines to see how each remedied their conditions? I don't know if there are even established protocols to do such a thing.
Hmmm...now I wonder how much it would cost to have another engine run under the Sequence IIIG test protocols ..but have a bottle of Auto-Rx thrown in before the test??
So, I'd have to take all of my experience with Auto-Rx ..add to it its inherent FM properties and say that it would be the one that I'd choose for a continuous add to the oil ...but I'm biased. I've just seen too much substantial results to think otherwise
As for an ongoing maintenance product, I tip my cap towards ARX.
There is plenty of evidence that has been commented on this forum, as well a couple of very good UOA on the ARX site running extended drains with the ARX maintenance dose. What really catches my eye is the reduction in wear metals on the two tests when compared to a run on the host oil by itself. In both cases the vehicles had fuel dilution issues and had wear issues. Both cars still had fuel dilute issues with the ARX maintenance dose, but the wear numbers were greatly improved. At the end of the day, it's the wear metal numbers that mean most to me.
With regards to cleaning up ring packs, on the fly, there seems to be no comparison. Freeing up stuck rings happens real quick with ARX, in the cleaning dose rate. Plenty of before and after tests, with regards to compression, are available to view here, as well as over at ARX.
I have tried LC20 in only one car. The car never lost any noticeable oil during a full OCI. Yet by adding LC20 with a fresh oil change and the recommended 1000 add ins the car was a quart low after only 3000 miles. To me this makes very little sense. How can you be adding and adding, yet reducing crankcase oil volume. I verified that this would continue to occur twice.
Since I have run unaltered oil changes and also oil change intervals with thye 3 oz. ARX dose and have never seen the dipstick inch below full. Puzzling.
There is plenty of evidence that has been commented on this forum, as well a couple of very good UOA on the ARX site running extended drains with the ARX maintenance dose. What really catches my eye is the reduction in wear metals on the two tests when compared to a run on the host oil by itself. In both cases the vehicles had fuel dilution issues and had wear issues. Both cars still had fuel dilute issues with the ARX maintenance dose, but the wear numbers were greatly improved. At the end of the day, it's the wear metal numbers that mean most to me.
With regards to cleaning up ring packs, on the fly, there seems to be no comparison. Freeing up stuck rings happens real quick with ARX, in the cleaning dose rate. Plenty of before and after tests, with regards to compression, are available to view here, as well as over at ARX.
I have tried LC20 in only one car. The car never lost any noticeable oil during a full OCI. Yet by adding LC20 with a fresh oil change and the recommended 1000 add ins the car was a quart low after only 3000 miles. To me this makes very little sense. How can you be adding and adding, yet reducing crankcase oil volume. I verified that this would continue to occur twice.
Since I have run unaltered oil changes and also oil change intervals with thye 3 oz. ARX dose and have never seen the dipstick inch below full. Puzzling.
I have used ARX and Lc20. If you use LC20 at the old rates for 500 miles, it will perform the same.
I have used Lc20 in the rinse phase of ARX and got good results. I also know that LC20 will clean bigtime. I added Lc20 to a car and within 500 miles the engine oil was black; nevermind the varish now gone.
I think both items are good. I know my car seemed to like Lc20 better.
I have used Lc20 in the rinse phase of ARX and got good results. I also know that LC20 will clean bigtime. I added Lc20 to a car and within 500 miles the engine oil was black; nevermind the varish now gone.
I think both items are good. I know my car seemed to like Lc20 better.
Auto-Rx cleans the ring packs while driving .LC does not do the same. They are entirely differen,t chemistrys.
If you added LC to rinse mode when using Auto-Rx what happened is Auto-Rx removed the LC and put in the filter.
Varnish is a cosmetic issue and while slower Auto-Rx will clean varnish off engine.
These products are not compatible.
If you added LC to rinse mode when using Auto-Rx what happened is Auto-Rx removed the LC and put in the filter.
Varnish is a cosmetic issue and while slower Auto-Rx will clean varnish off engine.
These products are not compatible.
I still can't get over how effectively Auto-Rx has worked on my '95 Civic WRT ring pack cleaning- 84,000+ miles and ZERO oil consumption since the first treatment! Absolutely NO other vehicle I've ever had used ZERO oil between changes- my mom's slant six '73 Duster was the closest with a quart every 4,000 miles back in '77.
As far as small engines go, I am now beginning to use ARX at one ounce per quart for a maintenance dose with AMSOIL ACD 10w30/30. I have no doubt I can expect the same great results as others have in larger engines. Will I switch to Auto-Rx maintenance doses for my rolling stock? Maybe someday- at least with the Civic it will depend on UOA's. I certainly have enough ARX to last a little while...
Well, I've said way more than enough I reckon. I apologize if I have threadjacked.
As far as small engines go, I am now beginning to use ARX at one ounce per quart for a maintenance dose with AMSOIL ACD 10w30/30. I have no doubt I can expect the same great results as others have in larger engines. Will I switch to Auto-Rx maintenance doses for my rolling stock? Maybe someday- at least with the Civic it will depend on UOA's. I certainly have enough ARX to last a little while...
Well, I've said way more than enough I reckon. I apologize if I have threadjacked.
I think the quote from Terry pretty much sums it all up, but I'll add support
I've used, and use, both. I've strayed from LC20 for maint dose to ARX at the moment because:
- my oil doesn't need any help in terms of oxidation according to UOA results
- ARX is more effective for the kind of "help" my vehicle needs
- I found an in-country source for ARX, but LCD products are still stupid-expensive to ship here
IMO, LC and ARX have their own different place. LC is reportedly superior with varnish-type deposits and oxidation issues; ARX with carbon, rings, sludge and seal issues.
My engine "problems" include generally better performance while using ARX (maintaining ring pack cleanliness?) and one minor ticking HLA. LC did nothing for my HLA, although I never tried the "shock dose". ARX clean/rinse improved the HLA but hasn't eliminated it. ARX maint dose has been slowly improving it I think, but it is taking so long it's becoming hard to tell in any definitive way.
I admit that I'm still very slightly concerned about the compatibility of my chosen oil (GC) and ARX based on observations and resulting discussion from this thread . I don't believe that any harm is being done, but very few REALLY understand how ARX works and there have been a number of references by Frank that ARX will "clean" other esters out of your oil "no problem". He's also said things like "Oh, you didn't mention you were using GC! That has esters in it!" IMO, this kind of action by ARX changes the characteristics of my chosen oil, which I chose for a reason, and I don't like that. Nor do I want my ARX maint dose wasting its time/effort cleaning other esters from the oil. I also hadn't really planned on changing my chosen oil since GC is working so well for me, is easy for me to obtain (compared to the US) and is well priced (at $8/bottle compared to all of the other overpriced oil in Canada).
Conerns aside, I don't want to detract from ARX, I think its a solid product that has proven to have many benefits for many people - including myself.
I've used, and use, both. I've strayed from LC20 for maint dose to ARX at the moment because:
- my oil doesn't need any help in terms of oxidation according to UOA results
- ARX is more effective for the kind of "help" my vehicle needs
- I found an in-country source for ARX, but LCD products are still stupid-expensive to ship here
IMO, LC and ARX have their own different place. LC is reportedly superior with varnish-type deposits and oxidation issues; ARX with carbon, rings, sludge and seal issues.
My engine "problems" include generally better performance while using ARX (maintaining ring pack cleanliness?) and one minor ticking HLA. LC did nothing for my HLA, although I never tried the "shock dose". ARX clean/rinse improved the HLA but hasn't eliminated it. ARX maint dose has been slowly improving it I think, but it is taking so long it's becoming hard to tell in any definitive way.
I admit that I'm still very slightly concerned about the compatibility of my chosen oil (GC) and ARX based on observations and resulting discussion from this thread . I don't believe that any harm is being done, but very few REALLY understand how ARX works and there have been a number of references by Frank that ARX will "clean" other esters out of your oil "no problem". He's also said things like "Oh, you didn't mention you were using GC! That has esters in it!" IMO, this kind of action by ARX changes the characteristics of my chosen oil, which I chose for a reason, and I don't like that. Nor do I want my ARX maint dose wasting its time/effort cleaning other esters from the oil. I also hadn't really planned on changing my chosen oil since GC is working so well for me, is easy for me to obtain (compared to the US) and is well priced (at $8/bottle compared to all of the other overpriced oil in Canada).
Conerns aside, I don't want to detract from ARX, I think its a solid product that has proven to have many benefits for many people - including myself.
Last edited:
- Status