LG20 or ARX?
- Thread starter joel95ex
- Start date
- Status
If that's LC20 from the sponsors at the top of the page, then yes I've used both. The LC20 works as an antioxidant for the oil and is why I use it regularly. The auto-Rx I use every 50-60k for ring pack cleaning and sludge prevention.
If cleaning is what you are looking to do, especially ring packs my vote is for ARX. LC20 is primarily an antioxidant boost for the host oil. The maintenance dose of ARX with each oil change interval has shown improvements in reduced wear metals ans improvements in oxidation/nitration as well.
Somewhere there's an old post by Terry Dyson on the differences and benefits of each- I'll see if I can turn it up.
Since I was hired by both companies to test their products I post this with some degree of insight. I am not allowed by proprietary agreement to disclose all I know about each product but here goes what I can.
Frank of Auto-RX may have a valid point but I have not verified the idea that continous use of Auto-Rx in a lower maintenance dose could clean continually. I can say that from our testing to date the product literally is a "liquid filter" that not only cleans but can disperse large and small contaminants in a way that cuts wear and increases ring seal. Ensuring the product is at room temp BEFORE pouring into the host oil ELIMINATES cold weather issues, once installed in the host oil cold start,pump is not impacted.
LC is more of a anti-oxidant booster with a unique Cf reduction capability using a chemistry that is unlike Auto-RX, both chemistries are unique, NO ONE ( other companies), have access to.
In nearly 60 years of continous use, LC is a rock solid chemistry but WILL not CLEAN deeply like Auto-RX.
The ester chemistry of RX is totally antithetical to LC.
Many of my oil analysis customers use BOTH products at the same time, verifying that application with oil analysis. This does not work in every application and for cleaning phase there is no need for LC top ups.
LC is as safe as motor oil, and Auto-RX is as safe as a consumable food stuff so they can be compatible but do not attempt that without verifying oil analysis. Both companies will not be happy for me to post that here but there are those doing it , successfully. Warning!! Don't do it without testing and don't blame either company if you screw up something experimenting on your own!
Marketing takes second seat to my desire to share science here. So, I say with a great degree of confidence: use both products as directed and enjoy your engine running better while saving money on needless additives or overpriced fully formulated lubes that will still need a periodic Auto-RX cleaning and anti oxidation help from LC.
Both products are effective chemical correction tools for us as a oil analysis company. Used properly save time and money.
Terry
Frank of Auto-RX may have a valid point but I have not verified the idea that continous use of Auto-Rx in a lower maintenance dose could clean continually. I can say that from our testing to date the product literally is a "liquid filter" that not only cleans but can disperse large and small contaminants in a way that cuts wear and increases ring seal. Ensuring the product is at room temp BEFORE pouring into the host oil ELIMINATES cold weather issues, once installed in the host oil cold start,pump is not impacted.
LC is more of a anti-oxidant booster with a unique Cf reduction capability using a chemistry that is unlike Auto-RX, both chemistries are unique, NO ONE ( other companies), have access to.
In nearly 60 years of continous use, LC is a rock solid chemistry but WILL not CLEAN deeply like Auto-RX.
The ester chemistry of RX is totally antithetical to LC.
Many of my oil analysis customers use BOTH products at the same time, verifying that application with oil analysis. This does not work in every application and for cleaning phase there is no need for LC top ups.
LC is as safe as motor oil, and Auto-RX is as safe as a consumable food stuff so they can be compatible but do not attempt that without verifying oil analysis. Both companies will not be happy for me to post that here but there are those doing it , successfully. Warning!! Don't do it without testing and don't blame either company if you screw up something experimenting on your own!
Marketing takes second seat to my desire to share science here. So, I say with a great degree of confidence: use both products as directed and enjoy your engine running better while saving money on needless additives or overpriced fully formulated lubes that will still need a periodic Auto-RX cleaning and anti oxidation help from LC.
Both products are effective chemical correction tools for us as a oil analysis company. Used properly save time and money.
Terry
So much for experts.............
But seriously Auto-RX is fantastic in a lot of cases. I think Terry is telling it like he sees it.
Have not tried LC20.
But seriously Auto-RX is fantastic in a lot of cases. I think Terry is telling it like he sees it.
Have not tried LC20.
Last edited:
Thank you dbdeland for posting that one. I either forgot about it or didn't come across it.
Below, is the post from Mr. Dyson I recall...
#289624 - 2005-07-01
Quote:
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
Below, is the post from Mr. Dyson I recall...
#289624 - 2005-07-01
Quote:
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
- Status
Similar threads
