It's not made for anything, it's straight-up crap being sold as the magical ATE. It's nothing but a massive profit centre for the company producing it; it's best "feature" is the ability to move money from your wallet into the Lucas treasury, which is why they have a stadium and you don't, lol.
I’ve never understood why you have no opinion on this product
Here is the machine that mixes/solubilizes polymer into the oil at the Lucas plant in Corydon, Indiana.
Well then, where can I find it for $0.25? It reduced my slow oil leak by a lot (had a bad oil seal drain bolt) and improved my mpg. If I can find the same stuff for $0.25 that will save me $ even more.
Yes, it's very heavy, which is why it slowed your leak, which is also why it didn't improve your mpg, which is physically impossible by going up in viscosity.
Is this some new physics?
Aside from the problem with basic physics, no one on here could observe and then correlate an MPG change to one isolated variable such as this. It’s far into the noise of everyday driving.
I can see how it slowed the leak, oil became more viscous and harder to flow thru the same hole. lol, I didn't use to fix a leak, it was just something I noticed. I mentioned that it did improve my mpg, not that it didn't. I know that stuff is thicker but hey, I saw improvements and kept using it.
Yes, that's why 20W-50 is often used in leakers and burners.
I know what you said, I'm saying that's not possible. By increasing the viscosity considerably you are increasing the power required to pump the oil, increasing the friction in the bearings and on the cylinder walls and because Lucas contains no additives, you are also diluting the anti-wear and friction modifier elements of the lubricant. These will all have a negative effect on fuel economy, albeit a relatively small one.
Remember that summer and winter blends of gasoline will yield different fuel economy. So does tire pressure and all manner of other things. Unless your engine had massive amounts of blowby that was slightly improved by the molasses added to the sump, there's no way for it to improve the fuel consumption, only worsen it.
Yep, I know. Both my average winter and summer mpg's increased. I actually started to use other Lucas product as an experiment, and yeah my mpg increased even more over time. At least now I know why the hate, lol. I get it, I can relate the same on a few other things too,
.Observing something is only the first step and is nearly always the easiest part. Ascribing that observation to one or more isolated variables is the more difficult part. Here where you have many uncontrolled variables that affect your observation there is simply no way you were able to make a determination that this one variable was the cause.Yep, I know. Both my average winter and summer mpg's increased. I actually started to use other Lucas product as an experiment, and yeah my mpg increased even more over time. At least now I know why the hate, lol. I get it, I can relate the same on a few other things too,
I agree 1000000% it's not easy and all takes decades to be more accurate but this wasn't based one tank full or even a few tank full, more like a few years (prior to using it) and money comparison leaving my bank, lol. Then again it was based one engine.
It’s also quite likely that the longer you go the more noise there will be. I linked an article a while back that showed even at the same gas station the energy density of the fuel varies around 4%, so the more often you buy fuel the more variation your numbers will show. So is your measured improvement more than 4%? Even if it is then you pile on the other myriad of variables besides fuel BTU. Longer test periods = increased noise = increased difficulty in isolating any one specific variable.
Do this, and you too can have your name on a stadium! LOL!
