I was bored and reading a Mechanics US navy manual on the ships diesel colt pielstick engines and they said that Oil Additives are not allowed in the US navy because of lack of testing and research.... maybe this give you guys a idea that oil additives are a waste of money.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Military disapproves Oil Additives?
- Thread starter Korean_redneck
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Well, no need for additives in an engine that was properly maintained by the US Navy since new. Some additives work well in used car engines that had spotty maintenance.
i believe that it is more an issue of the military hasn't tested it so they tell you not to use it. otherwise you'd have some seaman recruit dumping "engine restore" in the ship's engine.
generally whatever they spec is all it needs, as far as they can tell.
generally whatever they spec is all it needs, as far as they can tell.
Just a broad statement because most additives are worthless which makes it tough for our products LC and FP www.lubecontrol.com and other good products like AutoRX.
Easier to make a broad statement then deal with all the additives out there that will harm an engine.
Easier to make a broad statement then deal with all the additives out there that will harm an engine.
I thought MILITEC-1 was developed for the military and used by the Navy. Their website is full of info about military use. Is this all bogus hype?
The problem that the military was faced with regarding these additives was the absence of any definitive test data that clearly demonstrated that you were seeing some measurable benefits and that there were no adverse side effects. Many suppliers/distributors often would supply many testimonials and other anecdotal data (e.g., one car fleet test, no controls, etc.) accompanied with these tremendous claims of performance improvements.
To put all things on a level playing field, they (the military) developed a guide telling what was required in terms of testing to have their products considered. You can see that guide by going to the following site:
http://www.tacom.army.mil/tardec/division/peth2o/fuellube/guides/DoD_POLJuly 96p.pdf
As far as the question about Militec-1, it has only been appoved or allowed to be used as a weapons lubricant. All three services do not allow it to be used in any internal combusiton engine system. Don't believe all that you read.
To put all things on a level playing field, they (the military) developed a guide telling what was required in terms of testing to have their products considered. You can see that guide by going to the following site:
http://www.tacom.army.mil/tardec/division/peth2o/fuellube/guides/DoD_POLJuly 96p.pdf
As far as the question about Militec-1, it has only been appoved or allowed to be used as a weapons lubricant. All three services do not allow it to be used in any internal combusiton engine system. Don't believe all that you read.
Good info. Thanks for the clarification. mojo. I considering buying some of the stuff but I think I will reconsider now.
Just a little followup on this matter. Militec is currently being purchased by the military, but each contract award stipulates that labels be affixed to each box. This labels are to state "Not Aproved by DOD for Use as an Oil/Fuel Additive."
Frank - You have to submit your product for testing to a specific research center located in the southwest who (for a major fee) will test your product and pass on results to DOD No one can afford the cost and of course there is no guarantee you will get an order.
If the testing costs $1,000,000 then I understand why only the big guys can get qualified. But if the testing costs $50,000 I would think it would be an excellent long term investment. Who cares about orders from the government? The value would be in the ability to conclusively demonstrate the true value of the product to the skeptial customer. After being bombarded with pseudo-science it would be a releif to see a product with real science behind it.
If the testing costs $1,000,000 then I understand why only the big guys can get qualified. But if the testing costs $50,000 I would think it would be an excellent long term investment. Who cares about orders from the government? The value would be in the ability to conclusively demonstrate the true value of the product to the skeptial customer. After being bombarded with pseudo-science it would be a releif to see a product with real science behind it.
FRANK is exactly right the cost of DOD testing is ridiculous and until the oil companies step up to the plate why should the additive guys. I'm refering to schaefers, amsoil, royal purple etc.
This is completely irreleveant and is a false statement there are companies such as militec there biggest customers of the us military.
Frank I MUST disagree with your statement about the long chain breaking down wheres your proof that this occured?
I know that L-38 sequence test was performed on a chlorinated product and passed 38% higher than regular motoroil. It does NOT break down and still is one of the best not THE best but one of. By the way DURALUBE still sells their friction reducing products.
This is completely irreleveant and is a false statement there are companies such as militec there biggest customers of the us military.
Frank I MUST disagree with your statement about the long chain breaking down wheres your proof that this occured?
I know that L-38 sequence test was performed on a chlorinated product and passed 38% higher than regular motoroil. It does NOT break down and still is one of the best not THE best but one of. By the way DURALUBE still sells their friction reducing products.
Now, if an aftermarket additive maker would get his product approved by the DOD for use in military internal combustion engines they could own the additive aftermarket.
Having read some of the DOD requirements it is clear that getting approval is no cake walk. However, considering the substantial benefits I sure would think some of the good additive makers would be getting approved.
Having read some of the DOD requirements it is clear that getting approval is no cake walk. However, considering the substantial benefits I sure would think some of the good additive makers would be getting approved.
Slick 50 got the US Army Tank Command in Mi to test
there product years ago that fiasco started a new policy with the DOD.You have to submit your product for testing to a specific research center located in the southwest who (for a major fee) will test your product and pass on results to DOD No one can afford the cost and of course there is no guarantee you will get an order. Some points on long chain chlorinated parrafin technology. Probable still the greatest friction reducing agent however the chain starts to break down and corrosion starts on the metal (Why Duralube like others is out of the friction reducer market)
New subject we had a squad of US Marines test our
guncleaner it outperformed any product they ever used. Our guncleaner (which we never tried to sell ) cleans and lubricates in one pass through the barrel. If anybody out there has the means to publish test results of our gun cleaner against all others contact me and we will discuss senfding you some product.
Last but not least a clean engine with a good oil like AMSOIL or Mobil 1 is going to reduce friction (heat ) just because the oil has clean metal to work on.
[ August 31, 2004, 01:03 PM: Message edited by: Frank ]
there product years ago that fiasco started a new policy with the DOD.You have to submit your product for testing to a specific research center located in the southwest who (for a major fee) will test your product and pass on results to DOD No one can afford the cost and of course there is no guarantee you will get an order. Some points on long chain chlorinated parrafin technology. Probable still the greatest friction reducing agent however the chain starts to break down and corrosion starts on the metal (Why Duralube like others is out of the friction reducer market)
New subject we had a squad of US Marines test our
guncleaner it outperformed any product they ever used. Our guncleaner (which we never tried to sell ) cleans and lubricates in one pass through the barrel. If anybody out there has the means to publish test results of our gun cleaner against all others contact me and we will discuss senfding you some product.
Last but not least a clean engine with a good oil like AMSOIL or Mobil 1 is going to reduce friction (heat ) just because the oil has clean metal to work on.
[ August 31, 2004, 01:03 PM: Message edited by: Frank ]
salsahh - FRANK is exactly right the cost of DOD testing is ridiculous and until the oil companies step up to the plate why should the additive guys.
Because the aftermarket additive makers want to sell their products to a public that tends to be a little skeptical.
Because the aftermarket additive makers want to sell their products to a public that tends to be a little skeptical.
The FTC agreed to let Duralube sell the balance of there inventory of long chain chlorinated friction reducer. Current formulation not the same chemical make up.
"You have to submit your product for testing to a specific research center located in the southwest who (for a major fee) will test your product and pass on results to DOD No one can afford the cost and of course there is no guarantee you will get an order."
A little clarification is in order here as the above in not correct. The DOD Guidelines identify a series of laboratory and then engine/component tests. They do not specify Southwest Research Institue or any of the other independent laboratories. That is left to whoever wants to have the tests conducted. Now these tests are comprehensive as fuels and engines oils are used in not just administrative vehicles but everything from soup to nuts that includes combat, tactical, engineering, amphibious, etc. With a fleet that mixed and exposed to vastly differing operating conditions, one needs to be sure that whatever is going to be added to already qualified engine oils and the likes, there will be no problem. That is why there is a need to demonstrate that when using aftermarket additive xyz, it doesn't screww thing up. Likewise, the testing has to show that it also IMPROVES whatever it claims to do. The improvement cannot be established by single car tests (much like what some of the posters cite), but documented tests that have controls as well as test vehicles.
Now about the comment that Slick 50 was tested by TACOM, the only product that slipped through was something call ECO KAT Fuel Energizer that some friend of a two-star general convinced the technical director to evaluate. Well it was tested of sorts and came out as a flat zero.
A little clarification is in order here as the above in not correct. The DOD Guidelines identify a series of laboratory and then engine/component tests. They do not specify Southwest Research Institue or any of the other independent laboratories. That is left to whoever wants to have the tests conducted. Now these tests are comprehensive as fuels and engines oils are used in not just administrative vehicles but everything from soup to nuts that includes combat, tactical, engineering, amphibious, etc. With a fleet that mixed and exposed to vastly differing operating conditions, one needs to be sure that whatever is going to be added to already qualified engine oils and the likes, there will be no problem. That is why there is a need to demonstrate that when using aftermarket additive xyz, it doesn't screww thing up. Likewise, the testing has to show that it also IMPROVES whatever it claims to do. The improvement cannot be established by single car tests (much like what some of the posters cite), but documented tests that have controls as well as test vehicles.
Now about the comment that Slick 50 was tested by TACOM, the only product that slipped through was something call ECO KAT Fuel Energizer that some friend of a two-star general convinced the technical director to evaluate. Well it was tested of sorts and came out as a flat zero.
mojo, you are correct but leave out a critically important aspect of the maze of DOD acceptance;
If you are a small undercapitalized company with a great product, it may never be seen due to the cost prohibitive nature of testing,acceptance and hopefully procurement,all being weighted towards the highly captialized legacy corporations.
Products like Auto-RX and LubeControl don't have lots of cash, political or other influence, so being purchased by the mega oil or adds guys is about as good as they can do once they start knocking off a bit of the big guys market. Especially if the technology or chemistry is disruptive to the legacy lube or add companies.
Having controlled independent testing performed for purposes of acceptance is almost totally prohibitive to the likes of Auto-RX, and LubeControl.
Terry
If you are a small undercapitalized company with a great product, it may never be seen due to the cost prohibitive nature of testing,acceptance and hopefully procurement,all being weighted towards the highly captialized legacy corporations.
Products like Auto-RX and LubeControl don't have lots of cash, political or other influence, so being purchased by the mega oil or adds guys is about as good as they can do once they start knocking off a bit of the big guys market. Especially if the technology or chemistry is disruptive to the legacy lube or add companies.
Having controlled independent testing performed for purposes of acceptance is almost totally prohibitive to the likes of Auto-RX, and LubeControl.
Terry
If you are small undercapitalized company, you are the last person the DOD wants to do business with on an item that will get world wide useage. And that is exactly as it should be if your product is a sole source product like most of the magic elixers sold as engine additives.quote:
Originally posted by Terry:
If you are a small undercapitalized company with a great product, it may never be seen due to the cost prohibitive nature of testing,acceptance and hopefully procurement,all being weighted towards the highly captialized legacy corporations.
Terry
The lack of capitol in my experience does not limit the quality,supply or distribution of a particular invention as relates to lubricants or adds.
The ability to pay for possibly millions for open ended testing is what I am speaking to, not the ability to produce and distribute a high quality product.
We are not talking about uniform items here but cutting edge high tech tribological lubes or adds.
XS650, I have seen the system in action and if I was working for say ConocoPhillips they can easily provide the tested product while a better more helpful and effective product made by say LubeControl is totally overlooked or limited when they can't cough up 6 figures for the independent lab screens/verifications.
Totally biased towards the big Kanhuna.
Terry
The ability to pay for possibly millions for open ended testing is what I am speaking to, not the ability to produce and distribute a high quality product.
We are not talking about uniform items here but cutting edge high tech tribological lubes or adds.
XS650, I have seen the system in action and if I was working for say ConocoPhillips they can easily provide the tested product while a better more helpful and effective product made by say LubeControl is totally overlooked or limited when they can't cough up 6 figures for the independent lab screens/verifications.
Totally biased towards the big Kanhuna.
Terry
The biggest difficulty is convincing the DOD to use a sole source product that isn't absolutly necessary. They are hard wired to avoid that wherever posssible.quote:
Originally posted by Terry:
The lack of capitol in my experience does not limit the quality,supply or distribution of a particular invention as relates to lubricants or adds.
The ability to pay for possibly millions for open ended testing is what I am speaking to, not the ability to produce and distribute a high quality product.
We are not talking about uniform items here but cutting edge high tech tribological lubes or adds.
Terry
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 36
- Views
- 16K
- Replies
- 2
- Views
- 908
- Replies
- 51
- Views
- 20K
- Replies
- 0
- Views
- 2K