I get great results with RX every time but I'm very specific about the oil I use, and run it much longer than instructions. Fer instance next BMW run will be 8,000 kms. Sure works for me.
Mobil 1 better cleaner than AutoRx?
- Thread starter buster
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: buster
deven, I realize that but the point I'm making is it appears some oils that have great solvency like M1 will clean if used repeatedly.
AutoRx seems like a mixed bag. IMO.
I was just busting on you buster! I totally agree with you about Mobil 1. I am probably the biggest critic of Auto-RX. Lets put it this way I would use Seafoam before A-Rx.
deven, I realize that but the point I'm making is it appears some oils that have great solvency like M1 will clean if used repeatedly.
AutoRx seems like a mixed bag. IMO.
I was just busting on you buster! I totally agree with you about Mobil 1. I am probably the biggest critic of Auto-RX. Lets put it this way I would use Seafoam before A-Rx.
devern
a) what oil did you use with RX
b) How long did you run it?
c) what criteria did you use to ascertain what it did, and no looking under the valve cover doesn't count?
a) what oil did you use with RX
b) How long did you run it?
c) what criteria did you use to ascertain what it did, and no looking under the valve cover doesn't count?
Originally Posted By: deven
Originally Posted By: buster
deven, I realize that but the point I'm making is it appears some oils that have great solvency like M1 will clean if used repeatedly.
AutoRx seems like a mixed bag. IMO.
I was just busting on you buster! I totally agree with you about Mobil 1. I am probably the biggest critic of Auto-RX. Lets put it this way I would use Seafoam before A-Rx.
Seafoam? Good luck with that. I prefer ARX over all, but would use MMO before I put Seafoam in the sump.
As for the fill hole, ARX actually did clean up that area on the Corolla, after two treatments. I was surprised since it's a splash fed area. The car also runs much better. It seems the only way to see if it "truly" removed anything, is to remove the valve cover and do a compression(before/after). But for the average consumer like me, the way the car runs is satisfying enough. The cleaning of the splash fed area was a bonus.
Originally Posted By: buster
deven, I realize that but the point I'm making is it appears some oils that have great solvency like M1 will clean if used repeatedly.
AutoRx seems like a mixed bag. IMO.
I was just busting on you buster! I totally agree with you about Mobil 1. I am probably the biggest critic of Auto-RX. Lets put it this way I would use Seafoam before A-Rx.
Seafoam? Good luck with that. I prefer ARX over all, but would use MMO before I put Seafoam in the sump.
As for the fill hole, ARX actually did clean up that area on the Corolla, after two treatments. I was surprised since it's a splash fed area. The car also runs much better. It seems the only way to see if it "truly" removed anything, is to remove the valve cover and do a compression(before/after). But for the average consumer like me, the way the car runs is satisfying enough. The cleaning of the splash fed area was a bonus.
I believe that changing chemistries in difficult to clean engines is a good thing. Maybe the use of a good oil known for its cleaning abilities or a treatment of A-Rx followed up by something like LC20, CD2, MMO or some other additive will get an engine nice and clean. It is possible that a different chemistry is better at cleaning varnish for example than something else.
Years ago I painted during the summer months, and did some paint removal. Certain removers were good at getting 90% of the paint off, then we had to change to another remover to get the remaining paint off. It could be the same thing with cleaning up an engine. Sludge vs hard carbon, vs varnish, might all need to be treated in different ways???? Thinking out loud.
AD
Years ago I painted during the summer months, and did some paint removal. Certain removers were good at getting 90% of the paint off, then we had to change to another remover to get the remaining paint off. It could be the same thing with cleaning up an engine. Sludge vs hard carbon, vs varnish, might all need to be treated in different ways???? Thinking out loud.
AD
Originally Posted By: deven
Originally Posted By: buster
deven, I realize that but the point I'm making is it appears some oils that have great solvency like M1 will clean if used repeatedly.
AutoRx seems like a mixed bag. IMO.
I was just busting on you buster! I totally agree with you about Mobil 1. I am probably the biggest critic of Auto-RX. Lets put it this way I would use Seafoam before A-Rx.
Oh.
Originally Posted By: buster
deven, I realize that but the point I'm making is it appears some oils that have great solvency like M1 will clean if used repeatedly.
AutoRx seems like a mixed bag. IMO.
I was just busting on you buster! I totally agree with you about Mobil 1. I am probably the biggest critic of Auto-RX. Lets put it this way I would use Seafoam before A-Rx.
Oh.
Originally Posted By: Dyoel182
Originally Posted By: buster
AutoRx seems like a mixed bag. IMO.
In what way? We know its a great cleaner but not every engine really needs it and not everyone will pay $20 a bottle to see if it makes a difference.
I'm not really convinced it's that great of a cleaner. It seems to work ok for some people, but not others.
Originally Posted By: buster
AutoRx seems like a mixed bag. IMO.
In what way? We know its a great cleaner but not every engine really needs it and not everyone will pay $20 a bottle to see if it makes a difference.
I'm not really convinced it's that great of a cleaner. It seems to work ok for some people, but not others.
Originally Posted By: buster
Originally Posted By: Dyoel182
Originally Posted By: buster
AutoRx seems like a mixed bag. IMO.
In what way? We know its a great cleaner but not every engine really needs it and not everyone will pay $20 a bottle to see if it makes a difference.
I'm not really convinced it's that great of a cleaner. It seems to work ok for some people, but not others.
I think that we need to come up with a definition for "work". Some people post that "Auto-RX worked great!", while others state that "Auto-RX didn't work at all!". If the people claiming the former have a different criteria against which they are gauging the efficacy of ARX than that which the latter group are using, then the two could be seeing the exact same results and reaching vastly different conclusions as to whether or not it "worked".
For my part, I recall seeing posts where those that have been satsified with the ARX have posted before and after compression numbers, which seems to be the only objective way to measure whether or not ARX "worked".
From those that have concluded that ARX did nothing, I've only seen photos of oil fill holes (that at best are only reached by oil vapors)that remain sludged after an ARX cycle, and post-treatment filters that, due to their lack of sludge deposits, are submitted as evidence that ARX didn't do anything.
If there are any posts out there with objective measures of ARX failing to do anything, please point them out, because in their absence, and in the presence of posts with success stories of ARX increasing and/or equalizing inter-cylinder compression test results, the only conclusion that I can reach is that people that didn't see any results had no measurable sludge to begin with.
Just my 2 cents.
J
Originally Posted By: Dyoel182
Originally Posted By: buster
AutoRx seems like a mixed bag. IMO.
In what way? We know its a great cleaner but not every engine really needs it and not everyone will pay $20 a bottle to see if it makes a difference.
I'm not really convinced it's that great of a cleaner. It seems to work ok for some people, but not others.
I think that we need to come up with a definition for "work". Some people post that "Auto-RX worked great!", while others state that "Auto-RX didn't work at all!". If the people claiming the former have a different criteria against which they are gauging the efficacy of ARX than that which the latter group are using, then the two could be seeing the exact same results and reaching vastly different conclusions as to whether or not it "worked".
For my part, I recall seeing posts where those that have been satsified with the ARX have posted before and after compression numbers, which seems to be the only objective way to measure whether or not ARX "worked".
From those that have concluded that ARX did nothing, I've only seen photos of oil fill holes (that at best are only reached by oil vapors)that remain sludged after an ARX cycle, and post-treatment filters that, due to their lack of sludge deposits, are submitted as evidence that ARX didn't do anything.
If there are any posts out there with objective measures of ARX failing to do anything, please point them out, because in their absence, and in the presence of posts with success stories of ARX increasing and/or equalizing inter-cylinder compression test results, the only conclusion that I can reach is that people that didn't see any results had no measurable sludge to begin with.
Just my 2 cents.
J
Originally Posted By: SL8R
Originally Posted By: buster
Originally Posted By: Dyoel182
Originally Posted By: buster
AutoRx seems like a mixed bag. IMO.
In what way? We know its a great cleaner but not every engine really needs it and not everyone will pay $20 a bottle to see if it makes a difference.
I'm not really convinced it's that great of a cleaner. It seems to work ok for some people, but not others.
I think that we need to come up with a definition for "work". Some people post that "Auto-RX worked great!", while others state that "Auto-RX didn't work at all!". If the people claiming the former have a different criteria against which they are gauging the efficacy of ARX than that which the latter group are using, then the two could be seeing the exact same results and reaching vastly different conclusions as to whether or not it "worked".
For my part, I recall seeing posts where those that have been satsified with the ARX have posted before and after compression numbers, which seems to be the only objective way to measure whether or not ARX "worked".
From those that have concluded that ARX did nothing, I've only seen photos of oil fill holes (that at best are only reached by oil vapors)that remain sludged after an ARX cycle, and post-treatment filters that, due to their lack of sludge deposits, are submitted as evidence that ARX didn't do anything.
If there are any posts out there with objective measures of ARX failing to do anything, please point them out, because in their absence, and in the presence of posts with success stories of ARX increasing and/or equalizing inter-cylinder compression test results, the only conclusion that I can reach is that people that didn't see any results had no measurable sludge to begin with.
Just my 2 cents.
J
Well said.
Maybe someone should do compression testing of an engine, then again, after some Mobil 1 runs. I'm not convinced that M1 is a good cleaner, perhaps this could change my mind.
Originally Posted By: buster
Originally Posted By: Dyoel182
Originally Posted By: buster
AutoRx seems like a mixed bag. IMO.
In what way? We know its a great cleaner but not every engine really needs it and not everyone will pay $20 a bottle to see if it makes a difference.
I'm not really convinced it's that great of a cleaner. It seems to work ok for some people, but not others.
I think that we need to come up with a definition for "work". Some people post that "Auto-RX worked great!", while others state that "Auto-RX didn't work at all!". If the people claiming the former have a different criteria against which they are gauging the efficacy of ARX than that which the latter group are using, then the two could be seeing the exact same results and reaching vastly different conclusions as to whether or not it "worked".
For my part, I recall seeing posts where those that have been satsified with the ARX have posted before and after compression numbers, which seems to be the only objective way to measure whether or not ARX "worked".
From those that have concluded that ARX did nothing, I've only seen photos of oil fill holes (that at best are only reached by oil vapors)that remain sludged after an ARX cycle, and post-treatment filters that, due to their lack of sludge deposits, are submitted as evidence that ARX didn't do anything.
If there are any posts out there with objective measures of ARX failing to do anything, please point them out, because in their absence, and in the presence of posts with success stories of ARX increasing and/or equalizing inter-cylinder compression test results, the only conclusion that I can reach is that people that didn't see any results had no measurable sludge to begin with.
Just my 2 cents.
J
Well said.
Maybe someone should do compression testing of an engine, then again, after some Mobil 1 runs. I'm not convinced that M1 is a good cleaner, perhaps this could change my mind.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: panthermike
Originally Posted By: SL8R
Originally Posted By: buster
Originally Posted By: Dyoel182
Originally Posted By: buster
AutoRx seems like a mixed bag. IMO.
In what way? We know its a great cleaner but not every engine really needs it and not everyone will pay $20 a bottle to see if it makes a difference.
I'm not really convinced it's that great of a cleaner. It seems to work ok for some people, but not others.
I think that we need to come up with a definition for "work". Some people post that "Auto-RX worked great!", while others state that "Auto-RX didn't work at all!". If the people claiming the former have a different criteria against which they are gauging the efficacy of ARX than that which the latter group are using, then the two could be seeing the exact same results and reaching vastly different conclusions as to whether or not it "worked".
For my part, I recall seeing posts where those that have been satsified with the ARX have posted before and after compression numbers, which seems to be the only objective way to measure whether or not ARX "worked".
From those that have concluded that ARX did nothing, I've only seen photos of oil fill holes (that at best are only reached by oil vapors)that remain sludged after an ARX cycle, and post-treatment filters that, due to their lack of sludge deposits, are submitted as evidence that ARX didn't do anything.
If there are any posts out there with objective measures of ARX failing to do anything, please point them out, because in their absence, and in the presence of posts with success stories of ARX increasing and/or equalizing inter-cylinder compression test results, the only conclusion that I can reach is that people that didn't see any results had no measurable sludge to begin with.
Just my 2 cents.
J
Well said.
Maybe someone should do compression testing of an engine, then again, after some Mobil 1 runs. I'm not convinced that M1 is a good cleaner, perhaps this could change my mind.
You saw my pictures right?
Originally Posted By: SL8R
Originally Posted By: buster
Originally Posted By: Dyoel182
Originally Posted By: buster
AutoRx seems like a mixed bag. IMO.
In what way? We know its a great cleaner but not every engine really needs it and not everyone will pay $20 a bottle to see if it makes a difference.
I'm not really convinced it's that great of a cleaner. It seems to work ok for some people, but not others.
I think that we need to come up with a definition for "work". Some people post that "Auto-RX worked great!", while others state that "Auto-RX didn't work at all!". If the people claiming the former have a different criteria against which they are gauging the efficacy of ARX than that which the latter group are using, then the two could be seeing the exact same results and reaching vastly different conclusions as to whether or not it "worked".
For my part, I recall seeing posts where those that have been satsified with the ARX have posted before and after compression numbers, which seems to be the only objective way to measure whether or not ARX "worked".
From those that have concluded that ARX did nothing, I've only seen photos of oil fill holes (that at best are only reached by oil vapors)that remain sludged after an ARX cycle, and post-treatment filters that, due to their lack of sludge deposits, are submitted as evidence that ARX didn't do anything.
If there are any posts out there with objective measures of ARX failing to do anything, please point them out, because in their absence, and in the presence of posts with success stories of ARX increasing and/or equalizing inter-cylinder compression test results, the only conclusion that I can reach is that people that didn't see any results had no measurable sludge to begin with.
Just my 2 cents.
J
Well said.
Maybe someone should do compression testing of an engine, then again, after some Mobil 1 runs. I'm not convinced that M1 is a good cleaner, perhaps this could change my mind.
You saw my pictures right?
Originally Posted By: sprintman
devern
a) what oil did you use with RX
b) How long did you run it?
c) what criteria did you use to ascertain what it did, and no looking under the valve cover doesn't count?
I have probably tore down atleast 20 engines after an Auto-Rx run per instructions on their website. After engine after engine showed very minimal cleaning and no change in varnish I went back to Seafoam and there was a dramatic change in the same engines that I had Auto-Rx'ed. I urge you to do the same and you will be sold on seafoam plus its a heck of a lot cheaper then Auto-Rx. Auto-Rx is a waste of money. I believe my eyes more than I believe word of mouth testimonials(I was one of them before I wised up). YMMV
devern
a) what oil did you use with RX
b) How long did you run it?
c) what criteria did you use to ascertain what it did, and no looking under the valve cover doesn't count?
I have probably tore down atleast 20 engines after an Auto-Rx run per instructions on their website. After engine after engine showed very minimal cleaning and no change in varnish I went back to Seafoam and there was a dramatic change in the same engines that I had Auto-Rx'ed. I urge you to do the same and you will be sold on seafoam plus its a heck of a lot cheaper then Auto-Rx. Auto-Rx is a waste of money. I believe my eyes more than I believe word of mouth testimonials(I was one of them before I wised up). YMMV
Originally Posted By: panthermike
Originally Posted By: deven
Originally Posted By: buster
deven, I realize that but the point I'm making is it appears some oils that have great solvency like M1 will clean if used repeatedly.
AutoRx seems like a mixed bag. IMO.
I was just busting on you buster! I totally agree with you about Mobil 1. I am probably the biggest critic of Auto-RX. Lets put it this way I would use Seafoam before A-Rx.
Seafoam? Good luck with that. I prefer ARX over all, but would use MMO before I put Seafoam in the sump.
As for the fill hole, ARX actually did clean up that area on the Corolla, after two treatments. I was surprised since it's a splash fed area. The car also runs much better. It seems the only way to see if it "truly" removed anything, is to remove the valve cover and do a compression(before/after). But for the average consumer like me, the way the car runs is satisfying enough. The cleaning of the splash fed area was a bonus.
MMO is also a great product but I prefer Seafoam. 1/2 bottle in the crankcase and 1/2 bottle in the Fuel and my customers and my eyes are testimonials enough. I dont need a forum to change my mind.
Originally Posted By: deven
Originally Posted By: buster
deven, I realize that but the point I'm making is it appears some oils that have great solvency like M1 will clean if used repeatedly.
AutoRx seems like a mixed bag. IMO.
I was just busting on you buster! I totally agree with you about Mobil 1. I am probably the biggest critic of Auto-RX. Lets put it this way I would use Seafoam before A-Rx.
Seafoam? Good luck with that. I prefer ARX over all, but would use MMO before I put Seafoam in the sump.
As for the fill hole, ARX actually did clean up that area on the Corolla, after two treatments. I was surprised since it's a splash fed area. The car also runs much better. It seems the only way to see if it "truly" removed anything, is to remove the valve cover and do a compression(before/after). But for the average consumer like me, the way the car runs is satisfying enough. The cleaning of the splash fed area was a bonus.
MMO is also a great product but I prefer Seafoam. 1/2 bottle in the crankcase and 1/2 bottle in the Fuel and my customers and my eyes are testimonials enough. I dont need a forum to change my mind.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: deven
I have probably tore down atleast 20 engines after an Auto-Rx run per instructions on their website. After engine after engine showed very minimal cleaning and no change in varnish I went back to Seafoam and there was a dramatic change in the same engines that I had Auto-Rx'ed. I urge you to do the same and you will be sold on seafoam plus its a heck of a lot cheaper then Auto-Rx. Auto-Rx is a waste of money. I believe my eyes more than I believe word of mouth testimonials(I was one of them before I wised up). YMMV
You're urging us to tear down our engines because you're worried about varnish? Seafoam is a pretty nasty solvent and I wouldnt put that in my oil for any length of time just like I wouldnt put B12 or any other solvent flush in the oil.
From personal experience I've seen ARX decrease oil usage, decrease oil leaking and increase compression in two of my high mileage cars after Valvoline Maxlife failed to change a thing. I still believe in it and am using it right now in an engine that had M1 from the factory and all of its life.
I have probably tore down atleast 20 engines after an Auto-Rx run per instructions on their website. After engine after engine showed very minimal cleaning and no change in varnish I went back to Seafoam and there was a dramatic change in the same engines that I had Auto-Rx'ed. I urge you to do the same and you will be sold on seafoam plus its a heck of a lot cheaper then Auto-Rx. Auto-Rx is a waste of money. I believe my eyes more than I believe word of mouth testimonials(I was one of them before I wised up). YMMV
You're urging us to tear down our engines because you're worried about varnish? Seafoam is a pretty nasty solvent and I wouldnt put that in my oil for any length of time just like I wouldnt put B12 or any other solvent flush in the oil.
From personal experience I've seen ARX decrease oil usage, decrease oil leaking and increase compression in two of my high mileage cars after Valvoline Maxlife failed to change a thing. I still believe in it and am using it right now in an engine that had M1 from the factory and all of its life.
Just to clarify, you:
a) tore down an engine that had been through an ARX cycle per the instructions on the ARX website and saw that little cleaning had taken place;
b) re-assembled the engine and ran a can of seafoam through the crankcase;
c) re-tore down the engine and saw that the seafoam had cleaned up what the ARX had not.
Is the foregoing correct? What were the reasons for the second tear down? Was it only to test the efficacy of the seafoam?
Thank you for your input in this thread!
Cheers,
J
a) tore down an engine that had been through an ARX cycle per the instructions on the ARX website and saw that little cleaning had taken place;
b) re-assembled the engine and ran a can of seafoam through the crankcase;
c) re-tore down the engine and saw that the seafoam had cleaned up what the ARX had not.
Is the foregoing correct? What were the reasons for the second tear down? Was it only to test the efficacy of the seafoam?
Thank you for your input in this thread!
Cheers,
J
I have mostly read of Auto-Rx cleaning up after mobil 1. The string from dnewton3 on the Vulcan 3.0 comes to mind. I have nothing bad to say about M1, but a great cleaner, I think not.
Of coarse M1 beying a PAO oil does not lend itself to work in cleaning and rinsing with ARX very well. However all, UOA that I have seen with a maintennace dose in M! showed better results than the M1 alone. You go figure.
Of coarse M1 beying a PAO oil does not lend itself to work in cleaning and rinsing with ARX very well. However all, UOA that I have seen with a maintennace dose in M! showed better results than the M1 alone. You go figure.
deven you didn't answer my question.
Let me understand you here, you used 20 bottles of Auto-Rx in 20 different engines and tore them down one by one and never saw any lessening of varnish? Yet after the first several you just kept going? First of all, a little varnish never hurt anything and just amounts to oil vapors getting stuck on clean metal. If you are worried only about varnish, then Seafoam is probably your friend. Then again, I would would not put Seafoam in my crankcase because of varnish. I can say firsthand that I know Auto-Rx works as advertised for me and my customers, improving compression and power and fuel economy in engines that had Mobil 1 steady diet as well as conventional oils. I have receipts for the cases of Auto-rx I have bought over the years. Do you have receipts for those 20 bottles? Just curious as to why you did not ask for your money back for all of those if they did not work as you expected?
There has been testing done with Auto-Rx in engines that had used oils like Amsoil. Some of this testing was done by Terry Dyson and showed that the Auto-Rx cleaned up some stuff that a regular dose of high quality synthetic had left behind. Of course, UOA was the main thing that was used to quantify results, not pulling off the valve covers and looking at varnish.
I'm not saying that Seafoam or MMO will not do some cleaning, but I take issue with those who are saying ARX really does not work when I have seen firsthand that it does.
There has been testing done with Auto-Rx in engines that had used oils like Amsoil. Some of this testing was done by Terry Dyson and showed that the Auto-Rx cleaned up some stuff that a regular dose of high quality synthetic had left behind. Of course, UOA was the main thing that was used to quantify results, not pulling off the valve covers and looking at varnish.
I'm not saying that Seafoam or MMO will not do some cleaning, but I take issue with those who are saying ARX really does not work when I have seen firsthand that it does.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
