My engine was not sludged, so I saw no clogged filters, and no visible cleaning of the varnish under my valve cover that only existed on the heads of the head bolts. What I did get was a dramatic increase in fuel economy, less fuel in my oil, and an engine that simply runs better. That's all the evidence that I need that Auto RX works. The piston ring cleaning is the most important thing that Auto RX can do as far as I'm concerned.
Mobil 1 better cleaner than AutoRx?
- Thread starter buster
- Start date
- Status
The vulcan 3.0 test would indicate that M1 did not help free up stuck rings after 3 or so OCI's. ARX made a marked improvement in 1000 miles.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: Rick20
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.
Really? Because I have evidence to the contrary. M1 5w20 was doing some very noticeable cleaning on my 5.4L.
Of course a UOA isn't going to tell you SFA about how much cleaning an oil or additive is or is not doing, but people seem to love to draw all kinds of fantastic conclusions based on results in variances in the SINGLE DIGITS on samples which are read in PARTS PER MILLION.
Taking things apart is the only REAL way to know how much cleaning is being done. Whether this is a complete tear-down, or simply a valve cover or oil pan removal, the desired result is the same: To actually SEE the insides of the engine to gauge what is going on.
I've posted the inside of my valve covers from my 302. I've had that engine apart right down to the pan to swap the cam out on it twice already. It is as clean throughout as those pictures convey. It has NEVER had AutoRX. It HAS had 100,000Km of Mobil 1 though (various grades) and it also has 300,000Km on it.
In my EXPERIENCE, M1 does do some cleaning. I posted pictures earlier, take a look and tell me if you think I'm hallucinating.
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.
Really? Because I have evidence to the contrary. M1 5w20 was doing some very noticeable cleaning on my 5.4L.
Of course a UOA isn't going to tell you SFA about how much cleaning an oil or additive is or is not doing, but people seem to love to draw all kinds of fantastic conclusions based on results in variances in the SINGLE DIGITS on samples which are read in PARTS PER MILLION.
Taking things apart is the only REAL way to know how much cleaning is being done. Whether this is a complete tear-down, or simply a valve cover or oil pan removal, the desired result is the same: To actually SEE the insides of the engine to gauge what is going on.
I've posted the inside of my valve covers from my 302. I've had that engine apart right down to the pan to swap the cam out on it twice already. It is as clean throughout as those pictures convey. It has NEVER had AutoRX. It HAS had 100,000Km of Mobil 1 though (various grades) and it also has 300,000Km on it.
In my EXPERIENCE, M1 does do some cleaning. I posted pictures earlier, take a look and tell me if you think I'm hallucinating.
What vehicles did the twenty engines come from? Were they yours? Please tell the exact engine x 20, the oil used x 20, mileage ran x 20. 2,500 miles minimum per vehicle x 20 means you have a big family or you spent 50,000 miles in 20 vehicles for RX cleaning? Geez do you have a job? Maybe they were other peoples engines? So you pulled 20 engines from other RX users cars? At your expense or theirs, if theirs you have very rich friends. Were any of them BITOG members, strange if not that you found 20 non BITOG members using RX before them even aalowing you to strip down their engines. Where was all this work done, your backyard maybe? Data please as this doesn't add up imo and I'm not the only one who has spotted it.
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Really? Because I have evidence to the contrary. M1 5w20 was doing some very noticeable cleaning on my 5.4L.
But where did all that gunk come from? I doubt it was from the piston rings.
Really? Because I have evidence to the contrary. M1 5w20 was doing some very noticeable cleaning on my 5.4L.
But where did all that gunk come from? I doubt it was from the piston rings.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: chevrofreak
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Really? Because I have evidence to the contrary. M1 5w20 was doing some very noticeable cleaning on my 5.4L.
But where did all that gunk come from? I doubt it was from the piston rings.
It appears to be hard carbon, so the only place I can possibly think it came from was in fact the piston rings.
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Really? Because I have evidence to the contrary. M1 5w20 was doing some very noticeable cleaning on my 5.4L.
But where did all that gunk come from? I doubt it was from the piston rings.
It appears to be hard carbon, so the only place I can possibly think it came from was in fact the piston rings.
I just can't see chunks like that making it past the pistons.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: chevrofreak
I just can't see chunks like that making it past the pistons.
I'm thinking it clumped up when it hit the filter; the actual particles are quite small.
I just can't see chunks like that making it past the pistons.
I'm thinking it clumped up when it hit the filter; the actual particles are quite small.
Originally Posted By: Rick20
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.
It's more than just PAO. Mobil 1 contains various Group V oils. Some are esters and some are AN's. No one other than the XOM knows the exact base oil breakdown.
It doesn't take much ester to add good solvency to a PAO based oil. Diesters which amsoil uses, have very good solvency. It's also the job of the detergent/dispersant package that helps keeps an engine clean.
I'm curious as to what would clean better: PP/M1/RL/Amsoil etc. or AutoRx
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.
It's more than just PAO. Mobil 1 contains various Group V oils. Some are esters and some are AN's. No one other than the XOM knows the exact base oil breakdown.
It doesn't take much ester to add good solvency to a PAO based oil. Diesters which amsoil uses, have very good solvency. It's also the job of the detergent/dispersant package that helps keeps an engine clean.
I'm curious as to what would clean better: PP/M1/RL/Amsoil etc. or AutoRx
Originally Posted By: sprintman
What vehicles did the twenty engines come from? Were they yours? Please tell the exact engine x 20, the oil used x 20, mileage ran x 20. 2,500 miles minimum per vehicle x 20 means you have a big family or you spent 50,000 miles in 20 vehicles for RX cleaning? Geez do you have a job? Maybe they were other peoples engines? So you pulled 20 engines from other RX users cars? At your expense or theirs, if theirs you have very rich friends. Were any of them BITOG members, strange if not that you found 20 non BITOG members using RX before them even aalowing you to strip down their engines. Where was all this work done, your backyard maybe? Data please as this doesn't add up imo and I'm not the only one who has spotted it.
No you're not the only one but he'll just keep ignoring you until we stop questioning it...
It's only his internet integrity...
What vehicles did the twenty engines come from? Were they yours? Please tell the exact engine x 20, the oil used x 20, mileage ran x 20. 2,500 miles minimum per vehicle x 20 means you have a big family or you spent 50,000 miles in 20 vehicles for RX cleaning? Geez do you have a job? Maybe they were other peoples engines? So you pulled 20 engines from other RX users cars? At your expense or theirs, if theirs you have very rich friends. Were any of them BITOG members, strange if not that you found 20 non BITOG members using RX before them even aalowing you to strip down their engines. Where was all this work done, your backyard maybe? Data please as this doesn't add up imo and I'm not the only one who has spotted it.
No you're not the only one but he'll just keep ignoring you until we stop questioning it...
It's only his internet integrity...
Originally Posted By: buster
I'm curious as to what would clean better: PP/M1/RL/Amsoil etc. or AutoRx
The mixture in my sump right now has a lot of cleaning ability. It's a mixture of PP, Auto RX and Mobil 1 10W-30 HM.
I'm curious as to what would clean better: PP/M1/RL/Amsoil etc. or AutoRx
The mixture in my sump right now has a lot of cleaning ability. It's a mixture of PP, Auto RX and Mobil 1 10W-30 HM.
Originally Posted By: SL8R
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
Kinda, I had used A-Rx in engines that we would use a scope with a tiny camera hich is used to diagnose the problem if any. When we found engines with sludge issues, we would use A-Rx and follow the direction per website and then either use the scope again or tore down the engine to see the results. We would then use Seafoam we would scope it again and if there was visible difference we would not tear down the engine. I am hardly at the shop as I have a full time job but the mechanics that work there have always used Seafoam. Being stubborn and have had heard great things about A-Rx and equally bad things about Seafoam I didn't want to use it because with any profession you have to be carful with litigation and legal issues. Well using A-Rx atleast 20 or more times and with poor results my mechanics talked me into carrying Seafoam and we have not looked back. See the reason why people are afraid of Seafoam is because when you first put it in the crankcase and fuel, there is visible white/black smoke that billows out of the exhaust and you have to be carful because if there is a cop there he can actually impound your vehicle(it has happened to us a few times)and people automatically think that lots of smoke from the exhaust is a bad thing, but if its due to Seafoam it means its WORKING. I definately am a believer of the product and its let us down maybe 9-10 times since 2003. Just my opinion.
Deven
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
Kinda, I had used A-Rx in engines that we would use a scope with a tiny camera hich is used to diagnose the problem if any. When we found engines with sludge issues, we would use A-Rx and follow the direction per website and then either use the scope again or tore down the engine to see the results. We would then use Seafoam we would scope it again and if there was visible difference we would not tear down the engine. I am hardly at the shop as I have a full time job but the mechanics that work there have always used Seafoam. Being stubborn and have had heard great things about A-Rx and equally bad things about Seafoam I didn't want to use it because with any profession you have to be carful with litigation and legal issues. Well using A-Rx atleast 20 or more times and with poor results my mechanics talked me into carrying Seafoam and we have not looked back. See the reason why people are afraid of Seafoam is because when you first put it in the crankcase and fuel, there is visible white/black smoke that billows out of the exhaust and you have to be carful because if there is a cop there he can actually impound your vehicle(it has happened to us a few times)and people automatically think that lots of smoke from the exhaust is a bad thing, but if its due to Seafoam it means its WORKING. I definately am a believer of the product and its let us down maybe 9-10 times since 2003. Just my opinion.
Deven
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
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?
Yes I did see your pics. My response was geared towards Buster's comment. There is quite a bit of evidence that ARX works(pictures such as yours). BTW, your pics are impressive, if you like M1, then no need to change.
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?
Yes I did see your pics. My response was geared towards Buster's comment. There is quite a bit of evidence that ARX works(pictures such as yours). BTW, your pics are impressive, if you like M1, then no need to change.
Originally Posted By: deven
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
20 engines? All poor results?
Makes me wonder how people get results, such as the one on ARX's main page
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
20 engines? All poor results?
Makes me wonder how people get results, such as the one on ARX's main page
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: panthermike
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
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?
Yes I did see your pics. My response was geared towards Buster's comment. There is quite a bit of evidence that ARX works(pictures such as yours). BTW, your pics are impressive, if you like M1, then no need to change.
Good, wasn't sure you had. Yes, M1 has been working well for me since the 90's.
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
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?
Yes I did see your pics. My response was geared towards Buster's comment. There is quite a bit of evidence that ARX works(pictures such as yours). BTW, your pics are impressive, if you like M1, then no need to change.
Good, wasn't sure you had. Yes, M1 has been working well for me since the 90's.
Gone from 20 engines to 1 engine? This guy has dug himself a bigger hole than the one in Pablo's back yard that contained 'the rock'. In fact the hole is bigger than the crater hole in Arizona. Some people just don't realise BITOG isn't a bunch of dumb [censored], but people with real brains and a modicum of intelligence. Best to give up now before making a bigger idiot of yourself than you have already. Good for a laugh though.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
I had to take a double take at that myself.
Is this something like "he's my 57th cousin"?
Is this something like "he's my 57th cousin"?
I bought two bottles of AutoRx that's all it took to prove to me that it is effective. 20 bottles? $400+?? Sounds a bit fishy to me.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
