Oil consumption cut in half after 'solvent' flush?

[va3ux]

Maybe I'm jumpin' the gun here but I thought I'd report it. It's a bit long but I like to provide complete information.

At the last oil change (Dec 30th) I did something I'd never done before : I tried a solvent-type engine flush. Two of them actually. Since then, my oil consumption has dropped 50%, and there's no question about it.

I bought this car (2001 Intrepid with 2.7L V6) 5 years ago with 50K miles on it. It's now approaching 208K. I've done nearly 60 oil changes on this thing. I track oil and gas consumption constantly. When I got the car, it used just about 3/4 quart per 3K miles. This has gradually increased to 1 quart per 3K miles EXCEPT when I use Amsoil 0W30 or Mobil 1 HM 10W30 - in which case the oil consumption increases to 1 quart every 2400 miles. If I switch back to straight dino, like I did during the previous oil change, consumption drops back down to about a quart per 3K miles. Don't ask me why - I don't have any answers. It isn't leakage related, I can tell you that much.

I've done three (3) full ARX cycles on this engine, starting in 2006; ARX #2 and #3 clean & rinse phases were extended to 3K miles each based on my own observations, long before Frank came out with similar recommendations recently. I never did find any real significant deposits or sludge in any of the filters, although there certainly were small amounts (crumbs) at times. But, neither oil consumption or compression changed during this year-long process of 3 ARX cleanings. What I'm establishing here is that I basically had a reasonably clean and mechanically sound engine probably before I ever used ARX, and still did when I tried the solvent flushes 3 weeks ago. So I wasn't worried about sloughing large quantities of deposit and pluggin oil passages.

The previous oil change was a run of Pennzoil 5W30 - my annual run of plain dino just to promote removal of any deposits that maintenance doses of ARX might have loosened during the previous year. Before I changed it out, I ran some solvent type engine flush ('Revive' - made in Canada). Instead of running it for the measly 5 minutes called for on the can, I idled it for about 15 min until it was up to temp. I let it cool for an hour, then did another 15 minutes idling. Then repeated that again. This was to increase the contact time to improve any cleaning activity (if there was any). I then drained it, filled with plain cheap Esso dino and a new filter and ran that for a day as a post-flush flush (about 100 miles). Then, since I had a part can of Seafoam sitting around, I added that to crankcase according to the instructions. I ran that for a few days (another 200 miles), dumped all that, drained the filter, then did one more one-week flush with more virgin Esso 5W30. Finally, I drained it, added 5.5 quarts of Amsoil TSO 0W30 and a new filter, and I'm all set for the cold months ahead. That was on Dec 30th.

As of today (Jan 25th), I've put 3200 miles on the new oil, and I've used just under 1/2 quart of make-up oil ! The last time I used Amsoil TSO, 1/2 quart was getting used every 1200 miles !! Same for Mobil 1 HM 10W30. This is the first time in 5 years - the entire time I've owned the car - that the oil consumption has ever been that low. And it's not just a little bit lower, it's been cut in half. The Amsoil TSO is all the same batch; I bought 40 quarts of it last year all at the same time (real good sale).

Anyhow, for what it's worth, those are the results of my latest 'experiment'. The much maligned solvent type flush appears to have done far more than the BITOG-approved-favorite product ever did - in this particular engine.

 

[MolaKule]

Could it be (just a theory) that the solvent left behind thinned your oil to the point of a 0W20????

 

[va3ux]

There is no solvent left behind. The whole solvent thing was chased with virgin 5W30 for a couple hundred miles, then dumped before the TSO was put in. Any solvent left behind after the straight oil flush would be in the tenths of a % range (or less) - not enough to have a measureable impact on viscosity. And considering the low boiling points of the flush-components, I'm not sure that there was any residual remaining at all after a couple hundred miles.

How would the theoretical (and thinner) 0W20 result in lower oil consumption rate than 0W30? I'm not sure I follow you here.

 

[Audi Junkie]

Piston soak, top oil and/or any combustion chamber cleaner will improve consumption too. Maybe you were leaking some oil previously and it stopped up or even AMSoil improved their formula???

 

[va3ux]

Originally Posted By: Audi Junkie
Maybe you were leaking some oil previously and it stopped up or even AMSoil improved their formula???


Well, no change in leakage patterns around the engine. There never were any driveway drips at all so that hasn't changed. Amsoil is the same batch. The stuff I used a year ago that gave me high consumption is from the same batch number that I'm using now (with low consumption). So it isn't difference in oil characteristics.

The only hypothesis I can draw at this point is that these solvent flushes cleaned and partially free'd up the oil control rings.

 

[Rick20]

Perhaps the solvent vapors were useful in cleaning up the crankcase breathing apparatus on this car.

I find itr highly unlikely that 3 applications of ARX didn't have those ring pack fully operational. The typical solvent flushes aren't particularly great at freeing up rings in my estimation. It is more likely that just find the easiest route of entry through the ring circumference during a soak, rather than clean the full 360 degrees around.

I have always found it interesting that if you were to pour a solvent flush into a clear container of used oil, the appearance is that the oil becomes blacker. You would think the opposite seeing that you poured something water white into the dirty oil that it should lighten or brighten the appearance of the oil. Yet it is exactly opposite to the eye. In other words, the level of contaminants in the oil didn't change, but the appearance sure does.

 

[va3ux]

Originally Posted By: Rick20
Perhaps the solvent vapors were useful in cleaning up the crankcase breathing apparatus on this car.

The PCV system has always been kept 'whistle-clean' on this engine Rick. Actually, I've felt for a long time that most of my oil consumption was through the PCV. Pretty typical on these engines for the intake plenum to be dripping with oil hauled in by the PCV.

Quote:
I find it highly unlikely that 3 applications of ARX didn't have those ring pack fully operational.

There was no improvement in compression throughout the year of ARX treatments. Mind you the compression was stellar to begin with. And certainly no reduction in oil consumption during or after ARX.
Quote:
The typical solvent flushes aren't particularly great at freeing up rings in my estimation.

Perhaps this example says otherwise. At least in this case. Really, we'll have to give it some time to see if the improvement is permanent. I find the whole thing interesting but I too am surprised that what I did could make such an immediate and positive impact.

Quote:
I have always found it interesting that if you were to pour a solvent flush into a clear container of used oil, the appearance is that the oil becomes blacker. You would think the opposite seeing that you poured something water white into the dirty oil that it should lighten or brighten the appearance of the oil. Yet it is exactly opposite to the eye. In other words, the level of contaminants in the oil didn't change, but the appearance sure does.


That's weird, and interesting.

 

[rshaw125]

What does the 'revive' look like? Is it the thin clear solvent cleaner like gunk? Or like a thin oil such as MMO?

 

[BarkerMan]

I've got a problem with your analysis and you have a problem with Auto-Rx. One thing that is not well understood about Auto-Rx is that it attacks deposits and modifies their chemistry but does not mechanically remove them. Deposits take a long time to remove, sometimes long beyond the rinse cycle. All the real work is done on the rinse cycle and continues long after that. It's the way this stuff works.

I also have a problem understanding how you remove all the solvent from an engine by drain the oil and running more oil and draining it. There is always oil left behind, enough to hold some solvent again and again. The fact is that it appears that Auto-Rx worked so well that it helped remove or halt the action of the solvent long after it was drained. Your post reads something like Auto-Rx worked even in the presence of contaminants like strong solvents and still protected my engine.

The tough sell with Auto-Rx is that much of the benefit is not realized immediately. This is also the secret of how it works. It attacks contaminates by modifying the deposits and not the oil. You have a great post as long as you understand that it's a roaring endorsement for Auto-Rx. You just have to gain some understanding of the process and reassess your analysis. If Auto-Rx survived you just think what it can do if you follow the instructions and understand how Auto-Rx works.

Can I offer one suggestion. Put some Auto-Rx back in your engine to clean out the solvent. There is almost no other good way to get rid of that stuff. Good luck and thanks for the post.

 

[Gary Allan]

I too find this "odd".

Q: Have you done a compression check after your solvent routine? I saw that you said you had no improvement over the good readings that you had with Auto-Rx ..but I don't see where you checked after the solvent usage.

Although I see you merely posting "here's what I did and here's what happened", I find it very hard to figure how any condition where a deposit was responsible for consumption could not be remedied by Auto-Rx; especially over that long a duration of use.

 

[bruce381]

Sounds good to me, back when they made dirt the common industrial way to remove and DISSOLVE deposits and sludge and Debris was to use a high AROMATIC OIL run under NO load then drian and refill then run 1/2 normal OCI and drain again.

It will clean very well with a lingering cleaning effect and is as good as any other product out there (no flame suit needed) what you stated is fully acceptable to me.

Other products will "plate" out of metal surfaces and slowly lift slufge and varnish which is fine just another way buy slower to do same thing, Never have had or heard of any problems using HIGH AROMAIC oils since filters where to be changed out I supose if left in clogging could occur but thats understood.

bruce

 

[dlafoy]

I don't know why, but I believe him.

 

[Gary Allan]

Originally Posted By: dlafoy
I don't know why, but I believe him.


I don't think that there's a dispute on his reported results. I mean, I can't think of any reason why anyone would make it up. Is there a competing product that would gain "market share"

It's just odd for anyone that's used Auto-Rx ..especially for 3 treatments. There's more than enough visual evidence to support Auto-Rx in terms of performance. TONS. I used solvent based remedies on issues that did not resolve them ..repeatedly ..yet Auto-Rx fixed it after a fashion (the normal treatment span).

Solvents do indeed dissolve deposits. Simple enough. The hardest thing to overcome is leaving them in long enough to do the job and remaining functional. You're (somewhat) in a pickle between the aggressive nature of the cleaning agent ..and the dwell time that you can afford to leave it in the sump. This may make coke deposits a bit harder to remove. The solvent may indeed dissolve them, but may require longer to disintegrate the structure than can be sensibly tolerated by the oil/engine in some practical sense (idling for 5-15 minutes). If you can allow it in the sump longer, then it's going to be milder or in lower concentrations. It's going to have some impact, one way or the other, on the oil itself.

No. Not anything impossible at all. Just very unusual after such a long bout with Auto-Rx. That's why you see most of the "doesn't add up" responses ...or so I reason. I'd tend to be bending over backwards to look for some other explanation myself

 

[Craftsman]

I believe that we are forgetting about the fact that every engine has a slightly different engine chemistry - hence people get their engine oil analyzed to figure out what's what.

If you accept the above statement, then it's possible that the sludge and deposits in the engine created by the engine oil will have a slightly different chemical make up as well...

What if during the first 3 AutoRX treatments, all of the sludge and deposits that would normally react with AutoRX was removed over time leaving the stuff that either does not react or reacts very slowly. (Notice that I didn't say dissolve as I would need to have my flame proof suit on)

What if the engine flush/Seafoam used actually dissolve some of the sludge and deposits left over? In addition, the added heat from running the flush 3 times longer and on two occasions, caused the engine flush to work more effectively? You have to remember that heat and time help solvents do their work.

I just don't understand why when someone makes a statement that an engine flush worked, people are so shocked and disbelieving that it could ever happen - almost like stating that they can walk on water or part the Red Sea. Prior to AutoRX (even on this board), certain engine flushes were all of the rage. Why? Because they worked. Today (at least on this board), people are concerned with thinning of oil during a flush so they use AutoRX.

As the old saying goes "There is more than one way to skin a cat". In most situations, the saying is as true today as it was when someone used it for the first time.

 

[c3po]

I just want to say that you bought this car with 50,000 miles on it, do you know how the previous owner changed his oil, how often he changed the oil and how well the car was maintained before you bought the car, I did 3 Auto-Rx applications because I had 355K on the car, I did not stop loading up filters until 2000 miles into the maintenance dose, I have been doing the Auto-Rx thing for 13,000 miles, how cold does it get up there in Canada during the winter time, it could also be that after 3 treatments of Auto-Rx that your oil consumption issues have been resolved, before Auto-Rx I was always adding oil when it was low, I do not know how much but since using Auto-Rx I have not had to add any oil, I added Auto-Rx on my uncles old 1976 Chevrolet Malibu, he kept 4 quarts in the pan instead of 5 quarts, I asked him why, he said because with 5 quarts it would leak like crazy, the engine has 96,000 miles, ran Auto-Rx for 2500 miles and during that time no leaks, drained oil, changed filter, and 200 miles later no oil leak, I always thought that solvent flushes were supposed to clean stuff up not stop oil consumption or recondition seals, well Auto-Rx reconditioned the seals on a 1976 Chevrolet Malibu.

 

[va3ux]

Originally Posted By: rshaw125
What does the 'revive' look like? Is it the thin clear solvent cleaner like gunk? Or like a thin oil such as MMO?


Relatively thin; almost watery but not quite; similar to Varsol perhaps. Clear but with some color. Smells somewhat like naptha or Stoddard solvent with a tinge of kerosene odor mixed in; some sweetness in the smell too. I estimate that the whole mixture would be comprised of all low boiling point components (low, compared to crankcase temperatures). I have not been able to get an MSDS for this stuff (yet).

 

[va3ux]

Originally Posted By: BarkerMan
I've got a problem with your analysis..

There's not much analysis. I simply reported what I did and what results I observed.
Quote:
..and you have a problem with Auto-Rx.

Nope. I simply reported what results I observed when I used ARX, the same thing I did here. Is it more likely that you - and others - have a problem with the findings because they don't meet expectations or match beliefs, and there's no explanation for that ? I dunno.

Quote:
One thing that is not well understood about Auto-Rx is that it attacks deposits and modifies their chemistry but does not mechanically remove them. Deposits take a long time to remove, sometimes long beyond the rinse cycle. All the real work is done on the rinse cycle and continues long after that. It's the way this stuff works.

I agree completely. The mechanism by which ARX removes deposits is not well understood. Based on many years ( a long time ago) of applying anti-foulants, deposit control agents, and corrosion inhibitors to refinery process streams (and many other non-hydrocarbon liquids and gases), my best description of ARX's mechanism is that it interferes with the attachment mechanism's of the deposits, enabling subsequent removal via mechanical abrasion (ie. flowing liquid). The means by which this interference of attachment mechanism occurs(or modification of the deposit structure) is complicated and probably only truly understood by someone with a PHD in physical chemistry. and that isn't me.

Quote:
I also have a problem understanding how you remove all the solvent from an engine by drain the oil and running more oil and draining it. There is always oil left behind, enough to hold some solvent again and again.

Let me help you understand. The solvent product was applied at a rate of approximately 4% by volume (6 liter total volume including what stays in the block) 5.2 liters drains out (filter included), and a fresh 5.2 liters of flushing oil is put back in. The remaining solvent concentration is now approx 0.5%. It's likely that during the 200 mile run with this 'flushing oil' that a significant portion of the remaining solvent (maybe all of it) boiled-off, was evacuated through the PCV and burned in the cc's. But even if it didn't boil off (not all that likely), I repeat this drain and fill procedure with my final new oil, resulting in a final solvent concentration of 0.07%. This is insignificant, and is even well below the acceptable normal threshold for fuel dilution (gasoline itself ain't a bad solvent). For all practical purposes, there is no solvent left.

Quote:
The fact is that it appears that Auto-Rx worked so well that it helped remove or halt the action of the solvent long after it was drained. Your post reads something like Auto-Rx worked even in the presence of contaminants like strong solvents and still protected my engine.

I haven't a clue what you're talking about here. Perhaps re-read what I wrote and see if you still have the same impression. There hasn't been any ARX in this engine since last May (2007), which was 30K miles ago and 6 oil changes ago. Even at that time, the ARX was maintenance does. The 3 full ARX cycles I mentioned were all done in succession in 2006 and were complete by the end of 2006.

[quote}The tough sell with Auto-Rx is that much of the benefit is not realized immediately. This is also the secret of how it works. It attacks contaminates by modifying the deposits and not the oil.[/quote]
I agree again. And in fact I observed in a small area of deposit gradually clean-up all through 2007, long after the big ARX events were over. It's the outboard bearing cap on the driver's side exhaust camshaft. I can now read all the numbers stamped into the cap where previously they were totally covered by a thin, solid, opaque deposit.

Quote:
You have a great post as long as you understand that it's a roaring endorsement for Auto-Rx. You just have to gain some understanding of the process and reassess your analysis. If Auto-Rx survived you just think what it can do if you follow the instructions and understand how Auto-Rx works.

I think you'd like me write something that matches your belief system. Can't do that. I simply report what I observe or can measure. I think if you re-read my post, you'll understand that I understand exactly what I wrote, and it's not what you're suggesting. Nor is it the opposite for that matter.

Quote:
Can I offer one suggestion. Put some Auto-Rx back in your engine to clean out the solvent. There is almost no other good way to get rid of that stuff.

You may, but as I pointed out, there is no solvent remaining. The stuff I put in had to be made of so many light fractions that I'm not sure there much of it left after the initial idling episode ARX is not designed as a remover of solvents.

Quote:
Good luck and thanks for the post.

And thank you for your comments Sir. Much appreciated.

Phil

 

[va3ux]

Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
I too find this "odd".

Me too Gary. And I've said as much. Such a dramatic change leaves me wondering if it's something else.

Quote:
Q: Have you done a compression check after your solvent routine? I saw that you said you had no improvement over the good readings that you had with Auto-Rx ..but I don't see where you checked after the solvent usage.

No, not yet. I'll attempt to do it this week and report what I find. The weather hasn't been conducive to that sort of thing recently.
Quote:
Although I see you merely posting "here's what I did and here's what happened", I find it very hard to figure how any condition where a deposit was responsible for consumption could not be remedied by Auto-Rx; especially over that long a duration of use.

You're absolutely right, I'm merely reporting what I did and what happened. That's all. There have been so many reports of ARX working well that people are now expecting it to produce the same results in 100% of the applications. That's not realistic - for anything. And that isn't a knock against the product either. Bear in mind that deposit composition AND structure can vary significantly from one engine design to another. My engine is notorious for rapid oxidation and nitration of the oil, and higher than normal operating temperatures. I have a 192 deg thermostat on the INLET to the engine, not a 180 deg thermostat on the outlet, like many do. I have EGR where many don't. The PCM has firmware to make the thing run as lean as possible. I swear that my wife's Sunfire has firmware that's designed to do the opposite. Hence, different crankcase vapor chemistry and temperatures, and so on. So it would be no surprise that my engine produces different deposits than say a GM 3.8 V6. The crankcase is really a chemical reactor where the deposits are born. The composition of ARX is fixed, but the deposit characteristics and operating conditions that ARX encounters will vary greatly. Hence it isn't reasonable to expect the same results in every application. In the industrial world, there isn't "an anti-foulant" for refinery process streams; there's 500 of them, because there are so many variations in the deposits being treated. The same thing applies here too, whether anyone realizes it or not.

 

[va3ux]

Craftsman, I realize that I ended saying some of what you had already said. I guess I should really read the entire thread before hitting the keyboard. Apparently we're thinking along similar lines. It's still all conjecture but interesting none the less.

 

[rshaw125]

va3ux is just stating what he observed. I do agree that any residual solvent would burn off during the first full temp run up the highway. Just like gas usually does.