Slippery Oil

[wlk]

My intention was not to bully, simply educate. We are having a debate here, I've presented factual data that explains why, from a formulation standpoint, using additives that claim to enhance performance, are more likely to negatively impact some characteristic or characteristics elsewhere in the product.

I think you are offended at this juncture and are looking to dismiss me by categorizing/labelling me and how I come across; essentially, you are jaded based on this interaction and are using that to broad-brush, define, and undermine my character because you don't like what I have to say. This is a technical forum, we discuss technical topics, I'm not making judgements of your character, commenting on your posting style nor making remarks about your communication skills and I would appreciate the same in return.

It's not a philosophy, it's a fact on blending that oils are fully formulated products with each component selected and the amount determined based on methodic testing with the final product tested to ensure it meets both the intended and required performance targets.

Most problems have nothing to do with the oil, it is almost universally mechanical issues with the equipment.

Just because an oil is fully formulated doesn't mean that it's a top-shelf formulation. Some oils are blended only to meet the basic bare bones requirement of the API approval process, which can be inadequate to prevent varnish, sludge and coking in more demanding applications. That doesn't mean the product isn't performing as intended, nor does it mean that you will improve the product by putting something else in it.

Think about this logically for a minute. You have say Supertech 5W-20 that's blended with cheap 4cSt base oils and 15% VII (just making up a formula here) and the cheapest cookie-cutter API SP additive package purchased from Lubrizol. It's a product formulated to a price point. In a higher power density application, this oil causes oil control ring coking. You add MOS2 to the oil thinking you are making it better. What part of the MOS2 additive is going to improve the quality of the base oil blend or reduce the Noack? What part will improve its TEOST score?

If you need a more robust oil for your application, you are best served by purchasing a better oil in the first place. Oils that use AN's and esters in their formulation are going to be able to keep things far cleaner, and even clean-up existing deposits, vs the oil above. Yes, you can use a cleaning additive like AutoRX or HPL Engine Cleaner, which I mentioned in my previous post, but it won't be as effective as just using a better oil out of the gate.

The fallacy here appears to be that you can turn a cheaply formulated oil into a better oil by dosing it with something, but if you understand how oils are formulated, you realize that this naive. This is what I was trying to explain in my previous post with regards to what I discussed with Dave at HPL on FM chemistry.

This has nothing to do with additives making an oil better, this is a strawman. Honda not properly testing their product and it fuel diluting like crazy isn't fixed with Lucas or MOS2. GM buggering up their timing chain design on their HF V6 isn't fixed by Motor Oil Saver or STP. These are engineering and design problems that are resolved through updated parts and designs. If the OLM is too optimistic for the approved lubricant, it should be revised. But it doesn't mean you can turn Kirkland into Mobil 1 0W-40 by putting an additive in it.

Yes, I cite Mobil 1 as an example of a brand that doesn't sell additives. Castrol is another. The list is extensive.

Many of the small blenders are looking for additional revenue streams. Don't you find it to be a bit of a paradox for a blender to sell a premium fully formulated product and then advertise that you can make said product better; "more premium" by spending more money? Lucas sells oils, but their business is based on the whole coven of wizards which are basically pure profit because they consist of cheap garbage sold at an obscene price with claims that would make a mythomaniac blush.

And of course we are talking about a spectrum here as well. HPL sells a concentrated ester product as a cleaner. This isn't to further improve their product, it's to help clean-up deposits left by cheap oils and poor maintenance practices. Valvoline and Mobil both sell "high mileage" oils with higher levels of seal conditioners to help people avoid or at least put-off expensive seal/gasket jobs. These are very specific things that don't interact with the rest of the oil's chemistry, they aren't impacting FM or AW chemistry for example, and, in the case of the HM oils, well, these are fully formulated products.

And that's fine, but subjects like these tend to produce extensive debate on this forum because we tend to like data, facts and figures. You might perceive that as excessive pedanticism, cynicism or even bullying, but that's not what it is and anything that would actually fall under the bullying category would result in a warning or even ban from the mods.

You seem to be confusing or conflating my commentary on specific additive claims with a disdain for additives in general and I had hoped to make it clear with the post you responded to that this is not my intention. There are additives where the efficacy is understood and the claims have merit. You just mentioned one of them with HPL's EC, which I also mentioned in the post you replied to. Lubeguard products are also generally looked on favourably, as their ester chemistry is understood to be effective for cleaning up deposits that can cause performance issues.

My criticism of FM additives was specific, as is my criticism of Lucas. There is a ton of nuance here that you appear to want to broad brush because it makes the conversation simpler. I'd greatly prefer if you tried to engage on the individual points in earnest, rather than labelling me and dismissing me as a pedant or curmudgeon.

But you can't gauge the performance of these products by how they feel on your fingers. That's why engine oils aren't developed or tested by the "finger test" either. That may be your experience, but that doesn't mean others can't see it as being inadequate or invalid in terms of qualifying performance, which is what was explained by both myself and @RDY4WAR. There are numerous extensive testing protocols available that can be used to prove effectiveness and if that data doesn't exist, or the mechanism that is claimed doesn't pass scrutiny, then it shouldn't be surprising to get push-back on the topic, which is what you received here because your anecdote wasn't sufficient. It isn't necessary to get offended by that, the intention isn't to chastise or undermine you, simply let you know that this isn't enough, and if you have more data, we'd like to see or hear it.

I was never trying to give any technical advise, facts other than how it felt or if it did any good in the motor. Never once claimed it was better than buying Schaeffer already blended finished oil or any top shelf oil. I merely stated it was slick and how it felt even diluted 16oz in 5qts that's all. You assumed I was trying to say an additive is better and tried to overrun or educate as you referenced it. I wasn't asking you nor arguring w you, it was simply a point of disagreement and I left it at that. Then you continue stating the lack of understanding of how it is not advisable to run additives, how companies know better and how they can be detrimental, again I wasn't argueing that it was. Never said how it felt on my fingers was any sort of clinical test or had any bearing on testing. So i need to do better with a tactile feeling? So yes your reply is not a fully objective reply and contained subjective parts. Members say the like an additive and others bash that logic and that is okay as it has flawed science. Sorry but no.

 

[OVERKILL]

I was never trying to give any technical advise, facts other than how it felt or if it did any good in the motor. Never once claimed it was better than buying Schaeffer already blended finished oil or any top shelf oil.

You are clearly still upset at me for taking issue with that statement, I'm sorry that you feel that way, my intention was not to upset you, but this reply to me doesn't address any of the points I made in the post you responded to.

Let's go back to where this started. You made the following statement:

When I added Schaeffer Moly EP to my trucks oil that is the most slippery oil I have ever felt even when used. I think one of Shaeffers oil has the Moly EP already in the oil or its additives if you want a blended oil. Not sure but I would guess it is the Antimony in it.

Which was a personal anecdote.

@PimTac replied to you, asking how Antimony made an oil more slippery.

You replied again with personal anecdotal opinion, citing your "finger test" as the qualifer:

Have you ever felt Moly EP? I have felt several brands of oil over the years and additives-stp, lucas, various liqui moly, rislone, hot shot, super techs and more but nothing compares to how it feels. My assumption of the antimony being that cause is a educated guess as none of them have that much of the antimony additive in them as the Moly EP. Have felt zddp, moly, tungsten and blended ester anti friction additives and they do not even come close to it. When seperate or mixed in oil it is the slickest oil/additive I have ever felt.

@PimTac gave you a somewhat curt reply, indicating his dissatisfaction with your "finger test" but also noting that he does not use additives. You gave him an equally curt reply, telling him that perhaps he should try.

This is where I entered the conversation asking which of those two things, using the "finger test", or trying additives, were you suggesting he try, then remarking on the fact that oil chemistry is complex and that additives, like what were being discussed, which claim to improve FM, can actually have negative effects on the oil.

You replied to me, doubling-down on the effectiveness of your finger test and having inferred from my statements that all additives were crap, went on the offensive. I tried to diffuse, with a rather lengthy reply, getting into the technical details, but you took that as a personal slight and this took us into the weeds where we presently reside.

I merely stated it was slick and how it felt even diluted 16oz in 5qts that's all.

And the reply to this was simply the rejection of your finger test as being valid.

You assumed I was trying to say an additive is better and tried to overrun or educate as you referenced it.

No, I was responding to your claim that a finger test provided useful information, and that by "trying" these additives, we could determine whether they worked or not. I provided some detail on why this isn't a valid method, and noted that oils are tested extensively during development and that these characteristics are also tested at that time.

I wasn't asking you nor arguring w you, it was simply a point of disagreement and I left it at that.

You don't have to ask me, this is a discussion forum, we were discussing the subject, I responded to the points you made, you took that response personally, unfortunately. This isn't a disagreement in the sense that both sides have presented data, you made a couple of statements that, objectively, had no data behind them, and I tried to explain why that made them invalid.

Then you continue stating the lack of understanding of how it is not advisable to run additives, how companies know better and how they can be detrimental, again I wasn't argueing that it was.

You had stated that, for somebody who didn't run additives (@PimTac) that perhaps he should, as if this was an appropriate counter to the idea that a properly formulated oil doesn't need additives. That's what spurred the subsequent dialogue about just "trying" an additive not being a method through which efficacy can be gauged.

Never said how it felt on my fingers was any sort of clinical test or had any bearing on testing.

But this was your counter to @PimTac's statement, that he should "try it", either as a quip, or in earnest, depending on how you had taken his reply to you. Ceding that this is not an acceptable method, but you thought it was an interesting observation, would have diffused the situation, but that's not the route you took.

So i need to do better with a tactile feeling? So yes your reply is not a fully objective reply and contained subjective parts.

Please, tell me where in my responses to you I have not been objective.

Members say the like an additive and others bash that logic and that is okay as it has flawed science. Sorry but no.

I'm not even sure what you are saying here. As I explained in the post you responded to with this, there are many additives that have accepted and well understood chemistry, and there are those that are total snake oil. You keep trying to lump this all together as a condemnation/bash so you can write it off, but the reality is that there's nuance here that we could absolutely have a great discussion on if you were willing to put in the effort.

 

[PimTac]

And in my response, I decided the conversation wasn’t worth continuing.

Overkill has shown a lot of patience trying to explain the difference between scientific testing and feelings.

 

[sk_pete]

asking how Antimony made an oil more slippery.

Sb carbamates are similar in use like modtc class additives.
Aw,ep. Antioxidant. But not big deal on friction coefficient.

 

[OVERKILL]

Sb carbamates are similar in use like modtc class additives.
Aw,ep. Antioxidant. But not big deal on friction coefficient.

And that's the kind of answer I think @PimTac was looking for. You provided some excellent charts in this thread, so I appreciate that.

I have some documentation here somewhere on some testing of FM synergies and it was interesting to see how dimer and trimer moly can be complimentary, but the concentrations had an impact. Not only that, but other FM's can also provide a positive interaction, but this requires testing, as these synergies can also be negative. They also interact with ZDDP, so that's another thing where the best concentration can vary significantly.

It seems the "no holds barred" approach is to use trimer, dimer and tungsten, as that's what @High Performance Lubricants uses, where it is the most effective. And that was a truly fascinating conversation I had with Dave on FM selection and the requirement to test test test test test, as just because a specific FM blend of trimer/dimer/tungsten works with one additive package and base oil blend, doesn't mean it will be optimal, or even good, with another.

I keep forgetting to ask Dave if they also use titanium, as that's another one we've seen with Castrol and a couple others.

 

[sk_pete]

So far haven't seen titanium chemistry in additives makers brochures.
Perhaps oil blenders making it in house?

 

[OVERKILL]

So far haven't seen titanium chemistry in additives makers brochures.
Perhaps oil blenders making it in house?

Found these:

 

[PimTac]

It seems like a lot of the titanium buzz has gone away. Even Castrol doesn’t have it anymore.

 

[OVERKILL]

It seems like a lot of the titanium buzz has gone away. Even Castrol doesn’t have it anymore.

Maybe it just didn't end up being good enough? Trimer clearly was a fantastic product, XOM and SOPUS have been using it pretty much exclusively.

 

[ZeeOSix]

You replied again with personal anecdotal opinion, citing your "finger test" as the qualifer:

That's a pre-qualifying sub-test of the "one-armed bandit".

 

[wlk]

You are clearly still upset at me for taking issue with that statement, I'm sorry that you feel that way, my intention was not to upset you, but this reply to me doesn't address any of the points I made in the post you responded to.

Let's go back to where this started. You made the following statement:

Which was a personal anecdote.

@PimTac replied to you, asking how Antimony made an oil more slippery.

You replied again with personal anecdotal opinion, citing your "finger test" as the qualifer:


@PimTac gave you a somewhat curt reply, indicating his dissatisfaction with your "finger test" but also noting that he does not use additives. You gave him an equally curt reply, telling him that perhaps he should try.
This is where I entered the conversation asking which of those two things, using the "finger test", or trying additives, were you suggesting he try, then remarking on the fact that oil chemistry is complex and that additives, like what were being discussed, which claim to improve FM, can actually have negative effects on the oil.

You replied to me, doubling-down on the effectiveness of your finger test and having inferred from my statements that all additives were crap, went on the offensive. I tried to diffuse, with a rather lengthy reply, getting into the technical details, but you took that as a personal slight and this took us into the weeds where we presently reside.

And the reply to this was simply the rejection of your finger test as being valid.

No, I was responding to your claim that a finger test provided useful information, and that by "trying" these additives, we could determine whether they worked or not. I provided some detail on why this isn't a valid method, and noted that oils are tested extensively during development and that these characteristics are also tested at that time.

You don't have to ask me, this is a discussion forum, we were discussing the subject, I responded to the points you made, you took that response personally, unfortunately. This isn't a disagreement in the sense that both sides have presented data, you made a couple of statements that, objectively, had no data behind them, and I tried to explain why that made them invalid.

You had stated that, for somebody who didn't run additives (@PimTac) that perhaps he should, as if this was an appropriate counter to the idea that a properly formulated oil doesn't need additives. That's what spurred the subsequent dialogue about just "trying" an additive not being a method through which efficacy can be gauged.

But this was your counter to @PimTac's statement, that he should "try it", either as a quip, or in earnest, depending on how you had taken his reply to you. Ceding that this is not an acceptable method, but you thought it was an interesting observation, would have diffused the situation, but that's not the route you took.

Please, tell me where in my responses to you I have not been objective.

I'm not even sure what you are saying here. As I explained in the post you responded to with this, there are many additives that have accepted and well understood chemistry, and there are those that are total snake oil. You keep trying to lump this all together as a condemnation/bash so you can write it off, but the reality is that there's nuance here that we could absolutely have a great discussion on if you were willing to put in the effort.

My try it wasn't anything other than buy the Moly EP and feel it, it changes how the oil feels. It wasn't curt what PimTac replied it was a simple statement on both our ends. My question about if PimTac had ever felt it was genuine. Go back and reread it. What i guessed and answered the question was the antimony on the additive if that wasn't the answer you were looking for sorry. I tried explaining how it felt different from other oils and additives, like i said it really changes it- maybe instead of being dismissive you should buy it and feel it yourself. That is all the data that was ever presented or stated in the beginning but you keep trying to invalidate something that was not there, insinuated or proposed as anything other than a tactile feel- slippery.

You claim i was doubling down on a feeling is silly. I acknowledged and agreed to your statement that oil formulation is complex, no bravado there. You stated adding crap in a can would be detrimental and objectively worse, you did the lumping, I disagreed in certain applications and tried leaving it at that. Then you go into your offensive about how it is better to buy only oil, additives are harmful and oil makers and overrun the discussion in a simple back and forth conversation. I understand the data you were trying to put out but will try an additive for a certain reason. Insult people who use additives saying they are naive, paranoid and should leave it to the manufacturer's inferring additive users lack knowledge and don't know what they are doing. But noone was debating your beliefs on this I simply stated i disagreed and that some oil and additive companies would too. I can't help it if you do not see the insults in your statements. I admit, previously as well, I don't know all the science of it, do not work in any oil industry but it doesn't mean I don't understand and learn from it when read- why I am here. Never said you were not knowledgeable and even said i and others could learn something from your knowledge.

 

[wlk]

That's a pre-qualifying sub-test of the "one-armed bandit".

Funny as I only really have the use of one arm right now due to recent shoulder surgery.

 

[OVERKILL]

My try it wasn't anything other than buy the Moly EP and feel it, it changes how the oil feels.

OK, but what does that mean? That was the point he was replying to, and wasn't satisfied with your reply.

It wasn't curt what PimTac replied it was a simple statement on both our ends.

I'm pretty sure he was being curt with you. Perhaps you weren't in return, but that's certainly the way I read the exchange.

My question about if PimTac had ever felt it was genuine. Go back and reread it. What i guessed and answered the question was the antimony on the additive if that wasn't the answer you were looking for sorry. I tried explaining how it felt different from other oils and additives, like i said it really changes it- maybe instead of being dismissive you should buy it and feel it yourself.

I wasn't the one looking for the answer, @PimTac was. I was unsure as to how to take your subsequent reply, since he was clearly not impressed with it, so I didn't know if you were being genuine, or sarcastic. Clearly, since you've now stated, you were being genuine. So my question to you then is, what does that mean? Actually, no, let me rephrase that, what do you THINK it means?

I'm not being dismissive, I'd like to truly understand what you think something feeling different between your fingers means in the context of its use in an engine. Clearly, you seem to believe it has some quantitative value or you wouldn't have mentioned it, no? I don't see the reason to emphatically state that the rest of us should spend the money and feel it for ourselves unless you are of the mind that this means more than what it appears.

That is all the data that was ever presented or stated in the beginning but you keep trying to invalidate something that was not there, insinuated or proposed as anything other than a tactile feel- slippery.

OK, but that's not data, it's an anecdote, which I've stated previously. I'm curious what you feel the value of this anecdote is, as stated above, so, if you wouldn't mind explaining, I'd like to hear it. I've already explained the actual testing protocols, so I'm curious what feeling it in my hands accomplishes that these tests do not.

You claim i was doubling down on a feeling is silly.

I stated that you doubled-down on the "feeling" the oil statement, which you did. It's not silly, it's just presenting the facts of the exchange at that juncture.

I acknowledged and agreed to your statement that oil formulation is complex, no bravado there. You stated adding crap in a can would be detrimental and objectively worse, you did the lumping, I disagreed in certain applications and tried leaving it at that.

Yes, oil formulation is complex. Adding something that alters the chemistry has risks and the odds of it doing something detrimental to some characteristic are high, relative to any potential benefit. That was not a "lumping", we are specifically talking about moly and friction modifier additives at this point in the conversation, not all additives, which I attempted to make clear several times now.

Then you go into your offensive about how it is better to buy only oil, additives are harmful and oil makers and overrun the discussion in a simple back and forth conversation.

I was not on the "offensive", I was simply explaining that it's more logical to buy a fully formulated oil than try and turn a subpar oil into something more than it is through additives, as it's basically impossible. You can't turn Supertech into M1 0W-40 with a bottle of MOS2. And yes, automotive manufacturers warn against using additives (as does Mobil) because some of them can legitimately be harmful, I think I've said that like 10x now and you keep ignoring it, SOME additives aren't good! Why do you keep failing to acknowledge that?

I understand the data you were trying to put out but will try an additive for a certain reason.

And I gave specific examples of additives that work for "specific reasons". As I have said multiple times now, I have some very specific criticisms which I've addressed, that are confined to some type of additives and some brands (like Lucas).

Insult people who use additives saying they are naive, paranoid and should leave it to the manufacturer's inferring additive users lack knowledge and don't know what they are doing.

Let's be honest, most people using additives do lack knowledge. Most car owners lack knowledge. Very few people know anything about oil formulation or additives. And yes, being naive and/or ignorant is one of the reasons people believe the marketing. That's not an insult, if you don't know you don't know, companies like Lucas are predatory in their marketing and exploit that. People are taken advantage of. And yes, some people are also of the mind that the majors are not giving them their best; cheapening out and that they can make the product better by dosing it while being ignorant and naive.

Most people don't understand the WInter rating or most things about oil.

But noone was debating your beliefs on this

I wasn't expressing beliefs, just facts.

I simply stated i disagreed and that some oil and additive companies would too.

I'm sure Lucas would disagree with me. How much water do you think that would hold? As I said, this has the potential to be a very productive discussion if you would drop your guard and engage in earnest rather than just taking everything I'm saying as an affront to you and your sensibilities.

I can't help it if you do not see the insults in your statements.

Taken as intended, they are not insulting. I'm not judging you, just trying to bring you out of your shell to discuss this.

I admit, previously as well, I don't know all the science of it, do not work in any oil industry but it doesn't mean I don't understand and learn from it when read- why I am here. Never said you were not knowledgeable and even said i and others could learn something from your knowledge.

Nothing wrong with not knowing, that's why we are here and why we are having these discussions. But, they aren't very productive and become quite difficult to have when somebody is constantly digging in and defending something they said 4 pages ago rather than engaging on the points and questions raised in relation to it. Several of us have provided some valuable, scientifically valid, material at this point. Why not discuss this in how it relates to your perceptions rather than trying to get upset over what I've said, which really shouldn't draw such a reaction?

 

[CR94]

But 0W-16 is closer to "like water" ... except 0W-8 is even a step closer.

...but still far more viscous than water. Repeat an exaggeration often enough, and some people will take it seriously.

 

[ZeeOSix]

...but still far more viscous than water. Repeat an exaggeration often enough, and some people will take it seriously.

Brush up on getting sarcasm ... Don't use 0W-8 on the track, because at 300F it's not far from the viscosity of water.

 

[Accent Abuser]

Maybe not flushed after 100k, but a slow drain and fill over time is still fairly safe.

I never recommend a flush, drain and fill only. If it's still pretty dirty I drive it around and drain it again, had to do that with a Ford explorer, shifted great after the second D&F. Same with coolant.

 

[wlk]

OK, but what does that mean? That was the point he was replying to, and wasn't satisfied with your reply.

It meant nothing more than truly feel it. Amazingly this dialog is still going on.

I'm pretty sure he was being curt with you. Perhaps you weren't in return, but that's certainly the way I read the exchange.

I wasn't the one looking for the answer, @PimTac was. I was unsure as to how to take your subsequent reply, since he was clearly not impressed with it, so I didn't know if you were being genuine, or sarcastic. Clearly, since you've now stated, you were being genuine. So my question to you then is, what does that mean? Actually, no, let me rephrase that, what do you THINK it means?

I answered the question to PimTac, if PimTac wanted more than that, go research it if you are interested further and not satisfied with an answer you get. I read things here and do it all the time, i don't need spoonfed an answer to be satisfied.

I'm not being dismissive, I'd like to truly understand what you think something feeling different between your fingers means in the context of its use in an engine. Clearly, you seem to believe it has some quantitative value or you wouldn't have mentioned it, no? I don't see the reason to emphatically state that the rest of us should spend the money and feel it for ourselves unless you are of the mind that this means more than what it appears.

OK, but that's not data, it's an anecdote, which I've stated previously. I'm curious what you feel the value of this anecdote is, as stated above, so, if you wouldn't mind explaining, I'd like to hear it. I've already explained the actual testing protocols, so I'm curious what feeling it in my hands accomplishes that these tests do not.

You are dismissive but i will play along, out of the bottle it is super slick, first mixed in oil makes it slicker, and at the on a 5k miles still slick. Why? Don't know other than my observations of feel and was guessing the antimony based on no other additive feeling this way ever esp diluted in old oil. I have no value to the feel again just a feel. What it has done to my truck is slowed consumption, i like the added antimony and other additives for something that I use to thicken the viscosity but we already discussed that.

I stated that you doubled-down on the "feeling" the oil statement, which you did. It's not silly, it's just presenting the facts of the exchange at that juncture.
Yes, oil formulation is complex. Adding something that alters the chemistry has risks and the odds of it doing something detrimental to some characteristic are high, relative to any potential benefit. That was not a "lumping", we are specifically talking about moly and friction modifier additives at this point in the conversation, not all additives, which I attempted to make clear several times now.

I was not discussing fm or moly, you were trying to keep a discussion about why using additives are wasteful and ruin a formulated oil. Which I stated I understood your point but do not agree for certain applications. Yet you did not let it go and keep trying to not lose perhaps and make my opinion of additive usage as foolish.

I was not on the "offensive", I was simply explaining that it's more logical to buy a fully formulated oil than try and turn a subpar oil into something more than it is through additives, as it's basically impossible. You can't turn Supertech into M1 0W-40 with a bottle of MOS2. And yes, automotive manufacturers warn against using additives (as does Mobil) because some of them can legitimately be harmful, I think I've said that like 10x now and you keep ignoring it, SOME additives aren't good! Why do you keep failing to acknowledge that?

Bc i never argued the point that it does. I stated and you keep ignoring the fact that people use an additive to try and correct a problem to save money, prolong a sick engine and prolong a mechanical repair due to time and money. And you keep stating it is a waste and just use good oil.

And I gave specific examples of additives that work for "specific reasons". As I have said multiple times now, I have some very specific criticisms which I've addressed, that are confined to some type of additives and some brands (like Lucas).

fair enough.

Let's be honest, most people using additives do lack knowledge. Most car owners lack knowledge. Very few people know anything about oil formulation or additives. And yes, being naive and/or ignorant is one of the reasons people believe the marketing. That's not an insult, if you don't know you don't know, companies like Lucas are predatory in their marketing and exploit that. People are taken advantage of. And yes, some people are also of the mind that the majors are not giving them their best; cheapening out and that they can make the product better by dosing it while being ignorant and naive.

And I am still taken back by your insults of people and you write it off as stating facts.

Most people don't understand the WInter rating or most things about oil.

I wasn't expressing beliefs, just facts.

I'm sure Lucas would disagree with me. How much water do you think that would hold? As I said, this has the potential to be a very productive discussion if you would drop your guard and engage in earnest rather than just taking everything I'm saying as an affront to you and your sensibilities.

And I stated Schaeffer and Liqui Moly would also disagree with you and have plenty of facts for you. I and others trust them for some products and use there additives but you don't and that is fine. I never attempted to persuade you otherwise I just disagreed.

Taken as intended, they are not insulting. I'm not judging you, just trying to bring you out of your shell to discuss this.

Nothing wrong with not knowing, that's why we are here and why we are having these discussions. But, they aren't very productive and become quite difficult to have when somebody is constantly digging in and defending something they said 4 pages ago rather than engaging on the points and questions raised in relation to it. Several of us have provided some valuable, scientifically valid, material at this point. Why not discuss this in how it relates to your perceptions rather than trying to get upset over what I've said, which really shouldn't draw such a reaction?

I am in no shell and just bc i added a non scientific observation doesn't mean it is useless. Again the discredit you put out is oblivious to you. I never dug into anything other than a tactile sensation you can't let go. Seriously buy some and see for yourself. The difficulty is all yours as I am not upset, just pointing out the insults and how if someone disagrees it is written off as non factual and being ignorant. And as for 4 pages, I tried to leave this conversation in post #48.

 

[OVERKILL]

It meant nothing more than truly feel it. Amazingly this dialog is still going on.

I answered the question to PimTac, if PimTac wanted more than that, go research it if you are interested further and not satisfied with an answer you get. I read things here and do it all the time, i don't need spoonfed an answer to be satisfied.

You are dismissive but i will play along, out of the bottle it is super slick, first mixed in oil makes it slicker, and at the on a 5k miles still slick. Why? Don't know other than my observations of feel and was guessing the antimony based on no other additive feeling this way ever esp diluted in old oil. I have no value to the feel again just a feel. What it has done to my truck is slowed consumption, i like the added antimony and other additives for something that I use to thicken the viscosity but we already discussed that.

I was not discussing fm or moly, you were trying to keep a discussion about why using additives are wasteful and ruin a formulated oil. Which I stated I understood your point but do not agree for certain applications. Yet you did not let it go and keep trying to not lose perhaps and make my opinion of additive usage as foolish.

Bc i never argued the point that it does. I stated and you keep ignoring the fact that people use an additive to try and correct a problem to save money, prolong a sick engine and prolong a mechanical repair due to time and money. And you keep stating it is a waste and just use good oil.

fair enough.

And I am still taken back by your insults of people and you write it off as stating facts.

And I stated Schaeffer and Liqui Moly would also disagree with you and have plenty of facts for you. I and others trust them for some products and use there additives but you don't and that is fine. I never attempted to persuade you otherwise I just disagreed.

I am in no shell and just bc i added a non scientific observation doesn't mean it is useless. Again the discredit you put out is oblivious to you. I never dug into anything other than a tactile sensation you can't let go. Seriously buy some and see for yourself. The difficulty is all yours as I am not upset, just pointing out the insults and how if someone disagrees it is written off as non factual and being ignorant. And as for 4 pages, I tried to leave this conversation in post #48.

OK, clearly I'm not able to get you to participate in a technical discussion that might actually be of value here and we are going in circles, so I'm going to say screw it at this point. Enjoy your weekend.

 

[ka9mnx]

OK, clearly I'm not able to get you to participate in a technical discussion that might actually be of value here and we are going in circles, so I'm going to say screw it at this point. Enjoy your weekend.

Probably should have dropped this a few pages back...

 

[wlk]

OK, clearly I'm not able to get you to participate in a technical discussion that might actually be of value here and we are going in circles, so I'm going to say screw it at this point. Enjoy your weekend.

That's the problem there is nothing technical about this but you keep trying to be right maybe. I answered your questions in the beginning, you replied how crap in a can is detrimental usually, i replied i use an additive for specific purposes and tried ending it there. Then again you insult people for trying them, adding a couple graphs about your points but there was no debate. Go back a reread and maybe you can learn about yourself. You enjoy the weekend as well.