Stupid I Guess

[dropitby]

I can't seem to understand this statement its like use petrol oil to work with the seal cleaners and use Synthetics cause it cleans faster.

Its as if Petrol oil is better on seals than any Synthetic.This response was after just ordering 4 bottles of ARX.. Why use 'non-synthetic' oil when cleaning your engine with
>>>>>>>>> Auto-Rx?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 1. Petrol or non-synthetic oil (simple additive package) is
>>>>>>>>> formulated
>>>>>>>>> to work with existing seal material; i.e. Buna rubber and
>>>>>>>>> silicone.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 2. Non-synthetic oil is more effective, faster, and less
>>>>>>>>> costly to use
>>>>>>>>> as a carrier for Auto-Rx and for a rinse for removing
liquefied
>>>>>>>>> contaminants.

 

[rugerman1]

The reason for using cheap dino oil is to let the Rx do it's job easier.Complex additive packages interfere with the job that Rx is trying to do.

 

[dropitby]

Frank Didn't understand my question but he answered it.Here is his response.Your message is not clear if you have seal leaks (not torn or ripped ) complex additive package in synthetic oil is not as
beneficial as simple additive package in non synthetic oil for
keeping seals pliable. Auto-Rx maintenance program of using
3 ounces of Auto-Rx with each oil change, not only keeps performance levels up, it keeps seals pliable, especially helpful if you use a synthetic-semi synthetic-high mileage oil. Sooo. here is what I was looking for: Complex additive package in synthetic oil is not as
beneficial as simple additive package in non synthetic oil for
keeping seals pliable. Thanks FRANK

 

[dropitby]

Final Word: Here is a question I sent and think its a valid point so if you can help please chime in we may all want to know.

Hi: Frank the owner of Auto RX has made a statement that although I thought this all along I would like to know if you agree with :Complex additive package in synthetic oil is not as
beneficial as simple additive package in non synthetic oil for
keeping seals pliable. This is key in that he thinks Synthetics are missing something that what he calls Petrol oil has.Of course he feels his product can treat this but my question is if they can't put a Additive Pkg. to provide the same kind of care given by Petro based oil due to the nature of Synthetics then long term the seals will suffer. Thanks Darrell

 

[TallPaul]

It's an interesting question. With all the technology that (supposedly) goes into the synthetic oils, you would think they would get the appropriate additives and/or mix to ensure long seal life. Or is there something inherent in dino oil that simply cannot be achieved with synthetics and that makes the difference for seals?

Is it only esters and PAO that are at issue, or is Group III oil not so good for seals? If Group III is not good for seals, then are we refining out the "good stuff"? What about Group II. Is Group I best for seals. What about SA/SB straight mineral oil? I know I go too far with this, but I wanted to lay out ALL the possibilites.

And I can't see where a high mileage oil could be so bad if it is 75-80 percent dino.

 

[Spector]

Could be many rasons for Frank's statements on preferring dino oil for seals. Actually is better, or sell more RX as synthetic keeps an engine cleaner, or no scientific proof just opinion. After about 140,000 on synthetic oil my seals started to leak. Tried the RX route and did not work nor did I expect it to at that mileage. Finally had them replaced last week at 167,000 miles after playing with various solutions for a couple of years.

Magic bullets do not always exist!

 

[Bishop]

I'm a great believer in the value of semi-synthetic oils, as I have never personally trusted the concept of long oil change intervals, but I question a few things brought up in regards to auto-rx.

Car oil companies spend millions developing oil additive packages for their products, if they truly do fight the auto-rx process (as I have read a few times here), is auto-rx doing something to the engine that oil companies have spent millions trying to stop?

Auto-rx recommends using basic oils with their product, so in other words, do they consider their additive package better than those of a good semi-synthetic oil? (or perhaps just stronger???)

Part of the auto-rx process is basically their additive package with basic oil and short changing the oil change process, thus cleaning the engine slowly?
If you just used a good semi-synthetic oil and did the same process, would you get simular results if the oil already had a good cleaning additive package?

For years when I have gotten a older car with a build up of gunk etc, I have just basically used high quality semi-synthetics and changed the oil several times at half or less of the usual change intervals, and basically I have had simular results to what I have seen from auto-rx so far, so I do question the value in this type of product.

Don't get me wrong here, I'm not having a go at auto-rx, but then I still know people who swear by products like Slick50, I guess I'm just a born sceptic at heart.

 

[dropitby]

One more word from Frank to confuse me allthat much more.Auto-Rx cleans seal material (no swelling ) the non synthetic oil contains a normal additive package that works with seal material to effect a bond with transmission metal thereby stopping leaks.A BOND (like BONDO

)So what is this magic bonding stuff that is in the Dinosaur Juice.

 

[dropitby]

Final Word II : OK since I may never know I accept the fact that Auto RX works as a cleaning agent. So if I want to clean my engine after say 100000 mi. Perhaps at the same time cleaning the seals and treating them so I may stop a leak further down the road. I still will be wondering why synthetic oil need not be used during this cleaning process.One more thing if you have a Red Line oil in there and are thinking of doing a maintaince dose you may want to think again.These are just my thoughts and what do I know I'am stupid I guess not as smart as Frank.

 

[brianl703]

quote:

---

Originally posted by rugerman1:
The reason for using cheap dino oil is to let the Rx do it's job easier.Complex additive packages interfere with the job that Rx is trying to do.

---

Wal-Mart has "SF Specification Grade" oil for $.77 cents a quart.

If I'm using Auto-RX on a 1988 Mustang 5.0 that called for SF grade oil when it was new, would the usage of SF grade oil, which likely has less complex additive packages than the SL grade oil, be a worthwhile thing to do while doing the Auto-RX treatment?

Not that I'd consider it, but just tossing the (probably bad) idea out there...

 

[MolaKule]

I don't think dino SF/SH would be a problem for your Ford.

Most SF/SH oils (such as Accel) have an SL add pack.

 

[brianl703]

Has anyone ever done a VOA on that "SF specification" oil? I'm curious as to why they even sell it, when SL-grade oil is only 10 cents more per quart.

Then there's the non-detergent oil...popular with used-car lots, because it always looks clean when the prospective customer checks the dipstick.

 

[MolaKule]

Just happend to have one in my back pocket.


10W40 SF/SH

Metal
Iron (Fe)
Copper (Cu) 0
Chromium (Cr) 0
Aluminum (Al) 1
Lead (Pb) 0
Tin (Sn) 0
Silicon (Si) 3
Sodium (Na) 0
Potassium (K) 3
Molybdenum (Mo) 0
Phosphorus (P) 800
Zinc (Zn) 750
Calcium (Ca) 1500
Magnesium (Mg) 6

TBN 8.3
K. Vis 13.4

NOTE: In the original formulations, the Phosphorus and Zinc were in the 1,300 and 1,200 ppm levels, respectively. Magnesium was more like 300 ppm or higher.

[ July 28, 2004, 05:45 PM: Message edited by: MolaKule ]

 

[dropitby]

Well Well the plot thickens

perhaps a chemical reaction between the synthetic base and the seals is the culprit.

Blackstones response: Darrell,

Since we deal with oils and metallic parts wear, we can't answer
your
question on seals. We would think if modern automotive seals could not
protect against oil leaks when synthetics were in use, we would have
heard
about the problem by now. We have heard that for older engines that
were
made prior to the synthetic oils hitting the market, can immediately
develop
seal problems with synthetic oils are added to the oil sump.

We don't think any additive could resolve the problem, even if it
existed. The cause would be a chemical reaction from the synthetic oil
base
to the materials used in seals, that would have nothing to do with the
additive in the oils. Additives used in synthetics are similar, if not
identical, to the additives used in petroleum base oils.


Jim Stark

 

[Bishop]

quote:

---

Additives used in synthetics are similar, if not
identical, to the additives used in petroleum base oils.

---

Kind of what I always thought was the case, which is why you can by a dino based semi synthetic which cleans just as well as a full synthetic these days.

So why use dino based oil with Auto-RX???
I suppose Auto-RX could just want you to find an oil with minimal additives, which I tend to think is hard to do these days?
Either that, or they are simply trying to make their cleaning process less expensive by telling people they can just use cheap oil with their product to cut costs?
As it is, it's a very expensive product for what amounts to a basic engine cleaner.

 

[Bio-T]

quote:

---

Originally posted by rugerman1:
The reason for using cheap dino oil is to let the Rx do it's job easier.Complex additive packages interfere with the job that Rx is trying to do.

---

I really thought this answered the question of why to use dino if possible for the Auto-Rx clean and rinse.

 

[sprintman]

Well I think the product is cheap for what it does and has no real competition.

 

[chrome]

Some oil companies actually tried to incorporate the cleaning chemistry of ARX into their OTC oils, but they could not achieve it whilst maintaining a competitive pricing.

That, I think speaks volumes for ARX...

 

[Bishop]

quote:

---

Originally posted by chrome:
Some oil companies actually tried to incorporate the cleaning chemistry of ARX into their OTC oils, but they could not achieve it whilst maintaining a competitive pricing.

That, I think speaks volumes for ARX...

---

Really?, who?, and where did that info come from?

As for being cheap for what it does, I'm not so sure about that, with just a quick calculation I get a figure of around $100+US to treat a high mileage engine (depending on how much faith in what oil you choose to use), so I'm not so sure Auto-RX scores any bonus points for being "cheap".

Maybe it's the best engine cleaner ever made, but when I look at it's value, time it takes to work, etc, I start feeling less like spending $100+ dollars, and several months, finding out it just is an "ok" product.

I see a reasonable amount of praise around for the stuff, but I also see the odd question mark behind enough to make me wonder if it's a slightly over hyped product on the internet?

 

[chrome]

http://69.25.72.74/ARXforums/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=300&SearchTerms=oil,companies

Look at the reply from Frank himself...