Top End Lubes - Not Always Needed

[mechtech2]

I am a big fan of top end lubes in the gas. MMO or 2 stroke oil.
But I was thinking [I know I was thinking - smoke was coming out of my ears!] that if you have an oil burner, this is largely unnecessary.
It probably would be best with no extra oil.
For some of us, we should consider this concerning certain vehicles.

 

[AuthorEditor]

I'm gun shy about using top end lubes after having emission system problems in two cars within a few months of trying 2-stroke oil (carefully measured at 1:500) in the gas. There was no perceptible change in performance or gas mileage while using the top end lubes. I can't directly relate my emission problems to the lube, but who knows?

 

[ARCOgraphite]

Never did mmo recently, but oil in the lube messed up my injectors. Took 3 tanks to get them back. But it ran good for a while. That was at 100-200:1. I only did this since my toyota doesnt burn ANY (good) oil and was interested in lubing the valve stems. Any car that uses a couple qts per oic need no top end lube. It'll come though the pcv or creep past the VS seals.

 

[IndyIan]

Is there an easy way to tell if my car burns a moderate amount of oil? The oil level goes down on both of them at maybe a quart/3-5000 miles but they both have a few seepage areas but no real drips. So I don't really know how much oil goes out the exhaust or for "rust proofing".

 

[hate2work]

Originally Posted By: AuthorEditor
I'm gun shy about using top end lubes after having emission system problems in two cars within a few months of trying 2-stroke oil (carefully measured at 1:500) in the gas. There was no perceptible change in performance or gas mileage while using the top end lubes. I can't directly relate my emission problems to the lube, but who knows?


This is exactly why I am not a big fan of adding top end lube to my gas. Not only is there no imperical proof that it does anything good, I've read too many stories like this about emission system problems after the use of them.

 

[ARCOgraphite]

Originally Posted By: IndyIan
... So I don't really know how much oil goes out the exhaust or for "rust proofing".

Thats funny! I would assume that if you dont have spots or puddles in your parking spot that everything (missing) from the dipstick goes out the tailpipe. Note that the oil level after an OC can increase a fair amount due to water and fuel in the sump (caveat: typ driving conditions with 65% city/town) so take that into account if you want.

 

[AuthorEditor]

Quote:
This is exactly why I am not a big fan of adding top end lube to my gas. Not only is there no imperical proof that it does anything good, I've read too many stories like this about emission system problems after the use of them.


Yeah, I understand the theory and see lots of claims for top-end lubes, but I now feel that if a product isn't specifically designed and marketed to pour into your gas tank I am reluctant to do so. The benefits have not been scientifically documented and I don't see car companies telling us that we should use these additives for improved performance or longevity.

 

[Jim 5]

Originally Posted By: AuthorEditor
Quote:
This is exactly why I am not a big fan of adding top end lube to my gas. Not only is there no imperical proof that it does anything good, I've read too many stories like this about emission system problems after the use of them.


Yeah, I understand the theory and see lots of claims for top-end lubes, but I now feel that if a product isn't specifically designed and marketed to pour into your gas tank I am reluctant to do so. The benefits have not been scientifically documented and I don't see car companies telling us that we should use these additives for improved performance or longevity.


The closest I get to this is pouring a half gallon of 2 stroke mixed gas in my wife's minivan (when it has nearly a full tank only) at the end of the weed-eating/leaf-blowing season. It's easier than trying to dispose of it and I've never had a problem. I too have wondered about top end lube. Especially when our minivan uses a little less than a full quart in 5k miles (as has been reported many current honda v6's do).

 

[chevrofreak]

Originally Posted By: ARCOgraphite
Never did mmo recently, but oil in the lube messed up my injectors. Took 3 tanks to get them back. But it ran good for a while. That was at 100-200:1. I only did this since my toyota doesnt burn ANY (good) oil and was interested in lubing the valve stems. Any car that uses a couple qts per oic need no top end lube. It'll come though the pcv or creep past the VS seals.



You were also using engine oil in the gas

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: chevrofreak
Originally Posted By: ARCOgraphite
Never did mmo recently, but oil in the lube messed up my injectors. Took 3 tanks to get them back. But it ran good for a while. That was at 100-200:1. I only did this since my toyota doesnt burn ANY (good) oil and was interested in lubing the valve stems. Any car that uses a couple qts per oic need no top end lube. It'll come though the pcv or creep past the VS seals.



You were also using engine oil in the gas

Yes and quite a healty dose since they typically run TCW3 at 500:1 and MMO is recommended at IIRC 320:1 or 4 ounces in 10 gallons of gas. ARCO's dose was quite healthy to say the least.

 

[Spyder7]

Originally Posted By: mechtech2
I am a big fan of top end lubes in the gas. MMO or 2 stroke oil.
But I was thinking [I know I was thinking - smoke was coming out of my ears!] that if you have an oil burner, this is largely unnecessary.
It probably would be best with no extra oil.
For some of us, we should consider this concerning certain vehicles.


My thinking is the exact opposite. Its precisely because I have an oil burner that something like MMO or tc-w3 is beneficial. In the case of my oil burner, its due to defective in the piston ring design that makes them prone to sticking. This process happens over time and makes them more prone to carbon buildup, which worsens the problem (oil consumption increases).

Both MMO and tc-w3 contain differing amounts of solvent and lubrication ingredient. Sprayed through the injectors, via the fuel, I would think this combination of properties in both additives could, overtime, help free the rings up by lubricating the upper cylinder and cleaning out the carbon build up. This is the theory anyway. I haven't seen anything to prove or disprove it, but have heard accounts of reduced consumption through the use of MMO in fuel.

Subjectively I find my engine seems smoother with either, although for me tc-w3 seems to work a little better (maybe better lubricating properties, who knows). I plan to run one more cycle of MMO in fuel then go back to tc-w3. My use of it is at the generally accepted 500:1 ratio.

By the way I have no scientific proof that this works. I have read enough positive accounts of the reasoning behind using it, and have myself seen enough of a positive result in engine smoothness (and it also sounds better with tc-w3 in it) to justify the continued use of this very cheap additive. But my experience is purely subjective. At the same time I'm not out to convert anyone to 'the fold.' Use it if you want, if you see no point or benefit, don't. Very simple choice on this.

-Spyder

 

[demarpaint]

Here is an observation after changing my Aerostar to TCW 3 from MMO just shy of 4 weeks ago.

I'm playing around with TCW3 in the gas in my 93 Aerostar which uses some oil. Here is what I noticed, the engine is using a little less oil with the TCW3 in the gas vs MMO. I'm still not 100% certain but typically toward the end of my OCI oil use goes to about 1 ounce/100 miles. 4000 into this OCI, and 3 tanks of gas with TCW3 and oil use is ~ 1/2 ounce/100 miles.

I posted this in a thread, thought it would be a good idea to post it here now. I'm now 4 tanks into it.

IMO MMO is a better cleaner than TCW3, thinner and [probably better for a newer engine] note the word probably because it is my opinion. However in an older engine I'm thinking TCW3 might make for an even tighter ring seal than the MMO and in my case the reason for the slight reduction in oil use.

The wildcard in all of this, I've been using LM MoS2 for close to 10K miles in this engine, and the reduced oil use could be that the LM is finally kicking in. Funny thing is it is the last 4 weeks with the TCW3 that I noticed the reduction in oil use. I plan on switching back to MMO to see if anything changes, then I can be certain.

Or if any other members are using oil and want to try a test see if after a few tanks or gas switching top oils makes a difference in oil consumed. We like to experiment, this could help reduce oil consumption. It could also be a fluke?

 

[Spyder7]

Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Here is an observation after changing my Aerostar to TCW 3 from MMO just shy of 4 weeks ago.

I'm playing around with TCW3 in the gas in my 93 Aerostar which uses some oil. Here is what I noticed, the engine is using a little less oil with the TCW3 in the gas vs MMO. I'm still not 100% certain but typically toward the end of my OCI oil use goes to about 1 ounce/100 miles. 4000 into this OCI, and 3 tanks of gas with TCW3 and oil use is ~ 1/2 ounce/100 miles.

I posted this in a thread, thought it would be a good idea to post it here now. I'm now 4 tanks into it.

IMO MMO is a better cleaner than TCW3, thinner and [probably better for a newer engine] note the word probably because it is my opinion. However in an older engine I'm thinking TCW3 might make for an even tighter ring seal than the MMO and in my case the reason for the slight reduction in oil use.

The wildcard in all of this, I've been using LM MoS2 for close to 10K miles in this engine, and the reduced oil use could be that the LM is finally kicking in. Funny thing is it is the last 4 weeks with the TCW3 that I noticed the reduction in oil use. I plan on switching back to MMO to see if anything changes, then I can be certain.

Or if any other members are using oil and want to try a test see if after a few tanks or gas switching top oils makes a difference in oil consumed. We like to experiment, this could help reduce oil consumption. It could also be a fluke?


I believe MMO is a better solvent while TC-W3 is a better lube. I've seen no consumption in the past week and the only variable that changed was the introduction of MMO in fuel.

I also added LM MOS2 yesterday, but the difference observed was prior to adding it. This summer mine's been consuming enough that in any previous week there was some consumption observed during that interval. Maybe just a few ounces, but enough to see on the stick. Before checking the engine was run for a good span on the highway, then allowed to cool so I was not seeing fuel dilution or something similar.

I think I may be starting to make some headway with the consumption problem in mine, but I won't be able to attribute it to one variable. I believe a UCL helps (not immediately, but over time), and I think MOS2 will help lower it further.

My peak consumption was 1 quart in 1,200 miles this summer. I'm expecting to see improvement over the next year through things like use of a UCL (mostly tc-w3, occasionally MMO), a switch to 10W30 from 5W30, LM MOS2 additive, and potentionally there motor oil saver additive after I've tried these and maybe other things as well first (like an MMO or LC20 piston soak).

-Spyder

 

[demarpaint]

I've been adding MMO the fuel religiously in my 93 Aerostar for well over 130,000 miles now. The problem I have is I've changed two variables. One is I've been using MoS2 for almost 10K miles, and two is the recent switch to TCW3. I do agree that TCW3 is a better lube, but MMO is a better cleaner with lube abilities which is why I've used it for so long. I have the time and patience to experiment, and will always use a UCL in one form or another.

It would be interesting to see if others that have cars that use oil notice reduced consumption with the addition of TCW3. Ideally someone who has made no changes then starts with TCW3, and notices a reduction in oil use, then perhaps changes to MMO and see if it makes a difference.

 

[ARCOgraphite]

Originally Posted By: chevrofreak
Originally Posted By: ARCOgraphite
Never did mmo recently, but oil in the lube messed up my injectors. Took 3 tanks to get them back. But it ran good for a while. That was at 100-200:1. I only did this since my toyota doesnt burn ANY (good) oil and was interested in lubing the valve stems. Any car that uses a couple qts per oic need no top end lube. It'll come though the pcv or creep past the VS seals.



You were also using engine oil in the gas

I was using nondetergent non additised oil with NO- VII. Pure paraffinic lube so I would not get any metals depositing on the sensors or the cat. Also I though a higher FP oil would hang around to lube thing longer than the lower FP 2 stroker oils. It was just an experiment.

 

[panthermike]

Originally Posted By: ARCOgraphite
Originally Posted By: chevrofreak
Originally Posted By: ARCOgraphite
Never did mmo recently, but oil in the lube messed up my injectors. Took 3 tanks to get them back. But it ran good for a while. That was at 100-200:1. I only did this since my toyota doesnt burn ANY (good) oil and was interested in lubing the valve stems. Any car that uses a couple qts per oic need no top end lube. It'll come though the pcv or creep past the VS seals.



You were also using engine oil in the gas

I was using nondetergent non additised oil with NO- VII. Pure paraffinic lube so I would not get any metals depositing on the sensors or the cat. Also I though a higher FP oil would hang around to lube thing longer than the lower FP 2 stroker oils. It was just an experiment.


I just think your dose was a little strong.

 

[chevrofreak]

Originally Posted By: ARCOgraphite
Originally Posted By: chevrofreak
Originally Posted By: ARCOgraphite
Never did mmo recently, but oil in the lube messed up my injectors. Took 3 tanks to get them back. But it ran good for a while. That was at 100-200:1. I only did this since my toyota doesnt burn ANY (good) oil and was interested in lubing the valve stems. Any car that uses a couple qts per oic need no top end lube. It'll come though the pcv or creep past the VS seals.



You were also using engine oil in the gas

I was using nondetergent non additised oil with NO- VII. Pure paraffinic lube so I would not get any metals depositing on the sensors or the cat. Also I though a higher FP oil would hang around to lube thing longer than the lower FP 2 stroker oils. It was just an experiment.


You were using an ND30. Just because it doesn't have detergents doesn't mean it doesn't have anti-wear additives. I would bet money that if you had it tested it would come back with a good amount of zinc and phosphorous in it.

 

[Spyder7]

Originally Posted By: chevrofreak
Originally Posted By: ARCOgraphite
Originally Posted By: chevrofreak
Originally Posted By: ARCOgraphite
Never did mmo recently, but oil in the lube messed up my injectors. Took 3 tanks to get them back. But it ran good for a while. That was at 100-200:1. I only did this since my toyota doesnt burn ANY (good) oil and was interested in lubing the valve stems. Any car that uses a couple qts per oic need no top end lube. It'll come though the pcv or creep past the VS seals.



You were also using engine oil in the gas

I was using nondetergent non additised oil with NO- VII. Pure paraffinic lube so I would not get any metals depositing on the sensors or the cat. Also I though a higher FP oil would hang around to lube thing longer than the lower FP 2 stroker oils. It was just an experiment.


You were using an ND30. Just because it doesn't have detergents doesn't mean it doesn't have anti-wear additives. I would bet money that if you had it tested it would come back with a good amount of zinc and phosphorous in it.


+1. Tc-w3 is preferred because its designed to burn off during the combustion process and is no ash. It does its thing and is gone.

Wrong product, wrong ratio. Tc-w3 at the generally accepted 500:1 ratio is a whole other thing entirely.

-Spyder

 

[mechtech2]

When I initially thought about UCLs and oil burners, I was kinda thinking about engines that use a qt in 1000 miles or so. At that point, your cylinders are overlubed to start with.


Anyway, I do not at all doubt the veracity of the people who claim problems ensued with using MMO .
I DO have a problem with the validity of such statements, though.
Because obviously all sorts of incidental and extraneous things may have happened.

 

[Spyder7]

Originally Posted By: mechtech2
When I initially thought about UCLs and oil burners, I was kinda thinking about engines that use a qt in 1000 miles or so. At that point, your cylinders are overlubed to start with.


Anyway, I do not at all doubt the veracity of the people who claim problems ensued with using MMO .
I DO have a problem with the validity of such statements, though.
Because obviously all sorts of incidental and extraneous things may have happened.


True enough. I know in my case I'm more interested in reducing consumption than I am in painstakingly testing one product at a time before eliminating it and moving on. At the same time, I'm also dealing with a dirty engine I'm trying to clean out slowly.

To deal with both I switched to PP less than 2,000 miles ago. Shortly after I started dosing the gas with TC-W3 at a 500:1 ratio. Then I added in 12 ounces of MMO (10% concentration) to the PP about 500 miles ago. At the same time I switched UCL to MMO at the same time, although I also ran a Regane inbetween the switchover period. Then the other day I added Lubro-Moly mos2 (half a bottle) to the oil, as PP doesn't contain much Moly and I like Moly in my oil. Temps have also been trending downward.

Net effect of this is that if I notice continued decrease in consumption I won't be able to say which variable, or combination, caused the decrease. However, I've read enough successful accounts with each of these methods to believe each is worth trying - separately or in a reasonable combination. The goal is simply to reduce consumption and clean the engine and rings out.

These methods are only a few of the successful measures I've read about. As time passes, I will move onto other methods until I've either tried them all or consumption has decreased to a point that I consider reasonable for an engine of this vintage.

-Spyder