Tufoil

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: Mystic
I just now checked out the Tufoil website and they are still using as far as I can determine some of the advertising they were using literally years ago. Can't they at least have some new advertising? I don't think you will see Exxon/Mobil running the same commercial for 20 years.

Some of the statements they are making and examples they give are exactly the same, as far as I can determine, as when I last used Tufoil, which was a very long time ago. I last used Tufoil some time before 1994 when I bought my first Saturn new car. So something like 20 years. I did not use Tufoil in any new car that I bought.

The website itself is different in appearance but I distinctly remember some of the examples they used. As far as I am able to determine some of the examples are word for word the same. For example they have a diagram that supposedly shows how much better Tufoil reduces friction compared to various motor oils. To the best of my memory that is the same diagram that I saw many years ago.

Maybe they need some updated advertising and new examples.


The document they sent me was published in the Tufoil News by Fluoramics Inc., Septemeber 1993. I think these are the EXACT same examples you saw 20 years ago. Not that it means it is a terrible product, but speaking strictly as a consumer, I would have liked to see more recent research / testing.
 
Last edited:
How much would it cost to have somebody write some new advertising for the product? And if the product is selling well they certainly should be able to afford new advertising. Although I guess you can say they are saving a lot of money by just using the same advertising (with a somewhat redesigned website) for more than 20 years. I guess that will save on costs but I don't know if it is good business practice.

It seems to me that more recent examples would be more convincing but I guess if the last research was decades ago that saves on costs also.

For me, just how the testing seems to have taken place a long time ago and the advertising seems to be so dated, makes me not want to buy the product for those reasons alone. Like you say, motor oil has changed in the last 20 plus years.

And it certainly looks like people should not be putting anything solid (PTFE, Graphite, or particles of moly) into motor oil.
 
Last edited:
And that is another thing right there. I do not believe in the four ball tests for motor oil, or gun oil. I think it was designed for greases.
 
Im not sure about the solid particle theory. I have heard of a lot of people using moly in all sorts of mechanical applications and having great success.

As for the video, I love how amsoil dismisses the Phalax as a one armed bandit. True enough there are phalax machines that can be used to alter results, but other designs out there are fairly dependable.
 
I heard about this test but this is the first time I have seen it. I heard about how it was shown that shampoo could actually appear to be superior to motor oil. I would never believe any results from the 'one-armed bandit' except perhaps in the testing of grease.

And like the guy does in the film usually the people promoting the oil supplement or motor oil will test their product last, AFTER the bearing has heated up, and AFTER anti-wear additives have been activated by heat. I have seen this 'one-armed bandit' test at least once, maybe twice at the Colorado State Fair. I remember the first time I saw this test Mobil 1 was supposedly beaten by I think QS and I was telling myself-no way.

I have seen this test used to test gun oils. And because you know the test is worthless for lubricating oils you come away not knowing what gun oil was actually the best. This test is so worthless RemOil may actually have been the best as far as I know.

People should not be taken in by this test. If you see this at a state fair or somewhere else you really should just walk away.
 
Last edited:
I think Amsoil uses the four ball test, which is supposed to be a better test. But I don't know that for a fact.

The bottom line is we can't achieve the testing procedures that the big oil companies can achieve. They can test their products in labs, in fleets of their own vehicles, in taxi cab fleets, etc. They can do millions of dollars worth of testing. An individual and even a small company would not be able to achieve that level of testing.

Nobody HAS to use any oil supplement at all. A person can go a long ways with just good maintenance including proper OCIs for motor oil and using good quality motor oil. Of course at this website in the Oil Additives Section we like to find out about other products. We like to find out how guys have done with various engine cleaning products, with various oil supplements, etc.

I think that is what the Oil Additives Section is for but occasionally somebody will come along and apparently not understand that. They will say that a person only has to use good quality motor oil and they will demand scientific testing of the oil supplement and all of that. We get it that a person only has to use good quality motor oil. But this Oil Additives Section is where people can talk about their experiences with oil supplements, engine cleaning products, etc.

Usually the guy who is saying that only good quality motor oil should be used and demands scientific testing of oil supplements will then want to talk about his own product of choice. But that is another story.

I think this examination of Tufoil has been interesting. It deserved to be in the Oil Additives Section. People found it interesting. I found it interesting.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Greasymechtech
PTFE is a great oil additive.
Tufoil is something you should test for yourself.

When Dupont heard about slick50, they were just mad because they didnt think of it first. Slander away when you miss a great opportunity.

But, this is a Tufoil thread and not a slick50 thread.

The armchair bandits that never have used Tufoil tend to be the loudest naysayers.






If DuPont and NASA states to the public PTFE does not belong in a internal combustion engine. Then you will have to come up with more than a link to a 3rd party additive to convince me there is validity in your statement.

NASA Lewis Research also ran tests on PTFE additives and they concluded that:

"In the types of bearing surface contact we have looked at, we have seen no benefit. In some cases we have seen detrimental effect. The solids in the oil tend to accumulate at inlets and act as a dam, which simply blocks the oil from entering. Instead of helping, it is actually depriving parts of lubricant."

http://www.msgroup.org/Tip.aspx?Num=043

Implying DuPont would just leave money laying on the table is pretty far out. PTFE is produced by only a few companies other than DuPont. DuPont discouraging the use of PTFE in internal combustion engines actually degrades profit. I do not know of many billion dollars companies that discourage profit.
 
These are all good points and Greasymechtech I did use Tufoil. For a while. So I was not one of the armchair bandits.

One of the things that really encouraged me to use Tufoil was an article in Popular Mechanics Magazine. I figured if Popular Mechanics Magazine tested the product and it seemed to work for them it must be okay.

Tufoil is extremely thick, unless they have made changes since I used it. It seemed to reduce start up chatter in my old used Toyota Corolla station wagon. But quite possibly STP or 20W50 motor oil would have done the same. Tufoil was so thick it made me nervous about using it. I don't know why it had to be so thick, unless that slowed down the PTFE from raining out of the carrier oil.

I stopped using it a long time ago. Dupont came out and said that PTFE should not be used in engines. I figured Dupont knew what they were talking about.
 
If the guys who *invented* PTFE tell you *not* to use it in your engine, then you *don't* use it in your engine.
 
Last edited:
Quote:
As to my earlier assertion that Teflon® cannot be made to bond to engine parts, despite what Slick 50 says, the Chief Chemist of Redline Synthetic Oil Company, Roy Howell, says:


Quote:
... to plate Teflon on a metal needs an absolutely clean, high temperature surface, in a vacuum. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that the Teflon in Slick 50 actually plates the metal surface. In addition the Cf (Coefficient of friction) of Teflon is actually greater than the Cf of an Oil Film on Steel. Also, if the Teflon did fill in 'craters' in the steel, than it would fill in the honing of the cylinder, and the oil would not seal the piston rings."


This is similar to what I stated around 2002 when we had a similar Slick50/Tufoil discussion.

As for the Four-ball test from NULON:

Quote:
Four Ball EP Test
One such test used for comparative load-carrying evaluation is the Four Ball Extreme Pressure Test. The purpose of the test is to assess the load-carrying ability of a lubricant which is measured in kilograms.

An illustration of the test apparatus is shown in Appendix Figure 1.

Three-eighth-inch carbon steel ball bearings are used in the Four Ball test to determine the Load Wear Index (LWI) that provides a relative measurement of a particular lubricant to prevent wear.

In this instance Four Ball wear tests were conducted on three different greases, all of which meet the performance requirements of USA military specification MIL-G-10924.

The first sample that contained no PTFE (in accordance with the specification requirements) was computed to have an LWI of 26.
The two remaining samples were both dosed with PTFE and showed
an average LWI of 57.9.


What base oil(s) were they using and how much ZDDP was in the mix?

Notice they left out this fact.

These factors can determine the outcome.

As a grease thickener for some applications, PTFE is ok.
 
Tufoil was something I read a lot about but never cared to try. They did sell a lot of it though.
 
tumblr_m9y6dbNcRw1rc2lkjo1_1280.jpg
 
Originally Posted By: Trav
tumblr_m9y6dbNcRw1rc2lkjo1_1280.jpg



Yep he's back. LOL It didn't take long to find him either.
 
Originally Posted By: Trav
No problem, we are just letting a banned troll know he outed himself again. LOL



Once again we must be the most popular site on the web!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top