Upper cylinder lubricant which best brand?

[Shel_B]

My argument is based on personal experience and also product description of multiple more or less reputable products:
[...]
What data do you want? An excel sheet of blow by with and without ucl? I dont have that

So, you have no data of any sort to substantiate your claims other than product advertising and promotion material, which by itself is not data. I'd have thought the companies that produce these products would have at least published some test or research results that support their claims.

"... more or less reputable products:" ??? Such a comment is not a ringing endorsement.

I poked around a bit and found this result of a Before and After test of Restore and below that is a link to the video that shows how the test was conducted.. Apart from a very small difference in compression for two of the six cylinders, there doesn't seem to be any improvement from using the product. Considering that the Before and After portions of the test were done under different conditions, I'd be inclined to suggest that there was no improvement of the type you've been touting. I've added a link to the video so that you can see how the test was conducted.

Restore Engine Compression $10 – Does It Work!? | BleepinJeep

bleepinjeep.com

 

[Fredxt]

So, you have no data of any sort to substantiate your claims other than product advertising and promotion material, which by itself is not data. I'd have thought the companies that produce these products would have at least published some test or research results that support their claims.

"... more or less reputable products:" ??? Such a comment is not a ringing endorsement.

I poked around a bit and found this result of a Before and After test of Restore and below that is a link to the video that shows how the test was conducted.. Apart from a very small difference in compression for two of the six cylinders, there doesn't seem to be any improvement from using the product. Considering that the Before and After portions of the test were done under different conditions, I'd be inclined to suggest that there was no improvement of the type you've been touting. I've added a link to the video so that you can see how the test was conducted.

View attachment 186694

Restore Engine Compression $10 – Does It Work!? | BleepinJeep

bleepinjeep.com

OK, this guy also saw 10psi improvement for cyl 4 and 5psi for cyl 1. So, there was a difference since he said he repeated the test multiple times. Now, since we cannot find what the perfect pressure (0 blow-by) would be, we cannot see how much of blow-by is reduced. If the perfect psi is 190 then this thing cut the blow-by by 1/3, all depends on what that actual perfect psi is.
Hot shot secret has data on wear scar but not blow-by. I think real blow-by numbers are tough to measure since the pcv bypasses the result. Maybe putting a sensor in pcv line can measure it.

 

[OVERKILL]

So, you have no data of any sort to substantiate your claims other than product advertising and promotion material, which by itself is not data. I'd have thought the companies that produce these products would have at least published some test or research results that support their claims.

"... more or less reputable products:" ??? Such a comment is not a ringing endorsement.

I poked around a bit and found this result of a Before and After test of Restore and below that is a link to the video that shows how the test was conducted.. Apart from a very small difference in compression for two of the six cylinders, there doesn't seem to be any improvement from using the product. Considering that the Before and After portions of the test were done under different conditions, I'd be inclined to suggest that there was no improvement of the type you've been touting. I've added a link to the video so that you can see how the test was conducted.

View attachment 186694

Restore Engine Compression $10 – Does It Work!? | BleepinJeep

bleepinjeep.com

Restore is not a UCL, so I'm not sure how it got dragged into this discussion.

Restore is a product that contains a pile of soft metals that are supposed to temporarily fill in scores and scuffs in the side of a liner or bore, to restore (increase) compression and reduce oil consumption. This is specifically for an engine on its last legs. Nobody in their right mind would put this product in a healthy engine where it will:
A) Produce absolutely no benefit (you aren't restoring compression on a hole that's not scored or scuffed)
B) Contaminate the oil and engine with all manner of soft metals that aren't supposed to be in it

 

[OVERKILL]

OK, this guy also saw 10psi improvement for cyl 4 and 5psi for cyl 1. So, there was a difference since he said he repeated the test multiple times. Now, since we cannot find what the perfect pressure (0 blow-by) would be, we cannot see how much of blow-by is reduced. If the perfect psi is 190 then this thing cut the blow-by by 1/3, all depends on what that actual perfect psi is.
Hot shot secret has data on wear scar but not blow-by. I think real blow-by numbers are tough to measure since the pcv bypasses the result. Maybe putting a sensor in pcv line can measure it.

This is easily measured with a leakdown test. The reason it isn't is because it's a snake oil pitch.

Why does oil go into the gas of a 2-stroke?

How does that translate to putting oil in the gas of a 4-stroke?

If you understand how those two different engine designs are lubricated you understand why one doesn't apply to the other.

 

[Fredxt]

This is easily measured with a leakdown test. The reason it isn't is because it's a snake oil pitch.

Why does oil go into the gas of a 2-stroke?

How does that translate to putting oil in the gas of a 4-stroke?

If you understand how those two different engine designs are lubricated you understand why one doesn't apply to the other.

The issue with leak down test is that it's done when the engine is off and gas is no more sprayed there, so, it might be no UCL left from combustion since its supposed to be ashless and just burn clean. Any idea on how to resolve that issue? If we spray some gas+ucl in the cyl before the test then it's not a valid test anymore. I think measuring blow-by directly from pcv flow might be the only way to check.

I think 2-stroke oil is only used here because it's ashless and has high enough flashpoint, really has nothing to do with its usage in 2 stoke engine. Better UCLs might perform much better than an oil that is designed for something else.

 

[OVERKILL]

The issue with leak down test is that it's done when the engine is off and gas is no more sprayed there, so, it might be no UCL left from combustion since its supposed to be ashless and just burn clean. Any idea on how to resolve that issue? If we spray some gas+ucl in the cyl before the test then it's not a valid test anymore. I think measuring blow-by directly from pcv flow might be the only way to check.

Do it on a carbureted engine, you'll get the fuel+UCL then. Or, you could do it on an older FI engine and just unplug the coil wire to the distributor, it'll crank and spray fuel but not fire.

It would need to be done on a warm engine, where the bores are lubricated, not on a cold one where ring seal is poor and the bores aren't being lubricated.

I think 2-stroke oil is only used here because it's ashless and has high enough flashpoint, really has nothing to do with its usage in 2 stoke engine. Better UCLs might perform much better than an oil that is designed for something else.

That's not what I was asking.

2-stroke oil is used in 2-stroke engines to lubricate the bores and other components because there is no sump, there is no oil pump, there is no other way for the engine to be lubricated than through this mechanism.

A 4-stroke has a pressurized lubrication system, including spray from the rods that lubricates the bores constantly as the pistons move up and down. An oil is not included, either through an injection mechanism like on an oil-injected 2-stroke, or as part of the fuel on the induction side, because it's not needed, the bores are already being lubricated. This is why a 4-stroke has oil control rings, to manage how much oil the ring pack sees and return it to the sump through the return holes. This isn't the case on a 2-stroke as the oil is consumed as part of the process of it doing its job.

 

[Fredxt]

Do it on a carbureted engine, you'll get the fuel+UCL then. Or, you could do it on an older FI engine and just unplug the coil wire to the distributor, it'll crank and spray fuel but not fire.

It would need to be done on a warm engine, where the bores are lubricated, not on a cold one where ring seal is poor and the bores aren't being lubricated.

I have a 2014 CRV with a 2.4L non-turbo port-injected engine for experiments. Really no access to a carbureted engine or the other one you mentioned. But I will search for a flow sensor that can measure pcv flow. Worst case is that its like a clogged pcv for a while

That's not what I was asking.

2-stroke oil is used in 2-stroke engines to lubricate the bores and other components because there is no sump, there is no oil pump, there is no other way for the engine to be lubricated than through this mechanism.

A 4-stroke has a pressurized lubrication system, including spray from the rods that lubricates the bores constantly as the pistons move up and down. An oil is not included, either through an injection mechanism like on an oil-injected 2-stroke, or as part of the fuel on the induction side, because it's not needed, the bores are already being lubricated. This is why a 4-stroke has oil control rings, to manage how much oil the ring pack sees and return it to the sump through the return holes. This isn't the case on a 2-stroke as the oil is consumed as part of the process of it doing its job.

Ok, the recommended doze of 2-stroke oil in gas is 1 oz per 5 gallons. Now, during 5000miles at lets say 25 mpg, we use 200 gals of fuel and thus 40oz or 1.25 qt of 2-stroke oil. That much crankcase oil is not burnt in my car, so that much crankcase oil does not get to the upper cylinder part. If it had oil consumption maybe that was getting there but then we needed low ash oil. So, fuel is a better delivery medium for this much volume of oil if we have no oil consumption.
This is all assuming that we need that much oil in upper cyl part, but my point here was that IF we need that much it's not delivered by the crankcase oil.

 

[OVERKILL]

I have a 2014 CRV with a 2.4L non-turbo port-injected engine for experiments. Really no access to a carbureted engine or the other one you mentioned. But I will search for a flow sensor that can measure pcv flow. Worst case is that its like a clogged pcv for a while

Ok, the recommended doze of 2-stroke oil in gas is 1 oz per 5 gallons. Now, during 5000miles at lets say 25 mpg, we use 200 gals of fuel and thus 40oz or 1.25 qt of 2-stroke oil. That much crankcase oil is not burnt in my car, so that much crankcase oil does not get to the upper cylinder part. If it had oil consumption maybe that was getting there but then we needed low ash oil. So, fuel is a better delivery medium for this much volume of oil if we have no oil consumption.
This is all assuming that we need that much oil in upper cyl part, but my point here was that IF we need that much it's not delivered by the crankcase oil.

Sufficient oil is delivered from the crankcase as evidenced by the billions of miles engines have accrued without a UCL, including many that have gone far further than you will ever take your CR-V. I've personally seen a Lincoln Town Car with 1.2 million km on it, no UCL use, still passed emissions testing, and it wasn't even run on "good" oil, just bulk.

I've personally torn down my own 302 SBF that, at 200,000 miles, still had factory-spec compression and perfect bores. Tell me, how would a UCL have made that better? You can't, because it can't, it's abject feel-good fantasy.

This is like being prescribed a placebo and wholesale embracing the idea that you are being medicated to live longer. It may be cathartic, but it's not actually doing anything.

 

[Fredxt]

Sufficient oil is delivered from the crankcase as evidenced by the billions of miles engines have accrued without a UCL, including many that have gone far further than you will ever take your CR-V. I've personally seen a Lincoln Town Car with 1.2 million km on it, no UCL use, still passed emissions testing, and it wasn't even run on "good" oil, just bulk.

I've personally torn down my own 302 SBF that, at 200,000 miles, still had factory-spec compression and perfect bores. Tell me, how would a UCL have made that better? You can't, because it can't, it's abject feel-good fantasy.

This is like being prescribed a placebo and wholesale embracing the idea that you are being medicated to live longer. It may be cathartic, but it's not actually doing anything.

I totally agree that we don't need UCL for longer engine longevity. What I feel is a better throttle response, did I say anything else? HSS has data that shows UCL reduces wear scar size (in ultra low sulfur diesel), but for gasoline it might or might not be the case and wear scar by itself is nothing I care about.
All in all, you do not need it, and you will not miss a huge benefit, specially if you cannot feel it.
As a side note, let's assume I have some published statistical lab work (on totally unrelated stuff to this conversation) to not be fooled by a priori assumptions about something.

 

[OVERKILL]

I totally agree that we don't need UCL for longer engine longevity. What I feel is a better throttle response, did I say anything else? HSS has data that shows UCL reduces wear scar size (in ultra low sulfur diesel), but for gasoline it might or might not be the case and wear scar by itself is nothing I care about.
All in all, you do not need it, and you will not miss a huge benefit, specially if you cannot feel it.

The claim of "better throttle response" requires an explanation though, it doesn't stand by itself. You've attempted to claim it's due to better ring seal, but there's nothing to support that, nor do I see how that correlates. Oil in the gas, if anything, will slightly reduce the octane rating and have a detrimental impact on fuel burn profile, which is optimized for the fuel by itself, similar to how additives to engine oils are almost guaranteed to have a negative impact on something because oils are fully formulated products, and tested as such. Perceived throttle response is primarily dictated by ignition timing and throttle tip-in, so unless it's changing your ECM throttle angle profile (it's not) or it's causing your engine to ping, pulling timing, and your throttle response responds positively to less initial advance, there's no real explanation for what you are claiming.

As a side note, let's assume I have some published statistical lab work (on totally unrelated stuff to this conversation) to not be fooled by a priori assumptions about something.

I'm assuming nothing. Our exchange here is what it is, you've made a claim, it's up to you to support it. You brought up a totally unrelated product (Restore) as a means to bolster your point, so assuming you are attempting to engage in good faith here, what am I to make of that?

 

[Trav]

These additives were possibly helpful many years ago when the engine oil was so poor it did not do much in the way of preventing cylinder wear. Those days are long gone as are the days you needed one of these just to get the pistons out, today it is common to still see the original honing marks in the cylinders.

 

[Fredxt]

The claim of "better throttle response" requires an explanation though, it doesn't stand by itself. You've attempted to claim it's due to better ring seal, but there's nothing to support that, nor do I see how that correlates. Oil in the gas, if anything, will slightly reduce the octane rating and have a detrimental impact on fuel burn profile, which is optimized for the fuel by itself, similar to how additives to engine oils are almost guaranteed to have a negative impact on something because oils are fully formulated products, and tested as such. Perceived throttle response is primarily dictated by ignition timing and throttle tip-in, so unless it's changing your ECM throttle angle profile (it's not) or it's causing your engine to ping, pulling timing, and your throttle response responds positively to less initial advance, there's no real explanation for what you are claiming.

I'm assuming nothing. Our exchange here is what it is, you've made a claim, it's up to you to support it. You brought up a totally unrelated product (Restore) as a means to bolster your point, so assuming you are attempting to engage in good faith here, what am I to make of that?

OK sir, lets design an experiment and once you signed off on it I will move forward to perform it.
What I propose, is,
1. I will drive the car with a few tanks of no UCL so that we are sure nothing is left. We will use a professionally designed UCL like LX4 or Locus which I have tried before.
2. I will measure engine blow-by rate through PCV valve without and then with the UCL. The flow rate meter will be rated for 20GPM which hopefully is enough. If it blew up I will know
Current candidate flow meter is this: uxcell LZT M-25 2-20GPM 10-70LPM Tube Type Flowmeter Flow Meter
3. meanwhile I will check if timing is changed, I got an xtool d8 obd2 reader, will check if it provides that graph.
4. both sessions will be done in the same day in the same garage at 2000 RPM without UCL and then with UCL on a 1/4 full tank. With some driving in between to mix the UCL which I add after the first test.
This is all done on a K24z7 engine. PCV is really well accessible.

PS
1. By the way, right now, maybe I can plot the timing graphs and see if there is any timing shift. Not sure though.
2. I can use 91 or 89 octane just to have some more protection against octane loss. Although I always use 87 octane with UCL.

 

[OVERKILL]

OK sir, lets design an experiment and once you signed off on it I will move forward to perform it.
What I propose, is,
1. I will drive the car with a few tanks of no UCL so that we are sure nothing is left. We will use a professionally designed UCL like LX4 or Locus which I have tried before.
2. I will measure engine blow-by rate through PCV valve without and then with the UCL. The flow rate meter will be rated for 20GPM which hopefully is enough. If it blew up I will know
Current candidate flow meter is this: uxcell LZT M-25 2-20GPM 10-70LPM Tube Type Flowmeter Flow Meter
3. meanwhile I will check if timing is changed, I got an xtool d8 obd2 reader, will check if it provides that graph.
4. both sessions will be done in the same day in the same garage at 2000 RPM without UCL and then with UCL on a 1/4 full tank. With some driving in between to mix the UCL which I add after the first test.
This is all done on a K24z7 engine. PCV is really well accessible.

PS
1. By the way, right now, maybe I can plot the timing graphs and see if there is any timing shift. Not sure though.
2. I can use 91 or 89 octane just to have some more protection against octane loss. Although I always use 87 octane with UCL.

I'm not sure we can sufficiently standardize your application to make this statistically valid, but I'm still interested in the results. You'd use the same brand and grade of gas you've always used, and you'll have to run multiple tests, @kschachn would be more knowledgeable on this aspect of it (standardization) than I am, but I assume we'll need about 8 tests of each.

Are you just planning to do this at idle? Looking at that flow meter, I'm getting the impression that you are. We'd need a mass air flow sensor of some sort to be able to track data underway. Since PCV is under a vacuum, anything that affects vacuum (like timing advance, throttle angle...etc) are important parameters that must be tracked, so you'll need all of that data for each test, along with load.

I don't see how doing this at idle is going to tell us anything though, since manifold vacuum under no load should grossly exceed any blowby, so we'd be effectively just measuring the ability of the crankcase to move air from the breather through the PCV valve into the intake. In order to measure PCV flow in the absence of manifold vacuum you'd need to block off the vacuum line and just measure flow out the orifice, which will not be laminar, since it will push/pull based on the cylinder pulses.

To really measure blowby, the engine should be under full load at WOT (basically no manifold vacuum, maximum blowby potential) with a mass air measuring device on the crankcase and the breather blocked off so the only way air can enter/exit the crankcase is through this one path. Not sure how viable testing that with your application is.

Thoughts?

 

[OVERKILL]

These additives were possibly helpful many years ago when the engine oil was so poor it did not do much in the way of preventing cylinder wear. Those days are long gone as are the days you needed one of these just to get the pistons out, today it is common to still see the original honing marks in the cylinders.

View attachment 186774

Yes, my 200,000 mile 302 still had visible crosshatching and absolutely perfect bores (and factory spec compression).

I've torn down engines from the 30's, 40's and 50's that had visible ring ridge going on, scuffing...etc.

 

[Chris142]

It not need but to protect or minimize cylinder wall scratches it worth spent few dollars mores .

Sounds like you you need a better air filter

 

[Astro14]

These additives were possibly helpful many years ago when the engine oil was so poor it did not do much in the way of preventing cylinder wear. Those days are long gone as are the days you needed one of these just to get the pistons out, today it is common to still see the original honing marks in the cylinders.

View attachment 186774

I still have a ridge cutter…can’t seem to part with that, or the ring compressor, and a few other relics from a long time ago…

 

[Trav]

Same here. The guy that taught me everything after trade school still had an engine in the car cylinder boring machine, not a hone but actual cylinder boring. His father had it in the 20's and 30's when the most common engines were inline. He had other cool tools like armature lathe, brake relining riveter and a lot of NOS parts inc a carb for a 30's Dusenberg.

 

[Fredxt]

I'm not sure we can sufficiently standardize your application to make this statistically valid, but I'm still interested in the results. You'd use the same brand and grade of gas you've always used, and you'll have to run multiple tests, @kschachn would be more knowledgeable on this aspect of it (standardization) than I am, but I assume we'll need about 8 tests of each.

Are you just planning to do this at idle? Looking at that flow meter, I'm getting the impression that you are. We'd need a mass air flow sensor of some sort to be able to track data underway. Since PCV is under a vacuum, anything that affects vacuum (like timing advance, throttle angle...etc) are important parameters that must be tracked, so you'll need all of that data for each test, along with load.

I don't see how doing this at idle is going to tell us anything though, since manifold vacuum under no load should grossly exceed any blowby, so we'd be effectively just measuring the ability of the crankcase to move air from the breather through the PCV valve into the intake. In order to measure PCV flow in the absence of manifold vacuum you'd need to block off the vacuum line and just measure flow out the orifice, which will not be laminar, since it will push/pull based on the cylinder pulses.

To really measure blowby, the engine should be under full load at WOT (basically no manifold vacuum, maximum blowby potential) with a mass air measuring device on the crankcase and the breather blocked off so the only way air can enter/exit the crankcase is through this one path. Not sure how viable testing that with your application is.

Thoughts?

Good points! I need to think more about it. For now, I see that finding the right sensor is the main issue, mostly due to pulsing nature of the flow. Other than that I can put it on a dyno and measure under full load.

 

[350Rocket]

I have always wondered what use and benefit there was when using an upper cylinder lube. Now you've suggested a benefit and you seem to stand by it even when questioned by @OVERKILL. Great. It sounds like you know something I don't.

Please tell us how you've arrived at your conclusion. You said "UCL reduces blow by and threfore causes better throttle response". Have you some data that backs up your assertion or are you making some assumptions? How do you know UCL reduces blowby? And how do you know that, if true, reduced blowby causes better throttle response? Have you seen some test results or is your conclusion based on personal experience or, perhaps, assumptions?

I'm looking foward to your response. I'd love to be convinced that UCL has real-world benefits.

I've used it for a period of time in hopes that it might be good for my fuel pump and injectors and I've heard it can help with cleaning. However I have no idea if it actually does any of this and there is zero noticeable difference in performance in my heavily loaded 2005 Silverado with 250k miles. It runs exactly the same with or without UCL.

 

[Fredxt]

Pretty strong words. Did you read the article @RDY4WAR linked in his post?
In case you missed it (I almost overlooked it) I'll post the link again. You made no mention of it, so I'll assume you missed it somehow. Here it is in a big, bold font ... you seem to like that style:

https://www.mannol.de/file/repository/Essay_EN.PDF

You said that nobody can provide any data that says otherwise. The title of the article is Lubricity of gasoline and alcohol-gasoline fuel blends.

The very first sentence says, "The fuel pump and some components of the injection system of internal combustion engines are lubricated with the fuel itself."

The article goes on from there. It appears that there may be some data that "says otherwise."

I read this paper, here are the point I can make from it:

1. gas by itself it not a good lubricant " in this case a problem similar to that for diesel fuel appears: high-pressure diesel fuel pumps started to fail due to the low lubricity of gasoline"
2. low sulfur content of current gasoline (10ppm) is close to 15ppm for ultra low sulfur diesel and contributes to lower gasoline lubricity,
"Refinery streams containing more sulfur anddienes or diolefin showed the best antiwear performance"
3. ethanol helps, even "and that some water in ethanolcan improve its antiwear performance" Table 2 shows wear scar numbers much better than 700-900
4. "commercial diesel lubricity improvers were also effective for gasoline"

finally their conclusion says
As for gasolines produced under the traditional technology without the addition of ethyl alcohol, their antiwear properties are at acritical level and average 700-900 µm according to ASTM D6079 method using the HFFR instrument (at 25 °C)
A higher wear scar, lower film traces and higher friction coefficients obtained for all tested fuels compared to typical values for diesel fuels highlight the need to use a lubricity improver when using gasoline or ethanol/gasoline blends in new engines requiring higher pressure in the fuel injection system"

Did you read it?