Upper Cylinder Lubricants?

I started trade school in 1971 and most of the stuff we got to work on was 10-15 years old, at less than 100K the cylinders usually had a deep ridge.
The oil was not very good and this sort of excessive wear was common. This was the era where products like MoS2, STP and others may have been of some benefit.
I haven't seen the heads off a modern HM car with high fuel dilution, any issues with a ridge?
 
I used Redline SI1 consistently for a year. When I cleaned the throttle body it was easily cleaned with a rag. Just a wipe. No scrubbing etc. No other results noticed.
I seem to remember Red Line claiming upper cylinder lubrication as one of the benefits of SI-1.
 
I don't think the fuel dilution is comparable to what the old cars suffered...
I don't think so either, I'm just curious because there are some engines that do have high fuel dilution compared to others. I'm wondering if it matters as the miles start to pile up. I'd love to hear from people with first hand experience. Especially in engines where you can actually smell gas in the oil when you change the oil.
 
I haven't seen the heads off a modern HM car with high fuel dilution, any issues with a ridge?
Not that I have seen but that doesn't mean anything. What is being labeled as high fuel dilution today is nothing compared to those days, the oil level on the stick would start creeping up in the winter even though the pigs were burning oil like an old frying pan.
 
I still don't know what it is in the UC that needs L and isn't getting it.

Made 450,000 miles in my old Sienna yesterday and never used a UCL, nor in any of my other high miles cars. What have I been missing?
 
I still don't know what it is in the UC that needs L and isn't getting it.

Made 450,000 miles in my old Sienna yesterday and never used a UCL, nor in any of my other high miles cars. What have I been missing?
you missed using 15w40
 
UCLs are beneficial to alcohol race engines as the alcohol will seep past the top ring, washing off oil film, and then evaporate. E10 has no effect on this, I'm talking about E98, X98, M1/3/5, etc... alcohol racing fuels. Outside of that, UCLs are a solution looking for a problem. Your wallet gets a little bit lighter for a "feel good" thing and the CEO of the supplement company buys himself a 3rd vacation home. Everybody is happy.
 
1- Shouldn't this be in the fuel additives forum?
2- How do the doubters explain all the people who report mileage and/or engine smoothness gains?

I've never seen a difference myself when I've tried it in anything fuel injected but I never really tried hard to measure.

I do use a 5-600:1 TC-W3 dose in all my carb'd lawn equipment in the hope it keeps to the inside of carb cleaner and corrosion free during the off-season. I haven't had any issues starting any of that stuff again afterwards but there's no way to tell if that would have been the case without it.
 
2- How do the doubters explain all the people who report mileage and/or engine smoothness gains?
"Smoothness?" Yeah okay I'll let people fight it out on that ridiculously subjective attribute.

The mileage is easy however. There is genuinely no possible way one could ascribe some minor observed difference in fuel economy to one isolated variable in everyday driving. I once linked an article here that describes how "real world" fuel economy is notoriously difficult to measure, in that article they note that gasoline varies in energy density up to 4% even at the same gas station - and that was before any seasonal change to the formulation. For there to be any hope of a worthwhile test standardized test gasoline must be used. Without that it's hopeless unless you are talking some massive change which is not the case with a UCL.

There are tens if not a hundred uncontrolled variables in everyday driving. People who try and claim that there aren't do not understand what they are up against. And as always it's not measuring something that is the problem.. It is attributing it to one isolated variable and that's just not possible here. The change is far too small and is well within the noise.
 
Man there's a lot of confidence out there. I never assume any such products do what it's actually claiming to do. If I get wind that so and so product works I'll keep it in mind and might use it if I somehow conclude it's actually needed. Otherwise I'm staring at a rack full of useless gimmicks. 😁
 
1- Shouldn't this be in the fuel additives forum?
2- How do the doubters explain all the people who report mileage and/or engine smoothness gains?
Smoothness can change tank to tank of fuel, ambient temp, humidity, if its raining, etc, this also effect mpg to a small degree. I remember well back in the days of carbs, and low votage point ignition systems some engines ran so smooth when it rained, others ran like crap because the rubber ignition wires (no silicone in those days) were grounding occasionally.
The butt dyno is something else altogether, totally useless.
 
Back
Top