Varnish: What's the downside?

Its not up to me to provide evidence.
It is up to the person making the claim to provide the evidence, that's how this works. You arguing to the contrary doesn't change that.
You are saying their is no evidence to support flushes because 3 professionals agree with you.
I'm saying that the three experts that participate here, none of which have a vested interest in promoting flushes, aren't a fan of them.
What about the professionals who are pro flush and manufacture the chemicals have you considered them.
They are of course in the business of making money from flushes Adam, are you not considering that aspect of it?
You can just deny them because you only want to make a point.
First off, you haven't quoted any formulators from any of the companies selling flushes. Secondly, yes, we do usually seek-out unbiased sources to substantiate claims made by folks with vested interests because of the inherent bias present with somebody having something to gain.
You don't wish to learn anything because you have found you feel comfortable with 3 professional answers that support your point. Surely, you have proved you have critical thinking skills but still you cant comprehend that aspect of it.
Adam, I've learned a ton on this forum over the years. I've provided a counter to your claim that flushes are beneficial, based on the expertise of an unbiased formulator. You've dismissed this because:
1. You sell flushes
2. You feel that only those that manufacture and sell flushes are qualified to comment on them

That's not the foundation for objective discourse.

You are demanding that the person who is asking for evidence to support a claim, seek-out that evidence on their own accord, rather than the one who made said claim. That's not how debate works. Your argument betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of your own position, willfully ignoring that you are not an objective participant, hence the claim being made in the first place and the fallacious appeal to authority that only other biased parties, who have monetary interest in the positive reception of these products, are credible.

If you can't see the issue with this approach, then this has never really been a conversation, it's been a demand by a biased party that others put in the work to debase their bias, and nobody on here is going to do that, so it has always been a lost cause.

My critical thinking skills and comprehension are just fine, I'm many things Adam, but stupid isn't one of them.
 
Last edited:
Its not up to me to provide evidence. You are saying their is no evidence to support flushes because 3 professionals agree with you. What about the professionals who are pro flush and manufacture the chemicals have you considered them. You can just deny them because you only want to make a point. You don't wish to learn anything because you have found you feel comfortable with 3 professional answers that support your viewpoint and all on one forum that you personally know. Surely, you have proved you have critical thinking skills but still you cant comprehend that aspect of it. Lots of 'experts' say the world is flat too. But other experts say it isn't. You are leaving the core concept of critical thinking off the desk.
If you can’t provide evidence to support your claim, you have no business arguing in the first place. If you had any of the critical thinking skills you claim others are lacking because they challenge your unverifiable claims, you would realize that.

Galileo actually had evidence of his claims and was still run out of town by people with no evidence, only thinking just like yours. And it was them who turned out to be completely wrong.
 
It is up to the person making the claim to provide the evidence, that's how this works. You arguing to the contrary doesn't change that.

I'm saying that the three experts that participate here, none of which have a vested interest in promoting flushes, aren't a fan of them.

They are of course in the business of making money from flushes Adam, are you not considering that aspect of it?

First off, you haven't quoted any formulators from any of the companies selling flushes. Secondly, yes, we do usually seek-out unbiased sources to substantiate claims made by folks with vested interests because of the inherent bias present with somebody having something to gain.

Adam, I've learned a ton on this forum over the years. I've provided a counter to your claim that flushes are beneficial, based on the expertise of an unbiased formulator. You've dismissed this because:
1. You sell flushes
2. You feel that only those that sell flushes are qualified to comment on them

That's not the foundation for objective discourse.

You are demanding that the person who is asking for evidence of a claim, seek-out that evidence rather than the one who made said claim, and the one who made said claim is already steeped in bias, hence the claim being made in the first place and the fallacious appeal to authority that only other biased parties, who have monetary interest in the positive reception of these products, are credible.

My critical thinking skills and comprehension are just fine, I'm many things Adam, but stupid isn't one of them.
But you are wrong. I'm not involved in selling flushes. I'm sorry it just doesn't make sense that you would have all your eggs in one basket. Their seems to be another reason why you cant budge a inch. 3 experts on the forum is no proof. One sells a engine flushing oil as a competitor to engine flush. See we can all do that.

I didn't say you were stupid.
 
Last edited:
If you can’t provide evidence to support your claim, you have no business arguing in the first place. If you had any of the critical thinking skills you claim others are lacking because they challenge your unverifiable claims, you would realize that.

Galileo actually had evidence of his claims and was still run out of town by people with no evidence, only thinking just like yours. And it was them who turned out to be completely wrong.
Am I wrong or is the belief that absolutely every single engine flush made all over the world and every single manufacturer and wholesaler and seller are running a big scam just for money with zero proof that their products work. That would be illegal within consumer law in some countries.

Or its my responsibility to prove they work on behalf of all them haha. You have gone too far, its just a forum with people's opinions. This is a beat down alienating forum members. I'm not talking about myself.
 
But you are wrong. I'm not involved in selling flushes.
My apologies, but this post made it sound like you worked in a shop that sold flushes:
adams355 said:
I have run hundreds of flushes through customers cars and never once had an issue. Moreover, some of the benefits I have seen have been excellent especially in regard to its commercial purpose (see below).

🤷‍♂️
I'm sorry it just doesn't make sense that you would have all your eggs in one basket.
What do you mean by this? Oils are fully formulated products and can be formulated to provide gentle cleaning while not compromising on other aspects of performance, that's what makes them, or a cleaner that follows this philosophy, a better choice.
Their seems to be another reason why you cant budge a inch. 3 experts on the forum is no proof. One sells a engine flushing oil as a competitor to engine flush. See we can all do that.
If you are alluding to the @High Performance Lubricants engine cleaner, it's a cleaner, not a flush, that's why I linked you to it earlier. It's the same sort of product that @MolaKule was mentioning. It's a fully formulated engine oil with a higher concentration of esters to perform gentle cleaning, they offer it as a less expensive alternative to using their oil.
I didn't say you were stupid.
You questioned my comprehension, did you not?

I'm trying to be as objective as possible here. I do not have a vendetta against flush products and I certainly don't benefit from opposing them. My opposition is based on the philosophy of do no harm. That is, I'll never recommend something on this forum that could potentially damage somebody's vehicle or other personal property. That's why I don't recommend people going thinner than what the manual recommends for example, in terms of viscosity.

As you've hopefully noticed, since I've pointed it out several times, the OEM's all pretty much universally condemn flush products because of a risk of damage. That should cause anyone considering them to take pause. I've yet to see anything substantial that invalidates this line taken by the OEM's.
 
Am I wrong or is the belief that absolutely every single engine flush made all over the world and every single manufacturer and wholesaler and seller are running a big scam just for money with zero proof that their products work. That would be illegal within consumer law in some countries.
I mean, that's most of the additive market if we are being honest.

Lucas makes a whole host of products that fall under this category. Arguably, their "Oil Stabilizer" actually makes what's in your crankcase substantially worse, since it is made of very poor quality base stocks, tons of cheap VII and grossly dilutes the additive package, having no FM and AW additives as part of it. @RDY4WAR has made some amusing comments/observations on this in the past, as have I.

Remember, these products aren't regulated. The SAE, API, ACEA...etc, none of them are tasked with the responsibility of ensuring efficacy and that these products do no harm. The additive market is very much the proverbial Wild West, many of these products, under the best of circumstances, could be concluded as doing nothing.
Or its my responsibility to prove they work on behalf of all them haha. You have gone too far, its just a forum with people's opinions. This is a beat down alienating forum members. I'm not talking about myself.
I mean, that's how the preponderance of proof works. It's the responsibility of the claimant to provide credible and objective references to support what they've stated. I can only conclude from our exchange here that this is new to you.
 
I'm quite confident that anyone calling an OE w/r to oil questions and informing them that you using a cleaning product (HPL EC) will be told this is not approved or recommended. Ask VW/BMW/etc. if using HPL Euro oil is ok....you will get "no" b/c it doesn't carry the appropriate approval. Disclaimer - I've used the popular HPL EC in 2 of my cars as well as the popular LM EF as well and have no issue with either - good products. Also use HPL Euro oil. In these discussions I'm always curious about the evidence supporting that using a product like LM EF can "cause damage" as has been stated here at least once somewhere above if used following their directions...

Memes are a thing for me so here you go....so which is is BITOG?

76tx3w.jpg


The answer is obviously that everybody here likes to lean on whatever research they have done, antidotal evidence from others, as well as their own experience to pick/choose the products they use. Many folks here don't seem to be overly concerned with what the OE's require or don't recommend b/c they feel they've superseded those engineers etc. with their own research, online experts, etc...."I use XYZ...it's fine even though the OE doesn't approve it." but also tell others in the same breath that "I wouldn't use XYZ, OE's don't approve that." Classic.
 
Many folks here don't seem to be overly concerned with what the OE's require or don't recommend b/c they feel they've superseded those engineers etc. with their own research, online experts, etc...."I use XYZ...it's fine even though the OE doesn't approve it." but also tell others in the same breath that "I wouldn't use XYZ, OE's don't approve that." Classic.
I certainly care, that's why I make sure I run an acceptable OE viscosity in both vehicles. FCA doesn't require an approved lubricant, it's just recommended. That said, my vehicles are my responsibility and I typically refrain from advising people to use a non-approved lubricant while under warranty, even if it's my personal opinion that there are better options out there.

There's a relative chasm between using an oil that has been formulated using an approved additive package (HPL for example) that has been vetted and is compliant with the API, ACEA and various OEM's, and is labelled with being in compliance with the SAE, but isn't formally approved because the blender took some liberties with the final product, and a flush product. Just like that same chasm exists between an oil following that process and LOS.

Not sure if you saw that UOA the other day where the additive package had ~1/3rd of the additives it was supposed to have in it? Scary stuff. Risk isn't restricted to just additives, but at least the lubricants market is governed. Doesn't help if you use a product of questionable repute that hasn't made its way through any of that regulation though.

I don't have an issue with you using flushes, which I hope I've made quite clear in the past. What you do with your own vehicles is your business and we've discussed, in a civil manner, the topic of merit. I may not agree with your philosophy, but I'm certainly not inclined to tell you what to do. The difference is that you aren't on here telling people that they are necessary, absolutely beneficial and should be done regularly. Same reason you and I are good on the K&N subject.
 
The difference is that you aren't on here telling people that they are necessary, absolutely beneficial and should be done regularly.
Maybe you should get a big sign then and stand on the corner you seem to be extremely zealous for the cause.


Before the cherry picking begins, maybe you should look up what products these companies sell as 'engine flush' (from the article)

Key Players Profiled in the Engine Flush Market Report​

  • BULLSONE Co. Ltd
  • BARDAHL Manufacturing Corporation
  • 3M Company
  • International Lubricants, Inc.
  • Penrite Oil Company
  • LIQUI MOLY GmbH
  • Valvoline Inc.
  • Tec4 Lubricants
  • LUBRITA EUROPE B.V.
  • Berner Group
  • AMSOIL INC.
  • Petra Oil

Further from the article:

'Engine flushing is used to get rid of the dangerous impurities from the engine while changing the oil that acts as a cleaning formulation with powerful detergents. The growing awareness about the benefits of engine flush, like it improves performance while thoroughly cleaning the lubricating system, is expected to boost the demand for engine flush in the coming days.

Engine flush lubricants are also becoming more popular as a result of continued advancements in gasoline usage technologies because they can effectively wash out any sludge and filth that has built up in the motor as well as its parts. The sales of engine flush are also projected to stay high in the automobile industry over the next several years due to rising pollution levels and a discernible rise in gasoline contamination, also including diesel and petrol.

Additionally, engine flush increases the engine's longevity and fuel economy, which has a significant positive impact on the use of STP engine flush in cars throughout the world and the expansion of the engine flush industry as a result.'
 
Last edited:
I'm quite confident that anyone calling an OE w/r to oil questions and informing them that you using a cleaning product (HPL EC) will be told this is not approved or recommended. Ask VW/BMW/etc. if using HPL Euro oil is ok....you will get "no" b/c it doesn't carry the appropriate approval. Disclaimer - I've used the popular HPL EC in 2 of my cars as well as the popular LM EF as well and have no issue with either - good products. Also use HPL Euro oil. In these discussions I'm always curious about the evidence supporting that using a product like LM EF can "cause damage" as has been stated here at least once somewhere above if used following their directions...

Memes are a thing for me so here you go....so which is is BITOG?

View attachment 134694

The answer is obviously that everybody here likes to lean on whatever research they have done, antidotal evidence from others, as well as their own experience to pick/choose the products they use. Many folks here don't seem to be overly concerned with what the OE's require or don't recommend b/c they feel they've superseded those engineers etc. with their own research, online experts, etc...."I use XYZ...it's fine even though the OE doesn't approve it." but also tell others in the same breath that "I wouldn't use XYZ, OE's don't approve that." Classic.
[raises hand excitedly] OOOH OOOH OOH I want a Fauci meme declaring engine flushes to be safe and effective
 
[raises hand excitedly] OOOH OOOH OOH I want a Fauci meme declaring engine flushes to be safe and effective
No need, just find me someone's engine/evidence that these products when used per the manufacturer's recommendations have ever harmed anyone's engine. I can point to testing that has shown increased compression after use on oil burning/older engines.
 
Maybe you should get a big sign then and stand on the corner you seem to be extremely zealous for the cause.


Before the cherry picking begins, maybe you should look up what products these companies sell as 'engine flush' (from the article)

Key Players Profiled in the Engine Flush Market Report​

  • BULLSONE Co. Ltd
  • BARDAHL Manufacturing Corporation
  • 3M Company
  • International Lubricants, Inc.
  • Penrite Oil Company
  • LIQUI MOLY GmbH
  • Valvoline Inc.
  • Tec4 Lubricants
  • LUBRITA EUROPE B.V.
  • Berner Group
  • AMSOIL INC.
  • Petra Oil

Further from the article:

'Engine flushing is used to get rid of the dangerous impurities from the engine while changing the oil that acts as a cleaning formulation with powerful detergents. The growing awareness about the benefits of engine flush, like it improves performance while thoroughly cleaning the lubricating system, is expected to boost the demand for engine flush in the coming days.

Engine flush lubricants are also becoming more popular as a result of continued advancements in gasoline usage technologies because they can effectively wash out any sludge and filth that has built up in the motor as well as its parts. The sales of engine flush are also projected to stay high in the automobile industry over the next several years due to rising pollution levels and a discernible rise in gasoline contamination, also including diesel and petrol.

Additionally, engine flush increases the engine's longevity and fuel economy, which has a significant positive impact on the use of STP engine flush in cars throughout the world and the expansion of the engine flush industry as a result.'
Yes, I know I take all my lubricant advice from a "market insights" site with computer generated content that reads like wild propaganda spiel. Did you even read that? It's not even English, it's AI-generated garbage:

Additionally, engine flush increases the engine's longevity and fuel economy, which has a significant positive impact on the use of STP engine flush in cars throughout the world and the expansion of the engine flush industry as a result.'

Good grief.

Did you not notice this bit?
Unfortunately, the global engine flush market's expansion might get hampered by the possible use of harsh chemicals that have the potential to destroy rubber seats and gaskets present in automobiles. Also, the cost of the flush and oil system cleaner remains unattractive for a large section of consumers, thus limiting the engine flush market growth to its fullest.

Other than that, the misconception that the engine sludge remover can affect the engine parts and reduce its performance is also a major hindrance for the said market. However, the active effort by industry players to address this hindrance would be beneficial for the overall market in the long run.

This isn't written by a person, it's generated by a computer.

Sadly, it's quite clear that this "conversation" is going nowhere. She's already dead Jim, you just haven't accepted it yet.
 
No need, just find me someone's engine/evidence that these products when used per the manufacturer's recommendations have ever harmed anyone's engine. I can point to testing that has shown increased compression after use on oil burning/older engines.
A few from google and old BITOG threads:




On the other hand, when I worked at a main VW dealership, engine flush was used at the customer's request during a service. Roughly two weeks later the engine seized. Whilst there was no definitive proof that the flush caused a problem, the dealer squarly blamed the flush for having loosened some crud which had then relocated itself and blocked an oilway.



Several incidents involving auto maintenance chains such as Jiffy Lube and EZLube gave evidence of this, including customer Pat Marriott of Kansas City, who claimed that a Jiffy Lube engine flush service caused $5,000 worth of damage to his Nissan Sentra.

Sediment Clogging: According to an undercover investigative report by NBC Los Angeles on Jiffy Lube's engine flushes, the chemicals used for the engine flush are meant to break-down the sludgy deposits that build up inside a car's engine. However, the debris or sediment from the flush procedure could end up clogging other parts of the engine and cause further damage. For this reason, many major car dealers such as General Motors and Ford, among others, do not cover damages caused by engine flushes in their warranties. However, during NBC's undercover investigation, some auto technicians suggested flushing the engine anyway, claiming that car manufacturer's recommend doing so, which is not the case.

Damaged Engine Seals and Bearings: In February 2009, Hyundai Motors issued a technical service bulletin that recommends against engine flushing for all Hyundai models. The reason: the method and proprietary chemicals used in flushing engines can cause internal damage, specifically to engine seals and bearings. Damages to these parts can result in dangerous oil and lubricant leaks. In fact, Popular Mechanics, an online magazine, lists engine flushes as one of the top five unnecessary car maintenance procedures because an unusually dirty engine is not a normal problem. Note the Hyundai warning was renewed in 2012 and the GM one is still current, the other manufacturers are just happy the sell you a new engine!

From a GM TSB in response to quick lube places pushing flushes:
General Motors Corporation does not endorse or recommend engine crankcase flushing for any of its gasoline engines. Analysis of some of the aftermarket materials used for crankcase flushing indicate incompatibility with GM engine components and the potential for damage to some engine seals and bearings.
Damage to engine components resulting from crankcase flushing IS NOT COVERED under the terms of the New Vehicle Warranty.

Classic NBC Undercover investigation:
By Joel Grover and Matt Goldberg

Updated 11:40 AM PST, Wed, Nov 12, 2008
Related Topics: Los Angeles | Jiffy Lube International Inc.

Inside a Jiffy Lube on Pico and San Vicente in Los Angeles, a service technician tries to sell an undercover NBC Los Angeles employee an "engine flush" or engine cleaning.

"Engine cleaning every two years, 30,000 miles is required for the vehicle," the technician says.

But NBC Los Angeles has heard from customers across the country, who say their engines broke down after having an engine flush.

At the Jiffy Lube we went to on Pico, the technician says the engine flush will prolong the life of the engine on our Honda Accord test car.

An engine flush is where they pour a chemical solvent into your engine, supposedly to flush out old sludge.

When our undercover person asks, "is that something that Honda recommends?" Than technician says, "It requires it every two years, every 30,000 miles."

That's not true. Our car's maintenance schedule says nothing about an engine flush.

"After engine flushes, there's a pretty high incidence of some damage to the interior of the engine," Chris Martin of Honda tells NBC Los Angeles.

That's why Honda issued a memo to mechanics advising them not to perform engine flushes. Other major car-makers, including Ford, General Motors, and Nissan have all issued similar advisories against the service.


Why? Over time, gummy deposits can build up inside your engine. The chemicals used for engine flush, are supposed to break up those deposits. But car-makers say, pieces of that broken up sediment can clog up other parts of the engine and ruin it.

The car ran perfectly before I took it in that day," says Pat Marriott. He took his Nissan Sentra to a Jiffy Lube in Kansas City. "They sold me, really sold me hard on an engine flush," Marriott tells NBC Los Angeles.

He says three days later, on the highway his car broke down and he had to replace his engine for $5000.

That's because Nissan and other car-makers say damage resulting from engine flushes won't be covered by your warranty.

At other Jiffy Lube's, like one on Overland in West Los Angeles, they offered us other services like a fuel injection cleaning. That's where they put a chemical cleaner into your fuel injectors.

When the NBC Los Angeles undercover person asked the technician, "does Honda recommend that?" He said, "It's every 15,000 miles or every year, recommended."

That's also not true. Honda and other big car-makers say fuel injection cleaning is an improper repair procedure.

"Using the cleaner, using a fuel injection cleaning system can cause harm to other injectors," Martin tells NBC Los Angeles.

Jiffy Lube isn't the only major chain recommending services car-makers say could be harmful. It happened to us at EZ Lube.

When our undercover person asked a technician at one of their locations in Silverlake, "Does Honda recommend an engine flush?" He replied, "They recommend... everything I'm telling you. We go by whatever the manufacturer recommends."

Our undercover person asks him for proof, since EZ Lube's computer lists all manufacturer recommendations, but there's no engine flush listed. The undercover employee asks him, "How come they're not on the computer?" The technician replied, "I don't know."

Across town at an EZ Lube near Santa Monica, technicians push a $99 transmission service using a high tech flushing machine.

Our undercover employee asks the technician, "does Honda recommend that it be done with a machine like that?" The technician responds, "Correct. That's the only way you can do it."

But Honda's memo to mechanics clearly says "do not use transmission flushing machines" because of the risks to the car.

All told four out of five Jiffy Lube's, and five out of five EZ Lube's pushed services car-makers don't recommend, but technicians told us the opposite.

We went back to the manager at that Silverlake EZ Lube.

"You said Honda recommends an engine flush. That's not true. Why did you say that?" NBC Los Angeles Investigative Reporter Joel Grover asked.

"I don't know," he replied.

As for those technicians at Jiffy Lube who didn't tell us the truth, they wouldn't talk to us on camera and neither would their bosses.

Executives at Jiffy Lube and EZ Lube declined our offer to watch our undercover tape, and do interviews.

But in separate statements, both companies said it was unacceptable for their employees to misrepresent certain services as manufacturer recommendations, when they're not.

EZ Lube says some of the employees we caught doing this will be terminated.

Jiffy Lube says they're taking steps to minimize the chance of it occurring again and they want to hear from any unhappy customers.

Jiffy Lube can be reached by phone at 800-344-6933.

EZ Lube can be reached by phone at 800-559-5823 or email

Definitely enough stern verbiage from Honda, GM, Hyundai...etc that it should at least cause one to take pause.
 
By having it in my signature, I always win.
I think you came in late, even with the 4-page buffer 🤣

I thin O/K and I are roughly on the same page- flushes may or may not work without harming the engine; all are certainly NOT created equal. If you want to use a flush, go right ahead… we’re just not going to recommend doing something to your engine that the manufacturer clearly says to avoid and has voided warranties for using.

Now that we’ve got HPL available, there’s really zero need to ever use a flush. Fill your sump with HPL and put a 99%@20u filter on it, and you will definitely end up with a cleaner engine without any additional risks. But, if you like living dangerously… experiment away.

Personally I come here for the explosions & horror stories, just like nobody watches NASCAR for the actual racing. They watch for the potential carnage! 😂
 
Back
Top