Will leftover oil and ARX affect the rinse phase?

[kang]

I’m a couple of weeks away from starting my rinse phase. My car has an oil capacity of 12 quarts. Two quarts remain in the oil lines and oil cooler and don’t drain out during an oil change. These 2 quarts will have ARX in them. Given the amount of ARX I added to the original 12 quarts of oil, there should be about 5 ounces of ARX in these two quarts of oil (I put in a bit more than the recommended two ounces/quart).

When I add 10 quarts of rinse oil, the remaining 5 ounces of ARX will mix with the new oil. The dose of ARX for my rinse phase will be about 5 ounces in 12 quarts of oil. The ARX instructions clearly state do NOT add ARX during the rinse phase. Will this affect the rinse phase? Enough to worry about?

The original 12 quarts were also a group IV synthetic. The instructions say this is OK for the cleaning phase, especially if your engine is not a sludge monster, which is my case. For the rinse phase, I’ll have two quarts of synthetic mixed with 10 quarts of dino. Any issues here?

I’m curious what the wisdom of this board has to say about this situation.

(You can see how fun it is to change the oil on this car here: http://p-car.com/diy/changeoil/ )

 

[Gary Allan]

There are probably some residuals in any rinse phase. I think it's more of providing a given capacity to suspend the liquefied deposits. That's just speculation.

GOD bless you, man. That's not car ownership ...that's parenthood or a high maintenance significant other in machine form.

 

[kang]

Thanks Gary.

I understand your point about the capacity of the new, fresh oil to carry liquefied deposits, and it makes sense.

On the other hand, there is a lot of discussion about how ARX is polar, and causes deposits to cling to internal engine surfaces. This is why group IV synthetics are not recommended for the rinse phase, as they have similar polar molecules. The rinse phase is supposed to be polar free, e.g. no ARX and no group IV synthetics.

Will the remaining ARX in my oil cause the deposits to cling to internal surfaces? Or is there too little remaining ARX to worry about? The amount in those last two quarts, when spread out across the 10 new quarts, is approaching the maintenance dose of ARX. The instructions clearly state to finish the rinse phase before you start the maintenance phase.

 

[Gary Allan]

This would probably be a better question posted on the Auto-Rx board. Frank might chime in here.

..but my personal feeling is that you're fine to proceed as scheduled without additional rinsing.

I guess if you wanted to, you could just drop the sump after circulating it for even a few minutes (are thermostats involved?). That would bring the mix down more toward noise.

 

[Frank]

Kang, Auto-Rx is not polar and cleans deposits by putting them in liquefied form.

Group IV Synthetics are fine (Exception being if you have sludge issues or a seal leak)

The rinse phase is just that a rinse try reading the FAQ.You will find answers to your questions.

The Auto-Rx tech board would be a place for your questions also.

 

[Rick20]

Kang, I think you have to look at UOA's performed on oil fortified with ARX, both in the cleaning phase, rinse, phase and with the maintenance dose. Without exception wear metals have always been decreased. Second thing that must be noted that ARX is a comparatively slow methodic process of cleaning deposits. Result there are no possibly dangerous chunking off of deposits.
Lastly the importance of the prescribed rinse phase of a cleaning application. Although ARX is polar by nature as are esters in general, ARX bolsters lubricity, whereas the purpose of many synthetic oil esters are used as an aid to hold additive packages in host oils, particularly PAO's.

As for the maintenance dose, not only does ARX provide additional lubrication qualities, it also aids the host oil in suspending contaminants so that deposits aren't left behind with each oil drain. Why else would major oil companies be toting their new products to be better against fighting deposits. ARX has been on this hot and heavy for over 7 yeaars.

 

[kang]

Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
This would probably be a better question posted on the Auto-Rx board. Frank might chime in here.

..but my personal feeling is that you're fine to proceed as scheduled without additional rinsing.

I guess if you wanted to, you could just drop the sump after circulating it for even a few minutes (are thermostats involved?). That would bring the mix down more toward noise.


Hi Gary,

I thought about that. Yes, thermostats are involved. The oil that remains in the system is the oil that flows to the oil cooler. The long lines to the cooler and the cooler itself hold about two quarts of oil. This oil is not drained during an oil change.

In order to do what you suggest, I’d have to do one oil change, and then drive the car until it got hot enough (15 minutes or so) to open the thermostat to the oil cooler. A couple of minutes with the thermostat open would be all it would take to return the oil in the cooler back to the tank, where it would mix with the rest of the oil. Then, I’d have to do another oil change, throwing away 10 quarts of perfectly good oil. The oil that would remain in the oil cooler this time around would, as you say, “bring the mix down more toward noise.” But I’m not sure I want to do this if I don’t have to. I would only change the two oil filters during the second oil change.

 

[kang]

Originally Posted By: Frank
Kang, Auto-Rx is not polar and cleans deposits by putting them in liquefied form.

Group IV Synthetics are fine (Exception being if you have sludge issues or a seal leak)

The rinse phase is just that a rinse try reading the FAQ.You will find answers to your questions.

The Auto-Rx tech board would be a place for your questions also.


Hi Frank,

Yes, I have read the FAQ. It specifically states not to add ARX during the rinse phase, but given the leftover oil in my car, I’m essentially doing just that.

You say the FAQ will answer my questions, but I don’t see a part of the FAQ where it addresses my case: leftover ARX present during the rinse phase.

ARX is not polar? Your website has this to say:

Quote:
Also Auto-Rx, its blend of esters has some polarity. It will have an attraction to clean ferrous metal surfaces and some amount of Auto-Rx will remain on these surfaces after the motor has been turned off.


I thought the point of the rinse phase was to flush away anything still clinging to ferrous metal surfaces, and having ARX or other polar additive present during the rinse phase will prevent this from happening. This is why dino or group III synthetics are recommended for the rinse phase:

Quote:
We recommend simple, non-synthetic oil (do not use-semi synthetic or high-mileage oil) for this important step in the Auto-Rx® Application. Synthetic oil has a complex additive package that polarizes the liquefied debris on the engine’s internal oil-lubricated parts. The goal is to rinse all the internal parts of this liquefied debris, and a good ?Dino Oil?, with its simple additive package, does the job very well.


And

Quote:
Normally, a dino oil will hold up fine for 2000 miles and the rinsing action is better, with no polar additives in the rinse oil.



I’ve heard lots of people say that the rinse phase is where they really start to see the benefits of ARX. In my case, I cannot complete the rinse phase according to your instructions.

 

[Tempest]

Quote:
Auto-Rx is not polar

 

[Frank]

it was 5:30 AM when I tried to answer your post I lost the edit function. Auto-Rx is polar. Exactly what is your problem using Auto-Rx ? 5 ounces of synthetic oil sealed in an oil cooler and a return line ?

Why can,t you rinse according to instructions ? is there some valid reason ?

 

[kang]

Originally Posted By: Frank
it was 5:30 AM when I tried to answer your post I lost the edit function. Auto-Rx is polar. Exactly what is your problem using Auto-Rx ? 5 ounces of synthetic oil sealed in an oil cooler and a return line ?

Why can,t you rinse according to instructions ? is there some valid reason ?


Yes, there is a valid reason I cannot rinse according to the directions. That is what this entire thread is about.

First, I am in the cleaning phase now. I added ARX at a rate of about 2.5 ounces/quart. I’ll be doing the oil change for the rinse phase in a couple of weeks.

My car has an oil cooler and two lines to and from the cooler. There are about two quarts of oil contained in the cooler and the lines. These two quarts currently contain about 5 ounces of ARX (remember, the cleaning phase has 2.5 oz/quart). These two quarts do not get drained during an oil change, as there is no way to drain the oil out of the cooler or the lines.

When I do the oil change for the rinse phase, these two quarts, with the 5 ounces of ARX they contain, will remain in the car. When I add the rinse oil, these 5 ounces of ARX will mix with the new oil. The ratio of oil and ARX will approximate the maintenance dose (a little less, but close).

Because these two quarts of oil don’t drain out during an oil change, I am forced to do a clean phase followed by a maintenance dose, unless I do two back-to-back oil changes. I’d rather not do that.

The question is: what effect will this have? Will I not get good rinsing until my second oil change?

 

[Tempest]

I think you are worrying about this too much. Just move on to the rinse and be happy.

 

[Gary Allan]

I got with Frank back channel on this. You're a person of distinction in terms of fine detail and being critical (for other readers - read as observant and questioning) of your environment.

You will not need to do another rinse phase. The effects of the residuals that you have only impacted the time base ..of which the current rinse phase mileage is well buffered. The duration in miles has evolved over time. The reasons, as I understand it, was to allow the typical 3k/3m type user to use Auto-Rx seamlessly (just about). There's a constant struggle between those that want the fastest path to gratification and those who can't cope with too many oil changes over a short time span (either keeping track of mileage or wasting oil). This current level of clean/rinse suits the most people without reducing utility. It has and can be run longer ..and with all the oils thta are on the list as not being recommended ..it's just ..what are you gonna do say "Well, you can use it with M1 ..but you need to go to some mileage that I haven't tested in the field so I can't give you a real answer" type thing. The oil selection is vast and the effects on the time base for clean/rinse untested ..at least to some definitive level. Once you're out of the confines of KISS ..the off branches of "finer points" tend to get cumbersome from a consumer:merchant POV.

In short, carry on and be confident that you're cleaning your refined thoroughbred engine.

 

[kang]

That's what I was looking for, thanks!

 

[va3ux]

Customer relations - at it's finest.

Originally Posted By: Frank
it was 5:30 AM when I tried to answer your post I lost the edit function. Auto-Rx is polar. Exactly what is your problem using Auto-Rx ? 5 ounces of synthetic oil sealed in an oil cooler and a return line ?

Why can,t you rinse according to instructions ? is there some valid reason ?

 

[Gary Allan]

Frank's PR hat was out at the cleaners that day

Really though, Frank is, almost literally, a one man show. I've talked with him a few times and he's a very friendly guy. He's older ..so his time frame in terms of "having time" are compressed more than some, but certainly not a punitive man by any means.

One thing that is an endless recurring issue for him is having people over think the process and require clarification. Not a crime, by any means, but after years of trying to configure the instructions to fit all situations for all users ..there's always an "X" factor that pops up. You'll often see the "please go to http://www.auto-rx.com and read the faq" and whatnot ..since most questions can be answered there. Our departed Tony even went to the lengths of putting a sticky at the top of this forum to attempt to reduce the high volume of posts involving Auto-Rx. It's sorta like a series of "READ THIS SIGN" signs that you have to pass to get to the person who will answer your question ..and 99 out of 100 don't even see them.

Now this isn't the case with our OP here. He fell into some reasoned "other" state and needed some guidance on how to deal with the collision of apparent contradictions. He too over thought it ..but it was well thought out. I often find myself in unique circumstances that aren't addressed adequately with a "go no:go" type of decision.

I've often suggested to Frank (initially as a joke) to have an "Instructions for Advanced Users" section. There it would give more extended insight into what's been tried ..what's known ..and what's not determined yet about how it can be used. One such item would be something like saying that it can work with any oil ..but the time/mileage base would be unknown ..and since the level of cleanliness is also unknown, it's uncertain how long it will take and how much suspended material will be either saturating your filter ..perhaps beyond capacity ..and how long do you want to maintain that in your engine? ..etc..etc.

..but then you'll naturally have those that refuse to read the basic instructions and want to graduate themselves to "advanced users" since only idiots are satisfied with "plebe" instructions ..etc..etc.

So, he's then left with fielding endless repetitive questions that revolve around the same recurring themes and regardless of how he alters his instructions or reconfigures his web site ..it's always the same.


Occasionally he's a little tired as well and doesn't have his warm and fuzzy side polished up.

Again the OP had legit cause to need clarification, imo.

 

[kang]

Hi again Gary,

Your points are well taken, and I certainly understand Frank’s concern with “fielding endless repetitive questions that revolve around the same recurring themes regardless of how he alters his instructions or reconfigures his web site.” I wouldn’t like that either.

To play devil’s advocate, though, there is a flip side to this. We ARX users constantly see phrases like “after years of trying to configure the instructions to fit all situations for all users” and “there's a constant struggle between those that want the fastest path to gratification and those who can't cope with too many oil changes over a short time span.”

When we see things like this (which come from many other people, including Frank, although I have just quoted you here), it becomes clear to us that there are many different ways to use ARX. Knowing this leads people to ask about what they think is their special case. The instructions on the web site are just the simplest set, meant to work for most of the people most of the time. It’s natural for people to ask “but what about me?!”

If the mindset about ARX were “there is one and only one way to use it,” people wouldn’t ask so many questions. But the mindset is just the opposite. It is obvious that there are many ways to use it. This leads people to ask for the “instructions for advanced users” as they want the “extended insight into what's been tried ..what's known ..and what's not determined yet about how it can be used.” In some cases (like mine, in this thread), there is “legit cause to need clarification.” In many other cases, the questions have already been answered.

I think it’s just human nature.

 

[Rick20]

Kang,

I think ARX's application instructions are geared towards the end user getting the maximum bang for the buck. In your case what residuals are left in the oil cooler reservoir is small and not material to get a good rinse, after your oil change from the cleaning phase of your application.

We have all seen in the past that even running a cleaning dose for as little as 500 miles, real benefits have been observed and shared regarding improved ring pack performance as well as good cleaning results. We have also observed that by running the cleaning dose up to 2500 miles results were better, with no increase in normal wear. By the same token, consumers should be happy that there is next to no cost involved in a 2500 mile cleaning phase on dino oil, as opposed to running a short service life of a 500 or 750 mile cleaning phase. In other words the consumer can also realize the maximum dollar value out of an oil change by running the 2500 mile cleaning phase. This is predicated on the normal cleaning application only, and does not pertain to sludged motors or those looking to help a seal leak issue.

There has been additional outside of the box thinking applications for cleaning running a double dose for less miles in an attempt for faster results. In other words running twice the prescribed amount for basically half the time. In my estimation the maximum consumer benefit would have been to utilize the purchased ARX in two separate cleaning doses with a rinse in between. But in some instances folks merely wanted more instant gratification. The bottom line is that ARX is very flexible. And the reason for that is that although it is marketed as a cleaner, in actuality all components of ARX are first used as lubricity suppliments. We have all heard that #M company has made alot of money on the post it note pad. Well that was by accident in a manufacturering screw up. Well Frank developed a stand alone lubrication cleaner, when he was looking to produce a friction reducer. Bottom line is that ARX is very flexible, with regards to dose rate and run time duration. It is almost to the point of you can do no wrong. But the current instructions exist for maximum dollar value to us.

 

[Gary Allan]

Quote:
I think it’s just human nature.


Agreed ..and there's obviously not much to be done to avoid it.

Yes, the stuff is flexible and can surely be used in a variety of manners in some time weighted/dosage manner (within limits, I'm sure). Frank collaborated (assisted in product costs) with me on a pair of tests that I did out of curiosity (much like Bruce381 does with me in blending exotic light oils). Essentially the test vehicles did a double dose over a much shortened mileage. The results were very good for the time line ..and the decoking was verified by dnewton3 (now a mod) on his otherwise pristine engine. He had two low cylinders where an overheat at a freeze plug occurred between the two low cylinders. Very impressive performance in (iirce) 1000 miles. It naturally piqued his interest (given the results) and he's explored it further on his own.

I've gotten to know Frank a bit since my tests ..and the main point of my post (which may or may not be of any consolation to anyone) is that we often have a "Wizard of Oz" view ..when there's merely a man behind the curtain.