Auto RX Skeptic turned Believer

Status
Not open for further replies.
(sigh - slowly shaking head while pinching nose with glasses off as though this is truly necessary - but since you insist)

Quote:
You state that changes in oil formulation over 17 years and the service patterns indicated by the OP would make a dirty pan/pickup "sensible givens over a 17 year period".


A vehicle of 92 vintage with 130k+/- miles has can have a couple of service profiles. If it was like most, about 50% of the mileage was accumulated in the first 5 years (of the 130k+/-). It would then be retired to lessor service and a newer vehicle would take the major pounding of the most frequency of use. People of that demographic don't buy a vehicle without a purpose. Certainly not a minivan. Now you may run into a human unicorn that bought a minivan with an empty nest ..and was geezered enough not to drive more than 8k a year, but it's not likely (you may nitpick that, if it pleases you).

The other possibility is that it was owned from new and has been under seamless front line service for the entire 17 years. That would work out to 7500/year of totally short trip service.

So, we either have 5 years of ideal service or 17 with less favorable service.

The oils available in 1992 and through almost to the century mark were shear prone 5w-30 (I'll assume 5w30 whether or not it was indeed used on THIS unit - since we're niggling for foundations here). These oils were functional but not anywhere close to current state of the art in deposit control.

Now I'll go to the trouble ..no ..I don't think I will, I'll see if you take it another step..

Quote:
There was absolutely nothing "whacked" in asking if the OP had looked at the oil pan/pickup before for comparison.


Oh, there is none. But don't necessarily grant yourself the privilege of exclusive content. If you can step outside of YOUR bubble and read the theme of the thread, you may see that you're merely a commentary target of convenient opportunity.

This is a tread from a satisfied user of Auto-Rx. He's also a long time member in very good standing on the board, yet the hound dogs did everything they could to drive the thread into the ground. This is done by "the crew". It merely makes it that a "normal person" won't bother to post about their experience since that will be the recurring welcoming committee every time.

So, yes, whacked behavior.
 
No product works for everyone. Lasik surgery won't fix my left eye. Doesn't mean it's junk surgery. So why should I trash it?

ARX/MMO/Whatever doesn't work for everyone. There really is no reason to trash either.
 
Gary- you might want to put those glasses back on, because this is only getting more ridiculous by the minute....lemme go one by one:

1. Your numerous assumptions about usage patterns and oil shearing are just that: assumptions. Specifically, that the usage patterns and oil shearing you spoke of would produce deposits significant enough to result in a NOTICEABLY dirty oil pan / pickup over 17 years. It would be like me saying "well the average 50 year old who ate an average American omnivorous diet would likely have significant plaque deposits in his arteries" but I cannot point to any empirical evidence of such, I cannot quantify the amount of plaque (maybe it produced some plaque, but "significant" or visible in angiography? I have no idea.) I cannot point to any evidence to backup my claim, and yet I consider my assumptions "sensible givens". Anyone familiar with basic science would call you on that one. Your "sensible givens" about the OP's oil pan / pickup being noticeably dirty are still completely and totally baseless.


2.
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
This is a tread from a satisfied user of Auto-Rx. He's also a long time member in very good standing on the board, yet the hound dogs did everything they could to drive the thread into the ground. This is done by "the crew".


Gary- this is really a mystery to me. I just scanned this entire thread, and I do not see the boogeymen you speak of. Please do me a favor and clarify something for me- it shouldn't take you very long at all- please Quick-Quote ALL the posts in this thread that you believe are representative of your statement "the hound dogs did everything they could to drive the thread into the ground." Note that you said this BEFORE the following post:
Originally Posted By: ionbeam22
It boils down to ARX being expensive for what you get (which may very well be nothing at all).


so you may not include it.


3. The vast majority of posts in this thread are from satisfied users of ARX. The most negative postings I saw before this were from people who either don't believe in additives, or from people who tried ARX and were only moderately satisfied. And even ionbeam22- while his posting is "negative", if you truly believe in this product as you seem to, then shouldn't you be able to accept compliments AND criticism of it? Do you really expect every single posting about ARX to be positive, and that anything less than a glowing review is somehow "hound dogs" and "the crew" driving the thread into the ground? The fact of the matter is, people will have differing opinions about any product, ARX included. Some will feel it did not perform well. Some will feel it did. Some will feel it is expensive for what it does, some will not. This applies to ANY product, and reacting the way you do will only make people run far, far away from both your commentary and the product. While I am a satisfied ARX user, if I read this thread for the first time, I would be very wary of the product not from the "hound dogs", but from your postings which take any criticism of ARX so very personally. I would wonder where the boogeymen you refer to are, because I do not see them at all in any of the postings in this thread. In fact, I forwarded this thread to some friends of mine via email asking for their comments without offering my commentary on it. Two guys responded: one of them asked if "Gary Allan" made ARX. The other asked if the "hound dog" posters posts had been deleted because he wanted to see them. Call this a unicorn, too, if you'd like (as you seem to refer to anything that you don't agree with but which you cannot disprove) but it is actually 2 sample points (3 including mine) as to how your posts come across. A lot of different products are criticized on BITOG (M1, RP, etc.)- why is it you don't take any criticism of those products in the same way? Why is it you seemingly cannot accept any criticism of ARX as valid? Is it so unbelievable that some people out there have used the product and haven't seen the results they were expecting in terms of cleaning action, compression numbers, fuel economy, seal conditioning, etc? I would EXPECT there would be those out there who would not be satisfied. Why? Because this is true for EVERY product in existence. And here's a revelation for you: the comments of people who question and even criticize ARX do not signal the downfall of the forum. It signals that ARX is a product with supporters and detractors just like any other product, and the supporters' comments are no more or less valid than the detractors'. Until you consider this, you will continue to drive people away from ARX far, far more effectively than the "hound dogs" that I'm afraid exist only in your head.
 
Originally Posted By: sprintman
'The crew' unfortunately lobbed here after screwing another forum. Hopefully they will tire soon and move elsewhere?


sprintman- would you mind referring me to the forum / postings which "the crew" "screwed" before coming here? You can PM the info if you don't feel comfortable posting it here.


Originally Posted By: sprintman
RX is ludicrously cheap for what it does. If it doubles in price it's still cheap compared to viable alternatives for me.


Personally, I wouldn't call it ludicrously cheap for what it does, but I do believe it is one of the more effective cleaners I've used. I hope my opinion and those of others who do not agree with you will be accepted as valid just as you hope your opinion will be accepted as valid whether or not someone agrees with you.
 
Noria. And after seven years of Ron and myself tesing RX in vehicles of varied types and fuels than we can remember (500 maybe) we have found nothing to compare. What testing on any comparable product can you offer to us?
 
sprintman- did you document your results over those 7 years and 500 vehicles with before/after pictures, compression tests, fuel economy tests, leak test results? Please point me to this data. I am merely questioning the basis of some peoples' conclusions, I have not had the opportunity to test 500 vehicles, just my own vehicles with various products. However, I would hope that, as someone who HAS been in a position to test ARX in 500 vehicles over 7 years, you did think to document your results. Otherwise, what a serious waste of an opportunity that testing was.
 
Reread my post (another with selective vision). Ron has a service business and he did most of the testing, and continues to do so, on client vehicles. We buy RX by the case (24 bottles) and many of those. Commercial clents expect results and if they don't get them they go elsewhere. Ron rapidly built his business as the man with 'some stuff' that he put in oil. Took most of the forklift service business from the opposition in Melbourne and surounds. He also did regular compression tests on vehicles but these days very rarely. We use it because it works (at A$660 a case it bloody well should)
 
Originally Posted By: moving2



Personally, I wouldn't call it ludicrously cheap for what it does, but I do believe it is one of the more effective cleaners I've used. I hope my opinion and those of others who do not agree with you will be accepted as valid just as you hope your opinion will be accepted as valid whether or not someone agrees with you.


Did you document your results of all these cleaners with before/after pictures, compression tests, fuel economy tests, leak test results? Please point me to this data.
 
35.gif
 
Auto-RX Discussion: Though I'm sure it's not meant to be taken internally, it appears as though some people are doing just that and are discovering its effectiveness as a laxative.
 
Originally Posted By: Trajan

Did you document your results of all these cleaners with before/after pictures, compression tests, fuel economy tests, leak test results? Please point me to this data.


Originally Posted By: moving2

I am merely questioning the basis of some peoples' conclusions, I have not had the opportunity to test 500 vehicles, just my own vehicles with various products.


No, and I am not on here making claims that ARX or any other cleaner made my dirty oil pan clean, or made my dirty valve cover clean, or improved my fuel economy, or cured my seal leaks, nor did I purchase any of these products to improve my fuel economy or cure seal leaks. That's the point. I am questioning those who somehow infer the appearance of the oil pan / pickup before they used a certain product, or worse yet, infer the appearance of SOMEONE ELSE'S oil pan / pickup before they used a product! I live in an apartment and do not have the place or tools to open up anything. The most I could do was peer into oil fill hole or look at the dipstick. The 2 times I saw my oil pan off were at a mechanic years before I ever joined this forum. That's why you don't hear me saying "ARX cleaned my valve cover!" However, Gary seems to think he can make such a claim about someone else's vehicle without data. Get it?
 
Originally Posted By: Kaboomba
Auto-RX Discussion: Though I'm sure it's not meant to be taken internally, it appears as though some people are doing just that and are discovering its effectiveness as a laxative.


I don't believe anyone is forcing to you read this particular thread with such interest vs. others on the forum. Auto-RX Discussion: Though I'm sure it's not meant to occupy every minute of someone's spare time, even if they're not interested in a thread, it appears as though some people are doing just that and discovering its effects as an addiction.
 
Quote:
1. Your numerous assumptions about usage patterns and oil shearing are just that: assumptions. Specifically, that the usage patterns and oil shearing you spoke of would produce deposits significant enough to result in a NOTICEABLY dirty oil pan / pickup over 17 years.


Let's share you counter assumptions. Are they in conflict? Ever worked in the service trade; frequented friends facilities that are? Just curious. You appear to be demanding absolute definites ..but offer none of your own ..

You're making accusations of vapor with nothing more than hot air.

..but ..you have full option to take my take on it with a grain of salt. Don't offer counter argument ..counter "proof", or even your own more authoritative version of speculation ..or not. You don't agree, so you must have some reason to believe otherwise. Maybe not though. Maybe you just didn't have anything better to do.

Quote:
A lot of different products are criticized on BITOG (M1, RP, etc.)- why is it you don't take any criticism of those products in the same way? Why is it you seemingly cannot accept any criticism of ARX as valid?



Here's the part you're missing. Amsoil is bashed for no other reason than it's either competition for M1 or being MLM .....there are die hard M1 supporters who will never state anything in a post that M1 is what they'd recommend even if the stuff is on a leaking sieve of an engine dripping oil by the gallon. It's the same with lots of oil related topics. Here there are about half a dozen people who do nothing but enter an Auto-Rx thread to destroy the thread.

A blind man would have a hard time missing this.

I can't imagine the time it took to find (this) just one post in the archives. What would possibly motive this level of "need"?

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1667518#Post1667518


I'd really rather not be here, but you called.
 
moving2 (somwhere else?) if you think I have to answer to the likes of you, you are sorely mistaken. You've ben here what,all of five nanoseconds and suddenly you are the arbiter of what does and doesn't work. I'll say one thing your ego s collosal!
 
Originally Posted By: sprintman
moving2 (somwhere else?) if you think I have to answer to the likes of you, you are sorely mistaken. You've ben here what,all of five nanoseconds and suddenly you are the arbiter of what does and doesn't work. I'll say one thing your ego s collosal!


sprintman, I do not think your post is helping Gary out in this thread.
 
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
Originally Posted By: moving2
1. Your numerous assumptions about usage patterns and oil shearing are just that: assumptions. Specifically, that the usage patterns and oil shearing you spoke of would produce deposits significant enough to result in a NOTICEABLY dirty oil pan / pickup over 17 years.

Let's share you counter assumptions. Are they in conflict? Ever worked in the service trade; frequented friends facilities that are? Just curious. You appear to be demanding absolute definites ..but offer none of your own ..You're making accusations of vapor with nothing more than hot air. ..but ..you have full option to take my take on it with a grain of salt. Don't offer counter argument ..counter "proof", or even your own more authoritative version of speculation ..or not. You don't agree, so you must have some reason to believe otherwise. Maybe not though. Maybe you just didn't have anything better to do.


Or…MAYBE I'm just asking perfectly reasonable questions and challenging baseless assumptions in a perfectly reasonable way, and you just can't handle it. Interesting debate tactic. When cornered with questions, dodge the question or insult the messenger. Sorry, you picked the wrong guy, as I've seen it too many times before. So put those glasses back on, Gary, because here we go again. This time, I will NUMBER EACH QUESTION, since you seem to so effectively DELETE, DODGE and AVOID those questions you cannot answer. From this point forward, anyone reading your responses can then CLEARLY see for themselves whether or not you choose to answer the questions posed to you, so keep that in mind.

From your postings, I doubt you've ever spent much time in a scientific field, or even doing data collection for that matter. You see, just because I am questioning your assumptions and conclusions, that does not mean I need to have "counter argument ..counter "proof", or even my own more authoritative version of speculation". For example- if you were to make the assumption that there would be significant plaque buildup (so much that it would be visible and considered significant in angiography) in the arteries of the average 50 year old man on an average American diet, but you cannot point to any empirical evidence of such, you cannot point to studies of such, you cannot even explain why you speculate the buildup would be significant enough to be visible in angiography, you cannot quantify the amount of plaque (maybe it produced some plaque, but "significant" or visible in angiography? You have no idea.) If you cannot point to any evidence to backup your claim, and yet you consider your assumptions about plaque buildup "sensible givens", anyone familiar with basic science would call you on that one. Your "sensible givens" about plaque buildup would be considered completely and totally baseless by any reasonable person. And people who question your assumptions do not need to have counter assumptions, counter arguments, or even their own speculation because they are not making such assumptions or speculation or claims themselves. They are merely asking how you can do so without basis, and yet your response is to ask for counter assumptions or to insult the people who ask these questions instead of answering their questions about your statements. (Note: my 2 sample points about the oil pan/pickup are no more valid than your assumptions, I am just not extrapolating to "sensible givens" the way you are- THAT'S the difference).

You didn't really address my example, so I'll give it to you again and ask you a question: What if I said "the average 50 year old who ate an average American omnivorous diet would likely have significant plaque deposits in his arteries" but I cannot point to any empirical evidence of such, I cannot point to studies of such, I cannot even explain why I speculate the buildup would be significant enough to be visible in angiography, I cannot quantify the amount of plaque (maybe it produced some plaque, but "significant" or visible in angiography? I have no idea.) If I cannot point to any evidence to backup my claim, and yet I consider my assumptions about plaque buildup "sensible givens", then…

QUESTION #1: Even if you do not have counter evidence, counter speculation, etc., would you not question what I call "sensible givens"? Yes or no, please.


And you totally skipped this one, but don't worry- I didn't forget! I'll just ask again and number it this time:
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
This is a tread from a satisfied user of Auto-Rx. He's also a long time member in very good standing on the board, yet the hound dogs did everything they could to drive the thread into the ground. This is done by "the crew".


Gary- this is really a mystery to me. I just scanned this entire thread, and I do not see the boogeymen you speak of.

QUESTION #2: Please do me a favor and clarify something for me- it shouldn't take you very long at all- please Quick-Quote ALL the posts in this thread that you believe are representative of your statement "the hound dogs did everything they could to drive the thread into the ground." Note that you said this BEFORE the following post:
Originally Posted By: ionbeam22
It boils down to ARX being expensive for what you get (which may very well be nothing at all).

so you may not include it.

The vast majority of posts in this thread are from satisfied users of ARX. The most negative postings I saw before this were from people who either don't believe in additives, or from people who tried ARX and were only moderately satisfied.


QUESTION #3: And even ionbeam22- while his posting is "negative", if you truly believe in this product as you seem to, then shouldn't you be able to accept compliments AND criticism of it?


QUESTION #4: Do you really expect every single posting about ARX to be positive, and that anything less than a glowing review is somehow "hound dogs" and "the crew" driving the thread into the ground?

The fact of the matter is, people will have differing opinions about any product, ARX included. Some will feel it did not perform well. Some will feel it did. Some will feel it is expensive for what it does, some will not. This applies to ANY product, and reacting the way you do will only make people run far, far away from both your commentary and the product. While I am a satisfied ARX user, if I read this thread for the first time, I would be very wary of the product not from the "hound dogs", but from your postings which take any criticism of ARX so very personally. I would wonder where the boogeymen you refer to are, because I do not see them at all in any of the postings in this thread. In fact, I forwarded this thread to some friends of mine via email asking for their comments without offering my commentary on it. Two guys responded: one of them asked if "Gary Allan" made ARX. The other asked if the "hound dog" posters posts had been deleted because he wanted to see them. Call this a unicorn, too, if you'd like (as you seem to refer to anything that you don't agree with but which you cannot disprove) but it is actually 2 sample points (3 including mine) as to how your posts come across. A lot of different products are criticized on BITOG (M1, RP, etc.)- why is it you don't take any criticism of those products in the same way?


QUESTION #5: Is there ANY criticism of ARX that you would accept as valid? If so, please give us some examples.


QUESTION #6: Is it so unbelievable that some people out there have used the product and haven't seen the results they were expecting in terms of cleaning action, compression numbers, fuel economy, seal conditioning, etc?


I would EXPECT there would be those out there who would not be satisfied. Why? Because this is true for EVERY product in existence.

QUESTION #7: Do you or do you not agree with the above statement?

And here's a revelation for you: the comments of people who question and even criticize ARX do not signal the downfall of the forum. It signals that ARX is a product with supporters and detractors just like any other product, and the supporters' comments are no more or less valid than the detractors'. Until you consider this, you will continue to drive people away from ARX far, far more effectively than the "hound dogs" that I'm afraid exist only in your head.


Originally Posted By: moving2
A lot of different products are criticized on BITOG (M1, RP, etc.)- why is it you don't take any criticism of those products in the same way? Why is it you seemingly cannot accept any criticism of ARX as valid?


Originally Posted By: Gary Allan

Here there are about half a dozen people who do nothing but enter an Auto-Rx thread to destroy the thread. A blind man would have a hard time missing this. I can't imagine the time it took to find (this) just one post in the archives. What would possibly motive this level of "need"? http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1667518#Post1667518


Hypothetical: What if I came onto the oil forums and touted the greatness of M1. And let's say some people on the forums have a different opinion of M1 and they came onto the threads to offer their opinion and experiences with it, claiming it caused leaks and engine noise. It makes sense it would be mostly the same people every time because they are the ones with the differing opinions. But, what if every time someone offered anything less than a glowing review of M1, I said things like:
- "the hound dogs did everything they could to drive the thread into the ground"
- "This is done by "the crew"
- "There's a whole "crew" that appear to have little purpose beyond assuring that every M1 thread is riddled with garbage"
- "I'm just pointing out the totally whacked behavior of those who are in the feeding frenzy"
- "There are about half a dozen people who do nothing but enter an M1thread to destroy the thread."

QUESTION #8: Again, I don't see it. Why do you view ANY criticism of ARX as "destroying a thread" instead of as peoples' own experiences and opinions, which may or may not differ from your own?


QUESTION #9: Please do me a favor and clarify something for me- it shouldn't take you very long at all- please Quick-Quote ALL the posts in the thread you referenced:
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1667518#Post1667518
that you believe are representative of your statement "Here there are about half a dozen people who do nothing but enter an Auto-Rx thread to destroy the thread."


Originally Posted By: Gary Allan

I'd really rather not be here, but you called.


I have no problem being here. I hope you can actually answer my questions this time around, though. I guess we (and everyone in the future who comes across this thread and either sees or does not see answers to the clearly numbered questions) will judge for themselves...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

S
  • Locked
Best engine break-in procedure?
2
Replies
36
Views
4K
Slow Car Sport Mode
CarbonSteel
2001 Jeep Cherokee Sport (Father/Son Project)
3 4 5
Replies
84
Views
5K
LouC
P
Looking at two Suburbans to buy, need opinion
3 4 5
Replies
81
Views
9K
Quantico
clinebarger
Unhappy Customer
2 3
Replies
55
Views
10K
dfarr67
O
  • Locked
Ecstatic about my latest score - a zero turn mower!
2
Replies
30
Views
8K
coder
Back
Top