oil additives?

[mike_flemming]

just wondering about your guys thoughts about additives such as lucas etc...do they do anything or not? At every oil change in the last 6 months (2 changes) ive added a quart of lucas to the mix..and thought it was cleaner coming out..would be just a mental thing though.

[Blue Bowtie]

Do anything? Of course they do something. At the very least, they move capital from your wallet to the Net Sales accounts of the company selling the products. For most of them, that's about all they'll do, unless you happen to be one of the unfortunate ones who also later gets to move more capital from your wallet into the accounts of your local engine rebuilder.

The only way to determine whether the drained oil is "cleaner" is to analyze it properly for DS, particle counts and sizes, total base number, trace elements, and pH. Color is not always a good indication.

Most tribologists would recommend using a lubricant with appropriate additive packeages blended in at the packaging plant, and add nothing else.

[mike_flemming]

hahahah thats what i thought...well there goes that..thanks for the info

[Blue Bowtie]

Are you experiencing some problems with the lubrication system, oil consumption, unusual noises, or something wrong? Or were you simply searching for a better lubricant package for your engine's protection?

[silicon212]

I remember using tons of that real-thick "no-burn" stuff in my old '72 Impala, when the engine was so bad that it'd BURN a quart every 5 miles (that's 26,400 feet). The engine didn't leak anything - it all went through the tailpipe.

It took about 10 minutes to put a can of that stuff in, about three times longer than it took to burn a quart of oil. It also did not a damn thing for the consumption, so it was only used for one week.

The joys of being a teenager with your first (real) car!

[mike_flemming]

just better lubricant

[jeffcoslacker]

I disagree...I've been using Slick 50 every 50,000 miles on all my cars since about 1990 or so...some have gone over 300,000 miles without a single internal engine wear issue...of course I'm very good about routine maintenance as well, so that alone is helpful.

I have used Lucas in some vehicles, most notably one place I worked was a Lucas distributor, and we ran it in all out fleet vehicles...and these trucks got the hell driven out of them and stood up to it well, but to really prove anything, we should have run one or two without as "control" subjects, for a true scientific appproach...

On my own vehicles I have been able to measure a very distinct difference in extenal engine surface temps (around 20-30F measured with infrared remote) with Slick 50 as opposed to without, that's good enough for me to accept that it must be reducing friction, as advertised...anyway I'm not changing my routine now, as it works so well for me...

I think Lucas probably does increase engine life in the long term, just due to increased surface film retention for cold starts. I sometimes wonder if it might work against you in terms of increased parasitic drag and lower fuel economy, but the effect would have to be very slight, I think...

[jeffcoslacker]

PS, I figure at $14 a treatment every 50,000 miles, the Slick 50 is adding $0.82 per oil change to my maintenance costs...I can live with that...

[Blue Bowtie]

I also disagree. Did you disassemble, measure, and qualify every wear surface, or are you presuming there are no wear issues since it is still running?

Here's my experience with a 1994 LT1 that was run on nothing but Mobil 1 10W30 and PF52 filters since it had 3,359 miles:

Teardown at 110,000 miles revealed taper wear in the bores. The worst cylinder was #6, and measurements with a telescope gauge, inside mic, and bore gauge (since I didn't believe any of them) revealed 0.0004" taper. That's 4 tenths, not thousandths. And that was over the design tolerances, NOT the wear tolerances. In other words, the design calls fo a 4.0001" finished bore, and the worst bore was worn to 4.0005" at the bottom. Further, the production tolerances allow for up to 4.0005 on a NEW cylinder bore from the factory. It hadn't even worn to that point in 110,000 miles.


Top compression ring gaps were no greater than 0.022". Piston skirs showed only polishing, not scuffing. Main and rod journals had no wear, and the only clearance was due to bearing shells opening to 0.0025" on a couple rods. Standard shells returned oil clearance at the bearings to 0.0018" specs. The timing chain and sprockets, as well as the water pump drive gears were like new. The new replacement timing set went on with the same amount of slack as the one that was removed. Those aren't perceptions or "gut feel", but quantified results - Hard data and facts.

The car was never abused, but never babied. It was regularly driven in so that the "1" lit up on the digital speedometer. It had worn off two sets of tires, mostly on the rear. But it was always at operating temperature before being loaded heavily.

I'm curious how much less wear I could have had if I had used additives. Had I not decided to change the cam and port the heads at that mileage, I'm sure it would still be running just fine on the originals. Now it runs just fine, but only two seconds faster.

As long as the TMT, Slick 50, or other products are not doing any damage, it's probably not a problem. Then again, every ounce of additive in the sump means one less ounce of lubricant.

[bobss396]

I've heard good things about Lucas and Slick50 products. The ones you want to avoid are the honey-like consistency ones that claim to be an engine rebuild in a can. I've taken apart engines that had STP run through them and have seen it block up an oil pick up screen.

I used to run some real oil burners in my day as a kid. I totally swore by Alemite CD2 with every oil change, it really did make that much of a difference in my oil comsumption problem.

Bob

[jeffcoslacker]

Originally Posted by Blue Bowtie

I also disagree. Did you disassemble, measure, and qualify every wear surface, or are you presuming there are no wear issues since it is still running?

Here's my experience with a 1994 LT1 that was run on nothing but Mobil 1 10W30 and PF52 filters since it had 3,359 miles:

Teardown at 110,000 miles revealed taper wear in the bores. The worst cylinder was #6, and measurements with a telescope gauge, inside mic, and bore gauge (since I didn't believe any of them) revealed 0.0004" taper. That's 4 tenths, not thousandths. And that was over the design tolerances, NOT the wear tolerances. In other words, the design calls fo a 4.0001" finished bore, and the worst bore was worn to 4.0005" at the bottom. Further, the production tolerances allow for up to 4.0005 on a NEW cylinder bore from the factory. It hadn't even worn to that point in 110,000 miles.


Top compression ring gaps were no greater than 0.022". Piston skirs showed only polishing, not scuffing. Main and rod journals had no wear, and the only clearance was due to bearing shells opening to 0.0025" on a couple rods. Standard shells returned oil clearance at the bearings to 0.0018" specs. The timing chain and sprockets, as well as the water pump drive gears were like new. The new replacement timing set went on with the same amount of slack as the one that was removed. Those aren't perceptions or "gut feel", but quantified results - Hard data and facts.

The car was never abused, but never babied. It was regularly driven in so that the "1" lit up on the digital speedometer. It had worn off two sets of tires, mostly on the rear. But it was always at operating temperature before being loaded heavily.

I'm curious how much less wear I could have had if I had used additives. Had I not decided to change the cam and port the heads at that mileage, I'm sure it would still be running just fine on the originals. Now it runs just fine, but only two seconds faster.

As long as the TMT, Slick 50, or other products are not doing any damage, it's probably not a problem. Then again, every ounce of additive in the sump means one less ounce of lubricant.

Nope. I don't need a teardown to tell me that it is not common for a 4 cylinder to last over 300,000 miles with no oil control issues...and I have also seen some old cars owned by religious Mobil 1 users that were remakable not only in lack of wear, but internal cleanliness as well, one a 197? Buick Special w/350 at 125,000 miles was in the shop and got the valve cover gaskets replaced, there was nearly no discoloration or varnishing on the rockers, pushrod surfaces, etc...looked like it wasn't hardly broken in....

If I could commit to full syn use exclusively, I wouldn't use anything else, most likely, but sometimes circumstances are such that at oil change time I simply don't have the money for it, so the routine is semi-syn routinely and Slick 50 at reccommended interval...

One time I did note a possible but not suprising effect of S50 use...I had bought a '77 Caprice Estate from an old customer who spared NO expense maintaining that car, and at 80,xxx it ran flawless, truly one of the smoothest running motors (305) I've ever come across...I did my thing 3000 miles after purchase, as he'd just had the oil changed prior to selling it to me...and two days later the timing chain slipped and she wouldn't start...

Once torn down, I noted that the nylon coat cam gear still had teeth, and while rounded, I'd seen them go almost to where there was nearly no discernable teeth before allowing the chain to slide before...could have been a side effect...but that is the only location in a motor and the only condition I can think of where less contact friction could cause a failure....

[mike_flemming]

so whats the virdict

[Blue Bowtie]

Do some reasearch, and use additives at your own risk.

I wasn't arguing with JeffCo at all. I have used Slick 50 in the past (and a couple other coating type additives) on older and already worn engines. But starting with something I know is not beyond service limits, I don't hesitate to go straight to PAO syntheics. I've used STP as an assembly lubricant and in engines that had almost no rings left, along with Bardahl, Casite Motor Honey, and other super thick additive concentrates as a "band-aid" before a new engine or rebuild. If your engine is "normal" I would tend to avoid any of those, however.

[jeffcoslacker]

Originally Posted by Blue Bowtie

Do some reasearch, and use additives at your own risk.

I wasn't arguing with JeffCo at all. I have used Slick 50 in the past (and a couple other coating type additives) on older and already worn engines. But starting with something I know is not beyond service limits, I don't hesitate to go straight to PAO syntheics. I've used STP as an assembly lubricant and in engines that had almost no rings left, along with Bardahl, Casite Motor Honey, and other super thick additive concentrates as a "band-aid" before a new engine or rebuild. If your engine is "normal" I would tend to avoid any of those, however.

I'm not trying to be contentious either, but from your reaction to his original question, you seem to perhaps be lumping the Lucas additive in with the oil thickening additives you just mentioned...which it does not do...it merely increases film strength, but doesn't change the weight of the oil appreciably...for instance, it won't cause slow oil pressure build or draggy cranking in cold weather like the others or heavier weight oil will...

I once had a Mazda 323 on the lot with a spun crank bearing...just for laughs I polished the crank, installed an undersized bearing, coated it in STP and added 2 pints of it to the crankcase along with 3 qts of straight 50W...and drove it down to the salvage yard...it was just beginning to tap lightly by that time....get twice as much for driving one in as having it towed...