Ian & Stuart's Australian Mac: Not for Sale/Another.not.for.sale (Australia).iso/Dr. Doyle/Snake Oil

Text File | 1994-03-05 | 40KB | 658 lines

rec.motorcycles             Thread   48 of  238
Lines 652  Snake Oil!Respno   1 of   7
[e-mail]  Tom Coradeschi at U.S. Army Armament Research Dev. & Eng.

Since the question of the use of Slick 50 (and other of its ilk) seems to
come up on these two groups (rec.moto and rec.auto.tech) time and again,
(and I've gotten sick of posting this article by hand), I'm automating it.
It should go out on the 1st and 15th of each month, the gods (and cron)
willing...

Snake Oil!
Is That Additive Really A Negative?
Article and Photos by Fred Rau
ROAD RIDER/August 1992/Pg 15

   Information for this article was compiled from reports and studies by
the University of Nevada Desert Research Center, DuPont Chemical Company,
Avco Lycoming (aircraft engine manufacturers), North Dakota State -
University, Briggs and Stratton (engine manufacturers), the University of
Utah Engineering Experiment Station, California State Polytechnic College
and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's Lewis Research
Center.

   Road Rider does not claim to have all the answers. Nor do we care to
presume to tell you what to do. We have simply tried to provide you with
all the information we were able to dredge up on this subject, in hopes
it will help you in making your own, informed decision.

You Can't Tell The Players Without A Program

   On starting this project, we set out to find as many different oil
additives as we could buy. That turned out to be a mistake. There were
simply too many avail able! At the very first auto parts store we
visited, there were over two dozen different brand names available. By
the end of the day, we had identified over 40 different oil additives for
sale and realized we needed to rethink our strategy.
   First of all, we found that if we checked the fine print on the
packages, quite a number of the additives came from the same
manufacturer. Also, we began to notice that the additives could be
separated into basic "groups" that seemed to carry approximately the same
ingredients and the same promises.
   In the end, we divided our additives into four basic groups and
purchased at least three brands from three different manufacturers for
each group. We defined our four groups this way:
   1.) Products that seemed to be nothing more than regular 50-rated
engine oil (including standard additives) with PTFE (Teflon TM) added.
   2.) Products that seemed to be nothing more than regular 50-rated
engine oil (including standard additives) with zinc dialkyldithiophosphate
added.
   3.) Products containing (as near as we could determine) much the same
additives as are already found in most major brands of engine oil, though
in different quantities and combinations.
   4.) Products made up primarily of solvents and/or detergents.
   There may be some differences in chemical makeup within groups, but
that is impossible to tell since the additive manufacturers refuse to
list the specific ingredients of their products. We will discuss each
group individually.

 The PTFE Mystery

   Currently, the most common and popular oil additives on the market are
those that contain PTFE powders suspended in a regular, over-the-counter
type, 50-rated petroleum or synthetic engine oil. PTFE is the common
abbreviation used for Polytetrafloeraethylene, more commonly known by the
trade name "Teflon," which is a registered trademark of the DuPont
Chemical Corporation. Among those oil additives we have identified as
containing PTFE are: Slick 50, Liquid Ring, Lubrilon, Microlon, Matrix,
Petrolon (same company as Slick 50), QMl, and T-Plus (K-Mart). There are
probably many more names in use on many more products using PTFE. We have
found that oil additive makers like to market their products under a
multitude of "private brand" names.
   While some of these products may contain other additives in addition
to PTFE, all seem to rely on the PTFE as their primary active ingredient
and all, without exception, do not list what other ingredients they may
contain.
   Though they have gained rather wide acceptance among the motoring
public, oil additives containing PTFE have also garnered their share of
critics among experts in the field of lubrication. By far the most
damning testimonial against these products originally came from the
DuPont Chemical Corporation, inventor of PTFE and holder of the patents
and trademarks for Teflon. In a statement issued about ten years ago,
DuPont's Fluoropolymers Division Product Specialist, J.F. Imbalzano said,
"Teflon is not useful as an ingredient in oil additives or oils used for
internal combustion engines."
   At the time, DuPont threatened legal action against anyone who used
the name "Teflon" on any oil product destined for use in an internal
combustion engine, and refused to sell its PTFE powders to any one who
intended to use them for such purposes.
   After a flurry of lawsuits from oil additive makers, claiming DuPont
could not prove that PTFE was harmful to engines, DuPont was forced to
once again begin selling their PTFE to the additive producers. The
additive makers like to claim this is some kind of "proof' that their
products work, when in fact it is nothing more than proof that the
American legal ethic of "innocent until proven guilty" is still alive and
well. The decision against DuPont involved what is called "restraint of
trade." You can't refuse to sell a product to someone just because there
is a possibility they might use it for a purpose other than what you
intended it for.
   It should be noted that DuPont's official position on the use of PTFE
in engine oils remains carefully aloof and noncommittal, for obvious
legal reasons. DuPont states that though they sell PTFE to oil additive
producers, they have "no proof of the validity of the additive makers'
claims." They further state that they have "no knowledge of any advantage
gained through the use of PTFE in engine oil."
   Fear of potential lawsuits for possible misrepresentation of a product
seem to run much higher among those with the most to lose.
   After DuPont's decision and attempt to halt the use of PTFE in engine
oils, several of the oil additive companies simply went elsewhere for
their PTFE powders, such as purchasing them in other countries. In some
cases, they disguise or hype their PTFE as being something different or
special by listing it under one of their own tradenames. That doesn't
change the fact that it is still PTFE.
   In addition, there is some evidence that certain supplies of PTFE
powders (from manufacturers other than DuPont) are of a cruder version
than the original, made with larger sized flakes that are more likely to
"settle out" in your oil or clog up your filters. One fairly good
indication that a product contains this kind of PTFE is if the
instructions for its use advise you to "shake well before using." It only
stands to reason that if the manufacturer knows the solids in his product
will settle to the bottom of a container while sitting on a shelf, the
same thing is going to hap pen inside your engine when it is left idle
for any period of time.
   The problem with putting PTFE in your oil, as explained to us by
several industry experts, is that PTFE is a solid. The additive makers
claim this solid "coats" the moving parts in an engine (though that is
far from being scientifically proven). Slick 50 is currently both the
most aggressive advertiser and the most popular seller, with claims of
over 14 million treatments sold. However, such solids seem even more
inclined to coat non-moving parts, like oil passages and filters. After
all, if it can build up under the pressures and friction exerted on a
better in
places with low pressures and virtually no friction.
   This conclusion seems to be borne out by tests on oil additives
containing PTFE conducted by the NASA Lewis Research Center, which said
in their report, "In the types of bearing surface contact we have looked
at, we have seen no benefit. In some cases we have seen detrimental
effect. The solids in the oil tend to accumulate at inlets and act as a
dam, which simply blocks the oil from entering. Instead of helping, it is
actually depriving parts of lubricant."
   Remember, PTFE in oil additives is a suspended solid. Now think about
why you have an oil filter on your engine. To remove suspended solids,
right? Right. Therefore it would seem to follow that if your oil filter
is doing its job, it will collect as much of the PTFE as possible, as
quickly as possible. This can result in a clogged oil filter and
decreased oil pres sure throughout your engine.
   In response to our inquiries about this sort of problem, several of
the PTFE pushers responded that their particulates were of a sub-micron
size, capable of passing through an ordinary oil filter unrestricted.
This certainly sounds good, and may in some cases actually be true, but
it makes little difference when you know the rest of the story. You see,
PTFE has other qualities besides being a friction reducer: It expands
radically when exposed to heat. So even if those particles are small
enough to pass through your filter when you purchase them, they very well
may not be when your engine reaches normal operating temperature.
   Here again, the' scientific evidence seems to support this, as in
tests conducted by researchers at the University of Utah Engineering
Experiment Station involving Petrolon additive with PTFE.
   The Petrolon test report states, "There was a pressure drop across the
oil filter resulting from possible clogging of small passageways." In
addition, oil analysis showed that iron contamination doubled after using
the treatment, indicating that engine wear didn't go down - it appeared
to shoot up.
   This particular report was paid for by Petrolon (marketers of Slick
50), and was not all bad news for their products. The tests, conducted on
a Chevrolet six-cylinder automobile engine, showed that after treatment
with the PTFE additive the test engine's friction was reduced by 13.1
percent. Also, output horsepower increased from 5.3 percent to 8.1
percent, and fuel economy improved from 11.8 percent under light load to
3.8 percent under heavy load.
   These are the kind of results an aggressive marketing company like
Petrolon can really sink their teeth into. If we only reported the
results in the last paragraph to you, you'd be inclined to think Slick 50
was indeed a magic engine elixir. What you have to keep in mind is that
often times the benefits (like increased horse power and fuel economy)
may be out weighed by some serious drawbacks (like the indications of
reduced oil pressure and increased wear rate).

The Plot Thickens
   Just as we were about to go to press with this article, we were
contacted by the public relations firm of Trent and Company, an outfit
with a prestigious address in the Empire State Building, New York. They
advised us they were working for a company called QMI out of Lakeland,
Florida, that was marketing a "technological breakthrough" product in oil
additives. Naturally, we asked them to send us all pertinent information,
including any testing and research data.
   What we got was pretty much what we expected. QMI's oil additive,
according to their press release, uses "ten times more PTFE resins than
its closest competitor." Using the "unique SX-6000 formula," they say
they are the only company to use "aqueous dispersion resin which means
the microns (particle sizes) are extensively smaller and can penetrate
tight areas." This, they claim, "completely eliminates the problem of
clogged filters and oil passages."
   Intrigued by their press release, we set up a telephone interview with
their Vice-President of Technical Services, Mr. Owen Heatwole. Mr.
Heatwole's name was immediately recognized by us as one that had popped
in earlier research of this subject as a former employee of Petrolon, a
company whose name seems inextricably linked in some fashion or another
with virtually every PTFE-related additive maker in the country.
   Mr. Heatwole was a charming and persuasive talker with a knack for
avoiding direct answers as good as any seasoned politician. His glib
pitch for his product was the best we've ever heard, but when dissected
and pared down to the verifiable facts, it actually said very little.
   When we asked about the ingredients in QMI's treatments, we got almost
exactly the response we expected. Mr. Heatwole said he would "have to
avoid discussing specifics about the formula, for proprietary reasons."
   After telling us that QMI was being used by "a major oil company," a
"nuclear plant owned by a major corporation" and a "major engine
manufacturer," Mr. Heatwole followed up with, "Naturally, I can't reveal
their names - for proprietary reasons."
   He further claimed to have extensive testing and research data
available from a "major laboratory," proving conclusively how effective
QMI was. When we asked for the name of the lab, can you guess? Yup, "We
can't give out that information, for proprietary reasons."
   What QMI did give us was the typical "testimonials," though we must
admit theirs came from more recognizable sources than usual. They seem to
have won over the likes of both Team Kawasaki and Bobby Unser, who
evidently endorse and use QMI in their racing engines. Mr. Heatwole was
very proud of the fact that their product was being used in engines that
he himself admitted are "torn down and completely inspected on a weekly
basis." Of course, what he left out is that those same engines are almost
totally rebuilt every time they're torn down. So what does that prove in
terms of his product reducing wear and promoting engine longevity?
Virtually nothing.
   Mr. Heatwole declined to name the source of QMI's PTFE supply "for
proprietary reasons." He bragged that their product is sold under many
different private labels, but refused to identify those labels "for
proprietary reasons." When asked about the actual size of the PTFE
particles used in QMI, he claimed they were measured as "sub-micron in
size" by a "major motor laboratory" which he couldn't identify - you
guessed it - for "proprietary reasons."
   After about an hour of listening to "don't quote me on this," "I'll
have to deny that if you print it," and "I can't reveal that," we asked
Mr. Heatwole if there was something we could print. "Certainly," he said,
"Here's a good quote for you: 'The radical growth in technology has
overcome the problem areas associated with PTFE in the 1980s'"
   "Not bad," we said. Then we asked to whom we might attribute this gem
of wisdom. DuPont Chemical, perhaps?
   "Me," said Mr. Heatwole. "I said that."
   QMI's press releases like to quote the Guinness Book Of Records in
saying that PTFE is "The slickest substance known to man." Far be it from
us to take exception to the Guinness Book, but we doubt that PTFE is much
slicker than some of the people marketing it.

The Zinc Question
   The latest "miracle ingredient" in oil additives, attempting to usurp
PTFE's cure-all throne, is zinc dialkyldithiophosphate, which we will
refer to here after as simply "zinc."
   Purveyors of the new zinc-related products claim they can prove
absolute superiority over the PTFE-related products. Naturally, the PTFE
crowd claim exactly the same, in reverse.
   Zinc is contained as part of the standard additive package in
virtually every major brand of engine oil sold today, varying from a low
volume of 0.10 per cent in brands such as Valvoline All Climate and
Chevron l5W-50, to a high volume of 0.20 percent in brands such as
Valvoline Race and Pennzoil GT Performance.
   Organic zinc compounds are used as extreme pressure, anti-wear
adfically
blended for high-revving, turbocharged or racing applications. The zinc
in your oil comes into play only when there is actual metal-to-metal con
tact within your engine, which should never occur under normal operating
conditions. However, if you race your bike, or occasionally play tag with
the redline on the tach, the zinc is your last line of defense. Under
extreme conditions, the zinc compounds react with the metal to prevent
scuffing, particularly between cylinder bores and piston rings.
   However - and this is the important part to remember - available
research shows that more zinc does not give you more protection, it
merely prolongs the protection if the rate of metal-to-metal contact is
abnormally high or extended. So unless you plan on spending a couple of
hours dragging your knee at Laguna Seca, adding extra zinc compounds to
your oil is usually a waste. Also, keep in mind that high zinc content
can lead to deposit formation on your valves, and spark plug fouling.
   Among the products we found containing zinc dialkyldithiophosphate
were Mechanics Brand Engine Tune Up, K Mart Super Oil Treatment, and STP
Engine Treatment With XEP2. The only reason we can easily identify the
additives with the new zinc compounds is that they are required to carry
a Federally mandated warning label indicating they contain a hazardous
substance. The zinc phosphate they contain is a known eye irritant,
capable of inflicting severe harm if it comes in contact with your eyes.
If you insist on using one of these products, please wear protective
goggles and exercise extreme caution.
   As we mentioned, organic zinc compounds are already found in virtually
every major brand of oil, both automotive and motorcycle. However, in
recent years the oil companies voluntarily reduced the amount of zinc
content in most of their products after research indicated the zinc was
responsible for premature deterioration and damage to catalytic
converters. Obviously this situation would not affect 99 percent of all
the motorcycles on the road - however, it could have been a factor with
the newer BMW converter - equipped bikes.
   Since the reduction in zinc content was implemented solely for the
protection of catalytic converters, it is possible that some motorcycles
might benefit from a slight increase in zinc content in their oils. This
has been taken into account by at least one oil company, Spectro, which
offers 0.02 to 0.03 percent more zinc compounds in its motorcycle oils
than in its automotive oils.
   Since Spectro (Golden 4 brand, in this case) is a synthetic blend
lubricant designed for extended drain intervals, this increase seems to
be wholly justified. Also, available research indicates that Spectro has,
in this case, achieved a sensible balance for extended application
without increasing the zinc content to the point that it is likely to
cause spark plug fouling or present a threat to converter-equipped BMW
models.
   It would appear that someone at Spectro did their homework.

Increased Standard Additives (More Is Not Necessarily Better)
   Though some additives may not contain anything harmful to your engine,
and even some things that could be beneficial, most experts still
recommend that you avoid their use. The reason for this is that your oil,
as purchased from one of the major oil companies, already contains a very
extensive additive package.
   This package is made up of numerous, specific additive components,
blended to achieve a specific formula that will meet the requirements of
your engine. Usually, at least several of these additives will be
synergistic. That is, they react mutually, in groups of two or more, to
create an effect that none of them could attain individually. Changing or
adding to this formula can upset the balance and negate the protective
effect the formula was meant to achieve, even if you are only adding more
of something that was already included in the initial package.
   If it helps, try to think of your oil like a cake recipe. Just because
the original recipe calls for two eggs (which makes for a very moist and
tasty cake), do you think adding four more eggs is going to make the cake
better? Of course not. You're going to upset the carefully calculated
balance of ingredients and magnify the effect the eggs have on the recipe
to the point that it ruins the entire cake. Adding more of a specific
additive already contained in your oil is likely to produce similar
results.
   This information should also be taken into account when adding to the
oil already in your bike or when mixing oils for any reason, such as
synthetic with petroleum. In these cases, always make sure the oils you
are putting together have the same rating (SA, SE, SC, etc.). This tells
you their additive packages are basically the same, or at least
compatible, and are less likely to upset the balance or counteract each
other.

Detergents And Solvents
   Many of the older, better-known oil treatments on the market do not
make claims nearly so lavish as the new upstarts. Old standbys like
Bardahl, Rislone and Marvel Mystery Oil, instead offer things like
"quieter lifters," "reduced oil burning" and a "cleaner engine."
   Most of these products are made up of solvents and detergents designed
to dissolve sludge and carbon deposits inside your engine so they can be
flushed or burned out. Wynn's Friction Proofing Oil, for example, is 83
percent kerosene. Other brands use naphthalene, xylene, acetone and
isopropanol. Usually, these ingredients will be found in a base of
standard mineral oil.
   In general, these products are designed to do just the opposite of
what the PTFE and zinc phosphate additives claim to do. Instead of
leaving behind a "coating" or a "plating" on your engine surfaces, they
are designed to strip away such things.
   All of these products will strip sludge and deposits out and clean up
your engine, particularly if it is an older, abused one. The problem is,
unless you have some way of determining just how much is needed to remove
your deposits without going any further, such solvents also can strip
away the boundary lubrication layer provided by your oil. Overuse of
solvents is an easy trap to fall into, and one which can promote harmful
metal-to-metal contact within your engine.
   As a general rule of thumb these products had their place and were at
least moderately useful on older automobile and motorcycle engines of the
Fifties and Sixties, but are basically unneeded on the more efficient
engine designs of the past two decades.

The Infamous "No Oil" Demo
   At at least three major motorcycle rallies this past year, we have
witnessed live demonstrations put on to demonstrate the effectiveness of
certain oil additives. The demonstrators would have a bench-mounted
engine which they would fill with oil and a prescribed dose of their
"miracle additive." After running the engine for a while they would stop
it, drain out the oil and start it up again. Instant magic! The engine
would run perfectly well for hours on end, seemingly proving the
effectiveness of the additive which had supposedly "coated" the inside of
the engine so well it didn't even need the oil to run. In one case, we
saw this done with an actual motorcycle, which would be rid den around
the parking lot after having its oil drained. A pretty convincing
demonstration - until you know the facts.
   Since some of these demonstrations were conducted using Briggs and
Stratton engines, the Briggs and Stratton Company itself decided to run a
similar, but somewhat more scientific, experiment. Taking two brand-new,
identical engines straight off their assembly line, they set them up for
bench-testing. The only difference was that one had the special additive
included with its oil and the other did not. Both were operated for 20
hours before being shut down and having the oil drained from them. Then
both were started up again and allowed to run for another 20 straight
hours. Neither engine seemed to have any problem performing this "minor
miracle."
 both engines were completely torn down
and inspected by the company's engineers. What they found was that both
engines suffered from scored crankpin bearings, but the engine treated
with the additive also suffered from heavy cylinder bore damage that was
not evident on the untreated engine.
   This points out once again the inherent problem with particulate oil
additives: They can cause oil starvation. This is particularly true in
the area of piston rings, where there is a critical need for adequate oil
flow. In practically all of the reports and studies on oil additives, and
particularly those involving suspended solids like PTFE, this has been
reported as a major area of engine damage.

The Racing Perspective
   Among the most convincing testimonials in favor of oil additives are
those that come from professional racers or racing teams. As noted
previously, some of the oil additive products actually are capable of
producing less engine friction, better gas mileage and higher horsepower
out put. In the world of professional racing, the split-second advantage
that might be gained from using such a product could be the difference
between victory and defeat.
   Virtually all of the downside or detrimental effects attached to these
products are related to extended, long-term usage. For short-life,
high-revving, ultra-high performance engines designed to last no longer
than one racing season (or in some cases, one single race), the long-term
effects of oil additives need not even be considered.
   Racers also use special high-adhesion tires that give much better
traction and control than our normal street tires, but you certainly
wouldn't want to go touring on them, since they're designed to wear out
in several hundred (or less) miles. Just because certain oil additives
may be beneficial in a competitive context is no reason to believe they
would be equally beneficial in a touring context.

The Best of The Worst
   Not all engine oil additives are as potentially harmful as some of
those we have described here. However, the best that can be said of those
that have not proved to be harmful is that they haven't been proved to
offer any real benefits, either. In some cases, introducing an additive
with a compatible package of components to your oil in the right
proportion and at the right time can conceivably extend the life of your
oil. However, in every case we have studied it proves out that it would
actually have been cheaper to simply change the engine oil instead.
   In addition, recent new evidence has come to light that makes using
almost any additive a game of Russian Roulette. Since the additive
distributors do not list the ingredients contained within their products,
you never know for sure just what you are putting in your engine.
   Recent tests have shown that even some of the most inoffensive
additives contain products which, though harmless in their initial state,
convert to hydrofluoric acid when exposed to the temperatures inside a
firing cylinder. This acid is formed as part of the exhaust gases, and
though it is instantly expelled from your engine and seems to do it no
harm, the gases collect inside your exhaust system and eat away at your
mufflers from the inside out.

Whatever The Market Will Bear
   The pricing of oil additives seems to follow no particular pattern
whatsoever. Even among those products that seem to be almost identical,
chemically, retail prices covered an extremely wide range. For example:
   One 32-ounce bottle of Slick 50 (with PTFE) cost us $29.95 at a
discount house that listed the retail price as $59.95, while a 32-ounce
bottle of T-Plus (which claims to carry twice as much PTFE as the Slick
50) cost us only $15.88.
   A 32-ounce bottle of STP Engine Treatment (containing what they call
XEP2), which they claim they can prove "outperforms leading PTFE engine
treatments," cost us $17.97. Yet a can of K Mart Super Oil Treatment,
which listed the same zinc-derivative ingredient as that listed for the
XEP2, cost us a paltry $2.67.
   Industry experts estimate that the actual cost of producing most oil
additives is from one-tenth to one-twentieth of the asking retail price.
Certainly no additive manufacturer has come forward with any exotic,
high-cost ingredient or list of ingredients to dispute this claim. As an
interesting note along with this, back before there was so much
competition in the field to drive prices down, Petrolon (Slick 50) was
selling their PTFE products for as much as $400 per treatment! The words
"buyer beware" seem to take on very real significance when talking about
oil additives.

The Psychological Placebo
   You have to wonder, with the volume of evidence accumulating against
oil additives, why so many of us still buy them. That's the
million-dollar question, and it's just as difficult to answer as why so
many of us smoke cigarettes, drink hard liquor or engage in any other
number of questionable activities. We know they aren't good for us - but
we go ahead and do them anyway.
   Part of the answer may lie in what some psychiatrists call the
"psychological placebo effect." Simply put, that means that many of us
hunger for that peace of mind that comes with believing we have purchased
the absolute best or most protection we can possibly get.
   Even better, there's that wonderfully smug feeling that comes with
thinking we might be a step ahead of the pack, possessing knowledge of
something just a bit better than everyone else.
   Then again, perhaps it comes from an ancient, deep-seated need we all
seem to have to believe in magic. There has never been any shortage of
unscrupulous types ready to cash in on our willingness to believe that
there's some magical mystery potion we can buy to help us lose weight,
grow hair, attract the opposite sex or make our engines run longer and
better. I doubt that there's a one of us who hasn't fallen for one of
these at least once in our lifetimes. We just want it to be true so bad
that we can't help ourselves.

Testimonial Hype vs. Scientific Analysis
   In general, most producers of oil additives rely on personal
"testimonials" to advertise and promote their products. A typical print
advertisement will be one or more letters from a satisfied customer
stating something like, "1 have used Brand X in my engine for 2 years and
50,000 miles and it runs smoother and gets better gas mileage than ever
before. I love this product and would recommend it to anyone."
   Such evidence is referred to as "anecdotal" and is most commonly used
to pro mote such things as miracle weight loss diets and astrology.
   Whenever I see one of these ads I am reminded of a stunt played out
several years ago by Allen Funt of "Candid Camera" that clearly
demonstrated the side of human nature that makes such advertising
possible.
   With cameras in full view, fake "product demonstrators" would offer
people passing through a grocery store the opportunity to taste-test a
"new soft drink." What the victims didn't know was that they were being
given a horrendous concoction of castor oil, garlic juice, tabasco sauce
and several other foul-tasting ingredients. After taking a nice, big
swallow, as instructed by the demonstrators, the unwitting victims
provided huge laughs for the audience by desperately trying to conceal
their anguish and disgust. Some literally turned away from the cameras
and spit the offending potion on the floor.
   The fascinating part came when about one out of four of the victims
would actually turn back to the cameras and proclaim the new drink was
"Great" or "Unique" or, in several cases, "One of the best things I've
ever tasted!" Go figure.
   The point is, compiling "personal testimonials" for a product is one
of the easiest things an advertising company can do - and one of the
safest, too. You see, as long as they are only expressing some one else's
personal opinion, they don't have to prove a thing! It's just an opinion,
and needs no basis in fact whatsoever.
   On the other hand, there has been documented, careful scientific
ditives by accredited institutions and
researchers.
   For example:
   Avco Lycoming, a major manufacturer of aircraft engines, states, "We
have tried every additive we could find on the market, and they are all
worthless."
   Briggs and Stratton, renowned builders of some of the most durable
engines in the world, says in their report on engine oil additives, "They
do not appear to offer any benefits."
   North Dakota State University conducted tests on oil additives and
said in their report, "The theory sounds good - the only problem is that
the products simply don't work."
   And finally, Ed Hackett, chemist at the University of Nevada Desert
Research Center, says, "Oil additives should not be used. The oil
companies have gone to great lengths to develop an additive pack age that
meets the vehicle's requirements. If you add anything to this oil you may
upset the balance and prevent the oil from performing to specification."
   Petrolon, Inc., of Houston, Texas, makers of Petrolon and producers of
at least a dozen other lubrication products containing PTFE, including
Slick 50 and Slick 30 Motorcycle Formula, claim that, "Multiple tests by
independent laboratories have shown that when properly applied to an
automotive engine, Slick 50 Engine Formula reduces wear on engine parts.
Test results have shown that Slick 50 treated engines sustained 50
percent less wear than test engines run with premium motor oil alone."
   Sounds pretty convincing, doesn't it?
   The problem is, Petrolon and the other oil additive companies that
claim "scientific evidence" from "independent laboratories," all refuse
to identify the laboratories that conducted the tests or the criteria
under which the tests were conducted. They claim they are "contractually
bound" by the laboratories to not reveal their identities.
   In addition, the claim of "50 percent less wear" has never been proven
on anything approaching a long-term basis. Typical examples used to
support the additive makers' claims involve engines run from 100 to 200
hours after treatment, during which time the amount of wear particles in
the oil decreased. While this has proven to be true in some cases, it has
also been proven that after 400 to 500 hours of running the test engines
invariably reverted to producing just as many wear particles as before
treatment, and in some cases, even more.
   No matter what the additive makers would like you to believe, nothing
has been proven to stop normal engine wear.
   You will note that all of the research facilities quoted in this
article are clearly identified. They have no problem with making their
findings public. You will also note that virtually all of their findings
about oil additives are negative. That's not because we wanted to give a
biased report against oil additives - it's because we couldn't find a
single laboratory, engine manufacturer or independent research facility
who would make a public claim, with their name attached to it, that any
of the additives were actually beneficial to an engine. The conclusion
seems inescapable.
   As a final note on advertising hype versus the real world, we saw a
television ad the other night for Slick 50 oil additive. The ad
encouraged people to buy their product on the basis of the fact that,
"Over 14 million Americans have tried Slick 50!" Great. We're sure you
could just as easily say, "Over 14 million Americans have smoked
cigarettes!"-but is that really any reason for you to try it? Of course
not, because you've seen the scientific evidence of the harm it can do.
The exact same principle applies here.

In Conclusion
   The major oil companies are some of the richest, most powerful and
aggressive corporations in world. They own multi-million dollar research
facilities manned by some of the best chemical engineers money can hire.
It is probably safe to say that any one of them has the capabilities and
resources at hand in marketing, distribution, advertising, research and
product development equal to 20 times that of any of the independent
additive companies. It therefore stands to reason that if any of these
additive products were actually capable of improving the capabilities of
engine lubricants, the major oil companies would have been able to
determine that and to find some way to cash in on it.
   Yet of all the oil additives we found, none carried the name or
endorsement of any of the major oil producers.
   In addition, all of the major vehicle and engine manufacturers spend
millions of dollars each year trying to increase the longevity of their
products, and millions more paying off warranty claims when their
products fail. Again, it only stands to reason that if they thought any
of these additives would increase the life or improve the performance of
their engines, they would be actively using and selling them - or at
least endorsing their use.
   Instead, many of them advise against the use of these additives and,
in some cases, threaten to void their warranty coverage if such things
are found to be used in their products.
   In any story of this nature, absolute "facts" are virtually impossible
to come by. Opinions abound. Evidence that points one direction or the
other is avail able, but has to be carefully ferreted out, and is not
always totally reliable or completely verifiable.
   In this environment, conclusions reached by known, knowledgeable
experts in the field must be given a certain amount of weight.
Conclusions reached by unknown, unidentifiable sources must be discounted
almost totally. That which is left must be weighed, one side against the
other, in an attempt to reach a "reasonable" conclusion.
   In the case of oil additives, there is a considerable volume of
evidence against their effectiveness. This evidence comes from well-known
and identifiable expert sources, including independent research
laboratories, state universities, major engine manufacturers, and even
NASA.
   Against this rather formidable barrage of scientific research,
additive makers offer not much more than their own claims of
effectiveness, plus questionable and totally unscientific personal
testimonials. Though the purveyors of these products state they have
studies from other independent laboratories supporting their claims, they
refuse to identify the labs or provide copies of the research. The only
test results they will share are those from their own testing
departments, which must, by their very nature, be taken with a rather
large grain of salt.

Sidebar: Synthetic Oils
   Whenever we talk about oil additives, the subject of synthetic oils
inevitably crops up. Actually, the tow subjects have very little to do
with each other, but since many riders seem to equate additives and
synthetics together in their minds, we will take a few lines just to
clear the air.
   Synthetic oils were originally developed for use in gas turbine
engines. In most cases they are capable of maintaining their viscosity
for longer periods of use and under much greater temperatures and
pressures than petroleum products. Commons synthetics used for engine
lubrication today are Polyalphaolefin (like Mobil 1) or Dibasic Organic
Esters (like AMSOIL). They are fully compatible with conventional oils
and can be mixed, providing their ratings match.
   Probably the best situation is a blend of synthetics and mineral oils,
such as Golden Spectro and AGIP Sint 2000. These products seem to offer
the best of both worlds in protection and extended service life. They may
cost considerably more than standard petroleum products, but they also
can be used for much longer periods between oil changes without losing
their protective capabilities.
   Synthetics and synthetic blends offer a wider range of protection than
standard petroleum products. However, it should be noted that this
extended range of protection reaches into an area of temperatures and
pressures virtually impossible to attain inside most motorcycle engines
and transmissions. In other words, if you use them, you are buying a sort
of to hurt anything -
it's just unnecessary. That is, unless it makes you feel better knowing
the extra protection is on board, in which case the added expense may be
well justified.
   As a basic rule of thumb, using the standard engine oil recommended by
your bike's manufacturer and changing it about every 3000 miles will
afford you all the protection you'll ever need. But if you feel better
knowing you have more protection than you need or, if you like the
extended service-life feature, there's certainly nothing wrong with using
a premium grade synthetic blend lubricant.
--

             tom coradeschi <+> [e-mail] <+> DoD#413