My thoughts were along the line of, "some of this stuff has to work". I have used Mobil 1 in a vehicle, Slick 50 in another, and while I never expected to get -quite- what was claimed, I did see some modest gains in acceleration and economy. Now, if synthetic oil is legitimately valuable, why can't a synthetic oil additive be as well?
I am simply engaging in the discussion to see what both of your opinions are. When two people disagree strongly about something like this, there is usually truth to be found with each argument...
And also, you're dealing with such crude technology (in the sense of engine tolerence spaces and friction) in a 68 compared to a engine of today, it's not hard to imagine a metal treatment additive greatly improving the basic performance of the beast by 1 or 2 MPG anyway. Now with a modern alloy engine already getting 25+ MPG, I wouldn't expect a whole lot of benefit by using additives because so much of the efficiency potential is already being addressed by the technology of today, so there isn't, i wouldn't think, a whole lot of inefficiency left to overcome that a mere additive could help with. Not so the case with old iron block, carbureted motors. Seems to me those would ripe for seeing the benefits of modern lubricants and additives, and the obvious way they would show it is in increased mileage.
it's not meaningless at at all. It means about a $2-$3 saving every tankful for me, especially when gas here is $2+ a gallon, and--being a cheapskate--I count every last penny that goes into the tank.
A one mpg gain could be caused by
Well, I think know my car, my mileage, and my driving style a bit better than you do. trying to invent ways to "prove" me wrong when you aren't here, and you're not the one who has to fill the darn car up, isn't doing anyone any favors. The facts speak for themselves. It's been a year (14th month now) of solid, consistant mileage gain with no difference in the drive train, driving habits, or places i go. In fact, on august 4 of 2003 I posted right here the results on the first 2 tankfuls, which was 13 MPG, up from 10. That did fall off as I said, but it has maintained a solid 11+ until now.
In other words, I haven't replaced or changed a thing (other than an oil change) on the car since before the treatment, and my driving habits do not change. Nor do I drive anywhere but the same route on a week by week basis at the same time of day. In fact, I'm almost a perfect test subject for that very reason.
Now either someone is picking the lock on my gas tank and adding fuel when I'm asleep, or the stuff works. Period.
I didn't mean it was meaningless in the sense that saving gas is without meaning. Rather, I mean to point out that any number of factors could go into observing an increase in efficiency. It doesn't matter how many times you put the stuff in your car and you observe better fuel efficiency. Your observations are meaningless as to show whether or not the product in question is the cause for the observed increase. No matter the regularity of your habits, you are not a controlled study.
The FTC, and Consumer Reports have run tests proving beyond any doubt that these additive products do nothing to increase efficiency. Their worthlessness has been proven in the lab and in the court of law.
If additive products like these actually did anything, it would be manna from on high. Companies would be falling all over themselves to incorporate them into their product lines.You don't find it suspicious that this Tribotech company is struggling in anonymity when they have such a miraculous product? Perhaps they are just trying to stay below the FTC's radar for as long as possible. Oil companies setup little subsidiaries to peddle this crap. Then when the FTC gets a hold 'em, the larger company (z.B. Quaker State in the case of Slick 50) is unaffiliated.
Note i'm not being argumentative here, but this is an interesting topic for thought (and i'm bored today), so I'd like to get into this a bit more.
I'm glad you're convinced by these tests. But I have to wonder how you realistically explain my (and other folks') increase in gas mileage on a consistent tank-to-tank basis when absolutely no factors other than the introduction of the additive have changed? Every suggestion you offered--which I'm sure would be the standard apologetic for the position--in your earlier post does not apply.
The 100+ degree days, for instance, didn't change between July, when I put the stuff in, and september when it levelled off for good at 11+ MPG, and that mileage still held true through THIS summer's 100+ degree days. Our winter was the same in 04 as every winter here is, so there were no extra cold or extra warm winter months in 03 to explain the mileage benefit i saw in 04 after I put the stuff in.
In fact, here is a quote from a post I made here in january of 2003, before I ever used the stuff, in which I griped about my mileage:
______________________________________________________________ I'm getting right now (with the wintertime california gas)
9 mpg (12 hwy). Is that on par with what others in california are getting in the same sort of cars? ______________________________________________
That post was made after normal driving of the same car for over a year and getting a constant 9-10 (depending on the Calif. gas blend) MPG city. I could maybe squeeze out 12 city (summer blend gas) if I drove like an old lady and included a little highway miles. Now zip to July of
2003 and I use the additive, and from that point i've never gotten less than 11 MPG city, and often around 12, all in normal driving with little or no combined highway miles. I can't imagine any possible scenario that could account for the constant increase in mileage from the point the additive went in unless somehow the california gas blend happened to change for the better in july of 2003 and it never went back. And we all know the likelihood of that...
Sooooooooo, while there may be consumer report tests that "prove" there's no such a thing as an oil additive that boosts mileage, I can only testify that i can show a 10% increase after, and not before, I put the stuff in, and that bonus has been holding true for 14 months now.
It ain't that my math skills have changed when dividing odometer mileage by the gallons it takes to fill up. (And the odometer still clocks 8 miles to work, which is accurate, so IT'S not giving a false reading)
I certainly don't intend to be argumentative either. Nothing on Usenet is going to get me upset.
As a person science I'm not looking for truth. That's not what science does, science answers questions.
The question posed - does Tribotech increase efficiency. The answer can only be no. No aftermarket oil additive has been shown in a controlled and repeatable test to increase efficiency. I'm highly skeptical of Tribotech's fantastic claims.
While you have observed an increase, there are many factors which could have come into play. Without repeatability and a control, it is pure speculation to say that the additive caused the observed increase. Let's say I contract hand, foot & mouth disease. The day after noticing symptoms I wear a blue shirt. Surprisingly, by the end of the day symptoms have vanished. Normalwise symptoms persists for 4-5 days. The following month I contract the disease once again. Everything about my diet, and activities is the same from the last month. Once again, I put on a blue shirt and my symptoms disappear by the end of the day. Let's say we have 100 people with HF&M. 50 wear blue shirts, 50 red. Symptoms for 14 people wearing blue shirts disappear in 1 day, 4 on the red side have symptoms that vanish in 24 hours. Should I think the blue shirt is the cure? Not unless my blue-shirt treatment must be repeatable. In any given sample of 100 people, a statistically significant portion of those who undergo blue-shirt treatment must get better within 24 hours. If not, the answer is that the blue shirt treatment is not effective and any observed cure is coincidental. While this is a silly example, without control and repeatability your individual experience is without merit to show the cause of the observed increase.
It would be pure speculation to run through all the things that may have caused your increase. It could be anything from the oil you put in your car when you changed it to wild fires or solar flares.
While less than an ideal control, next time to change your oil don't include the additive. Try to use the exact same oil (same lot if possible) you used when you first observed the increase.
First of all, it is highly unlikely that this stuff does anything at all. However, it certainly is possible for additives to do things. (Good and/or bad.)
Simply putting in 0 weight oil will get you better mileage. Or even kerosene will get you more mileage (and HP) for awhile.
Oils in an internal combustion engine have to provide a lot of things. Friction reduction, load bearing properties, cooling, sequestering agents (for cleaning) detergents and more. By sacrificing one or more of the above you can get better in some of the other areas. So the full package is simply the best compromise that they can come up with. Under older NASCAR rules we used to be able to use an oil that was almost kerosene. The engine got lots of HP and mileage for a few laps. Then of course, the cam was gone. But that is all we wanted for qualifying.
We have tested lots of this stuff (aftermarket additives and "super oils". ) Those that met all the criteria for an internal combustion engine, did absolutely nothing at all to fuel consumption or performance. (These tests were performed on both engine dynos and chassis dynos.) BTW, it is very easy to see small gains by putting in additives that just reduce the weight of the oil sometimes as much as 5 or 6% can be seen when the engine (and drivetrain) is cold. After warm-up, those gains are all but gone, and some detriments present themselves.
This guy is simply enthralled with the product and you are calling his baby ugly. Sobeit.
Logic, science and experience shows that a ~10% gain in mileage is astronomical and NOT available. Pure frictional losses in an internal combustion engine are under 10%. So if this magical stuff could reduce friction to 0 he would be hard pressed to see these gains. AND manufactures would forced to use it and recommend it to acheive fleet mileage requirements they are forced to.
His simple non-statistical tests are invalid and this stuff probably does nothing at all. (good or bad.)
One other thing. A big hole in FTC rules is the allowed use of customer testimonials and "independent lab tests". Any product manufacturer can use testimonials saying, " after using superlube, I got 5 more mpg, 15 more hp and my engine ran 20 degrees cooler. (ala AMSOIL). This is totally legal. They can also hire Joe Shadetree's garage to do an "independent lab test". So, they can then say, "Independent Lab tests shows 10% better mileage, etc. etc.) Of course 50 lab tests showed nothing at all, but they liked Joes. (And Joe gets more business that way also.) Madison Avenue loves these FTC rules.
This is a very compelling, and interesting argument. To clarify, by "interesting", I did actually mean "mentally stimulating" and "thought-provoking". You seem to know what you're talking about, from a very dryly scientific perspective, which is hard to find sometimes. Everyone has experiences, opinions, thoughts, convictions and beliefs, and I cannot personally refute most of them.
I hate to ask, because you didn't presumptuously and arrogantly provide them, but what are your credentials and / or experience with this? Your message and address indicate you have a background in racing, building engines, physics, et al. "Sequestering agents"... such a neat term.
I understand that part of what you're saying is trying to reduce frictional losses to zero is like approach a mathematically theoretical limit or asymptote. Another way to put it is that you can't divide by zero.
I also agree with a previous poster's observation that if this stuff really worked per the advertisements, it would be used by most every manufacturer (auto or otherwise), fleet operator, trucking company, diesel shipbuilder, train line, and military in the the world due to the huge economies of scale (savings over volume) it would present. Petroleum drives the world. With oil threatening to get to $50/barrel, the market is looking hard for these economies naturally. But is it? Does it? I don't really know, but having known people in most of these industries, I never heard "Synthadditive saves us $1M/year". I have seen ADS where such testimonials are made, but would have to rely on a more expansive set of experiences to believe it.
On the other hand, and very unscientifically, I have used Slick 50 and Mobil 1 and swear to God I saw improvements in operating temperature, economy, and horsepower. Now, kerosene-weight oil? So-called 0-50? Not quite. A crankcase of 10w/30 Mobil 1 every 6,000 miles, or a quart of Slick 50 / year represents the limits of my experience. Casual observation suggests there are benefits. I have never done a formal cost/benefit analysis of these products, but wonder if I had, would it have been worth it?
You claim it's slick advertising (sorry;) and bunk basically, I am not sure, and another claims it's valid and true through several first-hand experiences, and is completely sincere. Are you able to provide the results of any of these tests? I am curious and want to see them. Are any of them on the web, or easily put on the web?
Thanks for your post. I'm trying to play ombudsman and see some hard facts.
I suggest you go back and read my post. I never commented factually on the additive in question since I don't have any idea of what it even is. I DID comment on these claims in general and provided some facts. In regards to my credentials, I am an EE/ME and have been in the racing business for a long time, but it's a moot point. You are paying absolutely nothing for the info I posted. That is what you should consider it to be worth. I don't think I have ever seen any credentials posted here or proof of others comments. I don't need to either. In regards to our testing, two companies paid quite a bit of money for those tests and while I have detail data, is not owned by me. So you got what you got. Feel free to use any additive you like. We have never seen any (at least recently) that will harm your engine when used as directed. It only costs money that is not needed. (BTW, As you seemed to imply, synthetic is NOT an "additive". It may contain some base crude stocks, but it is a completely different molecule. It is in fact better for most all IC engine use, and will provide slight HP and mileage increases (especially at low temps.) But, it's probably better that you test this with "casual observation" yourself than accept any free advice.
I apologize if the term "sequestering agent" offended, or puzzled you. It really is a pretty simple definition. Look it up. (As you can also look up "frictional losses, or any other term that you had a problem with.)
Hey there, now just take it easy please. I read your post I think three times, and found it very interesting. My sincere apologies for offending your sensibilities. I was just curious; you hear a lot of trumped-up BS in this NG. I thought it may have been a mistake to ask for credentials, and realize it was.
I'm not trying to start any flaming contest. I'm trying to get fact, which you did generously provide. I read my first paragraph, and can see how you'd read in sarcasm, but there was none.
I am aware that synthetic oil is not an additive, and knew it didn't belong in the same category as additives. I've just seen both improve operating temp., efficiency and acceleration, so I included it in the discussion.
Now, just take a deep breath, and accept my thanks for providing your knowledge and time to answering these questions. I suggest you re-read my response from a less huffy perspective, and try to see I had no ill intentions with it.
In regards to synthetics, they are better (at least those we and others have tested) in most all applications. It can improve performance and longevity a slight degree. (As I said, these improvements are mostly all in the extreme ends of performance (temperatures, loads and speeds.) We don't recommend them in most applications, simply because at this point the cost outweighs the gains when used in a street vehicle. They are better though and almost always used for racing aps.
Thanks. Written words fall short of conveying true meaning all too often.
That's what I always suspected, but wasn't sure. I sure as hell won't leave ANY oil in my crankcase for 15,000 miles. When I used Mobil 1, I changed it every 6,000, and wondered about the cost / benefit thing.
They are better though
Gotcha. Thanks again. I use either Valvoline or Pennzoil. But I've heard those, Castrol and other "first-tier" commercial oils are all good, so long as they're clean. Some might be better when at lower or higher viscosity, or lower or higher temp than others, or better for turbos, but I don't run in extremes regardless... I would trust the manufacturer if I had a really high-output or boosted engine.
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.