|
 |
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 available! 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 (Teflonä) 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 trade names. 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 happen 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 cylinder wall, then it stands
to reason it should build up even 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...
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
additives, and are therefore found in larger amounts in oils specifically
blended for high-revving, turbocharged or racing applications. The zinc in
your oil comes into play only when there is actual metal-to-metal contact
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 ridden 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." After the second 20-hour run, 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 promote 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.
|
