Engine Lube

Ypwpat · Post by **Ypwpat** » Tue May 06, 2003 1:10 pm

Just wandering has anyone tried to use Zmax Lube or Dura Lube?
If you don't understand try the link:
http://www.danozdirect.com.au/?cid=72|| ... 3&mitem=30

or
http://www.danozdirect.com.au/?cid=72|| ... 6&mitem=30

or
http://www.danozdirect.com.au/?cid=72|| ... 4&mitem=30

Is this thing would really work as it describe? Or it's just a waste of money?
Cheers

Jussi · Post by **Jussi** » Tue May 06, 2003 1:48 pm

I don't know about that product, but "as seen on tv" sounds bad

I have used Valvoline's TM8 oil lube in my racecar (for years).
TM8 has been very good product, we open the engine and it was very "clean" opposite to my friend's similar car, who hasn't use TM8. Engine runs better with TM8 (and oil pressure was better)

But will CC need oil lube, that's different question :rolleyes:

Alex LS · Post by **Alex LS** » Tue May 06, 2003 5:24 pm

http://www.chris-longhurst.com/carbibles/additives.html

One key phrase is this:

"My views on engine oil additives are this: the oil companies spend hundreds of millions on research and development in order to make their oils suitable for use in car engines. A standard off-the-shelf engine oil is already stuffed with a cocktail of additives put there by the oil company (see above). By contrast, additive companies spend a couple of million on R&D and an equal amount in PR and advertising to claim that their product (and only their product) will enhance the life of your engine. You're adding an unapproved additive to an already additive-full oil. Spot the problem?"

Jussi · Post by **Jussi** » Wed May 07, 2003 8:41 am

Yes, but when you put your car to the limits, i mean like rally-race, dragracing and so on. Then you need some oil additives. Ask any dragrace team do they use simple oil

For standard cars those oil additives are needless

samwise · Post by **samwise** » Wed May 07, 2003 10:25 am

I agree with both of you (I should be Swiss!).

One of the factors is cost so there could be oil options well know to oil engineers that are discarded because of the expense. Compared to oil these aditives don't have the same cost restrictions that oil does (although a lot of the cost of the product will be marketing expenses).

I'd expect my engine to go beyond 100,000 miles on standard oil without major work and after that I'm not too fussed as I'm bound to have sold the car.

So on a standard road car, I wouldn't bother, cheers

Jason

Ypwpat · Post by **Ypwpat** » Wed May 07, 2003 12:12 pm

Thanks for the great reply and info guys, but would it at least enhance the performance for the engine?
was thinking to put into my CC because mine it's an 1.6S

Frosty · Post by **Frosty** » Wed May 07, 2003 12:22 pm

Well this is something I know about. In a previous life I worked for a VERY MAJOR oil company - should be easy to pick as it got bigger a few years back.

Part of the business was the R&D and production of additives that were sold to other oil companies that blended lubricants (it's now a stand alone company).

Take a look next time you buy oil, there's a bunch of credentials - Mercedes Benz this, API (American Petroleum Institue that) etc etc. To get these credentials they have to bench test engines with the lubricant for hundreds of hours then pull them apart and grade each individual component for wear. This process costs mega bucks. If you pass, great, if you fail you get a second chance and after that you're out of the game. The R&D that goes into developing an additive and then finally an oil is at the molecular level . It involves huge manufacturing changes at the refinery level. If you fail you've done your dough.

So let's say an oil passes all those tests and you buy it and add an additive. Of all the oils out there, none are the same. The components are chemically different. In your engine you have high temperatures slim tolerances. Would you really want to add a cocktail of stuff that you have no idea of its compatibility to your lubricant or engine? There was a product that was marketed some years back called S***K5* that claimed teflon, warp speed capability, marrriage breakdown solving, etc. There were some pretty cool demonstations as to the lubricating properties, but the one thing that was missed was associating directly to the engine environment and compatibility with the base lubricant. Let's call it magic - and we all know that there's always a slight of hand.

My advice to you all out there is save your money and don't buy additives. Use a full synthetic lubricant and leave things at that.

If your car isn't giving you the "performance" that you want, then maybe you bought the wrong car.

oilman · Post by **oilman** » Mon Nov 01, 2004 6:50 pm

I agree with Frosty here,

Addatives are just a sure way to empty your wallet, some addatives can react with the addatives already in your oil, this can cancel them out, so your oil is achieving nothing.

You are best of using a true synthetic PAO or Ester/PAO and that will have all the addatives you need.

Cheers

Guy.

Ed_shek · Post by **Ed_shek** » Tue Nov 02, 2004 2:23 pm

Try feeling up with one of the performance fuels available like Shell optimax or BP ultimate and see if you notice the difference in performance?

carl · Post by **carl** » Fri Nov 19, 2004 11:39 pm

I used s***k50 on a couple of older cars before (it's still made you know). It did what it said on the tin, in that the idle speed went up -- which is supposed to be an indicator of reduced friction. I did fairly major mileage on both cars without any engine problems. Whether it had any benefits I don't know.

Probably wouldn't use it now, though. Best to stick to a decent synthetic. My understanding is that Amsoil, Redline and Motul are the best because they use polyol ester base stocks (whatever they are).

oilman · Post by **oilman** » Sun Nov 21, 2004 3:10 pm

I used s***k50 on a couple of older cars before (it's still made you know). It did what it said on the tin, in that the idle speed went up -- which is supposed to be an indicator of reduced friction. I did fairly major mileage on both cars without any engine problems. Whether it had any benefits I don't know.

Probably wouldn't use it now, though. Best to stick to a decent synthetic. My understanding is that Amsoil, Redline and Motul are the best because they use polyol ester base stocks (whatever they are).

Yep, you are better to you a better oil then using the likes of addatives.

Amsoil, Redline, Motul and Silkolene all use ester/pao base stocks.

TYPES OF SYNTHETIC BASESTOCKS

Synthetic basestocks are not all the same. There are few different chemical types that may be used as synthetic basestock fluids. There are only three that are seen commonly in automotive applications:

Polyalphaolefins (PAO's)
These are the most common synthetic basestocks used in the US and in Europe. In fact, many synthetics on the market use PAO basestocks exclusively. PAO's are also called synthesized hydrocarbons and contain absolutely no wax, metals, sulfur or phosphorous. Viscosity indexes for nearly all PAO's are around 150, and they have extremely low pour points (normally below â€“40 degrees F).
Although PAO's are also very thermally stable, there are a couple of drawbacks to using PAO basestocks. One drawback to using PAO's is that they are not as oxidatively stable as other synthetics. But, when properly additized, oxidative stability can be achieved.

Diesters
These synthetic basestocks offer many of the same benefits of PAO's but are more varied in structure. Therefore, their performance characteristics vary more than PAO's do. Nevertheless, if chosen carefully, diesters generally provide better pour points than PAO's
(about -60 to -80 degrees F) and are a little more oxidatively stable when properly additized.
Diesters also have very good inherent solvency characteristics which means that not only do they burn cleanly, they also clean out deposits left behind by other lubricants - even without the aid of detergency additives.
They do have one extra benefit though, they are surface-active (electrostatically attracted to metal surfaces), PAOâ€™s are not â€œpolarâ€