OIL ADDITIVES.

[reed]

Oil additives.
If you have a high mileage car engine, would you use a oil additive in your oil or not!!
Let me know.
Thanks.
Steve.

[Bikenstein]

I used a product called CLM (marketed under another name now). It stood for copper, lead, and other molecules. I put it in my 71 307 Chevy pickup that had over 130,000 on it.. The radiator leaked and I ran the truck hot 3 times until it seized tight. I got water out of the ditch on the side of the road and let it cool down. It never smoked or used oil and maintained good compression. Great stuff! I wouldn't use additives with wet sump motorcycles because it will cause clutch problems.

[Mopar5426]

  Hey Steve       I Own A Auto Repair Shop   We Dont Do Oil Changes Because Were A Major Repair Shop   Oil Aditives Can Be A Markiting Gimik  In A Lot Of Engine Builders Opinions     What Kind Of Car Do You Have And Is Your Consern For Sludge Oil Consumption  Bearing Noise Ect   The Key To Good Oil In My Opinion Is Zink   Thats What Reduces Engine Wear    Most Oil Are Very Good Today   Remember In The 60s Going To The Junk  Yard   The Cars In There Had 50.000miles And Already Had 2 Valve Jobs   I Think It Was All About Tolorince And Oil   To Day Oil Is So Good It Protects Better    If You look At Some 2 Cycle Oil  Cans Today   It Will Say 50  to  1 Is Ok For Old Motors That Were 16 to 1  Its Because In The 50s The Oil Wasent As  Good As Today     I Belive You Can Run Are Bridgestone At 50 to 1 Today  With No Problem    GENE

[coxy]

g day lads
i was thinking of using a stop smoke additive in the other bike as it is smoking a little on start up 99.99% sure my valve guides have had it .after reading this i think i will just rip the head off and do the valves sooner than later.

Dave what would   happen to the clutch .would it bind up? mine is a sticky thing already if i leave it for to long i have to run the bike with the clutch in for a while to free it .i dont want extra issues .cheers.
 

[Bikenstein]

If the additive contains friction modifiers to reduce friction it can cause clutch slippage. I have never used any additives in a motorcycle so my statement is based on opinion shared with others and not on personal experience. If you do try one, let me know the results because I've got a couple of smokers

[reed]

The oil additive is for a pick-up Ford f 150 we have at the marina it has lots of miles on it etc.
So i would like to keep it going for a bit longer, but i would never put any additives in any of my
Motorcycles. once any motorcycle engine four stroke starts to smoke its time for a good rebuild.
New valves guides and seats pistons etc.
Thanks.
Steve.

[Bikenstein]

I was gonna try somethin with a CT90 that runs good but smokes a little while runnin not just on startup. I don't think it has enough miles on it for serious valve guide wear. There should be some kind of product that won't affect the clutch. I know I should take the top end apart and inspect it but I have so many projects.

[coxy]

your right steve the top end is coming off .and will convert to run on unleaded

[Mike Anderson]

I all,
Noticing the discussion on additives. Personally I think they are a waste unless you are needing zinc for a fresh 4 stroke engine startup. Then something is needed especially on engines with high spring pressures to allow cam break-in. Otherwise I use nothing again 4 stroke related except Mobil 1 products. They are far superior lubricants and will give improved miles per gallon, cooler engine temperatures, less leakage etc. As far as my 2 stroke bikes they get Klotz products in fuel and Mobil appropriate wt. oils in the gearcase. Hope this is something you can use in the future. Have a great day.
Later Mike

[reed]

Mike,
I put Mobil 1 in my Subaru outback especially for the cold morning starts.
Up to now the engine is running nice Thanks for the recommendation.
Thanks.
Steve.     

[Bikenstein]

Today I am considering ordering a fuel and oil additive that I referred to in an earlier post here. I know there are a lot of skeptics, myself included, but I've had some very interesting experiences with this product. For example, in the 80's I worked in maintenance at a rubber plant. A salesman had convinced me to try this product. I took amp readings on four large electric pumps (rubber plants require a large amount of water for cooling). I did this daily keeping a log of times and amperage readings for a week. Then I added the clm. After 1 day the amps drawn dropped an average of 15% and after 3 days 30%. The company president was convinced that I had made a mistake so he didn't buy any more. A few weeks later I had a bearing on a conveyor start to make a screaching sound so I lubed it with regular grease. That helped for a day. The next day it started again so I lubed it several more times but it finally heated up and started screaming. At this point I remembered the clm grease that I had purchased with the oil additive and put some in the screamin smokin bearing and within 1 minute it quit screamin and smokin and started coolin down. It gave no further problem while I worked there. That's when I decided to try the oil additive in my truck. Two jobs later workin in maintenance at Kimberly Clark, a bearing on a roller of a huge spun-bond machine started screamin and smokin. They were steady havin a guy stand there continuously pumpin grease through the bearing because it costs a lot of money and time to shut down and do the mandatory cleanin on one of these. About 8 hours from shut down to restart. My boss refused to listen to me about my little tube of clm that I had retained and the other guys just laughed. So about a half hour later with everyone watchin I walked up and shot a little clm into the bearing and walked off. Before I got more than a few steps away it shut up. It quit smokin and cooled down and gave no further evidence of a problem. It was replaced at the next shut down. I refused to tell my boss where I got it, he didn't like that too much. I'm convinced that there is something to this particular product though I myself am as skeptical as anybody else on miracle products. At any rate I'm considerin puttin it in my Dodge diesel along with their fuel additive. I still have a little bit of that grease tube left.

[moonpup]

I used a product called CLM (marketed under another name now). It stood for copper, lead, and other molecules. I put it in my 71 307 Chevy pickup that had over 130,000 on it.. The radiator leaked and I ran the truck hot 3 times until it seized tight. I got water out of the ditch on the side of the road and let it cool down. It never smoked or used oil and maintained good compression. Great stuff! I wouldn't use additives with wet sump motorcycles because it will cause clutch problems.

Sounds like good stuff.... what's the current name?

[Bikenstein]

If anybody can find it with the info given, I think it would be you, master. I'm gonna wait until I try the latest product to see if it performs like the old stuff before I post it. If it does, I find it hard to believe that it's not commonly used, especially since the US government including the Air Force has used it for years. I plan on loggin 3 tanks of fuel with mileage and temp readins before I add it.

[moonpup]

Sometimes it's not so good to ask me to snoop around  ..........

"CLM Debunked

Amateur oil additive enthusiasts often have pet theories about how their favorite additive works. Unfortunately for them, tribological action occurs at the molecular scale, and is not easily discerned without specialized instrumentation and testing. Fortunately for them, this testing HAS been done, and the results are incorporated into the best oils available today.

In their patent application 5245721, the designers of CLM claim it has: “Small, spherical metal particles (99%<20 microns) such as copper and lead, 33-55% naphthenic oil, 4-6% paraffinic oil, 35-45% chlorinated paraffin, and 5-20% metal powders or soaps together with minor proportions of the anti-oxidant/anti-wear agents and a sufficient amount of grease to maintain the metal powders in suspension .”

In the first place, NO ENGINE OIL SHOULD CONTAIN ANY PARTICLE OF ANY SHAPE OR SIZE LARGER THAN THE MINIMUM CLEARANCES IN THAT ENGINE. The reason for this is easily understood by studying the clearances in an engine under load.
Although the design static clearances in connecting rod and crankshaft main bearings are in the 0.001” to 0.003” range, under load they deflect off center and can be as little as 0.00004” (1 micron). These bearing systems are designed to be fully hydrodynamic mode bearings, and particles entering the bearing gap under load that are larger than the oil film will cause damage to the bearing insert, the journal, or both. In addition, many of the better oil filters have significant filtering capabilities in the 5-20 micron range. Use of this additive with these filters will result in much of the added metal powder being trapped in the filter, potentially reducing flow.

The use of a Timken Machine outside of a laboratory to demonstrate an oil additive’s anti wear characteristics is a common and misleading ploy which many have fallen for. This test merely gives one aspect of a lubricant’s performance, and the lubricant must also conform to all other applicable engine oil standards, which chlorinated paraffins do not. A chlorinated paraffin metalworking fluid (many of which have been phased out), for example, will give excellent results on a Timken machine, but is entirely unsuitable for use as an engine lubricant additive. Modern internal combustion engine oil formulations have eliminated chlorinated hydrocarbons of all sorts since the 1930s when they were shown to have long-term corrosive effects on engine parts due the corrosive chlorine that they release when heated. Their statement that their specific additive tested to be non-corrosive is in direct contradiction to the fact that they included chlorinated paraffin. The mechanism by which chlorinated paraffin works as an anti-wear agent, is pressure-induced heat liberates chlorine which bonds with steel to form FeCl2, an anti-wear film bonded with the metal. When this process occurs in the presence of moisture as is found in the sump of automobiles, highly corrosive hydrochloric acid is formed. If they claim in their testing that there was no chlorine released from the additive, then their test did not actually cause the additive to operate as an anti-wear additive. In this case, why would they include chlorinated paraffin in the formulation in the first place?

The best evidence you can find that this product is ineffective is provided by the patentees themselves in the patent application. They claim that the additive can decrease friction so significantly that the fuel mileage increased from 22.6 to 30.0MPG in one test (33%), and from 13.8 to 17.9MPG in another (30%). There are two easily understood proofs to reject this claim:

1) A gallon of gasoline, when combusted in an average engine releases 132,000,000 joules of energy which is spent as follows:
20% becomes useful motive energy., 50% is eliminated in the exhaust, 20% is conducted into the cooling system, and 10% of the total energy converted by friction into heat and passed into the cooling system. This means that on average, 13,200,000 joules of energy per gallon are wasted by frictional heating.
The gasoline usage in their first test dropped from 2.88 gallons to 2.17 gallons per hour. This is a claimed saving of 0.71 gallons, or 93,720,000 joules. Of the initial 2.88 gallons used, 38,016,000 joules of energy were spent per hour overcoming friction. So, they are claiming that their additive eliminated nearly 2.5 times as much frictional energy as the engine has total? Hmmm, this is obviously impossible, but let’s look at their other test.
The gasoline usage in their second test dropped from 4.71 gallons to 3.63 gallons per hour. This is a claimed saving of 1.08 gallons, or 142,560,000 joules. Of the initial 4.71 gallons used, 62,172,000 joules of energy were spent per hour overcoming friction. So, in this second test they are claiming that their additive eliminates nearly 2.3 times as much frictional energy loss as the engine has in total? I think I can safely discount their mileage increase claims at this point. Even if their additive actually eliminated ALL friction in the engine, the mileage would only increase by 10%.

2) If the energy budget calculations didn’t sway you, then consider this: The US government’s watchdog; the EPA has raised the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFÉ) standard continuously, from 18MPG in 1978 to 30.2 in 2011. If the average fuel economy of a manufacturer's annual fleet of car and/or truck production falls below the defined standard, the manufacturer must pay a penalty, currently $5.50 USD per 0.1 MPG under the standard, multiplied by the manufacturer's total production for the U.S. domestic market. This has cost the manufacturers hundreds of millions of dollars each over the last thirty years. If there was a single ‘silver bullet’ which could raise fuel efficiency by even one percent, it would be MANDATED, not merely adopted by all manufacturers. Many millions of dollars have gone into engine efficiency improvements, some of which have netted less than one percent efficiency increase.

Oil price conspiracy theorists aside, this technology would have been adopted as standard since its invention if it had any merit, so we can only conclude that it lacks merit. Furthermore, since we have established that the claims are intentionally false, why would you believe ANYTHING the inventor claimed? Add to this that the two claimed mechanisms of operation are both dangerous and have been eliminated from engine oils for over 50 years, and you get the picture.

Snake oil anyone?"

[Bikenstein]

I already read that but the guy never even tested the stuff. I feel I'm in better position to judge the product having used it in various applications even though this guy has or has access to in depth knowledge of oil and fuel additives. I now have that same knowledge but still know that I've experienced success with this product even being so skeptical that I never would have bought it because of it's claims and high price. (Don't believe everything you read on the internet)

[moonpup]

       I'm just mess'n with you Dave, I also found a good number of posts/sites where others like yourself swear by this product.

[Skinny]

I love oil additive dicussions.
Moonpup could not have said it better, but everyone has their own beliefs
on this subject.
I have been a mechanic and auto shop owner since 1967. I opened my own shop
in 1975. I probably have seen every crazy claim made about most additives.
Remember the Teflon nightmare?
As pointed out, the thing we are missing in modern oils is zink phosphate and
the accompaning base compounds that modern automotive engines can get by
without ( by Fed. mandate). But, older engines (especially air cooled) can benefit
from additives that put these compounds back.
That being said, my personal crutch is BG's product called MOA.

 

[Bikenstein]

     I'm just mess'n with you Dave, I also found a good number of posts/sites where others like yourself swear by this product.

I ain't exactly swearin by it yet, but if it produces like that old stuff did, I definitely will. Skinny, is the MOA a metal based lubricant?

Never mind Skinny, I checked it out. I watched a Friction bearing test on youtube and it appears to work pretty well. The guy in the 80's used one of those testers with the clm. The difference was he used a torque wrench and even after cleaning the clm off the bearing, I couldn't get the bearing to squeal at all while maxin the wrench out.

[reed]

If you are looking for a good fuel additive for your car try BG44K you can use it once every 40,000
The car will run better and cleaner etc.
Thanks.
Steve. 

[Skinny]

I must admit that I have sold BG products for years through my shop, so
I am somewhat biased.
44K is very good for cleaning fuel injection systems.
I have used it in old plugged carbs by mixing 1/4 pt with a quart of fuel.
Run the engine if possible for a few seconds to get the mixture in
the carb- then let it soak. Works better than Sea Foam.

Skinny