Engine Oil Additives

The not-so-clever classic oil additives

IMPORTANT NOTE TO COMPANIES AND lawyers: If you find I've got something in here which you think is out of place, please email me first. I'm not in the business of misrepresenting people. I'm trying to present a fair and balanced website. Frankly, I don't have the money for a lawsuit, so a gentle email from the relevant department will work wonders. For those of you who've already discovered this for yourselves, both I and my bank thank you for not wading in with the big guns.

Happiness is ..... an engine treated with mineral oil filled with food colouring????

To illustrate the whole point about additives, consider this. In the manufacture of synthetic oils, once the synthetic polyol ester bases are created, anti-wear additives such as zinc dithiophosphates (essentially combinations of zinc, phosphorous, and sulphour molecules) are added. These combinations are extremely effective as anti-oxidant, anti-wear, anti-corrosion inhibitors. Now look at the contents of some of the after-market additives. Wow! Zinc, phosphorous and sulphour! Imagine that. Those aftermarket additives are actually exactly what your oil manufacturer has put in already.

Consider further that some oil companies actually make a point of telling you not to use aftermarket additives with their oils.

So if these additives are so brilliant, why do the companies always seem to end up in trouble? Well - misleading advertising and non-active "active" ingredients claim a lot of victims. Read on......
Note : you can search for the FTC's rulings on any engine additive by using the FTC search page and searching their 'news releases' for the product you're interested in - most of them are in there, which should tell you something.....

Slick 50 in $20M lawsuit, loses to FTC.

[slick50]

Blue Corral, the manufacturers of the Slick 50 engine oil additive, have been banned by the Federal Trade Commission from making claims about reduced engine wear, increased fuel economy and lower running temperatures in it's advertising in America. The Federal Commission found the company's claims of increased performance and reduced wear were unsubstantiated, and Blue Corral has agreed to pay upwards of $20M in damages to affected customers.
Source: Max Power magazine, March 1998.
Click here to see all the FTC Reports pertaining to Slick50.

DuraLube challenged by Car&Driver, loses to FTC.

[duralube]

The manufacturers of the DuraLube engine additive were dealt a smack in the face by a Car & Driver Magazine report into their product. C&D tried the same tests as Consumer Reports did on ProLong, and had similar results, but in a much quicker time. The C&D engines treated with DuraLube lasted a staggering 11 seconds without oil. You do the math. The Federal Trade Commission dealt with it.....
Click here to see all the FTC Reports pertaining to Duralube.

MotorUp loses to FTC for deceptive advertising claims.

[motorup]

In an ongoing campaign targeting ads that tout motor oil additives with deceptive claims that they reduce engine wear or extend engine life compared to motor oil alone, the FTC has charged the seller of Motor Up Engine Treatment with making unsubstantiated and deceptive advertising claims, in violation of federal laws. Motor Up Corporation and its principal, Kyle Burns, face an administrative trial.
Click here to see all the FTC Reports pertaining to MotorUp.

The magnet-on-your-fuel-line boys

FuelMax loses to FTC for deceptive advertising claims.

[fuelmax]

The marketers of the Super FuelMAX automotive fuel-line magnet, advertised as providing dramatic fuel-saving and emissions-reducing benefits, have agreed to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that their claims were unsubstantiated. These guys claimed that sticking a pair of magnets around your fuel line would increase your gas mileage by 27% whilst reducing harmful pollutants by 42%. The one slight flaw in their plan? There's nothing in fuel that can be affected by magnets......
The FTC alleged that the manufacturers did not possess or rely on reasonable substantiation for the claims they made. The complaint also alleged that the manufacturers falsely represented that tests performed at a certified EPA laboratory prove that Super FuelMAX performed to the above figures. Finally, the FTC charged that ads for Super FuelMAX featuring a testimonial from Alexander Elnekaveh endorsing the product did not reflect Elnekaveh's actual experience with the product or the typical or ordinary experience of members of the public who use the product. Therefore, the FTC complaint said, the representations concerning the testimonial were false or misleading.
Click here to read the FTC Report on the FTC vs. FuelMax.
Click here to see all the FTC Reports pertaining to FuelMax.

The additives that fought back

ZMax wins against an FTC settlement for misleading advertising.

[zmax]

The Federal Trade Commission filed suit in a U. S. District Court that sought to halt false and misleading advertising for zMax auto additives and which asked the court to order refunds to consumers who bought the products. The agency alleged that enhanced performance claims for the product were unsubstantiated, that tests cited to support performance claims actually demonstrated that motor oil treated with zMax produced more than twice as much bearing corrosion than motor oil alone, and that the three different products - an engine additive, a fuel line additive and a transmission additive - were all actually mineral oil tinted with food colouring..
Well on 20th March 2003, Speedway Motorsports Inc. (TRK) and Oil-Chem Research Corp., the manufacturers of zMax, announced that they had settled their dispute with the FTC. The Concord, North Carolina-based Speedway said that the dispute was concerning the advertising of zMAX Power System. Marylaurel E. Wilks, VP and general counsel said, "We at Speedway Motorsports are very pleased that the staff of the Federal Trade Commission has specifically confirmed that Oil-Chem can continue to make the following claims in its advertising and promotion of zMAX:".

Here's the kicker (from their website): "Oil-Chem and SMI have not admitted any liability in this litigation. However, in order to avoid the significant expense and time involved in the litigation, the FTC, Oil-Chem and SMI have agreed to end the litigation by the signing of an order, which, in summary, states: (a) Oil-Chem and SMI do not admit any liability and continue to deny any liability; (b) The FTC has issued its compliance letter (which confirms that enforcement is not merited for the eight specified claims); (c) Oil-Chem and SMI will not make advertising claims which are not properly substantiated; and (d) Oil-Chem and SMI will offer a refund of up to $1 million, in the aggregate, to certain purchasers of zMAX, who bought zMAX before January 31, 2001."

Click here to read the original FTC Report on the FTC vs. ZMax.
Click here to read the somewhat fuzzy final ruling in this case.
Click here to go to zMax's own site and read the settlement blurb.
Click here to see all the FTC Reports pertaining to zMax.

Click here to see the FTC court order (PDF file).
The first 17 pages are the original Court Order with all stipulations, pages 18-20 show the letter from the Oil-Chem Research and Speedway Motorsports, Inc attorneys (12/23/2002) to Elaine D. Kolish (an Associate Director at the FTC) outlining the "Claims" Zmax intended to make from that date forward, and in anticipation of the FTC Court Order. Page 21 is the response from Ms. Kolish (12/26/2002) to those attorneys that accepts their information as, "accurate and complete," and that it will continue in that manner assuming our test information is maintained as such (which it has,) in addition to the provision that, "no defendant violates the terms of the order."

It should be noted that the FTC is a Federal Government Commission that must maintain an extreme level of integrity, and therefore remain impartial on all matters. As a result, they cannot be seen even remotely as endorsing any product, company or entity over another. Even after all of the negative press that was generated during this litigation, (and is still available for view on various websites), the FTC is not allowed to produce a letter that endorses a product or company regardless of the outcome of that litigation. What they were able to do was allow "side letters" (the follow-up communications with Oil-Chem Research and Speedway Motorsports, Inc attorneys) to be posted along with the court order, the latter of which is confusing for any non-legal professional to read if it is not viewed along with these other letters.

ProLong challenged by Consumer Reports. FTC investigates, upholds CR claims, then ultimately allows ProLong to continue marketing.

[prolong] [consumer reports]

The manufacturers of the ProLong engine additive were dealt a smack in the face by a Consumer Reports Magazine report into their product. CR attempted to reproduce the "no oil" test where all the oil was drained out of an engine which had been treated with ProLong, and then the engine was run. CR managed a maximum of 13 seconds running out of each of two engine before they seized up, welding the pistons to the barrels. The case was brought to a Federal Commision for prosecution for false advertising claims. You can subscribe to the online version of Consumer Reports here for a minimal fee, and read all about it in their October 1998 features.
Source: Consumer Reports, October 1998.
The FTC ultimately settled it's investigation with Prolong, without fines of any kind. After 18 months of testing the FTC indicated that Prolong is exactly what they say it is. Further, the FTC has approved Prolong's new advertising statement, currently in print in Car and Driver, as "The World's Most Powerful Oil".
Click here to see all the FTC reports pertaining to ProLong.

henry yunick

But what about Henry "Smokey" Yunick?

I get a fair number of emails from people who put a lot of stock in what the late Henry Yunick had to say about ProLong because he was a respected mechanic and car designer. The sad fact of the matter is that his endorsement of ProLong was paid for by them with financial enticements, air fares, NASCAR hard cards, uniforms and other expenses, as documented in their SEC 10K filing. SEC ProLong 10K filing re. Smokey Yunick. Because of the ProLong financial interest in Yunick, his views were not impartial and he was essentially paid to promote ProLong, for better or for worse. So whilst he was an excellent designer and mechanic, you can't really take his point of view on ProLong seriously because he was no longer independent.

ADDITIVES AND TURBO ENGINES - READ CAREFULLY

There are certain brands of additives that make the claim that they'll "stop engine smoking" amongst other things. Now the way these work as I understand it, is by having some form of resin in solution form in the oil. The idea is that where the cylinder bores have become scored over years of use, oil is squirting past the piston rings and into the combustion chamber where it is being burned, hence the smokey engine. This resin makes the oil slightly thicker which helps it to seal those tiny scores whilst still lubricating the cylinder bores. The problem comes when this resin solution gets extremely hot - it turns hard. With most turbo systems, the bearings on the turbo get extremely hot, and the way around this is to use the engine oil to lube the bearings whilst at the same time transporting the heat away from them. When the additive finds its way into the turbo bearings, it can solidify and seize the turbo.
 Now feel free to correct me if I'm wrong there. I've heard this from five different people now although I've not experienced it myself (I don't use additives, period). It seems that none of the additive manufacturers put any warnings about this on their products which leads me to believe that either (a) I'm wrong, or (b) they don't want you to know about this problem. I'd appreciate any further info or corrections on this subject from any of my readers if they have any.

The squeaky-clean new boys on the block?

Since the initial euphoria over oil additives died down, and with ongoing proceedings against some of the most well-known household names, there's a clutch of new additive manufacturers starting to appear. A lot of them are using something called Boron CLS Bond®. This is based on the intricate crystal lattice structure of hydrated boron molecules. That lattice structure allows the layers of hydrated boron particles to slide virtually friction-free over each other, like the playing cards in a fresh deck, while retaining strength. The ultrafine particles of hydrated boron reach into every metal crevice, lubricating with super-slipperiness as they chemically bond with the host material.
This all sounds well and good, but I'm not a chemist so I can't comment. What does worry me a little is that the chemical starts out as Boric Acid and has to react with air and water to get its chemical reaction going. But what do I know?
A lot of the manufacturers are claiming things like Reduces engine wear by 80%. Sounds familiar doesn't it? Well, like I said, I don't know enough about this to claim otherwise, so if you have any direct experience of one of the following, I'd like to hear about it so I can pad my pages with more informative information. Each graphic links to the website of the manufacturer or distributor of the product in question.
I've linked a couple of Word documents here if you want to read up more on the claims. The first is a basic rundown of what CLS Bond is and the other is a list of people claimed to be using or testing the product. Tech document. People using or testing.

[motorbond] Dean Brubaker, the president of this organisation, actually contacted me directly to ask if I'd consider giving them some space on my site. Fair play. Again I can't comment one way or another on Motorbond - I've not used it myself. Their site is very comprehensive and it does have a fair amount of technical data to backup their claims. Interestingly, they also have technical data and products for marine engines. These things undergo a different type of stress to car engines - normally more - and so promoting a product for marine use is a good indicator that Motorbond should have done their research well. So if you have used Motorbond's products, please let me know.

My personal views on additives:

Apart from the fact that all the additive manufacturers have been in trouble in the past, and most of them have lost their cases (see above):
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?

The current trend is the "90% of your engine wear happens at startup" advertising ploy. This fact is absolutely true, but as it happens, it's less to to with "grinding engine parts" and more to do with combustion. When the combustion gases burn, they form acids which are highly corrosive when their vapours condense. These acids collect in the upper cylinder areas where their temperature is raised above their dew point. The acids condense and etch the cylinder walls and piston rings. In reality, this accounts for over 85% of engine wear, the other 15% being down to abrasion. So the adverts are nearly right - most of the engine wear does happen at startup, and it is because of a lack of oil, but it isn't because the oil isn't coating moving parts - it's because it's not transporting these acidic gases away. Having said that, if you start the engine and let it idle for 15 seconds or so before moving off, you can probably add another 100,000 miles to your engine's life without one bottle of additive. This warms the oil up a tad and makes sure it's in all the most vital areas before you start putting a strain on the engine. Most handbooks tell you not to let the engine warm up before driving off (they're referring to the acid corrosion mentioned above), but they mean don't let it reach working temperature. If, however, you insist on starting up and belting off down the road, think of this next time: it takes an average engine around 3 minutes of average driving for the exhaust manifold to reach 300°C. If you blast off and run around at full throttle, right from the word go, that process takes a little under a minute. Think about it - from outside air temperature to 300°C in a minute - what exactly is that doing to the metal in your manifold? Ask anyone who's ever owned an original Audi Quattro - they'll tell you exactly what happens.

I'm not saying that these companies are having us all on, heaven knows there are plenty of statements from companies and private individuals who have reportedly reaped the benefits of these products. But in my experience, it's simply not worth the huge risk of putting the additive in there.

Another perspective:

I received this email from Albert Clark who has, it seems, had first-hand experience of one of the additive products:
I kept hearing about such a product and found a store going out of business that was practically giving it away. I put a quart in two cars: An MGB and a Chevy 305 V-8.
The MGB went 20 miles before a ring stuck causing it to start throwing oil everywhere. A mechanic then messed up when putting new pistons on the old rods and shortly after rebuild a piston froze and threw a rod bearing that ruined the crank, etc.
The Chevy started using a quart every 25 miles immediately after the product was used. I drained it and refilled immediately, but it took engine flush and about 4 oil changes over 2000 miles before oil usage was reduced to a quart every 400 miles. It was using a quart every 800 miles before that. I ended up putting another 60,000 miles for a total of 180,000 miles before rebuild.
I will never recommend such a product to anyone.

The moral? If you're going to care for your engine, do it properly, not in half-measures, and it will look after you for as many miles as you care to drive.

Your opinion.

"Chris, you misguided fool! You're talking out of your ass! I've used SuperHappySlippyOilTM and it's been great!"
Does this seem like something you want to say? Well there are so many new products coming out on the market now in the additive arena that I don't have time to keep up with them. Things like Z-Max, for example. So here's your chance to have your say. Once I've gathered enough opinions, I'll be adding a new page with people's real world experiences of various products.
What do I want you to do?
Well - just send me an email with a short tale about your experiences, good or bad, with any engine additive or additive system. Include things like ProLong, DuraLube, Z-Max - anything you like. Make sure you include pertinent information such as your car or truck model and year, engine type, mileage etc. Once people read the experiences of others, it will make for a far more useful section on this page than just my personal opinion.

On to your comments:

Product : Motor Up (USA)
Vehicle : 2.2 FI Mazda 285,000kms.
Chris. My cold start 'death rattle' disappeared after about 700kms. Compression presures all about 140psi, and engine so quiet people comment. Used with Castrol Magnatec 10W 40 for 3-4 changes (added a bottle at each change) and now using Pennzoil 15W 50 semi-synthetic for summer months. Changing to full synthetic Penrite 5W 60 when it's released in a month or so. Regards...Stephen Murray.

Product : Slick 50 (USA)
Vehicle : 1989 Civic Si.
I bought a brand new Civic Si in '89 and soon after used Slick 50. I did notice a significant difference in performance, smoothness and acceleration, sorry to say. I don't know if it was doing damage, but I repeated the application after about 30k with the same results. I was driving courier and put about 75000 mi on the engine in 1.5 yrs. I also used nothing but synthetic oil for most of that period, changing oil/filter every 2500mi or so (about 2 weeks). The car was running almost like new by the time I was no longer in possession of the car with the aforementioned mileage. Now I know you are going to say that's because of the frequent changes, but I have to say again with each application of Slick 50, there was a significant difference for at least a while after application, which made me believe it was doing something positive. G Wood - Canada (had the car through one cold Canadian winter)

Product : Slick 50, ProLong, Duralube (USA)
Vehicle : 1979 Pontiac Grand Prix.
I have used Slick 50, Duralube and currently use Prolong in my car. My car a 1979 Pontiac Grand Prix with a 301 V8 engine in it, I bought back in Dec. 1990 and it had 163,000 miles on it when I bought it and retired it with 850,000 PLUS miles on it. I used Slick 50 in it. I then heard about Duralube and switched to it, then when I heard about the Viper running around the desert race track being driven by one of the Unser's I immediately switched to Prolong and used it for years.
I am not sure exactly how many years I have used Prolong, but I do believe that I would not have be able to go 850,000 PLUS without some type of additive like the one's listed above that I have both tried and currently use. I recently retired my 1979 Pontiac and was so impressed with Prolong that when I bought my recent car 1993 Pontiac Grand Prix I had the oil changed to Mobil 1 5w-30 synthetic and even put Prolong in it not too long after I bought the car.
Oh, one other thing I have used infrequently is the STP Oil Treatment. My grandpa always used it so I did too, but I didn't use it regularly like I did the above products I talked about. V.F.

Product : Duralube (USA)
Vehicle : 1995 Mercury Sable.
I just wanted to share a couple of my experiences with the Duralube products.I currently own a 1995 Mercury Sable with 260,000 miles on it.I drive it 70 miles daily to and from work.The tach still reads at the same rpms that it did when it had 3000 miles on it and it still performs great.I have used Duralube at every oil change with Valvoline 5w30.My previous vehicle was a 1985 Dodge 600.This vehicle developed a leak in the power steering at the rack.IT grew progressively worse until it was leaking a quart of fluid a day.I purchased a bottle of Duralube transmission treatment and poured it into the power steering resoivor.That same day the leak stopped and the car was driven for four more years without ever leaking or adding power steering fluid again. T.M.

Product : Slick 50
Vehicle : Heavy construction vehicles.
Hey there, thought I would let you know about an experience that I had with Slick 50. I work for a heavy construction company that owns a very large amount of construction equipment such as backhoes, excavators, bulldozers, front-end loaders and some VERY LARGE cranes.
Since some of these pieces of equipment have price tags in excess of $500,000 US Dollars we have a very keen interest in keeping everything running all day every day with the least amount of fuel burned. To help us do this we regularly send oil samples in for analysis to let us know what is going on in those pricey engines. In doing this we can often fix something before it breaks, pretty cool huh?
Well anyway, I bought 5 gallons of Slick 50 and installed it in a few of these money pits after changing the oil and filters. I let the equipment rack up about 100 hours on the hour meter and took an oil sample.
Guess what I found! All the wear metals found in the oil sample were exactly the same as before my little test began (except for one which lost a turbocharger). Now, if Slick 50 was supposed to make my engines, hydraulic systems and gear drives last longer, why did they wear out at the same rate as before? Hmmmm......
My engines already last a long time. You know why? I take care of them! T.B.

Product : ProLong
Vehicle : 1989 VW Jetta.
Hi there. I just wanted to share my experience of Prolong with you. I was very sceptical of these products until one day in 2002 when I had bought a 1989 VW Jetta with over 100,000 miles on the clock. I thought I would try Prolong out as it didn't matter if it wrecked the car as it only cost me £200. Before I put the Prolong in the gearbox made a whining noise and fuel consumption was 29.87MPG. I added the fuel, gearbox and engine additives to the car. The gearbox was less noisy, the engine temperature was lower and the fuel consumption went up to 41.4MPG. Now this product may or may not be good long term in a car, I don't know yet. But it is certainly worth adding to an old banger as you will save money just on the fuel consumption. The money I saved in fuel paid for my next banger. The Jetta was pensioned off due to rust not engine problems :-) Hell if it does die, throw it away and buy a new one for less than the price of a pair of trainers. Rob Moore (not 100% convinced but still experimenting)

Product : Restore
Vehicle : '86 Chevy Suburban diesel.
Being a skeptic on additives and TV hype i finally gave in a tried an additive called "RESTORE" in my 86 chevy suburban diesel. At about 140,000 miles it started smoking profusely on cool morning start up. mechanics told me it was incomplete combustion in the cylinders that were losing compression. One can of this stuff and about 100 or so miles for it to do its thing, ta daa smoking stopped. then i tried it in my 305 chevy, (100,000 plus miles on the clock) smoother idle, much improved performance (not the kind like when you wash and wax it) i recommend this in anything that has high miles, just gets a little more life out of a tired engine. PS: the suburban had 240,000 mi when I traded it in.
Bob Piper.

Product : Morey's Oil Stabiliser
Vehicle : 1973 Fiat Station wagon.
In 1993 we purchased a 1973 Fiat station wagon with a 1438cc pushrod engine. As we were bringing it home, my husband, a longtime Fiat mechanic, heard a slight rattle in the bottom end. His first thought was to pull the oil pan and change rod bearings, but decided to see what would happen with Morey's Oil Stabilizer (a petroleum product, not a Teflon or other chemical whoopdedoo), and we have been using it in this car ever since. The rattle went away and the engine ran fine for four years, until the radiator fan motor failed and the engine overheated. We overhauled it and that time, and after breaking it in, have continued to add the Morey's at each oil change. We are still driving it, it has more than 150,000 miles on it, and the engine runs quiet. Linden Malki.

Product : Duralube
Vehicle : 1988 Ford Escort.
I had a 1988 Ford Escort that went all the way to 232,000 miles with DuraLube. Yes, the oil-seal rings leaked to begin with, but the product isn't designed to deal with that. It got 25 mi./g. until creamed from behind at a freeway on-ramp. I believe DuraLube did a lot to extend its engine life and efficiency. Oil seemed to blacken much less once I started using DuraLube (at each oil change, which I do myself), so apparently it does reduce friction above what the oil alone will.
Helge Skjeveland.

Product : Duralube
Vehicle : Various.
I used Duralube in a 10 year old AMC Spirit and it instantly developed a carbon knock. So beware - the detergents did a number on it. Secondly, I used a veriety of Teflon products on my 1985 Plymouth Voyager with Castrol Syntec oil but at deep oil change intervals - and it blew smoke after 140,000. Conclusion? Teflon and oil filters on deep change intervals don't mix. I think you can't skip the additives when discussing longetivity.. Rob Green.

Product : Restore
Vehicle : '83 Pontiac Grand Prix.
A few years back, I had a 1983 Pontiac Grand Prix. I got it with around 43K miles on it. At around 90K or so, the engine died, stranding me 70 miles from home. I had done carbuerator work about a year and a half before, and rebuilt the carb 3/4 of a year before; it just seemed like the car had endemic problems, and had finally had it. The mechanic gave me a horror story, and I ended up getting a new car. In order to get the thing sold, I tried Restore on the advice of a mechanic. Lo and behold, the thing started and was able to run reasonably under it's own power. I sold it for $400 or so. It may not have been the Restore, and I don't know what happened afterwards, but it seemed to work. I certainly had nothing to lose.
C Coccio.

Product : Redline Oil
Vehicle : Various.
.......One small point I wish to make is that for a number of years I have used RedlineOil which in my experience is the mount Everest of lubricants (Engine, Transmission, Differentials, Fuel additives et al) and is designed so the same engine lubricant runs in my non-turbo petrol engine car, diesel turbo engine 4*4 and 1000cc motorcycle.
As an enthusiast of cars, trucks, bikes, boats et al for many years, thanks to redlineoil, my lube worries are thankfully a solved problem and I run it in everything from an SL through to a generator.
Please DO NOT mistake this as preaching, merely the fact that I like to help like minded enthusiasts. I hope you will enjoy the same benefits as I do. (To clarify, Redline Oil produce independently verifiable minimum compromise lubricants [Engine, Transmission, Trans-axle] in addition to additives.)
Keith Banks.

Product : Amsoil
Vehicle : Various.
Back around 1982, I used Amsoil for a year, then switched to MobilOne because the price was better. My 2.5 L Pontiac engine used almost no oil until (at 102,000 miles) a spark plug failed and dropped ceramic into the combustion chamber. Long story about that... I switched to Castrol in my new car and had good luck with it for years after that. One day I got a wild hair and decided to give Pennsoil Semi Synthetic a try. It turned my engine brown inside! I switched to Amsoil for another try. The main reason is that they advertise you can go 25,000 miles or 12 months between oil changes, as long as you change the filter half way through and use their superduty filters. It makes financial sense over changing regular oil 3 or 4 times a year.

I also think it makes good mechanical sense, but you have to have faith in their formulation and use very high efficiency filters (Mobil-1 and PureOne are about equal in efficiency, but less capacity, from what I have read).

If you're a mechanic at heart, it is really hard to accept the idea that oil can go that long without a change. But I think Amsoil has done their homework on this.

I became an Amsoil "preferred customer" for $20 a year; which means I save about 20% on my purchases, and I can buy their lubrication courses intended for dealers. These courses are a little rough in some places but have a lot of good info in them. If you get a hankering to read more than you ever wanted to know about lubrication, they might be a good investment.
Jacques Morrise.

Product : STP Leak Prevention
Vehicle : 1994 Geo Prizm w/185.6k miles.
Regular oil changes w/Mobil 1 since I acquired it at 55k miles. Vehicle developed a major leak out rear seal and was losing 1 quart per 100 miles on a recent trip. STP leak prevention additive staunched the flow long enough for me to return with family to my home town and drive around for two weeks looking for a new car. I do not use an additive on a regular basis but this one did help keep things together long enough to get me through a tight spot.
G.N.

Product : Bi-Tron Engine Formulation
Vehicle : VW Golf.
After using the oil additive in my VW diesel rabbit, the compression was so bad that it wouldn't start anymore in the cold weather and the engine ran away by itself on the highway, meaning the blow by was so bad that the oil fumes got sucked into the intake manifold and powered the engine like a rocked with the key off. Only way to kill the process was use the brakes and cover the intake air to the air filter quick before the motor came undone, happened twice - cure was to hone cylinders and insall new rings, avoid Bi Tron of course, then it ran like a top for 5 years.
Denis Casserly.

Product : DuraLube
Vehicle : '74 ford van 302 v8
I drove to pheonix in my 72 ford van and was experienceing extreme heat to the motor and a hard time on the mountain passes. When we got to Phoenix it stayed hot - the gauge was pegged before we could even find the mother inlaws house. I stopped at Autozone and got Duralube just to try to make it to our destination I put the Duralube in right there at the Autozone. We pulled out of the parking lot went about three blocks stopped at a light and I noticed the heat gauge had gone down about 25%. The light changed and I pushed on the throttle as normal and the tires spun for about three feet. It ran great and all the mountains on the way home from Phoenix to Utah became hills 80 mph plus over the top no over heating.The van was still running great two more years then I sold it to a friend of mine. More than 200k miles as far as I know that thing is probably still running somewhere.
S.S..

Product : Slick50
Vehicle : '87 Chevy S-10
I am another satisfied Slick 50 user. I have used it in numerous vehicles, however one in particular sold me on the product. I was driving as a courier and had an 87 Chevy S-10 with a 2.8 liter V6 (not the most durable engine by any standard) I was at around 125,000 miles when I began burning around 1 qt of oil every 3k miles. I changed the oil with slick 50. Not only did the oil consumption stop, but my mileage went up around 3 mpg. I was driving 250-400 miles a day depending on my routes so it was easy to note the immediate difference. I was skeptical before using and am a loyal convinced customer since seeing those results. BTW the truck went to 225,000 miles when I sold it with no more oil burned and no repairs except a fuel pump.
Dominic C

Product : ProLong
Vehicle : '91 Jeep Cherokee 4 litre six cylinder
I saw the Prolong oil additive commercials on TV, where they drove a Viper, along with other cars, with no oil pan or filter, for extended time periods with no oil. I didn't believe them. However, I subscribed to Circle Track (racing technology) magazine, which did an interview with the legendary Smokey Yunick, a recognized automotive engineer/genius. Smokey had seen the same commercials and considered them, to quote the article, "BS", and he proceeded to test the Prolong additive thoroughly, and much to his surprise, discovered it worked as advertised. He had even recommended it to race car teams, including top Nascar teams, who he consulted for. So I bought some, put it in my wifes 1991 Jeep Cherokee, 4.0 liter inline six cylinder engine. Have you ever heard an engine lose oil pressure? I have. The first thing you notice is the camshaft lifters clattering as they collapse from zero oil pressure. One day I came home from work as my wife was pulling into the driveway. First thing I noticed was all the lifters clattering noisily. I knew what that meant: no oil pressure. Sure enough, it turned out that the oil filter base O rings had failed and it developed a massive oil leak, dumping 5 quarts of the six quart capacity out of the engine. For four days she had driven a 30 mile roundtrip route to work and back, plus various side errands, with zero oil pressure. I replaced the O rings, added five quarts, started up the engine....it ran perfectly normal. In fact the oil mileage went up from 750 MPQ it had been getting to 1500 MPQ, not bad for an engine with 120,000 miles on it. So that sold me on Prolong. Smokey Yunick said it worked, and it did, as advertised. In my case, it had been in the oil for a couple of months, prior to the major oil loss problem. Yunick said in his tests, once plated onto metal, it had to be worn off, it couldn't be wiped, washed, or otherwise removed. Another thing Smokey said, was that a Prolong treated engine would not seize up from overheating, thus protecting the engine until parts start melting, such as exhaust valves and spark plugs. That's one reason he recommended it to Nascar race teams. He gave an example of a short track race car with Prolong additive in it, breaking a water pump belt at the start of a 50 lap race (1/2 mile race track). The engine got very hot, with no damage to it.
C.D.
Editor's note : Smokey Yunick did endorse ProLong but he was paid to so his view was neither independent nor impartial. See the ProLong 10k filing for information on his remuneration package to promote their product.

Product : Restore Engine Oil Treatment
Vehicle : 1980 Honda Accord w/ 100k miles
I drove my 1980 Accord from about 90,000 miles on. It was 12 years old when I bought it and ran until I drove it into the ground years later. I used Restore in the engine oil and got noticeable, dramatic improvements in horsepower and gas mileage. What I didn't expect was to have Restore save my manual transmission... Somewhere around 100k, the 5-speed manual transmission started making a horrible low-pitched grinding noise whenever it was in gear. The noise was loud and unsettling and got louder with higher speed... I knew it was probably a bearing and it wasn't worth getting a $700 tranny job on a $300 car. So, in a last-ditch effort to squeeze a little more life out of the poor thing, I added a small (4-cylinder sized) can of Restore to the manual transmission oil... I was ASTOUNDED when - in about 300 miles - the grinding noise started to fade. After a month and about 500 miles, it was COMPLETELY GONE! I never heard another peep out of the transmission! I wouldn't recommend this to anyone unless they have no other options (I looked, and Restore does not recommend their product in manual transmissions), but Restore did completely fix a worn-out, dying manual transmission in a 16-year-old Honda. If it can do that, think of what it can do for worn rings and mainshaft bearings.
Chris N

Your Opinion: A Ford Engineer contacts carbibles.com about additives

In 2006 I was contacted by a Ford engineer who has worked for them for 24 years. These views do not necessarily represent Ford, but it makes an interesting read nevertheless.
Some of the things in your site are true like the pure baloney that additive companies put out. I have been with Ford for 24 years in research and development for their power train division. I have forgotten more lube problems than 90% of so-called mechanics will ever know. I like the way some mechanics make statements like they're some sort of God without being able to back them up. All that mallarkey in some of the feedback above claiming 800,000 miles on a gas engine are laughable. There is so much that goes into producing engine oil that dumping "magic" additives into it is just criminal. The quality of most addatives is questionable at best. Whilst the names may be similar, the quality is not. Additives are blended at the proper rate, heat and in the proper proportions by the manufactures of their particular product. Crude supplies are not all the same quality and the additives have to be adjusted for the quality of the base stock being used by each particular company, per batch. Dumping your own personal stuff will more than likely be way inferior to what the oil manufacturer uses. The chemicals will normally differ from the manufacturers blend, and can cancel each other out to the point where there will be no anti-wear properties left in the product. (This is one reason it's not wise to mix oils from different manufacturers together). Changing the oil from say Mobil to Shell and then to Pennzoil will have a negative effect on your engine from conflicting chemicals. Buy an oil that you may like and STICK TO THAT COMPANY'S product.
What you may get away with when using Shell may cause instant havoc with Valvoline. The major oil companies work closely with the auto manufacturers so that bearing material, seal material, roller bearings, ball bearings, and all other moving parts are not adversely affected by the oil products. This is especially true for automatic transmissions. DO NOT USE SOMETHING OTHER THAN WHAT IS SPECIFIED BY THE CAR MAKER FOR YOUR AUTOMATIC TRANSMISSION.
Nothing in your site mentions surface finish of the journals, cylinder walls, lobing of the crank journals, or a whole host of mechanical reasons for engine life or engine early death regardless of what oil you use. Nobody has mentioned how wear is affected by hotrodding the vehicle. I can ruin any engine and oil combination that you want to give me in a few hours or less. I can wreck a transmission in 15 minutes.
What about user abuse and manufacturing defects? Grinding a crankshaft in the wrong direction of rotation will eat up the bearings in 5 to 10 minutes. Quality control during manufacturing is the key to long engine life along with following oil- and filter-change intervals as laid out by the manufacturer in your handbook that comes with the car (that nobody reads).
From Ford's perspective, they test Mobil way more than other brand. I pushed using Mobil synthetics for transmission use to eliminate low speed hot oil low pressure and the opposite problem of high speed high pressure and cold oil drag at any speed. More power is lost from pumping torque than from bearing and piston drag. Trying to keep oil pressure up to spec when hot requires a larger pump and more R.P.M. and when things are cold the pump has very high torque and most of the oil flow is going thru the pressure relief valve back into the oil pan. Wasted horsepower; it lowers gas mileage by 20 to 30%
If it takes only 12 to 15 horsepower to move the average car 60mph. and the engine plus the transmission are using 2 to 3 extra horsepower each due to high oil drag (being too thick) you can see how the C.A.F.E. ratings would not be favorable for Ford if we did not use synthetics. Engines on new Fords come with semi-synthetics and the dealerships only use this oil. Full synthetics are still better but cost more.
Conclusion: Read, learn, and use your brain.

What about Ionically Charge Oil Particles? Enter Castrol Magantec.

Pardon? Sounds like something out of Star Trek doesn't it? Well there's an increasing trend in the industry now to try something a little different. It seems that a couple of the big players are now experimenting with charge oil molecules which attract themselves to engine parts with no other additives. The idea is, to simplify it, magnetic oil. The oil sticks to the engine parts when the engine is turned off, and is theoretically still there, ready to protect, when you next turn the engine on. The first big player on the scene with this was Burmah Castrol with their Castrol Magnatec oil. Theoretically, this type of product is a far safer bet than an additive, and so far I've heard nothing but glowing reports about it. But just stop and think for a moment - why have these companies now decided to go this route? Are they admitting that the older additives with suspended solids in them were perhaps not such a miracle after all?
Truly magnetic?
A U.S. Coast Guard Machinery Technician recently emailed me with some interesting observations. If you know enough about chemistry, you'll know that oil is a non-ionic compound which is one of the properties that precludes it from mixing readily with water (which is an ionic compound). What does this mean? It means that the ionization potential for oil is nil. No ionization potential = no magnetism. Chemists may be able to synthesize an ionic compound that replicates the characteristics of oil such as viscosity, surface tension, etc, but then would it really be an oil?

Still reading? Okay - it gets even more complicated then:

The real reason oil and water do not mix has everything to do with their polar strength. This has to do with whether the electrons are equally shared or not. Water is a highly polar substance, the oxygen atom somewhat steals the electrons from the hydrogen atoms, giving it a partial negative charge. Because of this, and the way an water molecule is shaped, the water molecules attract strongly to each other, much like magnets.
Still with me?
Oil, on the other hand, is a weakly polar substance because the electrons are mostly evenly "shared". Because of this, the water molecules attract each other more strongly than they attract oil particles. The reason that they do not visibly mix is because the water-water attraction is stronger than the water-oil attraction, so the water-water attraction must be broken in favor for a weaker attraction costing energy that isn't there. Thus, most oil molecules do not mix with the water.
Hey - you're still reading so far, so obviously you wanted to know. I'll continue:
The oil could have a polymer additive (since oil manufacturers DO add stuff to their oil), which might work, since polymers can have ionizing polar groups on them. You can thank reader Kenny for that last little bit of weird science....

magnatec July 2004 Update Interestingly, Castrol Magnatec was NOT available in the U.S. until July 2004. A reader of my site called two national Castrol distributors and they told him that Castrol's equivalent is the Syntec line but they couldn't confirm that it was the same as the Magnatec. They really doubted that they were the same, as the GTX is a different formula than Syntec. An email to Castrol's website confirmed this suspicion but they wouldn't explain why Magnatec was only available overseas. If you go to www.castrol.com and then www.castrolusa.com you will notice the product descriptions don't even read close to being the same thing. Confusing as usual with any big corporation - there's no straight answer. Then in July 2004, Castrol started advertising Castrol GTX Startup. It's basically the same thing as Magnatec, but with a different name. Another email to Castrol resulted in a brief phone conversation with them. I asked why they'd waited so long to bring the same product out in North America when it had been available in Europe for at least 6 years previously. There was no good answer. Now the product is available in the US, I expect the volume of emails on this subject to double :-)

April 2007 Update In a reversal of fortune, Castrol has now pulled the GTX StartUp product from all the shelves apparently in all countries. They've not replaced it with anything which shows you how fickle the advertising and marketing arms are. People are less sensisitve to the idea of wear on startup, so it seems Castrol have pulled their niche product.

Return to where you were on the Engine Oil Bible page.