tim888tim

I have a coworker who swears by this stuff. Has anyone tried it on a rotary?
http://www.sfrcorp.com/product/4 is the link for this product.

rotarygod

I have a general rule that if your engine oil needs an outside additive, you should be using a better oil. This statement get's my attention:

Engine oil and engine treatment additives get used up and become less and less effective over time.

This is true. It's one big reason why we change our oil every so often. I guess that means this is as good as an oil change? I wouldn't use anything other than oil but that's just me.

tim888tim

As I understand it, the only difference between oils is the additives. (With the exception of synthetic base vs. standard base) Wouldn't it make more sense to buy the additives at a fraction of the cost and add them to an inexpensive base? I am not trying to be cheap, I just want to be practical. I don't have a problem paying $80/case for oil if it really makes a difference. However if I can get the same benefits at $15/case with $10 in additives, that makes more sense.


As a side note my coworker ran a test on off-the-shelf oils and additives. In this test, then end of a carbide rod was pressed against a spinning bearing. The bearing was partially submersed in the oil being tested. A set of weights was added to the rod in increments representing 30 lbs. Eventually the rod and bearing would seize up. as the pressure or the rod increases on the bearing. The bearing is constantly lubricated by the specific oil being tested. Each set of weights represents 30 lbs.
Standard oils caused seizing at 6 sets of weights. Synthetic oils including Mobil1 seized at 6-7 sets. The only noticeable difference with the synthetic was that it didn't break down as quickly. It was almost identical to regular oil as far as lubrication. Royal purple however, was the exception. It didn't seize until all 12 sets of weights we applied.

The test was then ran with SFR and the bearing was still spinning with all 12 weights added. The oil reservoir was removed to simulate a hole in the oil pan and while the bearing got very hot, it remained spinning. It was then partially submerged in antifreeze to simulate the head gasket blowing and the engine flooding with antifreeze, still spinning.

Of course tests are worthless without certified test results and documented processes so I included this more as an FYI. I am going to see if I can get a hold of the test stand for a day or two.


I just read through the later half of my post and realize that it reads like an advertisement. It wasn't intentional. I am just looking for what will be best in the long run for my new engine.

Jax_RX8

I agree with RG in that 99% of oil additives are not necessary - with a few good products that are the exceptions - the one your asking about not being one to consider.

The test your friend is conducting, is the "Timken" machine test - it is pretty much useless for determining the protection of an oil - it highlights friction reduction, but not wear reduction, and is not representative of how oil works in an engine. Don't believe me - have him do the test with pure bleach - the rod will not seize up - but I sure wouldn't want to use that as my oil.

The HTHS (high temperature, high shear ) test, which is very expensive and hard to perform, is one of the best test on the market today for determining an oils ability to perform in real-world conditions. Also, the 4 ball bearing wear test is also useful. The problem is that most oil companies do not publish (or run) these tests.

One exception is AMSOIL that does publish these (not a sales pitch, but they do provide the data). Other may provide one or both as well, depending on the company.

tim888tim

Actual SFR ran the 4 ball test and posted the test results on their web site. http://www.sfrcorp.com/testing/4

Jax_RX8

I read the link - I still have the same opinion as they do not provide any real data and actually lie in one instance

- The 4 ball test's purpose is to measure the size of the wear scar on the stationary ball bearing and compare to other oil's performance, not the determine if "seizure" occurs - they never show the scar size and tell if they ran the test for the required time at the required pressure to determine scar size. Also, the 4-ball test was done on the pure additive, not on it diluted down in your oil - a common trick.


This statement:

"Do Motor Oils Contain Extreme Pressure Additives?
Research has shown that NO motor oils contain extreme pressure additives presently. This includes major motor oil company's petroleum and synthetic products as well as specialty synthetic motor oil producers such as Amsoil® , Redline®, and Royal Purple®. "

is an out and out lie. All motor oils contain various EP additives in various proportions. The tend to avoid pure phosporous and only use this in gear oils now due to the effects on catalysts. Also ZDDP (a Zinc Phosphorous combo) is controlled to a certain level in SL oils to limit the effects on catalysts - but it is an EP additive.

In addition to the ZDDP use, modern oils also add Molybdenum, Boron, and sometimes other ingredients to provide EP protection. Moly is one of the more popular ones these days - especially with Royal Purple and Redline. Others use a some moly and supplement with Boron (which is very expensive) to achieve the same desired effect (Pennzoil Platinum). Companies like AMSOIL tend to rely on Boron and other EP adds rather than moly.



In a nutshell, what you have here is an additive package of the same basic ingredients that oil already has in it - and if you are not careful can unbalance the "formula" of the existing motor oil and it's effectiveness. More is not always better. Oil provider spend countless millions on R&D to get the right combination of ingredients to produce the best overall protection - if you think you can by a cheap oil and add your own additive pack and get the same results, we would all be in this business.




The good additives out there enhance the existing oil without actually changing the original oils function or mechanisms, as they ad support for anti-oxidation, cleaning, and some lubricity enhancement without changing the original oils chemistry - these include Auto-RX, Lube Control LC20.

The only additive I have seen that adds "more of the existing additive ingredients" that I have seen show very good wear numbers is BG's MOA (Motor Oil Additive) - it does just seem to work as it adds more cleaners (Calcium) and a great deal of Moly/Boron for better EP protection - many swear by it. But in general, you run a risk in upsetting the original oils additive package 'balance" by adding these kinds of additives.

In general, I would stay away from these and only consider the 3 I mentioned above as they are the only ones I have researched (mostly on BITOG) that really perform and are not just "snake oil" or money wasters.

My 2 cents for what it is worth.

tim888tim

Good information to know. Thanks for the help. I will start looking down those paths.

crazz

Oil is such a touchy subject I've noticed more people getting mad about oil and so many heated debates on forums I don't wanna step on anyone but wanna set things straight.

Number1. In a motoroil guide directly from API (american Petroleum Institute) states that Extreme pressure exists most of the time. Many engineers argue this point and say that an engine uses hydrodynamics I don't buy it not with cams and explosions occuring with metal rings sliding against a metal wall.

Number2. ZDDP IS NOT AN EXTREME PRESSURE AGENT. ZDDP is an antiwear agent. The gov't is trying to phase out chemicals with metals in them. Zddp was and still is STP's flagship product that got their business rolling. Its now and has been in use in many motoroils for years.

Number3 In a nutshell, what you have here is an additive package of the same basic ingredients that oil already has in it - and if you are not careful can unbalance the "formula" of the existing motor oil and it's effectiveness. More is not always better. Oil provider spend countless millions on R&D to get the right combination of ingredients to produce the best overall protection - if you think you can by a cheap oil and add your own additive pack and get the same results, we would all be in this business.

This statement is a marketing ploy that has been used by oil companies for years. Ok so what this tells me is just because you have millions and billions of dollars you're right but at the same time you're telling me that our oils use the FINEST bases and the FINEST additives in our proprietary blend. If that isn't a hypocritical statement i don't know what is.

Oil companies make and refine the base oils the additives are purchased through either a company they own or an outside company they have to purchase increasing their costs and decreasing their profit margins.

The timken test WHY DOES EVERYONE DISREGARD THIS as a useful demonstration? I don't get it how are the oil companies demonstrating and showing you how well their oil works by throwing testing data at you that was done in their own labs come on.
The timken test is useful for two things mostly extreme pressure the other is wear. what happens when things seize bad things what happens when the spin uninteruppted less wear the bearing and race on the timken machine clearly shows this.

Another thing that completely baffles me is that even tho everyone is quick to say additives don't work there are still brainwashed people that say well all additives don't work but this Autorx, lubecontrol and bg's MOA works WHY WHY WHY????
oxidation, lubricity, and engine cleaners this is a selling point that get people to buy these particular oil additives. I'm sorry but BITOG is extremely and i mean extremely biased when it comes to this subject and i wouldn't listen to any of it they are spinning the why you don't buy additives into this buy these they're good.

BOTTOM line here is additives work not all work as well as others research needs to be done. I highly and i mean highly doubt the oil companies give two craps about you as a car owner they meet the criteria set forth by the api meet them spend the bucks get a classification then sell the crap out of it. remeber they're not in the business to make friends they are there to sell their oil.

The other thing is there isn't one person that says this the best oil or i use this its the best cause they say so. If you don't use OIL ANALYSIS YOU DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT WHAT YOU'RE oil is actually doing. Oil is a funny thing if it works without failure its the best.

Drain intervals were introduced to cover two kinds of drivers. Hard drivers and soft drivers. Thus the 3000 mile 3 month program was introduced. Through oil analysis people found that some cars need to be changed quicker some have been able to go much much longer. Alot of this has to do with the ever developing ADDITIVE market. but without know how your oil is performing which category of driving do you fall under?

Last thing. I don't wanna sound harsh and i'm not attacking anyone personally I'm just really tired of hearing these things over and over and they aren't true and most of it is BS. People that take recommedations from others are lazy and don't do their homework. Again my point is don't listen to anyone if its facts you're after then get them yourself do your own experiments and do OIL ANALYSIS. Try additives they do work. Additives have nearly been around as long as the oil companies and they will continue to sell they're products same as the oil companies as they've done for so many years. Look at STP everyone hated them now look its in the oil you buy today. Look at slick 50 know its being put in pennzoil (no wonder, they own slick 50) I guess the inventors and entreprenuers of additives do the dirty work and put up with the oil companies propoganda only to be stabbed and stolen from later down the line maybe when the patents are lifted.

crazz

Please take a minute for another point of view and read this.
http://blog.sfrcorp.com/2006/09/13/d...s-really-work/

nycgps

iTrader: (1)

This reminds me of that Slick50 garbage ...

nycgps

iTrader: (1)

This reminds me of that Slick50 garbage ...

crazz

This reminds me of that slick50 garbage.

Why would you write such a mindless post? PTFE although proven to be one of the slickest substances known to man according to nasa and guiness book of world records has no business whatsoever in an engine. PTFE is toxic and nasty I would use extreme caution when handling this product and whenever its subjected to high heat that is when it becomes very dangerous. 20/20 did a special on it once stating that families that worked and lived at the dupont plant that make teflon had birth defects and resembled a case similar to erin brockovich. Some people complained of pets dying in or near the kitchen when cooking with PTFE coated cookware.

So yes in some respects you could say that slick50 is garbage this SFR company states clearly that they do not use ptfe in any of their products.

nycgps

iTrader: (1)

I'll let Jax to handle this.

Im too lazy to explain it today.

Socket7

Check out the ingredients. 100% pure snake oil. I bet it works great!

crazz

Interesting I sure appreciate the one line answers falling into the category that additives are worthless and unnecessary I guess oil is snake oil too maybe we should drain it out and see what happens. Unfortunately this is the road that all oil discusions end at no where ville.

Nubo

The point where I change channels is when they start demonstrating what happens when your crankcase leaks out. "We ran the engine 40 hours WITHOUT ANY OIL"!

*click*

Jax_RX8

Way too much to address in one post, so let me provide this for now - try to cover some of the rest later.

Anti-Wear Agents and EP Agents are basically the same thing - usually Anti-wear term is used for motor oils and EP term is used for gear oils.

However there are differing kinds of the AW/EP agents, and different ones are preferrable for use in Motor oil, trans fluids, and gear oils, depending on the types of metals involved and the type of lubrication (Hydrodynamic, Mixed Film, and Boundry).

AW/EPs are primarily for boundry lubrication of certain engine components like valve-trains, transmission gear teeth, and various rear end gear types.

Note the last bolded area - this is why most additives are iffy at best - they can mess with the balance of a fully formulated lubricant - thus why there are only a few oil additives out there that do not mess with this formula and are considered good, complementing products.

Following is a post from Molekule - a Phd Tribilogist and likely the most knowledgable oil expert I know as he is retired from this business with many years experience. It's a good read to to learn a little (I copied instead of linked because BITOG won't allow direct links into many of their threads)




Oil Soluble Friction Reducers (FM's) and Anti-Wear Additives (AW's)
(with an emphasis on Friction Modifiers)
by MoleKule*

Oil soluble friction modifiers - once called friction reducers - have been used many years by the lubricant industry. Many products made use of friction reducers:
- Automatic Transmission Fluids (ATF's or those designed for smooth clutch engagement)
- Limited Slip Gear Oils for limited slip differentials and transaxles
- Multipurpose tractor fluids for wet brakes
- engine oils

There are also many other, lesser-known products, also containing friction modifiers in the form of animal fats, vegetable oils, sulpherized olefin coplymers, and esters.

Such products made use of friction modifiers as a way to meet performance requirements calling for smooth transitions from static to dynamic conditions and vice versa, as well as for reduced squawk, chatter, noise, frictional heat and start-up torque.

In the seventies, some gear oil additives were found to reduce frictional heat and gear operating temperatures under extreme load conditions while eliminating chatter in limited slip differentials. It was thought these same additives might be used in engine oils to accomplish the same function.

The ability to reduce friction and sometimes wear, over and above that provided by the base lubricant's viscosity, has been called "oiliness" or "lubricity." However, both of the latter terms are now considered obsolete. Early experimenters found that the ability of animal or vegetable fats and acids strengthened the tenacity of the oil films when incorporated in lubricating oils. These experimenters later found that the esters of vegetable or animal esters could be synthesized and produced from alcohols and acids of basic chemical compounds; what we call today as "Group V" lubricants. Their effectiveness was often rated in terms of "film strength," an expression that still remains in use.

Much confusion has abounded in the relationship between Anti-Wear (AW) or Extreme Pressure properties, and Friction Modifiers (FM). Both friction modifiers and Anti-Wear compounds both operate in the Boundary lubrication regime. AW additives are among the type of compounds that provide good boundary lubrication. Such materials as ZDDP, sulfurized fats and esters, organometallic compounds (such as Molybdenum dithiophosphates, Molybdenum dithiocarbamates, Antimony dithiocarbamates) have shown their ability to build and maintain strong boundary lubrication films under severe load conditions and heat. However, with the exception of second-generation gear oils, the older first-generation AW additives had little FM capabilities.

The critical difference between AW/EP additive films and FM films is in their mechanical properties. AW/EP films are semiplastic deposits which are hard to shear off. Thus, under shearing conditions, their coefficient of friction is moderately to high. The exceptions are the organometallic compounds listed above. Friction modification films consist of orderly, close-packed arrays of multimolecular "whiskers," loosely adhering to each other. The outer layers are sheared-off easily, allowing for low coefficient of friction. The phenomena can be described as a deck of plastic coated playing cards lying on the table and sliding off the top card easily.

Conversely, AW/EP films work by protecting the mating metal surfaces from asperities physically gouging the opposite surface. When a hydrodynamic film of oil is ruptured, this layer of AW/EP material protects the mating surfaces from catastrophic failure.

For some sense of scale, here are some further analogies:
1. The Coefficient of Friction (CF) of unlubricated surfaces is 0.5 and higher. In physical simulation, the process resembles the resistance of dragging an irregular rock over irregular rocky ground.
2. The CF for of friction of W/EP films is about 0.1 to 0.2. In simulation, it would resemble dragging a more or less flat stone over a flat rock.
3. The CF for a friction-modified film is about 0.01 to 0.02, compared to ice skating.
4. The CF of fully fluid films in hydrodynamic lubrication is about 0.001 to 0.006 or less. It can be compared to hydroplaning.

The preferred film is of course the hydrodynamic film. This is to followed by the friction-modified mode of operation, followed by an AW/EP regime. When high speeds or low loads are present, it is easy to maintain the hydrodynamic regime. When the speed falls, however, or the load rises above a critical point, the hydrodynamic regime breaks down and then it would be very desirable to be able to glide smoothly into a friction modification mode of operation. If no friction modification has been provided, the system defaults to a AW/EP regime. So friction modification and AW/EP is a logical method to widen the range of effectiveness of the lubricating film. Friction Modification depends much on the mechanism of contact (geometry) and molecular construction of the FM.

FM's may be produced from a number of chemicals:
- long-chain carboxylic acids and their derivatives including salts,
- long-chain phosphoric or phosphonic acids and their derivatives
- long-chain amides, imides, and derivative
- specially prepared esters and esters of base oils.

Some of the acids used to make the salts or esters may be phenylstearic, stearic, oleic, heptanoic, benzoic, and sebacic.

The configuration of the molecule (molecular structure) of FM's determines how many molecules are adsorbed on the surface. The slimmer molecules make stronger films because they allow closer packing. The base oil chain length also affects the strength of the adsorbed molecule. Different FM's are required for different base oils, and the interaction of FM's with other additives have to be investigated as well. The "concentration" of FM's is important as well. But only so much concentration will prove effective. A concentration above a certain point may show no improvement, so cost/concentration/effectiveness has to be evaluated during tests.

Fuel economy formulations involving FM's have to be selected on the following basis:
- FM properties
- dosage or treatment levels
- chemistry (chlorine, phosphorous, nitrogen, boron, ester type, etc)
- toxicity
- safety in handling
- oil solubility
- effect on metals, seals, and other engine materials
- possibility of synergism or antagonism
- acidity or alkalinity
- compatibility with other additives
- raw material availability and costs
- ease and cost of manufacturing
- patent coverage.

FM's can be employed in different forms in an additive package for a specific formulation. It can be added by itself without any other function, or may be part of molecule in a detergent (such as a sulfonate) or as part of a Viscosity Improver or antioxidant.

Example of an FM/Detergent additive may be a long-chain calcium, magnesium, or sodium sulfonate, preferably one long chain of the benzene ring.

Since FM's are surface-active materials, and as such, compete with other useful additives, care must be taken in their selection and concentration in any fully formulated lubricant.

*Adapted from a paper by Papay, of the Ethyl Corporation, St. Louis, Missouri.

nycgps

iTrader: (1)

well done Jax

swoope

iTrader: (5)

tastes like chicken!!

beers

swoope

iTrader: (5)

x 2

btw, jax. look for an upcoming thread.

44k then 4oz premix. 2oz fp1.... ftw.

beers

Jax_RX8

I look forward to it

rotarygod

One oil aspect I never looked into is what is the difference between oils made for diesels vs oil made for gasoline engines? I've seen some people swear that you should use the diesel oil in gasoline engines but I've never studied why.

Jax_RX8

HDEO's (Heavy Duty Engine Oils) are really made for Diesel Engines.

Some people do use HDEO oils in gasoline engines - especially ones that are known to be very hard on oils - VW/Audi gas engines seems to need the thicker oils and have severe wear issues on the best of oils, some Subaru turbos do as well.

Key differences on HDEO's:

- most are 15W-40 (dino) or 5W40 (synthetic) for a heavier weighted oil (most diesels and some gas still require this heavier weight). There are some companies now producting 30 weight HDEO's now as some newer diesels are looking at these for fuel savings - this weight is starting to generate a lot of interest for use in gasoline engines as well.

- Most have a higher TBN (Total Base Number) - all gas and diesel engines produce acids from combustion, the "Base" neutralizes the acids formed to stop corrosion/rust in the engine. Diesel's produce much more acidity than do gasoline engines, so HDEO's usually have a higher TBN (although some high mileage normal oils designed for long Oil Change Intervals can also have a decently high TBN) - Calcium is one of the main ingredients used for this purpose.

- Antiwear ingredients - some HDEO's will have more antiwear ingredients (ZDDP, Moly, Antimoney, Boron, etc) as the internal stresses of a diesel engine are usually higher from the much higher compression ratios and many of these still use flat tappet lifters instead of roller lifters, which need barrier anitiwear additives much more

- Popular providers are Delvac (Mobil) and Rotella (Shell) for normal store shelves with AMSOIL, RL, etc. making them for mail order.


While you might assume these would be all better oils and fine to use in gas engines, there are some things to consider:

- The higher weights may not work well in your vehicle and the reduced oil flow may cause more issues than the increased viscosity's oil film/antiwear helps

- some HDEO's may have too much TBN (although unlikely), causing issues if you do not run the oil long enough for the acidity from the combustion process and oil's base to neutralize each other

- most HDEO's have more AW (anti-wear) additives such as ZDDP (Zinc/Phosphorous combo) than current SM gas oil standards allow (diesel oils follow different standards) - over time this may shorten your cat life - especially in an 8 where the oil is injected. These metallic AW additives can also cause more combustion chamber deposits over time.


Personally, I think we are fine with a high quality synthetic normal oil for our 8's. While we can have some issues from our sump oil system - this is mostly due to fuel dilution and frequent oil changes will solve this (reducing the benefit of an HDEO's anyways).

Our main wear issues are really around our apex and side seal wear from too little injected oil and carbon buildup acting like grit in the combustion chamber - premixing with good lubricant/cleaner is the only way to solve this and our sump oil choice has little effect on this.