Oil additive testing
 

I'm running a series of tests of an oil additive to try and measure the effect of engine operation. This is based upon measuring the fuel consumption of the engine at idle during warm-up and idle during cool-down. So far, I've only been looking at warm-up fuel burn.

The protocol is to start the car and shift into "N" a few seconds after the engine is running on its own. I'm using our 1.5L, NHW11 which shares the same engine as the NHW20 and AutoEnginuity to record the data:
http://hiwaay.net/%7Ebzwilson/prius/warm-up_010.jpg
The key data are: coolant temperature, engine rpm, ignition timing and mass air flow (MAF). There are four useful records:

#2 - 0W-20, Mobil 1, 8k service miles, 2 quarts were drained including filter
#3 - 5W-30, Mobil 1, 0 service miles, 2.5 quarts were added
#4 - 5W-30, Mobil 1, ~150 service miles
#5 - 5W-30, Mobil 1, ~150 service miles, added 8 oz additive and 8 oz of 0W-20 to rinse container

One unexpected result is two tests starting under 12C changed the ignition timing from 10 to 5 degrees about 660 seconds into the test. In contrast, two tests were the starting temperatures above 20C kept the ignition at 10 degrees. This suggests at colder temperatures the spark is retarded which would increase the exhaust gas temperature because less work is extracted from expansion stroke. But we are interested in the oil additive.

The next charts compare the new oil versus the same oil with the oil additive:
http://hiwaay.net/%7Ebzwilson/prius/warm-up_020.jpg
There was an offset in the spark reduction to 10 degrees offset due to the 11C difference in starting temperature. Furthermore, as the engine ran, the lower heat loss due to warmer ambient temperature means then engine warmed up a little faster.

Increasing the Y-scale, show nearly identical MAF profiles except at the end where the virgin oil suggests a slightly lower fuel consumption compared to the same oil treated:
http://hiwaay.net/%7Ebzwilson/prius/warm-up_030.jpg
However, the oil additive instructions report that the additive takes a while to coat the metal surfaces and it suspends gunk and varnish:

"If used when you change your oil, simply add with any premium oil. If used between oil changes, add to engine at least 1,000 miles before your next oil change. This will ensure sufficient time for boundary layer formation and bonding. Add directly to crankcase when the engine is warm, then run engine approximately five minutes."

"This treatment will remove sludge and varnish from your engine. When used in engines with over 100,000 miles, change the oil and replace the oil filter after 1,000 miles to eliminate these contaminants from your engine." - additive instructions on side of box

To investigate this further, the time line was offset so the first ICE rpm drop starts at the same time reference:
http://hiwaay.net/%7Ebzwilson/prius/warm-up_040.jpg
The plateau of the ICE coolant occurs when the thermostat opens up allowing the rest of the coolant to flow through the engine block. Once all coolant is at the same temperature, warm-up continues.

Changing the Y-axis scale, we see the ignition advance change occurs concurrent with the engine rpm reduction:
http://hiwaay.net/%7Ebzwilson/prius/warm-up_050.jpg

Again, increasing the Y-scale, the MAF lines are all but on top of each other:
http://hiwaay.net/%7Ebzwilson/prius/warm-up_060.jpg
There is no evidence that treating the oil had an effect during a cold-start, warm-up. This raises a question of whether or not we could detect any difference in oil friction effects.

To test the test, we compared the 0W-20, 8k service miles to the virgin, 5W-30 oil. Changing the time scale to align inflection points, we find a consistent gap between the used and new oil during warm-up:
http://hiwaay.net/%7Ebzwilson/prius/warm-up_070.jpg
This data set provided ~2,400 samples showing the lower fuel consuming 0W-20 with 8k service miles versus the stock, 5W-30 with 0 service miles.

Mapping the relative ratios we find the 0W-20 has about a 2% reduction in fuel consumption versus new 5W-30:
http://hiwaay.net/%7Ebzwilson/prius/warm-up_080.jpg
Good Prius friend, David Kelly, found a reference that 0W-20 has about 2% lower internal friction than 5W-30.

The oil additive instructions require 1,000 service miles before a second oil change to remove the varnish and gunk it releases from older engines. At that point, it should have coated the moving parts with a low friction layer. But 1,000 miles exceeds the tank capacity of our NHW11 so I'll have to run gas reference tests before and after each tank. Otherwise, there is a risk of measuring a change in winter-summer gas energy content and not the oil additive effect. Also, I didn't add the oil to a 'hot' engine so I may use the second oil change to add the remaining 8 oz.

Bob Wilson

I'm going to be "testing" Motorsilk in auto trans...engine...and gas maybe this month. As you mention...the additive is supposed to be added to a warm engine in new oil and run for at least 5 minutes? Considering the cost...I'll be using a flush in the old oil and changing in new oil and filter...then driving around for an hour or so after adding it.

If you have a higher mileage engine (over 100K)...they recommend changing out the oil filter after so many miles...saving and then re-adding this oil...if you think the filter might be getting clogged....but not putting in new oil which removes the additive.

If I were to test with the data you're getting....I'd test vs the same weight and brand of oil and give the additive a few K miles to deposit itself before testing. And I'd compare GPH after warm up.

* saw your testing protocols after posting this...I just do "cumulative mpg testing"...I try stuff I think might work and see if my mpg gets better....none of that A-B-A stuff for me....

A bit of a joke, perhaps you might wait until the fall to run your test? The reason is as the cold weather arrives, an effective lubricant will mitigate the temperature and gasoline change.

Actually it maps back to my first Prius bought in October 2005. My earliest studies in fuel efficiency occurred in the late fall and early winter. Talk about a challenge!

What I did was top off the tank twice a week, Friday evening and Sunday evening. This allowed me to separate commuting-style driving versus weekend-style driving. Then I could quantify various effects and know what worked and didn't work:
http://hiwaay.net/~bzwilson/prius/epa.jpg

Bob Wilson

Well...I'd rather test stuff when the weather is getting warmer and they switch to summer gas (end of April?). ;)

I'm doing the Motorsilk in the auto trans along with flushing in new synth ATF...having already done a partial flush with regular ATF from the original ATF with over 100K miles on it. Not exactly controlled testing. But I'm doing all this as much for longevity as mpg gain.

Through all this my driving at least remains more or less consistent...keeping revs around 1750 to 2000 for the most part. Top speeds 45 to 50. With the auto...you see an mpg jump when it shifts into 4th at 40 mph and locks up.

Seeing the nasty effects of too many stop signs and slow downs for curves etc....so maybe I just quit stopping and slowing down? :thumbup: Not real likely....too easy to get t-boned.

I'm hoping to see a gradual avg mpg gain and a stable tank to tank avg of + 35 mpg this summer. Indications are a possible 40 mpg at 45-50 highway.

Interesting graph you have...but what is the part about draining a qt of oil...did you test overfilling by one qt? Or under filling?

In my crude way I was trying to point out that if one wants to show any oil additive (or any other technique or technology) in the worst way, simply schedule the test to coincide with the cold or cooling weather(*). To show them in the best light, test in warmer than a standard day or warming weather.

The reason why I spend so much time in testing methodology is to eliminate these climate effects. I really want to know what is reality, not which way the weather blows.
. . .

When we change oil, some of it remains inside the oil pan and other galleries. But once the new oil is put in, this undrained oil mixes with the new and changes the characteristics from virgin to a mix of virgin and used oil.

What I've done is take three samples with these known quantities:

#1 - old oil, drained 2 quarts
#2 - virgin oil
#3 - added oil, 2.5 quarts, before treatment

I'll get back three oil analysis with about two dozen metrics. Then using partial fractions, I can calculate what percentage was left in the engine:

X#3 = (n-1)*X#1 + (n)*X#2

I don't know how much old oil remains in the engine after it is drained but by having three samples, I can calculate the percentage of old to new oil. The only fly in the ointment is the potential of a gunk layer in the bottom of the oil pan. I have certainly seen that in my transaxle oil testing.

I am seriously thinking about dropping and cleaning the engine pan on the next, 1,000 mile change. But I'll have to get a sealant and scrape off the old sealant and that takes time. Still, doing it once every +100,000 miles, sounds like a small enough price to pay.

Bob Wilson

* - Auto magazines did this by trying to run the Prius and other cars in the dead of winter. The "Green Human" faux test tried it too with an 8,000 mile, highway driving test from Maine to Washington State drive only to find at best, a tie. The mileage reported, 40 MPG, indicates they weren't really respecting the speed limit.

Bob, my question is the characteristics of the multi viscosity oil. My understanding is the chemical additive to the oil will change the viscosity as temperature increases. Also this chemical will break down as it is used repeatedly. In this case taking a 0 weight oil to a 20 weight. But as noted, with 8K usage, the chemical break down could effectively be leaving the oil weight at a lower weight than the designed target of 20 weight when at operating temperature.

How are you taking this into effect? Are you measuring the viscosity of the oil at temp? Is the difference really a viscosity comparison of less than 20 to 30 weight? That would not be giving the additive a chance, would it?

This is great information as I'll be applying your findings to my oil choices, no doubt.

These are excellent questions:
My reading of the literature (Machinery Lubrication and a Nora Handbook) says that there are viscosity range extenders. These molecules curl or straighten as the temperature changes to extend the viscosity range. However, they are subject to 'shear stress' that over time chops them up.

That is exactly why I send my oil samples off for testing and pay extra for a 40C and 100C viscosity test. This also gives a viscosity index. Sad to say, not every oil testing service (aka., Blackstone) offers the two-temperature, viscosity test. Ask before sending off your samples.

I needed to know if my test protocol was sensitive enough to detect a change yet I also knew the additive in addition to claimed friction reduction also put a lot of varnish and gunk back in suspension. Suspended varnish and gunk is the liquid equivalent of smoke and increases friction. I am not expecting to see a measurable engine friction reduction until after the second change (and possibly pan cleaning.)

So to test my test, I compared 0W-20 with 8k service miles versus new, 5W-30 and found a measurable, 2% reduction in fuel burn. But it turns out I will also be conducting progressive measurements to monitor any gasoline effects.

This morning I left the NHW11 at home so it will warm-up during the day. By the time I get home, it should be in the mid-70s so my warm-up test will give good data. I will then fill-up the tank and drive enough to burn out the gas in the lines and park the car until tomorrow when I'll repeat the warm-up test.

You are welcome and that is what I so admire about Ecomodder, applied science.

Bob Wilson

I can appreciate serious testing, but don't have the patience for it myself.

Some time ago A guy who repaired and modified a lot of Nissan vehicles was using ZMAX additive in engines as a cleaner...he found that there was some serious risk of sludging up the engine using this additive to the point he recommended pulling the pan to clean it and the screen.

I think Motorsilk might do something of the same thing, but I'm too lazy to pull the pan...but will run a quart of Gunk 5-minute engine flush for 10-15 minutes idling before changing the oil and adding the additive...and will probably spring for another filter after maybe 1K miles or so...and finish out at least 3K on the additive.

Seems that some people who have used MS find it takes some time to see an mpg gain...due to the sludge released?

My approach is to use lighter weight oils and use extra additives to try and make up for any loss of lubricity.

A very timely post:

http://hiwaay.net/~bzwilson/prius/warm-up_090.jpg

This is the last of the previous tank of gas and initially the warm-up idle MAF rate at ~2.6 gm/sec, nearly 40% higher, compared to ~2.1 gm/sec looked terrible:

http://hiwaay.net/~bzwilson/prius/warm-up_100.jpg
http://hiwaay.net/~bzwilson/prius/warm-up_070.jpg

But I also noticed the engine rpm did not drop to under 1,000 rpm as it had in previous tests. I was pretty quick in shifting into "N" and this may have had an effect on the idle speed. Regardless, the cool-down MAF rate, ~1.9 gm/sec, this is much closer to earlier observations.

If I had just gone by the fuel consumption and not paid attention to the ICE rpm, I might have aborted the test thinking varnish/sludge effects. I'm still going to be watching this closely but I'm not quite as concerned as the initial data suggested.

I have to run another test this afternoon. This time I'll give the car a few more seconds before shifting into "N" and repeating my earlier drive.

Bob Wilson

I cleaned the pan and put in a new filter and flushed in in 6 qts synth ATF and the 10 oz of MS trans additive.

Old ATF was still dirty even after dropping the pan 2xs previous and around 3 qts regular ATF added each time...along with a filter the first time.

The MS additive had no solids in it...looked like thin ATF...no need to shake it. Might be like the Lubegard ATF additive?

As far as the engine sludge with ZMAX...he showed pics of one engine....as I remember it was a heavy sludge in the bottom of the pan...with some partially blocking the pickup screen. But I think this was a turbo engine. I'm doubting that na engines that don't typically have a problem with sludging will have too much of an issue....at least I hope not. Some Hondas might be an exception?

So...how goes the testing? I'll be waiting till next month to do the MS in the engine...want to put some miles on my last oil change.

Here is a pic of auto trans fluids after dropping the pan, cleaning/new filter. 1st is original ATF after over 100K miles...2nd is after running only a few hundred more miles and redoing the pan only...third is after 1500 miles during a full flush/new filter...this final batch of ATF still was gunky and had metal fines in it that could be seen in the sun....it was at least 2/3s new ATF.

http://www.nonags.org/members/nijqk/ZX3DirtyATF.JPG

New synth ATF plus the MS additive. I also added a large neo magnet on the outside of the trans pan in addition to the OEM ceramic one inside it.

Mechanically...I think engine assemblies can take more abuse than most give them credit for...though ancillary components like the O2s might not?

As far as the sludge being loosened up and causing problems...I think it isn't an issue of circulating gums and varnishes...it's the potential blocking of the pickup screens...mostly seen with turbos that run hot?

The additive requires 1,000 miles before a second oil and filter change to remove the trapped and suspended varnish and gunk. The challenge is I had not stored two tanks, 20 gallons of gasoline, to keep the fuel constant.

Given the variation in ethanol and refinery output, gasoline does not have a constant, heat energy. Worse, this is the time refineries switch from a winter to summer blend and the gas station tanks are just a mix during the transition. So my next best alternative is to measure the change in fuel energy with each tank and use the accumulated offsets to adjust between the pre-treatment and post-treatment engine fuel consumption.

Two warm-up cycles were completed including a drive and cool-down. The series #6 is the last of the first tank and series #7 is the first of the new tank after 10-15 miles to replace the fuel in the gas lines.

The first chart shows the data adjusted so the end of "N" occurs on the right edge:
http://hiwaay.net/~bzwilson/prius/warm-up_110.jpg

By careful timing, the starting temperatures were identical but the shift from "N" to "D" was not well controlled. However, when the thermostat opens at ~85C, there is a notch and plateau while the rest of the engine coolant keeps the engine at a constant, operating temperature:
http://hiwaay.net/~bzwilson/prius/warm-up_120.jpg

Close examination shows the thermostat opening is an excellent candidate for a constant temperature state to use for fuel rate measurement:
http://hiwaay.net/~bzwilson/prius/warm-up_130.jpg

We can see the fuel burn rate plateaus at these point:
http://hiwaay.net/~bzwilson/prius/warm-up_140.jpg

So using my old eyes:

2.75 gm/sec - 1st tank, MAF rate
2.71 gm/sec - 2nd tank, MAF rate

(2.75 - 2.71) / 2.75 = 1.46% higher energy of second tank gas

I'll have to do the same calculation between the 2nd and 3d tanks . . . in about 450-500 miles or another three weeks. Then I'll have to wait to the end of the 3d tank to do the last oil change and consolidate all of the data.

One good side effect is now I have a much easier protocol to evaluate relative gasoline energy content than the earlier, hill climb tests used two years ago. Unlike the hill climb tests that run the engine at peak power levels, these tests are not affected by relative octane ratings.

Bob Wilson

In this general area about all gas comes from the same refinery...except for the additives that might be different? I have tested gas for ethanol content by adding some water and shaking a graduated cylinder to get it "dissolved" into the water....works...crudely. Can't find non-ethanol laced gas near here though.

Rereading the instructions...I guess they do say that a max of 1K miles is needed to bond the boron...though it sort of goes against the grain to change it again after 1K miles. But if it does loosen up some gunk...probably a good idea to get it out.

With that sort of accurate and detailed testing...I think you should test some fuel additives? I had good luck recently using Techron....but only saw an mpg gain using about 1/2 to 1/4 the concentration they call for...after using the higher concentration though. Would be interesting to see if Techron or other additives are adding "energy content". Hard to distinguish between "increased energy content" and "increased lubricity" and "decreased gunk drag" (new term ;)) in some cases?

Gasohol vs straight gasoline...regular vs premuim?

Or better yet...the MS fuel system additive. Easy for me to say....:rolleyes:

Since I have the means to measure gasoline characteristics, I've given up on discussions of gasoline sources other than the specific station and pump. I always use the Shell station, 11900 Memorial Parkway, Huntsville, AL. During my hill-climb studies, I used different brand name stations but always the same station since the local tanks would have unique batch history ... the combination of fills. Beyond that, speculation is not as useful as metrics. <grins>

A couple of years ago, I bought a hydrometer and graduated cylinder to measure gasoline density but I could not find a correlation with energy content from the hill-climb data. The hill-climb data was repeatable over different samples from different stations.

That is what attracted me to this particular additive, the chemical bonding to the metal surface. This also explains why more of the varnish and gunk would go into suspension. We're doin' chemistry in the engine.

In contrast, the other additives require either pre-treatment before assembly, use during assembly or some non-trivial percentage within the oil. Change the oil and the additive is diluted to non-existence. Each change requires more additive.

In testing, we like to hold as many variables constant and have only one change. That is why finding the 'notch and plateau' when the thermostat opens has been such a lucky find.

BTW, I did a Shell ethanol test against straight gas last year, Pure, both 93 and 87 octane, and the Shell 87 came out better. This is not surprising as two years ago, Shell, Chevron and Exxon 87 tested better than Citgo, Texaco and BP and Shell and Texaco. I also tested 91/93 octane and found a measurable effect at high power settings, as would be expected. But the increase in spark advance did not equal what the higher energy, 87 octane gas was doing.

Bob Wilson

I've messed around with a lot of different oil additives from moly that is also supposed to "plate" surfaces, but needs to be re-added each oil change. To Tufoil which has a good rep...but is not permanent. Teflon.

Have also used Militec...and did an "experiment" with it where I had a failing bearing in an old vacuum that screeched (dry)...tried lightweight oil...gear oil...grease...moly....teflon....none of which lasted long...then added some Militec....does not last forever...but much longer than anything else I tried. Militec uses chlorinated hydrocarbons...many are afraid of these. :rolleyes: Several other "clones" of this type of additive out there.

Several years ago I was on a forum where a guy from Malaysia was adding regular boric acid to his motor oil...manual trans...diff and claiming good results...I was too chicken to try this.

Once owned a 280ZX where I had additives in the full drive train and saw around an 8-10% mpg gain...I was changing the engine oil every 3K...one time using Teflon...the next moly...the next Militec...etc. Back way before gas prices went up.

So in my experience...additives work...though I'm not so sure they've all paid for themselves. But if you mention additive use on forums...you can get some strong reactions. :eek:

I suspect that with the MS...the formulation is made to intentionally clean the engine surfaces to allow the boron to bond. You can get some interesting info on bobistheoilguy.com...but not much due to the proprietary nature of lube products....those who know don't talk...those who don't...do. So I should just shut up? ;-)

I was not aware of these, thanks!

I certainly enjoy the conversation!

As for forums, it remains something of a hard problem. On one extreme are the sociopathic SPAMMERs; then those with an "Ox to gore;" a larger pool of regular folks who want to learn and share, and then; those precious few who seem "obsessive compulsive" about finding out what is real. Herding cats seems easier than keeping some sense of order and polite behavior.

Ten years ago, I participated in a Unitarian, USENET group that had a 'robot moderator.' Using simple pattern matching, it automatically handled those who came to tell us we were all going to h*ll. Having been a moderator and currently one at MyHybridCar, I've learned more about member and even moderator behavior than I ever wanted to know. In fact, I had to 'fire' one web forum site which has had the happy effect of giving me more time 'in the lab.' <grins>

I enjoy sharing my results and answering questions because without fail, I often learn something not known before. But as long as folks 'play nice' with a sense of humor, I'm a happy camper.

Bob Wilson

LATE THOUGHT:
I'm saving copies of the source data, CSV format, in the YahooGroup, "Prius_Technical_Stuff" in an open, shared, data folder. I'm not sure how Ecomodder prefers to handle data sharing and I'm not a great fan of using 'attached files' as they tend to get 'lost'. I'm not pimping the other site as much as sharing where folks can find the source data for these charts. <wink>

ORIGINAL THOUGHT:
We had a side conversation and we agreed to share this:
What I'll eventually have is:

• fuel burn rate - baseline oil before treatment
• % - 2nd tank vs 1st tank
• % - 3d tank vs 2nd tank
• fuel burn rate - baseline oil change after 1,000 miles
• raw % - post 1000 miles vs baseline oil (raw!)
• net % - sum of three percentages (adjusted for gasoline effects)

When I have the numbers, I'll have to be very careful about the signs but the math is fairly simple. But here is a simple example.

2.6 gm/sec - baseline oil burn rate
2.6 gm/sec - after 1000 mile change burn rate
0% = (2.6-2.6) / 2.6 :: no change in fuel burn rate

2.7 gm/sec - 1st tank burn rate
2.8 gm/sec - 2nd tank burn rate (fuel has less energy so more is burned)

-3.57% = (2.8 - 2.7) / 2.8 :: 2nd tank has -3.57% energy

So if the ending fuel burn at the end of the oil test is the same but the gas has -3.57% less energy, then there was a reduction in drag of -3.57% due to the oil additive. . . .

I admit sharing this thought. If something is so dang good, it would make sense to have the manufacturer put it in.

Sad to say but the recent tornadoes in North Alabama meant my 03 Prius had to revert to house-power inverter mode and I was not able to do another tank-to-tank energy test. This means I'll only be able to report "gross" engine efficiency changes.

I won't be able to report a specific friction/energy change because the potential friction reduction is in the same order of magnitude as different gasolines. I had to use a gallon from the neighbor and another gallon left over from my last fuel studies, 93 octane stuff.

Sorry, events beyond my control,
Bob Wilson

Too bad...but at least you have enough long term mpg data that you might do some comparison...additive vs none?

My wife's 2010 Prius is another candidate and we're coming up on 20k. But I'd like to do my testing after the 3 yr/ 36k mile warranty expires. I don't want to risk a warranty potentially worth thousands to test someone else's oil additive. <grins>

Bob Wilson

Having throughly looked at the data and followed the vendor's recommended instructions, my observations are:

• oil change particle reduction - there is strong evidence that changing the oil substantially reduces engine fuel consumption, ~2.07 gm/sec MAF.
• boron CLS - appears to accelerate suspension of particle suspension and increased drag, ~2.25 gm/sec.

I can find no evidence of direct friction reduction of boron CLS without taking extra steps to reduce particle suspension. The boron CLS appears to increase particle suspension and engine friction.

I am planning to drop the engine pan and throughly clean out all accessible places. This should also substantially reduce the ~25% carry forward of old oil. Then retest to see if engine idle friction is reduced.

Bob Wilson

Here is the data in graphical format:
http://hiwaay.net/~bzwilson/prius/warm-up_150.jpg
One additional observation is how the existing gunk in the engine can so quickly reduce the effect of an oil change. In effect, the 25% carry forward and engine pan material quickly brings the new oil to the same friction level as the old, particle loaded oil.

Bob Wilson

Very interesting to say the least. Looks like my use of Pure One filters and running a pint of kerosene in the oil before each change are at least going in the right direction? My idea of letting the oil changes go for 7K isn't.

I will be adding the Motorsilk myself in a few hundred miles.

Maybe this is the way to go?

AMSOIL By-Pass Filter Bypass Installations

So...I'd like to see what happens when you've changed the oil again at zero miles and after a few K miles WITH the boron treatment.

And I'm wondering about a cost/efficiency comparison between changing dino oil every 3K vs changing synth oil every 5-7K.

And also the effect of using a commercial oil flush (Gunk) at each oil change?

Looks like you've got a LOT of testing to do! :thumbup:

Just kidding.

Nice to see some real data instead of opinions and opinions about opinions.

Thanks! The commitment to empirical testing is what attracted me to Ecomodder and requires a disciplined life.

In the case of engine oil additives, I wanted to know what is going on. Unlike other additives, the science behind boron CLS (aka., boric acid) is backed by Argonne Labs research. It looked to be the first oil additive that due to the chemical action would remain after the first treatment and not get flushed out. But I knew my 2003 Prius, 138k mile Prius, would be a challenge.

I still need to look at the oil testing metrics, particle and material, to see if there is a correlation with observed engine friction. I had particle counts performed as well as the standard oil test and these may provide a pattern, a template, to indicate the state of the engine oil.

Engine oil pans were once easily removed because they used a gasket but the 1.5L Prius oil pan is 'sealed'. To drop the pan, I'll need sealant and tools to remove the old sealant. When I drop the pan, I'll try to capture and quantify the amount of gunk removed. I just wish there were a practical way to make a real gasket instead of having to apply a bead of sealant. Then cleaning the oil pan like I do now with the transaxle, would be more practical.

What really irritates me is how little we know about the oil filters beyond the advertisements. Here is a part that is designed to pass all of the oil and the natural home for a micro-filtration trap. But no micro-filtration trap is going to remove a layer of gunk that I suspect is in my engine.

In my minds eye and soon enough, camera lense, is probably a layer of gunk several millimeters thick and hundreds of square centimeters wide, the area of the oil pan. It may be that the best practice is to have the oil pan dropped and cleaned either as a result of some threshold from oil testing or 100-150k miles.

Bob Wilson

The auto trans on my car had the same thing...silicone was used to seal the pan on. I found a rubber gasket for it and can remove it when needed.

You might find an aftermarket gasket for your oil pan...or...make one from sheets of gasket material? The heavy paper type would work if you would glue it on the block using say the Permatex red non-hardening gasket goop...then cover the pan lip with a good layer of moly bearing grease....should be removable. Main thing is to not overtighten them...once the rim of the pan is bent...it's hard to get them to seal right again.

One other thing I do is add a strong neo magnet (1"x1/2"x2" approx) to the outside of the oil filter to help catch steel particles...probably the worst of the stuff causing extra friction? Also one on the outside of the pan near the drain opening?

The gummy sludge is probably best removed by using a flush between oil changes? I've also heard of people pouring a qt of kerosene thru the engine after draining the oil to help flush it.

Ideally...a synth oil drained every 3K would be best for mpg...but might get expensive? The multipass fine filtration might be less expensive on the longer run? Both might pay for themselves in fuel saved????

You've offered a lot of brain food to consider. However, I'm looking at the quantitative effect:

(2.1-2.3)/2.3 = 89% or -11% friction reduction fuel savings

I'm running a little over 50 MPG so I could be looking at 55.5 MPG.

My thinking is I want to do one maximum, engine oil system cleaning to remove the bulk gunk and residual material. Then I want an effective capture system for new material, especially the small stuff, that supports effective removal without costing a mint. So this is what I'm thinking:

• Reusable K&R filter, S9 - uses a micro machined, stainless steel trap, not filter paper, in an aluminum billet. Comes with a built-in magnet, $140.
• loose weave, carbon fiber and glass fiber mat - layered over the bottom of the oil pan with an oil-tight, electrical connection. The layers are arranged so a high-voltage between them electrostaticly attracts and fixes suspended material. Since it is a large surface area at the lowest gravitational point, it complements the forced filter and over time, loads up with the smaller debris and gunk. Monitoring the leakage current indicates the relative load.

I don't mind dropping the pan every 5+ years to remove the fine material and using a reusable filter that should easily cost less than disposable filters.

Bob Wilson

Has any reading been done over on - Bob is the Oil Guy Some points or questions above I've seen discussed over the past eight years over there. There is some quite good stuff on oil filter material, construction and "action". There may be some noise to filter out (sheer number of threads), but one can get a good start by reading through the posts & articles by "Molakule". (And others: GeorgeCLS, Johnny, Haas, etc.) No one may be the guru, but there may be considerations raised that are of benefit.

The early days of "Bob is the Oil Guy" showed promise but the last time I was there, I got the impression they'd been captured by product advocates. I could be wrong but the signal-to-noise ratio was too low for my tastes. Regardless, I'll take another peek.

Bob Wilson

I agree with the assessment. Still, some of the other questions (products) may have already been "answered" to some degree.

I finally got around to adding the particle counts to this chart:
http://hiwaay.net/~bzwilson/prius/warm-up_150.jpg
I didn't have much luck finding similar data at 'Bob is the oil guy' and I think that has to do with the charter here versus there.

As MetroMPG pointed out, Ecomodder is a place for those who use empirical methods. So to report on oil additive effects, we needed:

• engine friction metric - it does no good to funk-up the oil if there is no way to tell if it had a measurable effect. I seriously think measuring idle fuel consumption when the thermostat opens is new.
• quantitive measurements - not just after the change but after a significant number of service miles to see what the carry forward and accumulated gunk did. Old Bob was good about measuring oil but his engine friction effect metrics were a little thin.

I've got a full-up account over there and may yet post a report of this work. But I'm not just interested in lubrication but whole vehicle performance. I'll have to think about it.

Bob Wilson

I'm wondering if maybe the reason boron works to reduce friction (if it does) is that it factors out the remaining particulates/sludge by depositing the boron oxide layers on the metal parts?

Looks like it will be very difficult to remove most remaining particulates...since the engine continues to produce them? Running a good fuel additive like Techron at 2 oz/10G might help keep this down?

The theory backed up by Argonne Labs analysis is the boric acid forms a plainar surface that provides layers on the exposed surfaces. But the bottom layer is chemically attached to the underlying metal surface. However, I could find nothing describing the effects of existing gunk and varnish on the boric surface formation or more importantly, imperfections that may be fixed by the boric acid layers.

Certainly, my few data points suggest the detergent effects of boric acid appears to lift previously deposited, fine material back into suspension and into the oil film between the rubbing surfaces.

If I had to do it all over again, I would start by draining the oil and throughly cleaning every exposed surface. Then reassemble and do the motorsilk treatment. But now I have to deal with the engine as it is.

My plan is to:

1. bench test layer traps - one is a passive, loose weave fiberglass mat with the edges epoxy sealed and washed to remove loose fibers. The other is a layered fiber mat with electrostatic charged, particulate trap.
2. drop pan, install pan liner trap and gasket - this will be the operational test.

As for motorsilk, I can draw no conclusions from this test. The residual gunk and varnish has made it impossible to measure any improvement.

Bob Wilson

Motorsilk & Boron

More

I don't see much beyond this. But it doesn't mean that a PM or two might not dig up some referential material or procedures useful to your study. It would certainly garner interest over there (and, like the amateur interpretations of UOA's, ought to be "fun").

.

Hi,

I think there is merit in your suggestion. Certainly, no harm in starting a thread and seeing if there is any interest. But first to find out if there are limits on first time, posters.

Bob Wilson

In the spirit of jumping in with both feet...I bought the MS engine oil...gas treatment...and the ATF treatment....a while back.

On this page are more specific instructions on how much additive to use....

http://www.altboron.com/tech_data/tech_bulletin.html

I've already used the ATF treatment at 10 oz...while it seems that 7 oz would have been sufficient....at 1 oz / qt. No biggie.

As far as the gas treatment...the bottle says to use 16 oz per 20 gallon tank every 5K miles...which translates into ~ 10 oz / 13.2 gallon tank every 5K miles...but following the PDF it looks like ~ 1.3 oz per 10 gallons is the preferred dose....which I might use since I already have been using Techron Concentrate at 2 oz / 10 gallons. (won't use both) Since I've already used the Techron for a while I'm thinking the smaller dose of MS will be more effective over time.

Engine treatment is much like the ATF...a full bottle a bit too much but OK.

I appreciate all the hard work you two have done in sharing. I think this is a very important thing to prolong, and improve the "hearts" of our vehicles!

Before I found this post, I recently started Does anyone add Slickness to their oil? in the Central Ecomodder section, and practically ran into hate mail!

I surmise that most of the detractors had very new vehs. w low miles, and felt quality oil was all they needed.

Well: some of us bought our vehicles used, w high miles, and are willing to try to help our beasts live well as long as possible.

I cringe a little, because the prior owner of the best motorcycle I have owned, thought it fine to run just average Joe "CAR MOTOR OIL" in it!!

So, some of us are trying additives in the similar way a trainer is trying to help a 30# over weight person get back in the groove!

P.S. FYI: I know not to slick the motorcycle;... the above example had different reference!

Hi,

Please do not cast stones or make idle speculation about others:
I'd like to suggest Ecomodder is a great place for experimenters, those who modify and instrument their vehicles and try to measure the effect. Sad to say, there is a lot of FUD about oil additives and the results of my testing are to make no recommendation about the one I tested. An experiment is not that the modification was done but whether or not a measurable change occurred.

In this case, my best measurements indicate other effects completely mask any benefit of boron CLS. So I can not recommend it over straight Mobil 1 motor oil. However, the other effects suggests follow-up testing that may have a sustained and measurable improvement:

• <10 micro particle reduction - the rapid increase in fuel consumption proportional to particle load is evident. I have some ideas that I will test in Petri dish experiments before trying them in the car. But I can recommend dropping the oil pan and cleaning every exposed bottom surface to mechanically remove the gunk and accumulated debris.
• thermal effects - I have the option of replacing the 82C thermostat with an 88C unit but just dropping in the part without measurement of the effect is not enough.

This is how we find out what works or doesn't work.

One of the sad things about oils and oil additives are the number of transparently . . . 'optimistic' claims that are made. It is one reason why I didn't do this test for quite some time and have no intention of testing other oils and additives. I don't fault others who want to experiment provided they bring some metrics. But Lord love a Duck, we don't need an echo chamber for 'optimistic' claims made by 3d parties who may make their living from product sales.

So let's look at your resources:

• Do you have some way to measure the effects?
• Are you prepared to spend $20 per sample to quantify the oil in the crank case?
• Can you step back from the product and do the heavy lifting, to find out?

This is how I approach the spirit of Ecomodder, the experimenter's approach.

Bob Wilson

From reading some of the online "research"...it looks like a lot of the claimed benefits for MS involve diesels...high particulates for sure. For cleaner burner gas engines...maybe not so much of a gain?

Possible that higher mileage gas engines with much accumulated crud might benefit almost as much?

As for the fuel additive...I'm hoping it is at least as effective as the Techron....maybe more effective if it keeps the injectors freer. People report mpg gains from using it.

For the auto trans...maybe Lubegard has more serious recommendations behind it and from people who repair trans.

At 12 K miles/yr and $3.50/G and a 5% mpg gain...it might take me two years to recoup my costs for the MS additives. And even if there is no mpg gain...I expect some longevity gain espec for the auto trans...with all those borate esters coating the over worn steel gears. ;)

A lot of this is conjecture....which seems to be the world I live in. :thumbup:

* Having reviewed the various MS sites...I have a renewed belief that I will see SOME mpg gains....though I doubt that I will be able to document them.

Finally got the Motorsilk engine additive put in. Ran the Gunk engine flush for 10 mins with a hot engine. (calls for 5 mins from a cold start). Used 14 oz in an engine that holds 4.5 qts. MS additive looks like milk....needs to be shaken.

Will run for 1K miles or so and then change oil again.

Also using the MS gas additive at 1.3 oz/10 G.

MS auto trans additive is oil colored and had no visible sediments.

I used the last of the DEXRON VI in my engine to clean the engine oil passages (i hear it works well) Last change di you think it night be good to try?