Part I:

Advice:
The trouble with oil additives
by Phil Bailey

If you go for a stroll down the aisle of your favourite automobile parts store, you know, the one with the big red inverted triangle outside, you will find over fifty different types of engine oil additives being offered.

Of course, there are also additives for your gas tank, your transmission, your power steering and your radiator and there is enough meat on this bone to justify a second article about the rest, but for the moment, let's concentrate on the big one: engine oil additives.

Andy Granatelli knew he was onto a good thing back in the sixties, when he created his famous oil thickening device, STP. From the way it flew off the shelves, he KNEW that the good old boys out there were convinced that the big oil companies and their pet chemists, didn't know didly about engine lubrication. They knew, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that they could second guess these highly paid professional chemists by pouring one kind of snake oil or another into their engines. So it came to pass that Granatelli became a multi millionaire and every one else climbed onto the bandwagon.

First of all, if you check the fine print on the boxes or tins, quite a number of the additives originate from the same manufacturers. Also, you will see, that the additives could be separated into four basic categories that seemed to carry the same ingredients and the same wonderful promises. There are products that are nothing more than regular engine oil with PTFE (Teflon TM ) added. There are products that are nothing more than regular engine oil with zinc dialkyldithiophosphate added. Thirdly, there are products containing the same additives that are already found in most major brands of engine oil, though in different quantities and combinations. And finally, there are products made up primarily of solvents and/or detergents. So let's look at each of these categories separately and then summarise what we know, or aren't told about engine oil additives.

TEFLON (the much abused and often illegally used name that belongs solely to DuPont Corporation).
Currently, the most over promoted and over sold oil additives on the market are those that contain PTFE powders suspended in a regular mineral or synthetic engine oil. PTFE is the common abbreviation used for Polytetrafloeraethylene, more commonly known by the trade name "Teflon," which is a registered trademark of the DuPont Chemical Corporation. Among those oil additives containing PTFE are: Slick 50, Lubrilon, Microlon, and Petrolon (same company as Slick 50). There are probably other names in use on many more products using PTFE.

Oil additive makers like to market their products under a multitude of brand names. While some of these products may contain other additives in addition to PTFE, all seem to rely on the PTFE as their primary active ingredient and all, without exception, do not list what other ingredients they may contain. Though they have won wide acceptance among the motoring public, oil additives containing PTFE have also become the target of very aggressive criticism among experts in the field of lubrication.

By far the most damning testimonial against these products originally came from the DuPont Chemical Corporation, inventor of PTFE and holder of the patents and trademarks for Teflon. In a statement issued about fifteen years ago, DuPont's Fluoropolymers Division Product Specialist, J.F. Imbalzano said, "Teflon is not useful as an ingredient in oil additives or oils used for internal combustion engines."

DuPont threatened legal action against anyone who used the name "Teflon" on any oil product destined for use in an internal combustion engine, and refused to sell its PTFE powders to any one who intended to use them for such purposes. After a blizzard of lawsuits from oil additive makers, claiming DuPont could not prove that PTFE was harmful to engines, DuPont was forced to once again begin selling their PTFE to the additive producers. The additive makers claim this is some kind of "proof" that their products work, when in fact it is nothing more than proof that the legal ethic of "innocent until proven guilty" is still alive and well. The decision against Dupont involved what is called "restraint of trade." You can't refuse to sell a product to someone just because there is a possibility they might use it for a purpose that you do not approve of.

It should be noted that DuPont's official position on the use of PTFE in engine oils remains carefully aloof and noncommittal, for obvious legal reasons. DuPont states that though they sell PTFE to oil additive producers, they have "no proof of the validity of the additive makers' claims." They further state that they have "no knowledge of any advantage gained through the use of PTFE in engine oil."

There is some evidence that certain other suppliers of PTFE produce powders that are of a cruder version than the original, made with larger sized particles that are more likely to "settle out" in engine oil or block filters. One good indication that a product contains this kind of PTFE is if the instructions for its use advise you to "shake well before using." It only stands to reason that if the manufacturer knows the solids in his product will settle to the bottom of a container while sitting on a shelf, the same thing is going to happen inside your engine when it is left idle for any period of time.

The problem with putting PTFE in engine oil, as explained by several industry experts, is that PTFE is a solid. The additive makers claim this solid "coats" the moving parts in an engine (though that is far from being scientifically proven). This coating fallacy comes from everyones immediate visualisation of a non stick frying pan.

But frying pans are coated with PTFE at very high temperatures and the powder is melted into place on a dry and THOROUGHLY DEGREASED surface. Engine temperatures cannot reach PTFE melting temperatures and the inside of an engine is certainly not degreased!

Slick 50 is currently both the most aggressive advertiser and the most popular seller, with claims of millions of treatments sold. However, such solids seem even more inclined to coat non-moving parts, like oil passages and filters. After all, if it can build up under the pressures and friction exerted on a cylinder wall, then it stands to reason it should build up even better in places with low pressures and virtually no friction.

This conclusion seems to be borne out by tests on oil additives containing PTFE conducted by the NASA Lewis Research Center, which said in their report, "In the types of bearing surface contact we have looked at, we have seen no benefit. In some cases we have seen detrimental effect. The solids in the oil tend to accumulate at inlets and act as a dam, which simply blocks the oil from entering. Instead of helping, it is actually depriving parts of lubricant."

In response to this criticism, several of the PTFE pushers responded that their particulates were of a sub micron size, capable of passing through an ordinary oil filter unrestricted. This certainly sounds good, but PTFE has other qualities besides being a friction reducer: It swells when exposed to heat. So even if those particles are small enough to pass through your filter when you purchase them, they won't be when your engine reaches normal operating temperature.

Here again, the scientific evidence seems to support this, as in tests conducted by researchers at the University of Utah Engineering Experiment Station involving Petrolon additive with PTFE.

The Utah test report states, "There was a pressure drop across the oil filter resulting from possible clogging of small passageways." In addition, oil analysis showed that iron contamination doubled after using the treatment, indicating that engine wear didn't go down - it appeared to shoot up.

This particular report was paid for by Petrolon (marketers of Slick 50), and was not all bad news for their products. The tests, conducted on a Chevrolet six cylinder automobile engine, showed that after treatment with the PTFE additive the test engine's friction was reduced by 13.1 per- cent. Also, output horsepower increased from 5.3 percent to 8.1 percent, and fuel economy improved from 11.8 percent under light load to 3.8 percent under heavy load.

These are the kind of results an aggressive marketing company can promote. If you only saw the results in the last paragraph, you'd be inclined to think Slick 50 was indeed a magic engine elixir. What you have to keep in mind is that often times the benefits like increased horse power and fuel economy) are instantaneous results, the long term effects of blocked filters and oil passages does not show up for many months.

Part II:

A zincopated melody
The latest cure-all ingredient in oil additives, attempting to overthrow PTFE's magic cure reputation, is zinc dialkyldithiophosphate, otherwise known as "zinc" for the rest of this article. Purveyors of the zinc related products claim they can prove absolute superiority over the PTFE. Naturally, the PTFE crowd claim exactly the opposite.

Zinc is contained as part of the standard additive package in every major brand of engine oil sold today, varying from a low volume of 0.10 per cent in low cost name brands, to a high volume of 0.20 percent in performance oriented brands. Organic zinc compounds are used as extreme pressure, anti wear additives, and are therefore found in larger amounts in oils specifically blended for high revving, turbocharged or racing applications. The zinc in engine oil comes into play only when there is actual metal-to-metal contact within an engine, which should never occur under normal operating conditions. However, if you accidentally over rev your engine, the zinc is your last line of defense. Under extreme conditions, the zinc compounds react with the metal to prevent abrasion, particularly between cylinder bores and piston rings.

Available research shows that more zinc does not give you more protection, it merely prolongs the protection if the rate of metal-to-metal contact is abnormally high. So that adding extra zinc compounds to your oil is a waste of time and money. Also, keep in mind that high zinc content can lead to undesirable deposits on your valves, and spark plugs.

The oil company chemists add just the right amount of organic zinc compounds to every major brand of oil, both automotive and motorcycle. In recent years the oil companies have voluntarily reduced the amount of zinc content in most of their products after research indicated the zinc was responsible for premature deterioration and damage to catalytic converters.

Though some additives may not contain anything harmful to engines, and even have some ingredients that could be beneficial, most experts still recommend that you avoid their use. The reason for this is that your oil, as purchased from one of the major oil companies, already contains a very extensive additive package. This package is made up of numerous additive components, blended to achieve a specific formula that will meet the requirements of your engine. Usually, at least several of these additives will react mutually, to create an effect that none of them could achieve individually. Changing or adding to this formula can upset the balance and negate the protective effect the formula was meant to achieve, even if you are only adding more of something that was already included in the initial package.

This information should also be taken into account when adding to the oil already in your engine or when mixing oils for any reason, such as synthetic with mineral. In these cases, always make sure the oils you are putting together have the same rating ( SC, SF, SG etc.). This tells you their additive packages are basically the same, or at least compatible, and are less likely to upset the balance or counteract each other.

Detergents And Solvents
Many of the older, better known oil treatments on the market do not make claims nearly so lavish as the new upstarts. Old standbys like Bardahl and Rislone, offer things like "quieter lifters," or "reduced oil burning" and a "cleaner engine." Most of these products are made up of solvents and detergents designed to dissolve sludge and carbon deposits inside your engine so they can be flushed or burned out. Wynn's Friction Proofing, for example, is 83 percent kerosene. Other brands use naphthalene, xylene, acetone and isopropanol. Usually, these ingredients will be found in a base of standard mineral oil.

In general, these products are designed to do just the opposite of what the PTFE and zinc phosphate additives claim to do. Instead of leaving behind a "coating" or a "plating" on your engine surfaces, they are designed to strip away such things. All of these products will strip sludge and deposits out and clean up your engine, particularly if it is an older, abused one. The problem is, unless you have some way of determining just how much is needed to remove your deposits without going any further, such solvents also can strip away the boundary lubrication layer provided by your oil. Overuse of solvents is an easy trap to fall into, and one which can promote harmful metal-to-metal contact within an engine. These products had their place and were at least moderately useful in old engines of the Fifties and Sixties, but are irrelevant to the more efficient engine designs of today.

The Infamous "No Oil" Demo
There is one infamous info-mercial where the demonstrators would have a bench- mounted engine which they would fill with oil and a prescribed dose of their "miracle additive." After running the engine for a while they would stop it, drain out the oil and start it up again. Instant magic! The engine would run perfectly well for hours on end, seemingly proving the effectiveness of the additive which had supposedly "coated" the inside of the engine so well it didn't even need the oil to run. In one case, this was done with an actual motorcycle, which would be ridden around the parking lot after having its oil drained. A pretty convincing demonstration - until you know the facts.

Since some of these demonstrations were conducted using Briggs and Stratton engines, the Briggs and Stratton Company itself decided to run a similar, but somewhat more scientific, experiment. Taking two brand-new, identical engines straight off their assembly line, they set them up for bench testing. The only difference was that one had the special additive included with its oil and the other did not. Both were operated for 20 hours before being shut down and having the oil drained from them. Then both were started up again and allowed to run for another 20 straight hours. Neither engine seemed to have any problem performing this "minor miracle."

After the second 20 hour run, both engines were completely torn down and inspected by the company's engineers. What they found was that both engines suffered from scored crankpin bearings, but the engine treated with the additive also suffered from heavy cylinder bore damage that was not evident on the untreated engine. This points out once again the inherent problem with particulate oil additives: They can cause oil starvation. This is particularly true in the area of piston rings, where there is a critical need for adequate oil flow. In practically all of the reports and studies on oil additives, and particularly those involving suspended solids like PTFE, this has been reported as a major area of engine damage.

Part III:

The Racing Perspective
Among the most convincing testimonials in favor of oil additives are those that come from professional racers or racing teams. As noted previously, some of the oil additive products actually are capable of producing less engine friction, better gas mileage and higher horsepower output. In the world of professional racing, the split second advantage that might be gained from using such a product could be the difference between victory and defeat.

Virtually all of the downside or detrimental effects attached to these products are related to extended, long-term usage. For short life, high revving, ultra-high performance engines designed to last no longer than one single race, the long term effects of oil additives need not even be considered.

In one ad, Al Unser Sr is seen extolling the virtues of "Teflon" in his vintage cars. In very small letters at the bottom of the picture is the following notation: "Automobile paint finishing only"

Roll the dice.

Not all engine oil additives are as potentially harmful as some of those described here. But the best that can be said of those that have not proved to be harmful, except to your wallet, is that they haven't been proved to offer any real benefits, either. In some cases, introducing an additive with a compatible package of components to your oil in the right proportion and at the right time can conceivably extend the life of your oil.

But in every case it would actually have been cheaper to simply change the engine oil instead. In addition, recent new evidence has come to light that makes using almost any additive a game of Russian Roulette. Since the additive distributors do not list the ingredients contained within their products, you never know for sure just what you are putting in your engine.

Recent tests have shown that even some of the most inoffensive additives contain products which, though harmless in their initial state, convert to hydrofluoric acid when exposed to the temperatures inside a firing cylinder. This acid is formed as part of the exhaust gases, and though it is instantly expelled from your engine and seems to do it no harm, the gases collect inside your exhaust system and eat away at your mufflers from the inside out.

Whatever The Market Will Bear
The pricing of oil additives seems to follow no particular pattern. Even among those products that seem to be almost identical, chemically, retail prices covered an extremely wide range.

Industry experts estimate that the actual cost of producing most oil additives is from one tenth to one twentieth of the asking retail price. Certainly no additive manufacturer has come forward with any exotic, high cost ingredient or list of ingredients to dispute this claim. As an interesting note along with this, back before there was so much competition in the field to drive prices down, Slick 50 was selling for as much as $400 per treatment!

The bull cookies and the facts.
In general, most producers of oil additives rely on personal "testimonials" to advertise and promote their products. A typical print advertisement will be one or more letters from a satisfied customer stating something like, "I have used Brand X in my engine for 2 years and 50,000 miles and it runs smoother and gets better gas mileage than ever before. I love this product and would recommend it to anyone." Such evidence is referred to as "anecdotal" and is most commonly used to promote such things as miracle weight loss diets and astrology. The point is, compiling "personal testimonials" for a product is one of the easiest things an advertising company can do - and one of the safest, too. You see, as long as they are only expressing some one else's personal opinion, they don't have to prove a thing! It's just an opinion, and needs no basis in fact whatsoever.

On the other hand, there has been documented, careful scientific analysis done on numerous oil additives by accredited institutions and researchers. For example: Avco Lycoming, a major manufacturer of aircraft engines, states, "We have tried every additive we could find on the market, and they are all worthless." Briggs and Stratton, renowned builders of some of the most durable engines in the world, says in their report on engine oil additives, "They do not appear to offer any benefits." North Dakota State University conducted tests on oil additives and said in their report, "The theory sounds good- the only problem is that the products simply don't work." And finally, Ed Hackett, chemist at the University of Nevada Desert Research Center, says, "Oil additives should not be used. The oil companies have gone to great lengths to develop an additive package that meets the vehicle's requirements. If you add anything to this oil you may upset the balance and prevent the oil from performing to specification."

Petrolon, Inc., of Houston, Texas, makers of Petrolon and producers of at least a dozen other lubrication products containing PTFE, including Slick 50, claim that, "Multiple tests by independent laboratories have shown that when properly applied to an automotive engine, Slick 50 Engine Formula reduces wear on parts. Test results have shown that Slick 50 treated engines sustained 50 percent less wear than test engines run with premium motor oil alone."

Sounds pretty convincing, doesn't it? The problem is, Petrolon and the other oil additive companies that claim "scientific evidence" from "independent laboratories," all refuse to identify the laboratories that conducted the tests or the criteria under which the tests were conducted. They claim they are "contractually bound" by the laboratories to not reveal their identities. In addition, the claim of "50 percent less wear" has never been proven on anything approaching a long term basis. Typical examples used to support the additive makers' claims involve engines run from 100 to 200 hours after treatment, during which time the amount of wear particles in the oil decreased. While this has proven to be true in some cases, it has also been proven that after 400 to 500 hours of running the test engines invariably reverted to producing just as many wear particles as before treatment, and in some cases, even more. No matter what the additive makers would like you to believe, nothing has been proven to stop normal engine wear.

You will note that all of the research facilities quoted in this article are clearly identified. They have no problem with making their findings public. You will also note that virtually all of their findings about oil additives are negative. That's because there isn't a single laboratory, engine manufacturer or independent research facility that would make a public claim, with their name attached to it, that any of the additives were actually beneficial to an engine. The conclusion seems inescapable.

As a final note on advertising hype versus the real world, there was a television ad the other night for Slick 50 oil additive. The ad encouraged people to buy their product on the basis of the fact that, "Over 14 million Americans have tried Slick 50!" Great. We're sure you could just as easily say, "Over 14 million Americans have smoked cigarettes!"- but is that really any reason for you to try it? Of course not, because you've seen the scientific evidence of the harm it can do. The exact same principle applies here.

Part IV:

In Conclusion
The major oil companies are some of the richest and most powerful. They own multi- million dollar research facilities manned by some of the best chemical engineers money can hire. It is probably safe to say that any one of them has the capabilities and resources at hand in marketing, distribution, advertising, research and product development equal to 20 times that of any of the independent additive companies. It therefore stands to reason that if any of these additive products were actually capable of improving the capabilities of engine lubricants, the major oil companies would have been able to determine that and to find some way to cash in on it.

Yet no oil additive carries the name or endorsement of any of the major oil producers. In addition, all of the major vehicle and engine manufacturers spend millions of dollars each year trying to increase the life of their products, and millions more paying off warranty claims when their products fail. Again, it only stands to reason that if they thought any of these additives would increase the life or improve the performance of their engines, they would be actively using and selling them - or at least endorsing their use. Instead, many of them advise against the use of these additives and, in some cases, threaten to void their warranty coverage if such things are found to be used in their products.

In any story of this nature, absolute "facts" are virtually impossible to come by. Opinions abound. Evidence that points one direction or the other is available, but has to be carefully ferreted out, and is not always totally reliable or completely verifiable. In this environment, conclusions reached by known, knowledgeable experts in the field must be given a certain amount of weight. Conclusions reached by unknown, unidentifiable sources must be totally discounted. That which is left must be weighed, one side against the other, in an attempt to reach a "reasonable" conclusion.

In the case of oil additives, there is a considerable volume of evidence against their effectiveness. This evidence comes from well known and identifiable expert sources, including independent research laboratories, state universities, major engine manufacturers, and even NASA. Against this rather formidable barrage of scientific research, additive makers offer not much more than their own claims of effectiveness, plus questionable and totally unscientific personal testimonials. Though the purveyors of these products state they have studies from other independent laboratories supporting their claims, they refuse to identify the labs or provide copies of the research. The only test results they will share are those from their own testing departments, which must, by their very nature, be taken with a rather large grain of salt.

I'm really surprised no one replied to this thread...