Engine is Burning Oil

[chucky2]

I'll put my "money where my mouth is". I've got a unused and unopened bottle of Auto-RX sitting right upstairs. I'll send it to you LTC8K6 if you're willing to either do a visual check of the results (pulling a valve cover) and/or a compression test (properly) across all your cylinders.

If it doesn't take care of sludge you've got, or, it doesn't raise the compression back up (assuming your ride has some miles on it...obviously brand new isn't going to be a good test), then you'll be out nothing.

If it does, then you can send me the money for my bottle.

Deal?

Chuck

 

[Corn]

Originally posted by: Bu B3ar
I drive a '97 Toyota Corolla, 127k, but the engine only has about 100k on it. I've had it for a couple years now, and never had a problem with it loosing oil. Recently I moved from NY to DE, and made several trips back and forth (approx 600 miles round trip). After my second round trip, i checked the oil....or should i say i checked where the oil SHOULD have been. Instead, i pulled up a dry dipstick (no jokes plz). So i dumped in a few quarts, went to JiffyLube and had the oil changed. I have been keeping my eye on it, and it seems to only burn oil after being at highway speeds for an extended period of time.

- I do small amounts of highway driving to work everyday, and it doesn't seem to have much of an effect
- I have been checking the oil regularly (at least once per week) and it hasn't been burning much, if any
- There is no smoke coming out of my tail pipe, and i dont smell anything burning
- Since the oil change (about 2 months), i put one quart of oil in, and something my dad gave me that helps clean the engine out
- I do keep up on maintenance, and the oil had been changed less than 1000 miles before i realized it was gone.
- It is not leaking oil, i have checked under the car, and there is no consistent loss

I have heard there are some products out there that help seal up the engine and prevent this from hapening, but I'm leary on putting random shit into my engine. Or, do i have a more serious problem that is waiting to blow up on me? Any suggestions?

I'm wondering if the last time you got the oil changed they didn't put enough oil in. I just took my wife's car to get the oil changed 2 weeks ago and the shop only put in 4.5 quarts of oil (what their computer said). They said the dipstick registered full but I showed them the manual which stated the vehicle took 6.5 quarts and they were shocked. It took the 2 additional quarts of oil and the stick showed it full after that. I would always demand the shop present your dipstick after filling your oil just to be sure.

 

[LTC8K6]

Chuck, none of my cars has a lot of miles, and I change my oil myself frequently enough not to have to worry about sludge.

Besides, there's no reason not to answer my concerns straight up, except that the answers aren't known.

If a person or company doesn't know how what they are selling works, shouldn't that be a concern?

In fact, even if the product does what is claimed, the fact that the seller can't explain how, is a big concern to me.

 

[chucky2]

Err...I'm not sure I'm following you there???

Are you getting BITOG confused with Auto-RX? BITOG is just a website like this, like an enthusiast site for lubricant (minds out of the gutter people) related info.

Auto-RX.com is actually the website of Auto-RX.

While Auto-RX folks post on BITOG (like ColinGigabyte posts for Gigabyte on here), it's not like BITOG and Auto-RX are owned by the same people.

How Auto-RX works is already known...we've known that since like 2004 or '05.

Chuck

 

[LTC8K6]

Chuck, it was your posts that seemed unsure of how it worked.

The AutoRx website and FAQ's do not inspire confidence in me.

But, it's not my engine.

 

[dug777]

Originally posted by: chucky2
Err...I'm not sure I'm following you there???

Are you getting BITOG confused with Auto-RX? BITOG is just a website like this, like an enthusiast site for lubricant (minds out of the gutter people) related info.

Auto-RX.com is actually the website of Auto-RX.

While Auto-RX folks post on BITOG (like ColinGigabyte posts for Gigabyte on here), it's not like BITOG and Auto-RX are owned by the same people.

How Auto-RX works is already known...we've known that since like 2004 or '05.

Chuck

We?

I'm certainly not getting Auto-RX confused with BITOG, although it's easy to see how someone could, because it's pushed by apparently everyone who posts in the oil additives forum, without any actual subjective detail of how it works, or truly independent testing to verify claims of reduced oil consumption, quieter running, increased power and reduced fuel consumption, let alone a comparison to some straight oil flushes with new filters (it's called a 'control' ).

I've done some more googling, it's amazing how many forums have someone claiming how brilliant Auto-RX is, based on a completely unverifiable and objective set of circumstances. They always have 'personal' experience with one or several older vehicles, and it always works magic, but you never get any of the hard subjective info I allude to above

No wonder people are sceptical, and the sad thing is if Auto-RX truly wanted to verify the miraculous advertised properties they could very simply, by having some independent testing done properly. A child can see the gaping problems in their 'independent testing' they provide as proof it works, and they deserve an instant credibility hit just for that.

On a slight aside, I can't believe that anyone who didn't have an engine that was burning oil would try this stuff in their car. It's almost hilarious, in a sad sad way, how worried people are about 'sludging'. Stick to your manufacturer's recommended oil type and change interval and get on with your life, for pete's sake

 

[chucky2]

"We" are those of us on BITOG at the beginning where it was more....professional. The Auto-RX main page has a how it works right on it; granted it's layman terms, but it's clear. More detailed explanation of the individual esters can be found on BITOG, but you'll likely have to go back to 2004 or 2005 when there were more pro's in the oil industry posting there.

As far as testemonials, there are numerous picture type documentation for before and afters, plus scores and scores of people who have testified to it stopping their oil consumption and/or giving them a mpg boost. I really don't know what more you want. I'm fairly certain if people are having a quart per 1000 (or more) oil consumption, they follow the Auto-RX program, and they have either no oil consumption or a quart every 5000 miles consumption, they're going to be able to say, "Auto-RX really reduced my oil consumption!". Do you really need a documented study to say this, or are the results alone enough?

I ran Mobil-1 in my '03 Ranger w/ 4.0L SOHC V-6 for its first 100000 miles (minus a couple of runs of German Castrol 0W-30), and even I noticed a slight mpg bump into my first Auto-RX Clean phase. Ring packs get carboned up...cleaning them of that makes them seal better...not sure why that's so hard to understand.

Again, I realize the aversion to all oil and gas adds, based on the less than stellar performance of 99.9999% of them. Don't lump Auto-RX into that category though...it's one of the rare real deals out there.

Chuck

 

[IcePickFreak]

What you need is a Engine oil bypass kit. Simple!

 

[chucky2]

I'm liking these babies here.

Betcha I could get like mad horsepower with those yo...

Chuck

 

[dug777]

Originally posted by: chucky2
"We" are those of us on BITOG at the beginning where it was more....professional. The Auto-RX main page has a how it works right on it; granted it's layman terms, but it's clear. More detailed explanation of the individual esters can be found on BITOG, but you'll likely have to go back to 2004 or 2005 when there were more pro's in the oil industry posting there.

As far as testemonials, there are numerous picture type documentation for before and afters, plus scores and scores of people who have testified to it stopping their oil consumption and/or giving them a mpg boost. I really don't know what more you want. I'm fairly certain if people are having a quart per 1000 (or more) oil consumption, they follow the Auto-RX program, and they have either no oil consumption or a quart every 5000 miles consumption, they're going to be able to say, "Auto-RX really reduced my oil consumption!". Do you really need a documented study to say this, or are the results alone enough?

I ran Mobil-1 in my '03 Ranger w/ 4.0L SOHC V-6 for its first 100000 miles (minus a couple of runs of German Castrol 0W-30), and even I noticed a slight mpg bump into my first Auto-RX Clean phase. Ring packs get carboned up...cleaning them of that makes them seal better...not sure why that's so hard to understand.

Again, I realize the aversion to all oil and gas adds, based on the less than stellar performance of 99.9999% of them. Don't lump Auto-RX into that category though...it's one of the rare real deals out there.

Chuck

This typifies the issue I have with this whole 'additive' game. A 'slight mpg bump' is about the wooliest, most subjective benefit on the planet, and even assuming there was one, it could have come from dozens of things, including different season petrol blends, the mix of driving you did for that tank, or your driving style.

A case in point is people using higher octane 'premium' in cars that are spec'd for standard, then claiming that their cars ran smoother, had more power, and a better fuel economy. Never mind that dozens of tests have nixed this as nonsense, I suspect a significant proportion of the population in the developed world firmly believes this

As for the oil usage, if it's so amazingly easy to demonstrate, then why haven't Auto-RX had some truly independent studies done, but properly, with controls? Replacing the PCV valve and running a few rounds of a good oil and filters with some good long hot engine runs may have exactly the same effect (whatever that is) of course, it may not, but that's just conjecture as well, because as far as I can see, nobody has bothered making that comparison.

To answer your question, yes, I do need a documented study (and so should any rational individual), because otherwise it's just hearsay from people who may or may not have a vested interest in pushing yet another 'snake-oil'. I don't say that to offend you, but that's what it boils down to, plain and simple.

 

[chucky2]

Well, I'm not going to do a documented study for you, sorry.

If what is by now hundreds of actual user feedbacks (where it's not just a subjective "I gained HP", but rather something actually observable, like, "I went from 1 qt./800 mi. to 0 qt's/3000 mi.) isn't enough for you, then you should just pass what has proven to be a good product on by.

There have been documented tests run - by actual users - that have pictorially shown the results.

Auto-RX is at the point now where if you can't accept overwhelming end user testemonials, then even if they did a controlled study, you'd still not believe it. Then it'd be, Oh, they paid <insert here> off. Or, It was rigged. Etc.

Don't get me wrong: I share your total skepticism of oil and fuel based adds. Totally. And, Auto-RX had that same exact skepticism when it hit the scene. The difference is, Auto-RX actually produces results, where xyz oil/fuel add produces a lighter wallet.

The fact that Frank actually has, and more importantly honors, his money back guarantee, should tell you that he stands behind his product. Not that I've heard of many b1tching they want their money back...it's hard to argue with results (if you're of the honest type).

It's too bad your in AU...I'd extend the same offer to you as I did to LTC8K6, but I think the shipping may be a little high on that...

Chuck

 

[LTC8K6]

If it works so well, and so many people use it successfully, a nice controlled study should be a piece of cake, and can do nothing but increase sales of AutoRx.

Documentation of carboned up and leaky ring packs being freed up by AutoRx should be an easy demonstration, apparently.

Sounds like BS to me personally, but there seems to be a lot of confidence and a lot of testimonials, so it should be an easy controlled demo to complete successfully.

Again, such a demo should not cost much, and if successful, would only help sales, and shut idiots like me up.

 

[chucky2]

How would you rig the engine to have two oil pumps and two seperate oil systems? To do the study right, you'd first have to find engines (that's plural, not singluar) that have consistent oil consumption. Then, you'd have to tear down each engine enough to document the condition of the rings of each piston. Then you'd have to run the engines (again, plural) again to confirm they still had consistent oil consumption post-teardown and re-assembly. After that, you'd have to do a compression check in each cylinder in each engine.

Now you'd be ready to start the Auto-RX program (this is of course going on you've found a way to run two entirely seperate oil systems in each engine.

Frankly (no pun intended), that all sounds extremely daunting to a small business owner like Frank, just to prove his product works.

Wouldn't like an easier way be for people who have oil leaks, consumption issues, and known sludge (as in, looking into the engine and seeing sludge) issues just run the Auto-RX program, and then at the end, when they don't have those issues any longer, say that it worked???

I think the level of proof - to do it right - you're asking for here is impossible short of dropping some serious cash.

Chuck

 

[LTC8K6]

So how do they know how it works?

What did they do to verify that it works?

What did they do to confirm how it works?

They must have done something, right?

So what was it?

 

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: LTC8K6
So how do they know how it works?

The type of esters Frank is using to make Auto-RX weren't just picked out of a hat. He's using them each for specific reasons. The general type of esters he's using, and their effects, are already known. That's why I suggested you try and go back a few years at BITOG and look at some of the very old postings there on them (if they're even available any longer...shame if they're not).

What did they do to verify that it works?

I don't know how much more simple I can make this: If you have a vehicle that is consistently consuming say 1 Qt/1000 mi. (incidentally, I pick those numbers because that's what my dad's '00 5.4L Expedition used to consume), and you run an Auto-RX program on it. And then you go back to plain dino oil, and low and behold, your consumption is at 1 qt./3000+ miles, exactly what else other than Auto-RX are you going to contribute that to??? Now, multiply that over many many many successful user reports. At some point, you cannot ignore the sample size of successful reports.

What did they do to confirm how it works?

How it works? See your first question above.

They must have done something, right?

Before Auto-RX was even Auto-RX, it was used in commercial printing press machinery. It was already a success story before even coming into Auto use. There are probably hundreds of user reports by now....what more "something" do you need?

So what was it?

What is what? Is that you? Is that me?

Chuck

 

[LTC8K6]

That response does zero for credibility...if not into the negatives...

 

[chucky2]

I seriously don't even know what to say then. I think there is just no pleasing you...what realistic testing (keep in mind they're not a multibillion Corp.) do you expect Auto-RX to perform to satisfy your skepticism?

Why do the hundreds of positive reports not do it for you?

Chuck

 

[LTC8K6]

Why do the hundreds of positive reports not do it for you?

What?

The same reason it doesn't do it for anything!

What are you talking about?

Positive reports are meaningless. Period. End of sentence. We have hundreds of positive reports about all sorts of things, from electric superchargers to etufos to tornadofuelsavers to bigfoot. So what?

How did the manufacturer confirm that the product does what they claim?

How did the manufacturer confirm how the product does what they claim?

For instance, perhaps rapid oil changes with lighter weight oils will free up "carboned up ring packs" and I don't need to buy AutoRx? That's just a hypothetical example, of course.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: chucky2
If you have a vehicle that is consistently consuming say 1 Qt/1000 mi. (incidentally, I pick those numbers because that's what my dad's '00 5.4L Expedition used to consume), and you run an Auto-RX program on it. And then you go back to plain dino oil, and low and behold, your consumption is at 1 qt./3000+ miles, exactly what else other than Auto-RX are you going to contribute that to???

Switching from 5W20 to 20W50 oil would do the same. Switching from synthetic to conventional oil can do the same (conventional oils, because they do not flow as well, mask oil consumption issues in a manner similar to using a heavy weight oil). Using a "high mileage" oil that has additives designed to cause seals to swell can do the same thing. Hell, sometimes just an "italian tuneup" (running the engine hard for a tank or two) can do that by removing carbon buildup on the rings.

EDIT: The Auto-RX page is ridiculous. The "FAQ" even perpetuates the preposterous myth that synthetic oil degrades seals. It's nothing more than a bunch of FUD.

ZV

 

[chucky2]

I seriously just give up. I'm going back and forth with people who don't have a rudimentry understanding of oil chemistry, don't understand test results, and will never be pleased.

Here's a scenario:

A company uses circuits and diodes to make a USB controller. People buy it, and it does what it's designed to do.

What you two are saying is that you won't accept peoples reports that using the USB controller they can do whatever.....No....you need scanning tunnneling microscopes and xray shots of the whole USB controller electrical system, watching the electrons flow back and forth, to be satisfied that it really is the USB controller that is moving the whatever on the screen. I mean, Geez, it could be something else right? Anything's possible.

Do you understand how F'ing stupid that is?

Cannot you read here and understand that this is the equivalent of people plugging in the USB controller, and it does what they bought it for?

How hard is this to grasp???

Chuck

P.S. Z, switching oil viscosities is not the same. The difference is, with Auto-RX, you use the same viscosity and oil consumption/seal leaks stop/greatly diminish. If you want to use your example, take a ride consuming 1Qt/1000 mi. of 5W-30, run your 20W-50 (consumption stops), then switch back to 5W-30. What happens? You start consuming/leaking at the same rate again. You're comparing Apples to Oranges.

P.P.S. I've read the synthetic oil and seals comments...it's definitely plausible. If you're already starting with a damaged/degraded seal, straight synthetic may indeed not be as good of an idea as dino + Auto-RX. What data do you have on running straight synthetic on engines that are already leaking?

 

[Greenman]

Did some searching over at bobistheoilguy.com. There are some people over that make the same claims as chucky, and by golly, that Frank fellow is there as well. Honestly, I have a lot of trouble buying the claims, though some of what is said could be achieved with several products that break down sludge. I simply don't believe that it can stop oil burning, unless it just makes the oil thicker.

I'd try it if my engine was nearing the end of it's life and having problems, but there is no way in hell I'd dump a can of that crap in my V-Rod.

 

[chucky2]

Frank is over there because he's a site sponsor of BITOG - at BITOG, site sponsors are allowed to post.

Auto-RX doesn't make the oil thicker by any measurable degree. There was even a guy a ways back that took a virgin sample of his dino oil before doing an oil change. He did the oil change and when doing it, added Auto-RX. He drove like 10 miles, enough to get it all mixed in, and then took another sample. He sent them both in....the cSt @100C values were within margin of error testing.

Same offer I gave to LTC8K6: You find a consistent oil consumer in your stable of rides, I'll send on a bottle of Auto-RX on my dime. If it works, you PayPal me back. If it doesn't, then I'm out the $$$ and not you.

Chuck

 

[LTC8K6]

I seriously just give up.

Me too...

 

[Greenman]

Originally posted by: chucky2
Frank is over there because he's a site sponsor of BITOG - at BITOG, site sponsors are allowed to post.

Auto-RX doesn't make the oil thicker by any measurable degree. There was even a guy a ways back that took a virgin sample of his dino oil before doing an oil change. He did the oil change and when doing it, added Auto-RX. He drove like 10 miles, enough to get it all mixed in, and then took another sample. He sent them both in....the cSt @100C values were within margin of error testing.

Same offer I gave to LTC8K6: You find a consistent oil consumer in your stable of rides, I'll send on a bottle of Auto-RX on my dime. If it works, you PayPal me back. If it doesn't, then I'm out the $$$ and not you.

Chuck

I don't have anything to put it in, my truck only has 150k on it, my suv is around 90k. As I said, if the opportunity ever arises, I'll give it a try. But I simply won't pour solvent into a properly running motor, that's a last ditch effort to try and get a few more miles out of an engine that's at the end of it's service life.

 

[desy]

In my 85 Bronco I put a product in that improved it signficantly.
Cold weather hesititations and I drove a lot so I went a month mileage and tried to keep everything consistant tire pressure AC use HW speed.
This truck had 50K miles when I got it mostly used for city driving at 10K a yr.

When I first put it in the thing smoked for like 15/20 min as the instruction were to let it idle through. I thought something blowed up! :shocked:

Next month I got 15% better mileage and it never hestiated at cold startup again.
I imagine the tolerances on the old 3L and gummy city driving a fair bit of smag freed up from around the rings and such , should have compression tested it first.

So anecdotal evidence on one vehicle almost 20 yrs ago before the days of detergent filled oils, high mileage or affordable synth. . .
What was my point again?