Author Topic: MotorSilk synthetic motor oil additive (Read 3358 times)

mora · « **Reply #15 on:** December 18, 2007, 01:30:24 AM »

The only "additive" that really works:
http://www.rvs-tec.com/English/index.htm

Allthought this isn't and oil additive, even though it's applied through the motor oil.

Excel1 · « **Reply #16 on:** December 18, 2007, 02:10:05 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Wolfala
Keep in mind that article was from 15 years ago, so while there have been improvements in formulation, most of the improvements have been in the engines manufacturing and use of precision tooling.

an old article but still a good read

i wouldn't touch the teflon based additives like slick 50 or the numerous copycat teflon additives with a ten foot barge pole. a mechanic told me years ago that a clogged oil filter and oil metering passages arn't worth the possible slight gain in reduced engine friction.

zinc dialkyldithiophosphate or zddp. there seems to be plenty of confusion as to the worth of this stuff as an additve in engine oil. my feeling is it's better in the oil than not in it because the only reason the oil companies have either reduced or completrly eliminated zddp from their oils is because of emission reasons, not because it doesn't work.

flat tappet cammed engines still seem to need high levels of zddp in the oil to prevent excessive cam lobe and lifter wear especialy during the crucial cam break-in period. modern engines and vintage engines that have been roller cammed might live alright without it.

culero · « **Reply #17 on:** December 18, 2007, 04:42:55 AM »

I was going to type my decades-old reply to the additive nonsense, until I noticed Wolfala's article contains it:

In addition, all of the major vehicle and engine manufacturers spend millions of dollars each year trying to increase the longevity 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.

This also applies to products advertised to make miracle gains in performance and economy such as Splitfire spark plugs, etc. If that crap really worked it would be included in OEM.

Swoop · « **Reply #18 on:** December 18, 2007, 07:30:02 AM »

Many years ago I happened to come across a packet of Slick 50 designed for 2-stroke engines......so I happily poured it into the carbs of my Suzuki RGV250 as per the instructions.

Once the smoke had cleared (couple days....) it actually did seem to rev slightly easier.....until it siezed a month later.

DiabloTX · « **Reply #19 on:** December 18, 2007, 07:56:19 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by rpm
I also shy away from PTFE. If the engine overheats, the PTFE can become a wad of goo. Of course your engine is already ruined by the time that happens.

Prolong, on the other hand, I like. It contains no PTFE. The first time I used it was in my 88 F-250 diesel. It was amazing how much quieter the engine became the instant I poured it in. It also became much easier to start. I got over 400,000 out of that engine before a valve finally broke. I worked that truck like a dog.

Sorry RPM, but it seems that may have been just a placebo effect.

Prolong gets the foshizzle suited out of them.

I loved that commercial where the drained the oil out of a Viper and drove for I don't know how long around the track with no engine damage.

rpm · « **Reply #20 on:** December 18, 2007, 05:08:29 PM »

Yeah, the FTC did make them change their ads. It also made Valvoline do the same.

For what it's worth, it did make ol'Blue much quieter and easier to start, especially on cold mornings (and that truck was a biatch to start before). Why? I have no clue. It could all be placebo, but it has a good track record with me. I dump a bottle in every 3rd or 4th oil change in all my engines now. Maybe it's just good joojoo.