I have a ’85 200sx Turbo that I still like to drive, but the Turbo is really
loud and is starting to grind. I was wondering if there is a way to
deactive the Turbo (i.e. pinch off the vacuum line or something?). I asked
the dealer and they said that they are not allowed to perform this job in
their shop, but it sounded like it was possible.
Can anyone provide details on this?
Thanks, Kelly
kellyp wrote:
> I have a ’85 200sx Turbo that I still like to drive, but the Turbo is really
> loud and is starting to grind. I was wondering if there is a way to
> deactive the Turbo (i.e. pinch off the vacuum line or something?). I asked
> the dealer and they said that they are not allowed to perform this job in
> their shop, but it sounded like it was possible.
no "line" to pinch off. I guess you could "rig" the waste gate open
somehow mechanically and that might help "deactivate" it but car would
have NO power.. With the low compression a turbo motor has they are
pitifully slow without it… I’m sure you wouldn’t like driving it if
you did this to it.. Get a reman turbo or stop driving it..
—
steve’s photography & Z car stuff @ http://www.mindspring.com/~skoontz
skoo…@mindspring.com
In <361A72B6.FC880…@inquoNOSPAM.net>, Garry
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
<eura…@inquoNOSPAM.net> wrote:
>DSDTINC wrote:
>> I can and will decide for myself whether it works or doesn’t.
>> I may or may not trust of consider anybody else’s claim or
>> personal experience. In the case of Prolong, Mobil 1, or
>> any other lubricating product, I will make my decision based
>> on my own Timken bearing machine tests, oil analysis, and
>> experience. I really don’t care if a manufacturer "cheats" in
>> their testing or not.
>I am not a specialist in all this oil testing procedures, but I have a
>question to all you involved in this discussion.
>DG mentioned that he likes to test oil additives himself on its own
>equipment.
>How you can simulate processes in the engine with variable temperatures from
>zero F in winter in some areas to the high temperatures .350-400 F.
>depending on your engine
Field testing.
That’s generally one of the final steps before certification and
commercialization of a new formulation. You start out screening
candidate chemistry in bench-top tests that are generally pretty
inexpensive to run. You adjust your formulation until you get
reasonable results in numerous performance areas (lubricity,
oxidation, sludge, dispersancy, etc.), then run some engine tests.
You further adjust your formulation based upon the results of these
tests. Once you feel you’ve got the formulation pretty well nailed
down, you move to field testing, where you compare your new
formulation to your older formulation under ‘real world’ conditions
(with good statistics and as much experimental control as possible).
The results of myriad bench tests, coupled with the results from
engine testing and field testing, need to be weighed as a whole to
make an intelligent evaluation of a lubricant. Relying on a single
bench-top test that correlates poorly with real engine performance is
naive.
The Timken, Four-Ball, and some other benchtop lubricity tests
generally correlate quite poorly with real engine performance.
Relying on this test alone to compare, say, chlorinated paraffin
against virtually any commercially available motor oil and you’d have
to conclude that motor oil is the worst thing you could put into your
engine. These tests are easily mislead and can produce some pretty
spectacular results. That’s precisely why they’re so popular with the
snake oil crowd.
>Can tests, done in the conditions, varying greatly from real ones, be a
>foundation for quick conclusions?
Yes, but those conclusions *must* carry along pretty heavy caveats.
The use of these tests to promote aftermarket additives and finished
motor oils is nothing short of misleading.
>How big oil companies, like Mobil and Castrol do all their testing??
Like I described above. (BTW, I used to do it for a living.)
A fully-formulated, API certified, motor oil of the API Service
classification and the SAE viscosity grade specified in your owner’s
manual, changed according you your engine manufacturer’s specified
schedule, is all your engine needs for a long and happy life.
Don’t be fooled by these snake oils. The zinc-containing ones can
poison your catalytic converter. The chlorine-containing ones can
contribute to acid formation (not to mention make your used oil
persona non grata with the oil recyclers). The PTFE ones can clog
small oil passages. The people who designed your motor oil put a lot
of work into making it perform in *all* the relevant performance
areas. Don’t mess it up by dumping in some miracle mouse milk that
may produce spectacular results in some irrelevant test.
–
John
John M. Feiereisen wrote in message
<6vfkr1$ps…@client3.news.psi.net>…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
>In <361A72B6.FC880…@inquoNOSPAM.net>, Garry
><eura…@inquoNOSPAM.net> wrote:
>>How you can simulate processes in the engine with variable
temperatures from
>>zero F in winter in some areas to the high temperatures .350-400 F.
>>depending on your engine
>Field testing.
>That’s generally one of the final steps before certification and
>commercialization of a new formulation. You start out screening
>candidate chemistry in bench-top tests that are generally pretty
>inexpensive to run. You adjust your formulation until you get
>reasonable results in numerous performance areas (lubricity,
>oxidation, sludge, dispersancy, etc.), then run some engine tests.
>You further adjust your formulation based upon the results of these
>tests. Once you feel you’ve got the formulation pretty well nailed
>down, you move to field testing, where you compare your new
>formulation to your older formulation under ‘real world’ conditions
>(with good statistics and as much experimental control as possible).
>The results of myriad bench tests, coupled with the results from
>engine testing and field testing, need to be weighed as a whole to
>make an intelligent evaluation of a lubricant. Relying on a single
>bench-top test that correlates poorly with real engine performance is
>naive.
I agree with everything you said so far. The combination of bench
tests and field tests (the more the better) provides a pretty basis for
technical decisions.
>The Timken, Four-Ball, and some other benchtop lubricity tests
>generally correlate quite poorly with real engine performance.
…especially engine performance in general. However, environmental
variables can be controlled to approximate conditions in isolated
locations in engines.
>Relying on this test alone to compare, say, chlorinated paraffin
>against virtually any commercially available motor oil and you’d have
>to conclude that motor oil is the worst thing you could put into your
>engine. These tests are easily mislead and can produce some pretty
>spectacular results. That’s precisely why they’re so popular with the
>snake oil crowd.
I agree. In addition, testimonials are often used to reinforce the
claims
based on bench tests only. The subjective testimonies of a few
satisfied
customers do NOT constitute a field test but are often implicitly used
as
substitutions.
>>Can tests, done in the conditions, varying greatly from real ones, be
a
>>foundation for quick conclusions?
>Yes, but those conclusions *must* carry along pretty heavy caveats.
I don’t agree here. In my opinion, tests can never be a foundation for
quick conclusions unless by "quick" you also mean "very likely to be
misleading".
>The use of these tests to promote aftermarket additives and finished
>motor oils is nothing short of misleading.
Agreed.
>>How big oil companies, like Mobil and Castrol do all their testing??
>Like I described above. (BTW, I used to do it for a living.)
>A fully-formulated, API certified, motor oil of the API Service
>classification and the SAE viscosity grade specified in your owner’s
>manual, changed according you your engine manufacturer’s specified
>schedule, is all your engine needs for a long and happy life.
…unless you want your engine to perform better in its old age than
the average engine of the same age, make, and application. If you
want above-average performance for a longer-than-average length
of time, the minimum recommendations are not sufficient. On the
other hand, if average is good enough for you, then I agree with John.
>Don’t be fooled by these snake oils. The zinc-containing ones can
>poison your catalytic converter.
Yep. That’s why motor oil manufacturers volutarily reduced the
amount of zinc in motor oil. Besides, zinc works only when metal
contacts metal in extreme heat and pressure conditions. It doesn’t
help in normal lubrication.
>The chlorine-containing ones can
>contribute to acid formation (not to mention make your used oil
>persona non grata with the oil recyclers).
Yep. You don’t need a field test to show this. Basic chemistry is
sufficient.
>The PTFE ones can clog small oil passages.
After reading about the characteristics and behavior of PTFE particles,
this one is common sense.
>The people who designed your motor oil put a lot
>of work into making it perform in *all* the relevant performance
>areas.
Yep. They must do so in order to meet API SJ requirements.
HOWEVER, keep in mind that the API SJ standard specifies
minimum (for "good" characteristics and maximum (for "bad"
characteristics) specifications for "normal" operating conditions
and durations. If API SJ specs were sufficient for optimal lubrication
and harsher-than-normal conditions, then motor oil companies
would not bother with synthetic oils.
>Don’t mess it up by dumping in some miracle mouse milk that
>may produce spectacular results in some irrelevant test.
**
…but may have negative effects on motor oil performance.
**
My conclusion, let the buyer beware. Consumers need to make
informed buying decisions. Don’t unconditionally accept the
claims of any motor oil or supplemental additive manufacturer
nor the comments of any nay-sayer without scrutiny. You can
consider any of these, but you’ve got to think for yourself in the end.
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
>–
>John
In <6vg2sa$v…@ernie.rsvl.unisys.com>, "DSDTINC" <dsdt…@msn.com>
wrote:
>John M. Feiereisen wrote in message
><6vfkr1$ps…@client3.news.psi.net>…
>>The results of myriad bench tests, coupled with the results from
>>engine testing and field testing, need to be weighed as a whole to
>>make an intelligent evaluation of a lubricant. Relying on a single
>>bench-top test that correlates poorly with real engine performance is
>>naive.
>I agree with everything you said so far. The combination of bench
>tests and field tests (the more the better) provides a pretty basis for
>technical decisions.
>>The Timken, Four-Ball, and some other benchtop lubricity tests
>>generally correlate quite poorly with real engine performance.
>…especially engine performance in general.
And lubricity in particular.
The Timken, the Four-Ball, the pin-and-V-block, etc., are *lubricity*
tests. You don’t run a Timken test to evaluate the dispersancy of an
oil. Nor do you run a TBN to measure viscosity.
When I say many of these tests correlate poorly with real engine
performance, I mean the scar size, weld load, etc., often correlate
poorly with measured engine wear.
>However, environmental
>variables can be controlled to approximate conditions in isolated
>locations in engines.
"Approximate" is the operative word, and then only in some of the
tests. For instance, compare the unit load in the Four-Ball to the
maximum unit loads you find in an engine. You’ll find it’s several
orders of magnitude larger. A lot of these bench-top tests are
ridiculously severe because that’s the only way to separate oils. All
too often, this separation does *not* correlate with oil performance
in an engine.
I spent a lot of my former career developing bench and engine tests
that would predict the performance of oils in the real world. It’s a
lot tougher than you’d think.
>>Relying on this test alone to compare, say, chlorinated paraffin
>>against virtually any commercially available motor oil and you’d have
>>to conclude that motor oil is the worst thing you could put into your
>>engine. These tests are easily mislead and can produce some pretty
>>spectacular results. That’s precisely why they’re so popular with the
>>snake oil crowd.
>I agree. In addition, testimonials are often used to reinforce the claims
>based on bench tests only. The subjective testimonies of a few satisfied
>customers do NOT constitute a field test but are often implicitly used as
>substitutions.
Use of testimonials in lieu of test results is a tactic of snake oil
salesmen. Without reliable, relevant tests, testimonials are
meaningless, and in some cases hilarious.
>>>Can tests, done in the conditions, varying greatly from real ones, be a
>>>foundation for quick conclusions?
>>Yes, but those conclusions *must* carry along pretty heavy caveats.
>I don’t agree here. In my opinion, tests can never be a foundation for
>quick conclusions unless by "quick" you also mean "very likely to be
>misleading".
Maybe I misread the question. What I meant by my answer is that the
results of these tests can help reach conclusions. By ‘caveats’ I
mean you must consider the tests’ relevance and correlation with ‘real
world’ performance.
>>The use of these tests to promote aftermarket additives and finished
>>motor oils is nothing short of misleading.
>Agreed.
>>>How big oil companies, like Mobil and Castrol do all their testing??
>>Like I described above. (BTW, I used to do it for a living.)
>>A fully-formulated, API certified, motor oil of the API Service
>>classification and the SAE viscosity grade specified in your owner’s
>>manual, changed according you your engine manufacturer’s specified
>>schedule, is all your engine needs for a long and happy life.
>…unless you want your engine to perform better in its old age than
>the average engine of the same age, make, and application. If you
>want above-average performance for a longer-than-average length
>of time, the minimum recommendations are not sufficient. On the
>other hand, if average is good enough for you, then I agree with John.
If you can find a single reliable study showing that any of these
additives or snake oils significantly prolongs the life of an engine
over one that’s been fed an oil satisfying the manufacturer’s
specifications, I’d like to see it.
Until such data come along, I’ll stick by my previous statement.
Yes, the API Service classifications set minimum performance levels
for oils. They do *not* set maximum performance levels. Superior
performance is a competitive advantage. If an oil company can acheive
superior performance, they will. If they can justify a price premium
with the superior performance, they will market the product.
And they won’t rely on testimonials to demonstrate the superior
performance.
>>Don’t be fooled by these snake oils. The zinc-containing ones can
>>poison your catalytic converter.
>Yep. That’s why motor oil manufacturers volutarily reduced the
>amount of zinc in motor oil. Besides, zinc works only when metal
>contacts metal in extreme heat and pressure conditions. It doesn’t
>help in normal lubrication.
Translation: ZnDTP prevents metal-metal contact when you’re in the
boundary lubrication regime. In hydrodynamic lubrication it does
little. Still, eliminate it entirely from the oil and you’ll trash
your engine in minutes.
>>The chlorine-containing ones can
>>contribute to acid formation (not to mention make your used oil
>>persona non grata with the oil recyclers).
>Yep. You don’t need a field test to show this. Basic chemistry is
>sufficient.
>>The PTFE ones can clog small oil passages.
>After reading about the characteristics and behavior of PTFE particles,
>this one is common sense.
>>The people who designed your motor oil put a lot
>>of work into making it perform in *all* the relevant performance
>>areas.
>Yep. They must do so in order to meet API SJ requirements.
And they did so for SH, SG, SF, SE as well. The people who designed
your motor oil put a lot of work into making it perform in *all* the
performance areas considered important by your engine’s manufacturer,
while still satisfying some non-performance related constraints
imposed by the powers that be.
If the SJ requirements lead to a degradation in performance relative
to earlier API Service specs, the whole automotive industry would be
up in arms about it. As it is, all we see are a few oil companies
exploiting consumer fear, marketing SG/SH oils in bottles with
pictures of motorcycles for double the price of SJ automotive
formulations that work just as well.
>HOWEVER, keep in mind that the API SJ standard specifies
>minimum (for "good" characteristics and maximum (for "bad"
>characteristics) specifications for "normal" operating conditions
>and durations. If API SJ specs were sufficient for optimal lubrication
>and harsher-than-normal conditions, then motor oil companies
>would not bother with synthetic oils.
And if synthetic oils were all their proponents claim, engine
manufacturers would *require* their use. (Some do, but their
lubrication requirements are special.)
No, synthetic oils aren’t snake oil. They’re legitimate technology
and do perform better than conventional oils under severe conditions.
But they’re too often promoted like snake oil (especially the $8/qt
UNcertified boutique oils). And the MLM clowns are always
extrapolating the benefits under severe conditions into the relatively
mild conditions that constitute 99% of our driving.
And again, if you can find a reliable study showing that a synthetic
oil will significantly prolong the life of an engine over one that’s
been fed an equivalent conventional oil, I’d like to see it.
And no, ‘data’ presented by the Amsoil clowns doesn’t count. I’m
talking synthetic versus conventional of the same vis grade and
Service class, identical filtration, and both changed according to the
engine manufacturer’s specifications.
I’ve seen engines with hundreds of thousands of miles on them without
a rebuild, lubricated with conventional oil, where you could still see
the hone marks on the cylinder walls. I’ve also seen engines with a
few tens of thousands of miles all scored up inside.
Engine longevity is 1% oil, 10% design, and 89% care and maintenance.
>>Don’t mess it up by dumping in some miracle mouse milk that
>>may produce spectacular results in some irrelevant test.
>**
>…but may have negative effects on motor oil performance.
>**
>My conclusion, let the buyer beware. Consumers need to make
>informed buying decisions. Don’t unconditionally accept the
>claims of any motor oil or supplemental additive manufacturer
>nor the comments of any nay-sayer without scrutiny. You can
>consider any of these, but you’ve got to think for yourself in the end.
I’ll go with that.
Remember, real advancement usually comes in small steps. Rarely, if
ever, to you see quantum leaps in performance. And *never* to you see
quantum leaps in performance coming out of bottles hawked on
infomercials on late night television.
When I was a kid growing up in Wisconsin, the dairy industry there was
sucessful in getting a law passed that made it illegal to sell yellow
margerine. The margerine companies got around this law by enclosing a
little packet of yellow food coloring in with the uncolored margerine.
If these snake oils really worked as claimed, we’d see mainstream oil
companies attaching little bottles of extra additives to their
‘inferior’ certified SJ oils so you could mix up the superior product
at home. There’s a reason we don’t see that.
–
John
What do the various API designations (SJ, SH, et al) stand for?
–
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor–Ovid
Siddiq wrote:
> What do the various API designations (SJ, SH, et al) stand for?
You may find some answer here
http://tempest.ece.uiuc.edu/~cburian/mc/oil/
–
Garry, ’95 MaxSE
***************************************************
* To contact remove NOSPAM from e-mail address *
***************************************************
In <Pine.SOL.3.95.981007153529.6898N-100000@cocoon>, Siddiq
<siddi…@student.ucr.edu> wrote:
>What do the various API designations (SJ, SH, et al) stand for?
They are ‘service’ classifications, describing the performance of the
oil.
Visit
:http://www.lubrizol.com/referencelibrary/readyreference/6-OilClasses/...
–
John
Forget the additives. The best protection is to use a good brand of oil with
the highest API classification you can get. Even better, would be to use a name
brand synthetic, especially in turbo engines. This stuff just doesn’t break
down anywehere near as fast as normal refiend oil.
Developing oil testing procedures must be a constantly evolving standard.
Ultimately the only way to determine how a particular oil formulation will
perform in a 100,000 miles stretched over say 7 or 8 years is to put that
formula in a car and drive it for 100,000 miles over 7 or 8 years. Any other
test is an approximation.
As for oil additives, I know that the Slick 50 people have had published an
article in the journal of the Society of Automotive Engineers outlining their
tests confirming the benefits of their product. Is anyone personally familiar
with this article?
Seems like an awfully prestigious organization to be publishing snake-oil
stories.
———–== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==———-
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
In article <S31T1.156$pB6.497…@client.news.psi.net>
feier…@utrc.utc.com (John M. Feiereisen) writes:
>In <Pine.SOL.3.95.981007153529.6898N-100000@cocoon>, Siddiq
><siddi…@student.ucr.edu> wrote:
>>What do the various API designations (SJ, SH, et al) stand for?
>They are ‘service’ classifications, describing the performance of the oil.
>Visit
>:http://www.lubrizol.com/referencelibrary/readyreference/6-OilClasses/...
One comment, SAE/API classifications are continually revised to meet the
needs of the auto industry, with the intention that backward compatibility is
desirable where possible ( obviously no Microsoft people on the committees).
The reason for a new class of lubricant may be to help engines pass
emissions and fuel economy regulations, not to provide longer lubricant life
or less wear.
Nothing is ever perfect for all applications or environments, but the classes
( and the friction/engine/physical/chemical tests required for compliance )
are necessary to ensure advances in lubrication technology can be widely
adopted, and that users can purchase approved products from a wide
range of suppliers. In reality, there are only a few major producers of the
additive packages ( Lubrizol, Amoco, etc ) that are used as the base of many
popular retail lubricants – and it’s those additive packages that are tested,
not individual products – which can use base grades ( 80% of the lubricant )
from varying sources. Obviously, high quality additive packages cost more
than packages designed for less strenous engine environments.
If an engine manufacturer recommends an oil grade and class, then that
means the manufacturer expects the product will provide lubrication and other
desirable properties ( acid resistance, detergency, etc. ) during the expected
life of the engine – if service schedules are followed.
That does not mean that other products can not provide the same, or superior,
performance – just that they haven’t been tested. One problem with engine
and field tests is that they are *very* expensive, and so are conducted by
only a few manufacturers, and using agreed standard engines – that may not
reflect all the stresses on modern lubricants in modern engine – ( turbos
being one example where lubrication technology had to be improved ).
The safest option is to follow the engine manufacturers’ recommendations,
or use a premium grade from a reputable oil manufacturer – who is prepared
to confirm their product exceeds the performance requirements. If you stress
the engine more ( adding performance accessories ) then you should look
to improving the quality of the lubricant as well, or changing more
frequently. Modern lubricants are some of the cheapest insurance around.
Bruce Hamilton
Siddiq wrote:
> What do the various API designations (SJ, SH, et al) stand for?
> —
> video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor–Ovid
9 Oct 98
ADDITIVES FOR FUELS AND LUBRICANTS
FACT AND FICTION
The real truth about fuel and lubricant additives can only be understood
by first learning the facts about the oil refining industry.
Not widely known is the fact that of every barrel of crude oil that is
refined, some 83% of that barrel becomes a motor fuel such as
gasoline (petrol), diesel, aviation/jet, etc. From that same barrel of
crude comes only 1.6% in the form of lubricants with the
remaining 15% or so yielding a variety of products from petrochemical
feed stocks to tar and asphalt [source : American Petroleum
Institute(API)]. In view of this fact, it is simple to see that the 83%
fuel yield is the largest source of income to the oil refiner and as
such, is the ‘‘life blood’’ of his profits. Keep this foregoing fact in
mind as we proceed.
The 1.6% of the yield going to lubricants is in reality a by-product of
the refining process and contributes very little to the refiner’s
profits. It must now be understood that simply refining a barrel of
crude to get the 1.6% as lubricants is not enough as just the
refined lubricant will NOT lubricate properly without what is referred
to as the ‘‘additive package’’ (usually no more than 10% by
volume) added to the refined lubricant by the oil refiner. The oil
refiner then ‘‘warrants’’ his lubricating oil to perform in a
‘‘satisfactory’’ manner in your equipment. This raises the question as
to who decides what is ‘‘satisfactory’’ and what is not? By
whose definition does the preblended lubricant (or fuel for that matter)
perform in a ‘‘satisfactory’’ manner? The oil refiner’s, the
equipment manufacturer’s or do you, the equipment owner/user, have any
say in how this term is defined? Sorry, but the user of the
lubricant or fuel has no input as to what is satisfactory or not. This
has already been decided for you by the oil refiner. Now you
may ask why does not the oil refiner improve his lubricants and his fuel
to the point of ‘‘superior’’or ‘‘maximum’’ performance?
After all, it has long been known that fully formulated lubricants can
be measurably improved by simply increasing the preblended
additive package above the usual 10%. The truth is that the oil refiner
has no incentive to improve his lubricants or fuel, and in fact
has every reason to resist any improvement to them. What reason does the
oil refiner have for this line of thinking? The answer is
very simple: Any lubricant, solid or liquid, must be used in a
mechanical device for one primary purpose; to make the metal moving
parts move easily against each other. Now the better the performance of
the lubricant, the easier the metal parts move against each
other with less wear taking place. BUT, something else also happens at
the same time as a side effect. The easier the metal parts
move against each other the less friction you have AND THE LESS ENERGY
YOU NEED TO POWER THE MECHANICAL
DEVICE. Obvious conclusion – improved lubrication to the point of
superior or maximum performance is a direct threat to the
refiner’s largest source of income from each barrel of crude – the 83%
yield of motor fuel which supplies the energy to power the
mechanical device you are trying to lubricate properly.
In addition, why should the refiner increase his cost by improving his
lubricants when it is really only a by-product of his refining
process and already contibutes very little to his income? From his
standpoint, there is no valid reason why he should. The
equipment manufacturers have also been aware of the foregoing truths for
some time but they have chosen to stay in the background
and say nothing. Why? This also has a very simple answer. Lubrication in
a superior or maximum manner first of all decreases
friction and wear. What does decreased wear mean to the equipment
manufacturer? Obvious answer – reduced sales of new
equipment and reduced sales of replacement parts. Again, improved
lubrication is a direct threat to the income of the equipment
manufacturer. Is there any doubt as to why the oil refining industry
(and to some degree the OEM industry) began, many years ago,
a dedicated effort to suppress and discredit the advanced technology of
fuel and lubricant additives which you may yourself add to
what you have purchased from them?
Additives or additive packages installed by the equipment owner/user are
commonly referred to as ‘‘aftermarket additives’’. But,
how many times have you heard them called ‘‘snake oil’’, ‘‘mouse milk’’
or some other derogatory and insulting name? Probably
more times than you can remember and by now, you should realize the
origin of such names, why they are used and the fact that
there is no truth in them at all.
Now let us discuss specifically the aftermarket addtives, what they are
and what they do. As of early 1996, there are currently in
excess of some 200 different brands of aftermarket fuel and lubricant
additives available on the market with some being sold by
Ford, GM, etc. All make a wide range of claims as to the benefit of
their use and most of these claims are probably true to some
extent. However, 99.9% of these additives are simply more of the same
additive package initially blended into the fuel or lubricant by
the oil refiner and we have already brought out the fact that the
refiner does not put enough additive into their fuels and lubricants to
begin with. Now putting more of the same additives into the fuel or
lubricant is beneficial (assuming the marketeer of the additive
does not instruct you to overdo it). But, considering what you pay for
the additional additive, is it really cost effective? Probably not
with the possible exception of fuel injector cleaner (needed because the
fuel you buy does not have enough detergent additive in it to
begin with). As we all know, dirty injectors cause excessive fuel
consumption. This is good for the oil refiner – he sells more fuel
and makes more money. Regardless of the claim to benefits, no
manufacturer or marketeer of aftermarket additives provides any
kind of warranty wherein the user is guaranteed any level of dollar
savings through the use of their products – EXCEPT for the
Parsec formulations. We provide a warranty unlike anything ever heard of
in the lubrication industry regardless of whether fully
formulated or additive. And in reality, our formulas cannot be truly
called an “aftermarket additive”. With such a wide range of
applications, our formulas are used as fully formulated (completed) in
some applications and with the same formula, used as an
additive or concentrate in another type of application. Therefore, our
formulas really do not totally fit into either category; but fall
somewhere in between as a hybrid family of formulations which are
proprietary, unique, made with classified manufacturing
processes and without equal anywhere in the world, or out of it if in
deep space.
http://www.netside.com/~parsec/parsec.htm