Oil Extreme comments

[Tom F&L GoR]

Howdy. I looked at the Oil Extreme website and would like to explain a few things. I'll follow the same format as the website.

Base Stocks:
Group I base oils are high aromatics, low viscosity index oils. Higher aromatics means more prone to oxidation, while low viscosity index means it thins out when the temperature goes up. These are still used in probably half the engine oils on the market today. They aren't "bad" and all their handicaps can usually be made up for with additives. Group II base oils are low aromatics, so some of the "warts" are removed. Oil Extreme is a little off in that there are also Group III base oils, which are mineral oil based, very highly refined and are essentially the same performance as synthetics. Castrol, Shell, and others use Group III base oils in their synthetic oil products. To give them the benefit of the doubt, Oil Extreme might be using Group II+, a subcategory of the base oil description system, which is almost like a synthetic. But to claim it's better than synthetic can't be true, since Group III exists, is better than Group II, and is used by others in their synthetic.

Additive Package:
An API approved standard additive package is not descriptive. A standard passenger car oil package is about 9% of a quart, a standard diesel oil package is about 16% of the quart. Makes a big difference.

Extreme Pressure:
Calcium carbonate is a pure form of limestone, so this is either an inaccurate description or if accurate, it's a powder used in concrete and paper mills to make smooth paper.

Asperities:
Asperities are the peaks, not the valleys, when talking about surface roughness. Oil also fills in the valleys, which is why engines have lasting for thousands, not tens, of miles. More Total Base Number (TBN) is fine, although it's there to reduce the formation of sulfuric acids that form. The sulfur comes from the fuel, and that's why diesel engine oil is high TBN - diesel fuel had lots of sulfur (although the government is now requiring it to be reduced.) High TBN in a passenger car with gasoline is sort of a so-what. High TBN relates directly to longer drain in a diesel, but not a gasoline engine.

Link to "Calcium Petroleum Sulfonate":
Calcium sulfonate and overbased calcium sulfonate have been used for many years. It doesn't "hurt" friction, but as another active material, it does compete for metal sites. Too much of this and friction modifiers and anti-wear additives can't get to the metal. To claim that reduced tolerances increases the odds of extreme pressure needs is inaccurate. Reduced tolerances come from parts being rounder or smoother, and therefore less chance of point contact or extreme pressure.

I'm impressed with the technical description of the other additive chemistries (ZDDP, chlorinated paraffins, etc. ) Got this right.

It is not technical feasible to claim the no-harm features of the oil industry's testing if the molecule has been changed. Just because it looks similar on paper doesn't count. Graphite and diamonds are both carbon....

Detergency may be improved, dispersancy is another feature that calcium sulfonates can't claim.

Racing testimonials aren't what the public thinks. NASCAR teams such as Ganassi use off the shelf products and they almost won the series until Marlin broke his neck. And the oil is only used once, for 500 miles, and then the engine is gone over. And the oil temperature is maintained by the three gallon dry sump and lots of coolers...

Thin Film Technology:
Shearing molecules happens often already. Shear breaks down viscosity index improvers, the standard anti-wear additives, the traditional friction modifiers...

Conclusion:
There's no data to show improved extreme pressure performance. Car companies don't think you need it, otherwise they would have engine tests that the oil majors could pass only if they had EP additives in the oil. If you want more TBN, more calcium sulfonate, more additive, a synthetic-quality base oil, you can get Mobil Delvac 1, Shell Rotella T Synthetic, and others. Sorry, they don't come with the big claims...

Apologize for typos...

 

[GR8_ASP]

Thanks Tom. Your knowledge and insight are always welcome.

BTW, if you ever do come across a magical 20% fuel economy improver, make sure you let me know.

 

[Steve 00RT/10]

Tom,

Thanks for taking the time to look into this and writing it up.

I picked up on the use of Group II rather than III base stock as well. It would seem you would start with a Group III base stock rather than a lesser base oil by definition. Of course, our prior spirited discussions is where I learned a little more about oil formulation/additives from you..


Steve

 

[GTS Dean]

Howdy.

I like that! Are you a displaced Texan?

It is not technical feasible to claim the no-harm features of the oil industry's testing if the molecule has been changed. Just because it looks similar on paper doesn't count. Graphite and diamonds are both carbon....

That was totally unexpected, but a superb analogy!

 

[Torquemonster]

Fascinating.... I'm impressed by the knowledge, less by the partiality - but it confirms what most want to believe, and that's fine with me. Truly.

But to write it off without trying it is a bit sad if not arrogant. It assumes you already know the outcome... which of course is what you believe, but that does not make it true.

David Vizard has tested it extensively - he is a world respected motor engineer - he can give you test data the website falls short on. I know the CEO at Oil Extreme - and George is no oil expert... but he is an honest guy. He got Oil Extreme handed to him and is doing his best to sell it - many confirm its good, some skeptics write it off without testing it....

When you actually test it back to back with a brand name oil and compare engine temp for same loads and conditions, fuel economy at cruise, power, oil analysis after 5000 miles to show quality of oil at that point and reveal engine wear, and RACE it back to back - you'll have some empherical evidence... you could save time and look at the research done by people like Vizard, but if you are the only person you'll trust - you'll have to do it yourself.

until then your techno explanation may be from someone far better qualified than I (or for that matter whoever wrote the website) - but it assumes the product fails - and that is not scientific - it's opinion.

While your opinion may be well qualified - it does not cancel out actual results. Results I've seen with my own eyes verses other products that i could not get a gain from. I was not an agent - I had no barrow to push - I was asked to test it so I did. Nor does your opinion make Vizard and many others who are capable of testing things a dork or a liar.

I've seen things on the dyno experts deny is possible - that either makes me a liar or some the of the experts need to crack their minds open just a tad.

This incredible faith in big business and government to give us the best technology has to offer shows a faith that is so naive I can't be bothered trying to convince those who want to believe otherwise. It's almost as much faith as it takes to believe we came from monkeys.... as if a pile of iron filings will turn into a Viper SRT10 in 1 million years.... but I digress

There are patents sitting in large corporate secret files that would blow you away - and you are never likely to see them! I know this first hand - not out of some conspiracy book - but let's leave that as off topic..

re my 20% economy gain - as you scoffed at it. Hey - there could be other factors why I got a 20% gain in mpg, why my 100-120kph time dropped 0.2 of second average over 6 runs - but having not changed anything else - I'm struggling to think of any.... everyone I spoke to who tried it also got gains - not all got 20% however, some did. I don't understand why I got so much - but I'll take it!

I might add that normal mileage on Oil Extreme dropped to 26-28mpg highway but that was using a lot more boosted applications for overtaking than when I got 28mpg with Mobil One.... which was very controlled and running on vacuum only.

When we poured this CEMENT into the race car I used to sponsor (a 6 second 3000lb Pro Mod blown Alcohol monster) - why don't you explain why we didn't have to change our oil anymore on race day?

Everyone else running blown alcohol has to change their oil every other run because it turns to milk from fuel dilution.... ours didn't with Oil Extreme - the oil kept its colour and its protection all day. Please also explain why the same motor for 3 seasons broke stuff every meeting from the lack of the oils ability to cope with the stress - but adding Oil Extreme on the same (new) hard parts led to a whole season without wear or breaking anything... after racing finished all we had to do was replace one valve spring and a pushrod because someone forgot to pre-lube that cylinder on the last run.... In pre OE days that would have led to a run down on one cylinder instantly!

If there is an explanation you could create to explain that - I'd love to hear it. I can assure you no other competitor could go a whole season with no wear at that level - not one! as in zero - and I'd REALLY like to see you run a whole season in Pro Mod blown alochol on no wear, no broken bits AND do it on Mobil One - let us know when you pull that one off

9/10 of competitors have to replace springs and pushhrods at least - after every race day - and a complete melt down or terminal event was common.

Those on Redline Oil lasted longer (typically 2-4 meets) on same springs/pushrods for some reason (than those on other race oils)- but no-one got a full season on no replacements/breakages - except the Blue Thunder Charger - and we did not advertise it either.

It's hysterical that people think if something is so good everyone will do it - you and all cynics are living proof EVERYONE never will.

But we were not unique - other racers in other sports were reporting the same thing - their engines were lasting longer - they were stripping them down as usual - because that was what they'd always done - only to find there was nothing to fix so put them back and re-ran them - time and time again.

I don't care how many degrees someone has. An engine builder who builds the same engine year after year - for whole classes, and their engines are very competitive - they know those engines, how long they live, what has to be replaced and when. When they say that by (reluctantly) trying the OE they found that they could keep the engine intact for the whole season instead of every second meet - I'll listen - even if they talk with a straw hanging out of their mouth and chew gum!

MATE! THAT IS PRETTY GOOD CEMENT!

It's not a miracle - anyone who claims that is pulling someones chain - but it is good stuff.

But keep using Mobil One.... and buying replacement parts once your performance parts start stressing everything - it feeds a whole industry and keeps people in jobs.

I'll challenge you on this point - that extreme pressure is irrelevant! In an everyday car - you can get 100,000 miles out of most on ordinary oil - maybe triple that on a really good package like OE.... but if you sell your cars before 100,000 - yes its academic. For racing however....BS!

Lifter to lobe friction can exceed 160,000psi and you know that modern oil seldom goes much above 100,000psi. You gonna try and tell us that's irrelevant? Excuse me if I'm not convinved.

Here's some crude emphircal evidence that I got - not scientific but it taught me something...

I ran a bearing test on Mobil One, Castrol GTX, and one other Castrol oil (I forget the label - this was a few years ago) - it was half synthetic, half mineral based. I then added Oil Extreme to each.

The bearing had a 7:1 lever, and all the oils were pretty close - about half a lever notch (3.5lbs) load capability difference between the oils. This meant to me that the load capability was similar between these common oils despite Mobil One being 3 times more expensive.

The best oil (Mobil One) achieved about 42lbs leverage on the disposable bearing (notch 6) before it smoked, squeaked, wore a groove then seized on the machine.

Adding just one drop of OE to the oil bath allowed me to pull on the lever to the max (15 notches or around 105lbs) then well beyond without seizing the bearing.... if I'd bent the lever any harder I'd have snapped it (and yes I have a one arm pull considerably better than 100lbs). The oil of course disappeared in smoke leaving only a film on the bearing from the OE and no marks on the bearing, ...and a hot dry oil bath.

You may not be impressed so easily - but it was pretty cool i thought. Same when adding it to the other oils.

So we added WATER to the bath - and the lever stalled the bearing at 2.5 notches - proving water is better than nothing. We then added a drop of Oil Extreme to the water and pulled - to the max - no squeaking, no problem - just a lot of steam.

What this means to me is that in my race engine - I'm happy to run this CEMENT, as while there are snake oils out there that also have extreme pressure, the rest of the Oil Extreme package is comparable to good quality oil and the TBN does provide better alkalyne reserves - which doesn't matter much if oil is changed at short intervals, but doesn't hurt either.

Your comment about there being better all round oil - is why I'd run something like the top shelf Mobil One 0w/40 then add the OE additive rather than just run the OE complete oil....

So there's a bit of evidence based upon fact vs theory based upon superior technical knowledge....

PS: Just take it in good spirits - I really don't care what you guys run as I've said before - as long as you run a good oil - it's your car! I only wish you all get a good life out of it and enjoy it - that's what it's all about.

This is all I really want to say so I'll give you guys the last word . I'm done on this topic now.

 

[Tom F&L GoR]

Howdy, TQMonster

Sorry, I thought I was impartial, but the website does not have data, only a description of the additive and a claim that it's a good thing. And I only looked at that site, since that's where folks are trying to sell it. David Vizard isn't selling it.

I'll admit to working for a big company, but doing so has given me the exposure to fuels and fuel additives, lubricants and lubricant additives, dyno testing, fleet testing, and formulating race oils for NASCAR teams, diesel trucks, and lawnmowers. I don't think I'm a real expert at anything, but have seen quite a bit. So....

I've never seen 20% fuel economy from a lube additive. Given the fundamental split of where energy goes (1/3 to power, 1/3 to coolant, 1/3 to exhaust) there isn't much hope for an additive to change that by 20%. Top race teams think they get maybe 20 hp out of 800 hp by going from "bad" to "best" race oil.

In the US, patents are public knowledge. One can't hide them, and the reason they are public is to keep others from using your invention.

In regards to cam lobe loads, I know from firsthand NASCAR experience that sliding lifters and aggresive lift rates can cause wear problems. But for the most part, an off-the-shelf oil can handle this, and for added protection with thinner oils, a little extra of the normal antiwear additive works. No need for extreme pressure additives.

Your bearing test is the infamous Falex tester, in which a load is applied to rub against a motored shaft. Yes, it's an extreme pressure additive evaluation. No, it doesn't apply to automotive engines. Many (snake oil) additive marketers have used it because it is a very impressive demonstration, but again, it doesn't apply to engines.

But maybe we're picking on each other. So, also in good spirits, I'll just say "I don't think so."

 

[Daffy Duck Viper]

Your comment about there being better all round oil - is why I'd run something like the top shelf Mobil One 0w/40 then add the OE additive rather than just run the OE complete oil....

Adding the Oil Extreme concentrate to the top shelf Mobil One 0w/40 is a much better idea than what I had planned on doing, which was to just use the Oil Extreme oil. I've used Mobil-1 for a long time, so this is like the best of both worlds. Heh. So, anyway, after having read what you said, and understanding a lot more, I've revised my plan. Thanks for all the technical information. Fascinating stuff.

You must be registered for see images

You must be registered for see images

You must be registered for see images

 

[GR8_ASP]

Tom, you took some of the thoughts right out of my head. When I mentioned the 20% amount I was stating it very tongue in cheek. Some of the comments are pure crazy. Big industry locking patents in a vault. Yeh sure! I am sure he would advocate the miracle carburetor as another of the miracle devices. Never mind the chemistries involved as science is pure bunk.

"Lifter to lobe friction can exceed 160,000psi and you know that modern oil seldom goes much above 100,000psi. You gonna try and tell us that's irrelevant? Excuse me if I'm not convinved."

Replace the word "friction" with "pressure" and you are correct. However, the lubricant does not provide protection for the pressure. That is why the stress limit for nodular iron camshafts is at about 160 ksi. It is called Herzian stress and not friction. So yes, for roller follower engines I am going to tell you that's irrelevant.

I see no benefit in arguing about this topic anymore. If a company believes in their product they would provide evidence of their claims. The API and SAE have specific engine tests to validate fuel efficiency improvements due to to the engine lubricant. I suggest the OE conduct said tests in a controlled laboratory setting and publish their findings. If validated the OEMs would be rushing to their door. IF proven ineffective, or worse countereffective, they would disappear from the face of the planet. But, they of course can continue the current methodology and hope that Barnum and Bailey were correct.

 

[Torquemonster]

Hi Tom

i promised to shut up -

so shoot me

ok - there was one thing I remembered re the 20% that may have a bearing on things: this was a few years ago

Oil Extreme used to trade as Jet Set Technologies inc. They also made a thing called a Triple charger. It was one of those canisters that ran inline in your fuel system and the fuel ran thru a precious metal mix, with an earth and a magnetic field etc and was supposed to add power and economy, make combustion cleaner, fix bleeding hemoriods etc.

I had nothing to lose - so put one on. Could not measure any gain at the time... then added the Oil Extreme and gained 20% economy (driving on vacuum just as I had before to get 28mpg).

The engine may have loosened up a bit after its upgrade - that might account for a little bit (tho that mileage between tests was not much), and the Triplecharger may have kicked in after a few tanks - who knows.... they were funny things - greek to even JetSet in the end.

I ended up having a bit to do with them and some worked and some did nothing and there was no logic to it until someone came up with a formula that related to length of fuel line between canister and injector or carb.... it improved the success rate - but the technology was still too hit amd miss to call it a commercial wonder!

At their best I've seen them allow a high compression engine that needed avgas to run without detonating - run on 91 unleaded and run its best time, with no knock and no spark retard... but the sweet spot of the cannister was so crucial that it was a pain in the neck for most cars.

It's an idea that if the big companies picked up they could make it commercial - but as it is - it's not.

BTW I have also seen 6% hp at wheels on every car we tested by simply filtering the pump gas thru an activated carbon filter (made with some PVC downpipe, wifes pantyhose filled with carbon, and clips and then glued in some fuel fittings) - crude but it worked! Maybe our gas here is bad.... but try it see if it works for US gas.

In any event the oil extreme definitely helped economy - whatever figure we ascribe to it. The engine was quieter and smoother - and having run that engine for many thousands of miles before upgrading -I knew it well. It was also quicker, and as I raced it - all these things were measurable... not big gains maybe but on top of what the Mobil One offered alone - any gains proved to me it was not a snake oil!

I've seen dyno results of 8-10hp from Oil Extreme - 12hp was the highest I ever saw - so that falls within your 20hp margin.

Patents = public access - yes, but there are millions of them. You don't know whose you infringe on until you have a go at something and the owner comes at you for copying - also a lot of research has uncovered ideas that have excellent working prototypes, have proven workable, and EXTREMELY commerical but are being sat on. No one (but the owner) can pick them up while the patents are valid without attack.

Falex test? reminds me of a joke ... nah, won't go there

anyway... yes we beg to differ there. The proof being in our racing experience. That is not to say you are not happy with the engine life of NASCAR engines you have been involved with... so maybe we split hairs

Our experience was in drag racing where the loads are greater therefore any limitations will show quicker at 1000+lb spring pressures and 500 cubes of big block pulling 9500rpm at 54psi boost.

However - Tom - don't you think that "in theory" - a 0W/10 racing oil offers power advantages for being thinner AND if you combine that with extreme pressure rating/friction reducers - there is (in theory)no increased wear - therefore no downside providing oil pressure is adequate?

NASCAR qualifies cars as I understand on 10W then goes heavier for the race.... but if Oil Extreme technology is available - why not race at 10W?

I'm confident you could safely do that with Oil Extreme - the tribochemical film doesn't rub off provided the oil keeps circulating. So if other oil additives are as good - why do they need to race thicker oils?

I'm sure George at Oil Extreme would give you a bottle to test how long a NASCAR engine would run at 10W oil with or without it. If it lasted - that would mean more speed right?

 

[Torquemonster]

Ron

I hadn't seen your post when i sent the earlier one...

fair enough points - i learned something about the nodular iron cam limits - thanks for that.

I agree with you - I'd like to see OE tested more than it has been - but George (CEO of OE) apparently doesn't think he has to convince the techno people - I think he is wrong there myself - but its not my concern to convince him. He thinks they've done enough.

FWIW Some oil industry magazine ran tests on it a couple of years back and wrote an article on it if I recall correctly.... some other mag ran oil comparisons including it and they did rate it number one... I'd be surprised if both those things were not on the site... I've not looked as I only started this to share my experience not start a war

I should have taken the triple charger off and re-run the economy for a fairer test of how much gain was purely Oil Extreme instead of assuming that no initial gain from Triplecharger would stay no gain. But don't tell me I'm an idiot who believes in fairies - I can count

the Pogue carb? grin - never seen one, so can't commment. Have seen vaporisers though - made one! Yes it did work. No it is not commercial for the home handyman.

 

[joe117]

This is pseudo science.

"Triple charger. It was one of those canisters that ran inline in your fuel system and the fuel ran thru a precious metal mix, with an earth and a magnetic field etc"

If the company selling Oil Extreme was involved with this item, then they are charlatans.

torquemonster, tell me. Do you believe the "Triple charger" has any value?

 

[Torquemonster]

Joe - read what i said about it.

Basically no it was not commercial - it was too hit and miss.

IF you hit "the sweet spot" - which seemed to have a tolerance of only inches - then yes- we saw genuine results.... you can rubbish that with all the science you like -

but I saw what i saw. Do you want me to lie so I appear "normal?".

When you can take an 11:1 340 Mopar with shocking quench and very prone to detonation - that needs avgas because pump gas 96 made it knock - then do nothing but fit this "charlatan device" and run it on 91 to see what would happen, to find it no longer knocked - in fact it ran its best 1/4 time on the same timing as on avgas... what do you do? What explanation would you give? Take the device off and the engine knocked like hell.

What else can I say?

Back to your question - that was the exception - most people got no gain and did not want to cut their fuel lines all over the place trying to find "the spot".

There's something in the basic technology that science hasn't explained yet, I think that it would take more money than most companies would be willing to spend to make it predictable and therefore commercial at this time... as the results are not big enough to justify the investment...yet

but yes - there is an effect on gas from magnetism and a chemical reaction from gas pasing thru certain substances. I don't understand it any more than you. But the most famous racer in the South Pacific knew it and added a similar device to his GM factory hotted up cars sold with warranty thru GM dealerships....

he got riddiculed for it by the mainstream press - to the point GM got embarrassed because they couldn't explain it either. So he ended up dropping the "black box". But the owners of those cars all swore it helped! But no-one could explain adequately why - so it was deemed "BS". Everyone now thnks it was all a joke - except a few. But get Peter aside privately and ask him - he'll tell you they worked. He doesn't understand why - but so what?

Peter Brock was no mug - he was the winniest driver in Australian history. He was/is known right across NZ and Australia as Peter Perfect and is as well known here as Mario Andretti in the USA. His nickname was because of his uncany driving accuracy and consistency. He seldom made mistakes, and almost always won if it rained. His street production cars are still collectors items today holding their value since the early 80's. The evolution of the company he got underway still operates and created the Pontiac GTO you have today with the 5.7 Vette engine and 6 speed.

 

[joe117]

Do you expect anyone to believe all these tales?
They all start and end up the same way, A great discovery is made and then big oil or GM or the government makes it unavailable. Oh, and by the way, all of these breakthroughs take advantage of some part of science that is "not fully understood".
You have lost any credibility that you ever had.