Lake Speed Jr, Oil Additives = Snake oil (video)

[strutaeng]

One interesting point that he makes in the video (or maybe another one of his videos?) is friction and wear are 2 separate things

Increasing friction can actually decrease wear.

Decreasing friction can actually increase wear.

You would think that decreasing friction also decreases wear, but apparently that's not the case...

 

[j91z28d1]

Just out of curiosity, what do y'all think of Slick 50? I remember some really heated disagreements when it was new.

joe

can you even buy slick 50 anymore?

last I hear whatever they put into the oil was larger than what today's good oil filters will filter out. so all it did was fill your filter and it go into bypass mode.

 

[j91z28d1]

It is one thing to feel good about or believe in something, quite another to deal with evidence of what works and how well. Here is a short story for you:

My sister bought an old Chevy pick-up back around 1973, so it was from the early sixties. I asked about the black oil on the dipstick and the old guy selling it told me he never changed the oil, he just added STP.

I thought he was kidding but when we got the truck home and I went to change the oil it came out like molasses. In fact, worse than molasses. I put in a can of engine flush, ran it around the block, changed the oil and filter, and then changed them again after about a week. That truck ran fine until her boyfriend wrecked it.

Moral of the story is that an engine can take a lot of abuse, but why even try to explore the limits? Just use good oil and change it every few thousand miles.

small edit.. a 1973 small block Chevy would run on anything. especially making 200hp in a pick up.

these ls trucks engine eat valve train on 5$ a qt of the best synthetics made

 

[Geotrash]

small edit.. a 1973 small block Chevy would run on anything. especially making 200hp in a pick up.

these ls trucks engine eat valve train on 5$ a qt of the best synthetics made

I suspect it's not a lack of lubrication so much as a lack of precision in the operation of the DoD system, and inconsistent metallurgy + machining in the parts.

 

[Marky Dissod]

... lack of precision in the operation of the Engine Half@$$ system ...

An excellent reason to disable the Engine Half@$$ feature.

... inconsistent metallurgy + machining in the parts.

An excellent reason to replace the the Half@$$ lifters with real lifters.

 

[strutaeng]

small edit.. a 1973 small block Chevy would run on anything. especially making 200hp in a pick up.

these ls trucks engine eat valve train on 5$ a qt of the best synthetics made

Eh, I guess I get your point, but you really can't compare the two.

1970s (way before my time) engines were basically done at 100k miles. I do remember folks talking about taking cars to a mechanic for a compression test when buying used cars in the 90s as kid. "High mileage" was 75k miles back then. 100k+ on the odometer and value of vehicle took a nosedive.

Now we are getting 200k-300k+ on modern engines pretty easily. Sure, not all them make it that far, but a lot of them do. And the HP has increased while decreasing displacement (and emissions) and MPG has improved overall. 200k on an LS and not even the notorious cylinder top ridge that required that special tool to cut/ream and get pistons out on the old engines.

I suspect it's not a lack of lubrication so much as a lack of precision in the operation of the DoD system, and inconsistent metallurgy + machining in the parts.

Agreed

 

[Marky Dissod]

Now we are getting 200k-300k+ on modern engines pretty easily.

As a general rule of thumb, I'd bet that Gen3 LS & Vortec V8s have outperformed Gen4 LS & Vortec
V8s in terms of reliability / durability / longevity, and will continue to do so.
Yes, blame the Engine Half@$$ feature for the Gen4 LS / Vortec V8s being less reliable / durable / long-lived.

The Gen5 Ecotec V8's reputation (especially the 6.2L) has already been permanently tainted by Cylinder Confusion;
there's already at least one GM TSB directly calling attention to this.

 

[j91z28d1]

Eh, I guess I get your point, but you really can't compare the two.

1970s (way before my time) engines were basically done at 100k miles. I do remember folks talking about taking cars to a mechanic for a compression test when buying used cars in the 90s as kid. "High mileage" was 75k miles back then. 100k+ on the odometer and value of vehicle took a nosedive.

Now we are getting 200k-300k+ on modern engines pretty easily. Sure, not all them make it that far, but a lot of them do. And the HP has increased while decreasing displacement (and emissions) and MPG has improved overall. 200k on an LS and not even the notorious cylinder top ridge that required that special tool to cut/ream and get pistons out on the old engines.


Agreed

to be fair, a lot of the crappy 70-80 4cyl and stuff were pretty bad and cars were pretty cheaply made. but stuff a 350 or even a Ford 302 ran for as long you felt like keeping them. heck, I've still got old carb 300 straight 6 ford's. in service with the original engines. hour meters have tuned over I don't know how many times.

carb maintenance was kind of a big deal, most people didn't keep them tuned up and they would wash out rings and stuff. efi did help a ton with that.

the reason people did compression checks back then is because common people knew things. today doing a compression check would be a good idea before buying any of these afm ls, but you can't even get someone to do one when it's missing and running badly. you can't even get a shop to check oil pressure with a mechanical gauge.

 

[homesick]

The largest single reason for the poor engines in the '70 was the new federal emissions regulations.

joe

 

[Dustin Jackson]

Quick lube shop talked my wife into adding an additive to the CVT of her 30,000 mile civic. Don't like it but they did a fluid swap at the same time so at least theres that