The PTFE
Mystery
Currently, the
most common and popular oil additives on the market are those
that contain PTFE powders suspended in a regular,
over-the-counter type, 50-rated petroleum (THICK) or synthetic
engine oil. PTFE is the common abbreviation used for
Polytetrafloeraethylene, more commonly known by the trade name
"Teflon," which is a registered trademark of the DuPont
Chemical Corporation.
Among
those oil additives we have identified as containing PTFE are:
Slick 50, Liquid Ring, Lubrilon, Microlon, Matrix, Petrolon
(same company as Slick 50), QMl, and T-Plus (K-Mart). There
are probably many more names in use on many more products
using PTFE. We have found that oil additive makers like to
market their products under a multitude of "private brand"
names. While some of these products may contain other
additives in addition to PTFE, all seem to rely on the PTFE as
their primary active ingredient and all, without exception, do
not list what other ingredients they may
contain.
DuPont
says It Isn’t True
Though
they have gained rather wide acceptance among the motoring
public, oil additives containing PTFE have also garnered their
share of critics among experts in the field of lubrication.
By far the most damning
testimonial against these products originally came from the
DuPont Chemical Corporation, inventor of PTFE and holder of
the patents and trademarks for Teflon. In a
statement issued about ten years ago, DuPont's Fluoropolymers
Division Product Specialist, J.F. Imbalzano said, "Teflon is not useful as an ingredient in
oil additives or oils used for internal combustion
engines."
At the
time, DuPont threatened legal action against anyone who used
the name "Teflon" on any oil product destined for use in an
internal combustion engine, and refused to sell its PTFE
powders to any one who intended to use them for such purposes.
After a flurry of lawsuits from oil additive makers, claiming
DuPont could not prove that PTFE was harmful to engines,
DuPont was forced to once again begin selling their PTFE to
the additive producers.
The
additive makers like to claim this is some kind of "proof'
that their products work, when in fact it is nothing more than
proof that the American legal ethic of "innocent until proven
guilty" is still alive and well. The decision against DuPont
involved what is called "restraint of trade." You can't refuse
to sell a product to someone just because there is a
possibility they might use it for a purpose other than what
you intended it for. It should be noted that DuPont's official
position on the use of PTFE in engine oils remains carefully
aloof and noncommittal, for obvious legal reasons. DuPont
states that though they sell PTFE to oil additive producers,
they have "no proof of the validity of the additive makers'
claims." They further state that they have "no knowledge
of any advantage gained through the use of PTFE in engine
oil." Fear of potential lawsuits for possible
misrepresentation of a product seem to run much higher among
those with the most to lose.
DuPont
Tries to Halt Use
After
DuPont's decision and attempt to halt the use of PTFE in
engine oils, several of the oil additive companies simply went
elsewhere for their PTFE powders, such as purchasing them in
other countries. In some cases, they disguise or hype their
PTFE as being something different or special by listing it
under one of their own trade names. That doesn't change the
fact that it is still PTFE. In addition, there is some
evidence that certain supplies of PTFE powders (from
manufacturers other than DuPont) are of a cruder version than
the original, made with larger sized flakes that are more
likely to "settle out" in your oil or clog up your
filters. One fairly good indication that a product
contains this kind of PTFE is if the instructions for its use
advise you to "shake well before using." It only stands to
reason that if the manufacturer knows the solids in his
product will settle to the bottom of a container while sitting
on a shelf, the same thing is going to happen inside your
engine when it is left idle for any period of time.
The
problem with putting PTFE in your oil, as explained to us by
several industry experts, is that PTFE is a solid. The
additive makers claim this solid "coats" the moving parts in
an engine (though that is far from being scientifically
proven). Slick 50 is currently both the most aggressive
advertiser and the most popular seller, with claims of over 14
million treatments sold. However, such solids seem even
more inclined to coat non-moving parts, like oil passages and
filters. After all, if it can build up under the pressures
and friction exerted on a cylinder wall, then it stands to
reason it should build up even better in places with low
pressures and virtually no friction.
This
conclusion seems to be borne out by tests on oil additives
containing PTFE conducted by the NASA Lewis Research Center,
which said in their report, "In the types of bearing surface
contact we have looked at, we have seen no benefit. In some
cases we have seen detrimental effect. The solids in the oil
tend to accumulate at inlets and act as a dam, which simply
blocks the oil from entering. Instead of helping, it is
actually depriving parts of lubricant."
Remember,
PTFE in oil additives is a suspended solid. Now think about
why you have an oil filter on your engine. To remove suspended
solids, right? Right. Therefore it would seem to follow that
if your oil filter is doing its job, it will collect as much
of the PTFE as possible, as quickly as possible. This can
result in a clogged oil filter and decreased oil pres sure
throughout your engine. In response to our inquiries about
this sort of problem, several of the PTFE pushers responded
that their particulates were of a sub-micron size, capable of
passing through an ordinary oil filter
unrestricted.
This
certainly sounds good, and may in some cases actually be true,
but it makes little difference when you know the rest of the
story. You see, PTFE has other qualities besides being a
friction reducer: It expands radically when exposed to heat.
So even if those particles are small enough to pass through
your filter when you purchase them, they very well may not be
when your engine reaches normal operating temperature. Here
again, the scientific evidence seems to support this, as in
tests conducted by researchers at the University of Utah
Engineering Experiment Station involving Petrolon additive
with PTFE. The Petrolon test
report states, "There was a pressure drop across the oil
filter resulting from possible clogging of small passageways."
In addition, oil
analysis showed that iron contamination doubled after using
the treatment, indicating that engine wear didn't go down - it appeared
to shoot up. This particular report was paid for by
Petrolon (marketers of Slick 50), and was not all bad news for
their products. The tests, conducted on a Chevrolet
six-cylinder automobile engine, showed that after treatment
with the PTFE additive the test engine's friction was reduced
by 13.1 percent. Also, output horsepower increased from 5.3
percent to 8.1 percent, and fuel economy improved from 11.8
percent under light load to 3.8 percent under heavy load.
These are the kind of results an aggressive marketing company
like Petrolon can really sink their teeth into. If we only
reported the results in the last paragraph to you, you'd be
inclined to think Slick 50 was indeed a magic engine elixir.
What you have to keep in mind is that often times the benefits
(like increased horse power and fuel economy) may be out
weighed by some serious drawbacks...
The Plot
Thickens
Just as
we were about to go to press with this article, we were
contacted by the public relations firm of Trent and Company,
an outfit with a prestigious address in the Empire State
Building, New York. They advised us they were working for a
company called QMI out of Lakeland, Florida, that was
marketing a "technological breakthrough" product in oil
additives. Naturally, we asked them to send us all pertinent
information, including any testing and research data. What we
got was pretty much what we expected. QMI's oil additive,
according to their press release, uses "ten times more PTFE
resins than its closest competitor." Using the "unique SX-6000
formula," they say they are the only company to use "aqueous
dispersion resin which means the microns (particle sizes) are
extensively smaller and can penetrate tight areas." This, they
claim, "completely eliminates the problem of clogged filters
and oil passages."
Intrigued
by their press release, we set up a telephone interview with
their Vice-President of Technical Services, Mr. Owen Heatwole.
Mr. Heatwole's name was immediately recognized by us as one
that had popped in earlier research of this subject as a
former employee of Petrolon, a company whose name seems
inextricably linked in some fashion or another with virtually
every PTFE-related additive maker in the
country.
Mr.
Heatwole was a charming and persuasive talker with a knack for
avoiding direct answers as good as any seasoned politician.
His glib pitch for his product was the best we've ever heard,
but when dissected and pared down to the verifiable facts, it
actually said very little. When we asked about the ingredients
in QMI's treatments, we got almost exactly the response we
expected. Mr. Heatwole said he would "have to avoid discussing
specifics about the formula, for proprietary reasons." After
telling us that QMI was being used by "a major oil company," a
"nuclear plant owned by a major corporation" and a "major
engine manufacturer," Mr. Heatwole followed up with,
"Naturally, I can't reveal their names - for proprietary
reasons." He further claimed to have extensive testing and
research data available from a "major laboratory," proving
conclusively how effective QMI was. When we asked for the name
of the lab, can you guess? Yup, "We can't give out that
information, for proprietary
reasons."
More
Double Talk
What QMI
did give us was the typical "testimonials," though we must
admit theirs came from more recognizable sources than usual.
They seem to have won over the likes of both Team Kawasaki and
Bobby Unser, who evidently endorse and use QMI in their racing
engines. Mr. Heatwole was very proud of the fact that their
product was being used in engines that he himself admitted are
"torn down and completely inspected on a weekly basis." Of
course, what he left out is that those same engines are
almost totally rebuilt every time they're torn down.
So what does that prove in terms of his product reducing wear
and promoting engine longevity? Virtually nothing. Mr.
Heatwole declined to name the source of QMI's PTFE supply "for
proprietary reasons." He bragged that their product is sold
under many different private labels, but refused to identify
those labels "for proprietary reasons."
When asked about
the actual size of the PTFE particles used in QMI, he claimed
they were measured as "sub-micron in size" by a "major motor
laboratory" which he couldn't identify - you guessed it - for
"proprietary reasons." After about an hour of listening to
"don't quote me on this," "I'll have to deny that if you print
it," and "I can't reveal that," we asked Mr. Heatwole if there
was something we could print. "Certainly," he said, "Here's a
good quote for you: 'The radical growth in technology has
overcome the problem areas associated with PTFE in the 1980s'"
"Not bad," we said. Then we asked to whom we might attribute
this gem of wisdom. DuPont Chemical, perhaps? "Me," said Mr.
Heatwole. "I said that." QMI's press releases like to quote
the Guinness Book Of Records in saying that PTFE is "The
slickest substance known to man." Far be it from us to take
exception to the Guinness Book, but we doubt that PTFE is much
slicker than some of the people marketing it.
The Zinc
Question
The
latest "miracle ingredient" in oil additives, attempting to
usurp PTFE's cure-all throne, is zinc dialkyldithiophosphate,
which we will refer to here after as simply "zinc." Purveyors
of the new zinc-related products claim they can prove absolute
superiority over the PTFE-related products. Naturally, the
PTFE crowd claim exactly the same, in reverse. Zinc is
contained as part of the standard additive package in
virtually every major brand of engine oil sold today, varying
from a low volume of 0.10 per cent in brands such as Valvoline
All Climate and Chevron l5W-50, to a high volume of 0.20
percent in brands such as Valvoline Race and Pennzoil GT
Performance.
Organic
zinc compounds are used as extreme pressure, anti-wear
additives, and are therefore found in larger amounts in oils
specifically blended for high-revving, turbocharged or racing
applications. The zinc in your oil comes into play only when
there is actual metal-to-metal contact within your engine,
which should never occur under normal operating
conditions.
However,
if you race your bike, or occasionally play tag with the
redline on the tach, the zinc is your last line of defense.
Under extreme conditions, the zinc compounds react with the
metal to prevent scuffing, particularly between cylinder bores
and piston rings. However - and this is the important part to
remember - available research shows that more zinc does not
give you more protection, it merely prolongs the protection if
the rate of metal-to-metal contact is abnormally high or
extended. So unless you plan on spending a couple of hours
dragging your knee at Laguna Seca, adding extra zinc compounds
to your oil is usually a
waste.
Deposits
on Your Valves, and Spark Plug Fouling
Also,
keep in mind that high zinc content can lead to deposit
formation on your valves, and spark plug fouling. Among
the products we found containing zinc dialkyldithiophosphate
were Mechanics Brand Engine Tune Up, K Mart Super Oil
Treatment, and STP Engine Treatment With XEP2. The only reason
we can easily identify the additives with the new zinc
compounds is that they are required to carry a Federally
mandated warning label indicating they contain a hazardous
substance. The zinc phosphate they contain is a known eye
irritant, capable of inflicting severe harm if it comes in
contact with your eyes. If you insist on using one of these
products, please wear protective goggles and exercise extreme
caution.
As we mentioned,
organic zinc compounds are already found in virtually every
major brand of oil, both automotive and motorcycle. However,
in recent years the oil companies voluntarily reduced the
amount of zinc content in most of their products after
research indicated the zinc was responsible for premature
deterioration and damage to catalytic converters.
Obviously this situation would not affect 99 percent of all
the motorcycles on the road - however, it could have been a
factor with the newer BMW converter - equipped bikes. Since
the reduction in zinc content was implemented solely for the
protection of catalytic converters, it is possible that some
motorcycles might benefit from a slight increase in zinc
content in their oils. This has been taken into account by at
least one oil company, Spectro, which offers 0.02 to 0.03
percent more zinc compounds in its motorcycle oils than in its
automotive oils. Since Spectro (Golden 4 brand, in this case)
is a synthetic blend lubricant designed for extended drain
intervals, this increase seems to be wholly justified. Also,
available research indicates that Spectro has, in this case,
achieved a sensible balance for extended application without
increasing the zinc content to the point that it is likely to
cause spark plug fouling or present a threat to
converter-equipped BMW models. It would appear that someone at
Spectro did their homework.
Increased
Standard Additives: More Is Not Necessarily
Better
Though
some additives may not contain anything harmful to your
engine, and even some things that could be beneficial, most
experts still recommend that you avoid their use. The reason
for this is that your oil, as purchased from one of the major
oil companies, already contains a very extensive additive
package. This package is made up of numerous, specific
additive components, blended to achieve a specific formula
that will meet the requirements of your engine. Usually, at
least several of these additives will be synergistic. That is,
they react mutually, in groups of two or more, to create an
effect that none of them could attain
individually.
Changing
or adding to this formula can upset the balance and negate the
protective effect the formula was meant to achieve, even if
you are only adding more of something that was already
included in the initial package. If it helps, try to think of
your oil like a cake recipe. Just because the original recipe
calls for two eggs (which makes for a very moist and tasty
cake), do you think adding four more eggs is going to make the
cake better? Of course not. You're going to upset the
carefully calculated balance of ingredients and magnify the
effect the eggs have on the recipe to the point that it ruins
the entire cake. Adding more of a specific additive already
contained in your oil is likely to produce similar
results.
This
information should also be taken into account when adding to
the oil already in your bike or when mixing oils for any
reason, such as synthetic with petroleum. In these cases,
always make sure the oils you are putting together have the
same rating (SA, SE, SC, etc.). This tells you their additive
packages are basically the same, or at least compatible, and
are less likely to upset the balance or counteract each other.
Detergents
And Solvents Many of the older, better-known oil treatments on
the market do not make claims nearly so lavish as the new
upstarts. Old standbys like Bardahl, Rislone and Marvel
Mystery Oil, instead offer things like "quieter lifters,"
"reduced oil burning" and a "cleaner engine." Most of these
products are made up of solvents and detergents designed to
dissolve sludge and carbon deposits inside your engine so they
can be flushed or burned out. Wynn's Friction Proofing Oil,
for example, is 83 percent kerosene.
Other
brands use naphthalene, xylene, acetone and isopropanol.
Usually, these ingredients will be found in a base of standard
mineral oil. In general, these products are designed to do
just the opposite of what the PTFE and zinc phosphate
additives claim to do. Instead of leaving behind a "coating"
or a "plating" on your engine surfaces, they are designed to
strip away such things. All of these products will strip
sludge and deposits out and clean up your engine, particularly
if it is an older, abused one. The problem is, unless you have
some way of determining just how much is needed to remove your
deposits without going any further, such solvents also can
strip away the boundary lubrication layer provided by your
oil.
Overuse
of solvents is an easy trap to fall into, and one which can
promote harmful metal-to-metal contact within your engine. As
a general rule of thumb these products had their place and
were at least moderately useful on older automobile and
motorcycle engines of the Fifties and Sixties, but are
basically unneeded on the more efficient engine designs of the
past two decades.
The Infamous "No Oil" Demo – A HOAX
At
at least three major motorcycle rallies this past year, we
have witnessed live demonstrations put on to demonstrate the
effectiveness of certain oil additives. The demonstrators
would have a bench-mounted engine which they would fill with
oil and a prescribed dose of their "miracle additive." After
running the engine for a while they would stop it, drain out
the oil and start it up again. Instant magic! The engine would
run perfectly well for hours on end, seemingly proving the
effectiveness of the additive which had supposedly "coated"
the inside of the engine so well it didn't even need the oil
to run. In one case, we saw this done with an actual
motorcycle, which would be ridden around the parking lot after
having its oil drained. A pretty convincing demonstration -
until you know the facts.
Since
some of these demonstrations were conducted using Briggs and
Stratton engines, the Briggs and Stratton Company itself
decided to run a similar, but somewhat more scientific,
experiment. Taking two brand-new, identical engines straight
off their assembly line, they set them up for bench-testing.
The only difference was that one had the special additive
included with its oil and the other did not. Both were
operated for 20 hours before being shut down and having the
oil drained from them. Then both were started up again and
allowed to run for another 20 straight hours. Neither engine
seemed to have any problem performing this "minor miracle."
After
the second 20-hour run, both engines were completely torn down
and inspected by the company's engineers. What they found was
that both engines suffered from scored crankpin bearings,
but the engine treated with the additive also suffered from
heavy cylinder bore damage that was not evident on the
untreated engine. This points out once again the inherent
problem with particulate oil additives: They can cause oil
starvation. This is particularly true in the area of piston
rings, where there is a critical need for adequate oil flow.
In practically all of the reports and studies on oil
additives, and particularly those involving suspended solids
like PTFE, this has been reported as a major area of engine
damage.
The Racing Perspective
Among
the most convincing testimonials in favor of oil additives are
those that come from professional racers or racing teams. As
noted previously, some of the oil additive products actually
are capable of producing less engine friction, better gas
mileage and higher horsepower out put. In the world of
professional racing, the split-second advantage that might be
gained from using such a product could be the difference
between victory and defeat. Virtually all of the downside or
detrimental effects attached to these products are related to
extended, long-term usage. For short-life, high-revving,
ultra-high performance engines designed to last no longer than
one racing season (or in some cases, one single race), the
long-term effects of oil additives need not even be
considered. Racers also use special high-adhesion tires that
give much better traction and control than our normal street
tires, but you certainly wouldn't want to go touring on them,
since they're designed to wear out in several hundred (or
less) miles. Just because certain oil additives may be
beneficial in a competitive context is no reason to believe
they would be equally beneficial in a touring
context.
The Best of The Worst
Not
all engine oil additives are as potentially harmful as some of
those we have described here. However, the best that can be
said of those that have not proved to be harmful is that they
haven't been proved to offer any real benefits, either. In
some cases, introducing an additive with a compatible package
of components to your oil in the right proportion and at the
right time can conceivably extend the life of your oil.
However, in every case we have studied it proves out that it
would actually have been cheaper to simply change the engine
oil instead.
In
addition, recent new evidence has come to light that makes
using almost any additive a game of Russian Roulette. Since
the additive distributors do not list the ingredients
contained within their products, you never know for sure just
what you are putting in your engine. Recent tests have shown
that even some of the most inoffensive additives contain
products which, though harmless in their initial state,
convert to hydrofluoric acid when exposed to the temperatures
inside a firing cylinder. This acid is formed as part of the
exhaust gases, and though it is instantly expelled from your
engine and seems to do it no harm, the gases collect inside
your exhaust system and eat away at your mufflers from the
inside out.
Whatever The Market Will Bear
The
pricing of oil additives seems to follow no particular pattern
whatsoever. Even among those products that seem to be almost
identical, chemically, retail prices covered an extremely wide
range. For example: One 32-ounce bottle of Slick 50 (with
PTFE) cost us $29.95 at a discount house that listed the
retail price as $59.95, while a 32-ounce bottle of T-Plus
(which claims to carry twice as much PTFE as the Slick 50)
cost us only $15.88. A 32-ounce bottle of STP Engine Treatment
(containing what they call XEP2), which they claim they can
prove "outperforms leading PTFE engine treatments," cost us
$17.97. Yet a can of K Mart Super Oil Treatment, which listed
the same zinc-derivative ingredient as that listed for the
XEP2, cost us a paltry $2.67. Industry experts estimate that
the actual cost of producing most oil additives is from
one-tenth to one-twentieth of the asking retail price.
Certainly no additive manufacturer has come forward with any
exotic, high-cost ingredient or list of ingredients to dispute
this claim. As an interesting note along with this, back
before there was so much competition in the field to drive
prices down, Petrolon (Slick 50) was selling their PTFE
products for as much as $400 per treatment! The words "buyer
beware" seem to take on very real significance when talking
about oil additives.
The Psychological Placebo
You
have to wonder, with the volume of evidence accumulating
against oil additives, why so many of us still buy them.
That's the million-dollar question, and it's just as difficult
to answer as why so many of us smoke cigarettes, drink hard
liquor or engage in any other number of questionable
activities. We know they aren't good for us - but we go ahead
and do them anyway. Part of the answer may lie in what some
psychiatrists call the "psychological placebo effect." Simply
put, that means that many of us hunger for that peace of mind
that comes with believing we have purchased the absolute best
or most protection we can possibly get.
Even
better, there's that wonderfully smug feeling that comes with
thinking we might be a step ahead of the pack, possessing
knowledge of something just a bit better than everyone else.
Then again, perhaps it comes from an ancient, deep-seated need
we all seem to have to believe in magic. There has never been
any shortage of unscrupulous types ready to cash in on our
willingness to believe that there's some magical mystery
potion we can buy to help us lose weight, grow hair, attract
the opposite sex or make our engines run longer and better. I
doubt that there's a one of us who hasn't fallen for one of
these at least once in our lifetimes. We just want it to be
true so bad that we can't help
ourselves.
Testimonial Hype vs. Scientific
Analysis
In
general, most producers of oil additives rely on personal
"testimonials" to advertise and promote their products. A
typical print advertisement will be one or more letters from a
satisfied customer stating something like, "1 have used Brand
X in my engine for 2 years and 50,000 miles and it runs
smoother and gets better gas mileage than ever before. I love
this product and would recommend it to anyone." Such evidence
is referred to as "anecdotal" and is most commonly used to
promote such things as miracle weight loss diets and
astrology.
Whenever
I see one of these ads I am reminded of a stunt played out
several years ago by Allen Funt of "Candid Camera" that
clearly demonstrated the side of human nature that makes such
advertising possible. With cameras in full view, fake "product
demonstrators" would offer people passing through a grocery
store the opportunity to taste-test a "new soft drink." What
the victims didn't know was that they were being given a
horrendous concoction of castor oil, garlic juice, Tabasco
sauce and several other foul-tasting ingredients. After taking
a nice, big swallow, as instructed by the demonstrators, the
unwitting victims provided huge laughs for the audience by
desperately trying to conceal their anguish and disgust. Some
literally turned away from the cameras and spit the offending
potion on the floor.
The rest of this article has been snipped for the sake
of brevity. I think you get the idea. Don't go out and buy
some Miracle Additive to do what the oil in your engine
doesn't do. Buy an oil that does do it. Motor Silkä provides all of the
benefits of these additives plus many more without using
Teflon™. Thus, you don't have to worry about the harmful
side-effects. Have your cake and eat it too!
|