Ztrem Motorsports
Aftermarket Additives
The Consuming Dilemma
By Maurice LePera
Lubes 'N Greases, Jan 1998
You see them everywhere. In service stations, supermarkets, discount stores, convenience outlets and automotive stores, consumers are confronted by a wide array of aftermarket additives. These aftermarket additives, targeted for the individual consumer, are not the same as those additives used by refineries and terminal operators in formulating finished fuels and automotive lubricants. Refineries, blenders and bulk terminals provide fuels and lubricants that fully meet the industry developed standards for performance (e.g., antiknock quality, volatility, cleanliness, antiwear protection, corrosion protection, deposit control, etc.) using a wide variety of individual additive ingredients. Manufacturers and distributors of aftermarket additives, however, maintain their products can either (1) correct existing engine performance deficiencies, or (2) significantly improve vehicle and engine performance by providing additional protection against engine wear, deposit formation, internal engine corrosion, etc. In effect, users of aftermarket additives are adding these ingredients to fully finished products that already contain the additives needed to comply with industry standards for satisfactory performance. In other cases, users are adding these aftermarket additives hopefully to correct existing engine deficiencies such as high oil consumption, oil seal leaks, excessive smoking due to fouled injectors, etc. Aftermarket additives are primarily marketed for gasoline, diesel fuel, engine oils for both spark ignition and compression ignition engines, and automatic transmission fluid. These products are typically listed as cleaners, treatments, tonics, cures, improvers, modifiers, conditioners, supplements, inhibitors, formulae, catalysts, boosters, restorers, detergents, and agents. A recent visit to a local automotive store (in Northern Virginia) revealed a consumer had the opportunity to choose from more than 45 different fuel aftermarket additives and more than 23 different engine oil aftermarket additives.
Facing the Problem
Being exposed to this large array aftermarket additives, the individual consumer is obviously confronted with many questions. Why are they needed? Do they really work? Will using them cause any other problems? Does using them once mean they will be needed on a routine basis? Will they really fix my problem-be it stalling, knocking, engine run-on, excess smoking, oil leaking, stuck valve lifters, high oil consumption, low oil pressure, etc.? Why is there such a wide price range among these? Does a higher cost mean a superior product? Will their use cancel my warranty? Etc.
As there are no industry standards or guidelines for aftermarket additives, the consumer must rely on either prior knowledge of the products, from magazines, journals, newspapers or television/radio advertising, sales people advocating and actively promoting their product(s) of choice, or just chance-perhaps even the appeal of the product's container.
Many times, word of mouth will cause people to gravitate to a particular product. Individuals hearing from a mechanic or service station attendant that "Brand X is really good" are more prone to accept these types of casual recommendations as the gospel. Their presumption is based on the belief that these "qualified individuals" are more likely to know what is good because of their professions and possibly past experiences. Unfortunately, that is not always the case.
Without industry standards such as those which have been developed for engine oils, gear lubricants, grease, antifreeze, transmission fluids, etc., there is no clear way to assess the performance of these aftermarket additives or differences between the many different brands and types. In addition to these concerns, a majority of the engine and vehicle manufacturers recommend against the use of any aftermarket additives. One Detroit Diesel bulletin, for example, cautions, "...using supplemental additives is generally unnecessary and can even be harmful. One should never use an additive to fix a mechanical problem and be cautious of products claiming to prevent such problems."
Gains vs Claims
Advertisements for aftermarket additives also can serve to further confuse consumers, as they at times are couched in terminology indicating broad improvements in performance. For example, one fuel injector cleaner states it dissolves varnish, carbon, and gum deposits. In doing so, its use will promote increased combustion efficiency, smoother operation, faster starts, reduced misfire and lower exhaust emissions. Likewise an engine oil treatment reportedly "fills in" the worn cylinder and piston surfaces and improves ring sealing which in turn will restore compression, increase horsepower, reduce oil consumption, and improve engine life.However, noticeably absent in both of these is any indication of testing that would validate the claims being made. How can a consumer possibly tell whether one injector cleaner is better than the other, or if it really does what is claimed? If one oil treatment reduces oil consumption because of how it thickens the engine oil's viscosity, do the others work as well? More important, will the consumer know that adding an oil thickener probably will increase the oil's viscosity at low temperatures and cause other starting problems in cold temperatures? Where performance claims are made-improved fuel economy, reduced wear, improved power and acceleration, or so on-some documented performance testing data should be available. The documentation needs to clearly show measurable improvements can be realized by using the specific product. Such information would help to remove the mystery surrounding these products and give the consumer a more factual accounting as to how they perform.
Information such as testimonials from past or current users is often supplied to support a product's claims when questions are raised. These are highly anecdotal in quality and inadequate for clearly answering the improvement question where standardized testing protocols and procedures are the rule. Individual operator experience with a particular product is also offered as another means to validate advertisement claims. These too must be viewed as anecdotal for the above reasons and also because a meaningful statistical sampling of data is generally required to validate such claims-a one-vehicle "fleet test" will not suffice.In addition to testimonials and anecdotal material, many advertisements for these products carry non-standardized tests which have little correlation to an engine's environment but show their product to be vastly superior to its competitors. Any results from these types of quasi-tests should also be viewed with skepticism.
The Army's Approach
The problems mentioned above were identical to those which confronted the U.S. Army several years ago. Since the Army has lead service responsibility for the fuels and lubricant products used by the Department of Defense, it invariably became the recipient of many proposals, suggestions, requests, and congressional recommendations that focused on DOD's adopting and specifying the use of different types of aftermarket additives for its large ground vehicle and equipment fleet. The intent in all of these significant savings for the taxpayer. Since these initiatives were well-intentioned and there were so many products being suggested, the Army needed a testing protocol to at least sort out the potential candidates from the "snake oil" products. Such a testing protocol would also put all candidates on a level playing field and prevent the potential for any preferential treatment.
A testing protocol was developed using industry standard laboratory testing procedures, with two specific objectives in mind. First, the preliminary testing would provide a means to see if any measurable improvements existed by using back-to-back comparisons (i.e., testing with a baseline fuel or lubricant followed by the identical testing with the treated version). Second, the preliminary tests should show if the presence of the candidate product when used with formulated fuels or lubricants caused any adverse side effects such as emulsification, additive separation, deposits being formed, foaming, loss of additive efficacy because of non-compatibility, etc. Prior to implementing this testing protocol, it was circulated to the Environmental Protection Agency and to the automotive and petroleum industries under a cooperative agreement with the Coordinating Research Council for their review and comment. All parties concurred that they viewed this to be a reasonable approach and one that insured parity for all. The testing protocol included tests for aftermarket additives intended for gasoline, diesel fuel, engine oils, transmission fluids, and gear oils. This protocol was subsequently incorporated into an Army Regulation in the mid 1980s and in May 1996 became a DOD document entitled "DOD Policy Guidelines for Use of Aftermarket Fuel and Lubricant Additives."This approach has worked exceedingly well for DOD in screening products that are submitted and to determine if further consideration is justified. Many do-it-yourselfers, believed to be the largest users of aftermarket additives, simply have become convinced that aftermarket additives are like life insurance -- providing added protection to increase engine life.
What to Do?
The question of whether to use or not use aftermarket additives is difficult to answer as there are many differing points of view. The type of technical data described above which would enable the consumer to see the facts before making a decision is generally not readily available and as stated previously, owners manuals do not recommend using aftermarket or supplemental additives. Their guidance is to use the required performance level of the product specified in the manual and follow the recommended oil change interval based upon the type of service encountered.
On the other hand, many offerings was to reduce operating and maintenance costs thereby creating do-it-yourselfers, believed to be the largest users of aftermarket additives, simply have become convinced that aftermarket additives are like life insurance providing added protection to increase engine life. Whether these products provide any additional protection remains a debatable subject. In reality, consumers following good maintenance practices and using the fuel or lubricant having the prescribed performance level listed in their owners manual would tend to have little need for aftermarket additives. This approach has been echoed in several publications.
Those who feel a bona fide need exists for aftermarket additives should at least attempt to obtain as much technical information on the product as possible. This information should help to serve in answering any of your questions. Apart from the costs for these aftermarket additives-ranging from approximately $1.00 to in excess of $30 -their continuous use can create problems. Of the two general types-fuel additives versus lubricant additives-the aftermarket lubricant additives could potentially create greater problems as they are allowed to remain in the crankcase and transmission systems for longer periods of time.
Although the debate for using or not using aftermarket additives will certainly continue, nothing can replace good maintenance combined with using the fuel and lubricants specified in your owners' manual. Maurice E. LePera of LePera and Associates is a consultant in Woodbridge, Va., and served as associate director for fuels and lubricants at the U.S. Army's Tank-Automotive Research, Development and Engineering Center. The opinions in this article are his own, and do not necessarily reflect those of the Army. For more information, he can be reached at 4746 Occoquan Club Dr., Woodbridge, VA 22192. Phone:
(703) 590-2058. Fax: (703) 590-9413.
For a copy of the "DOD Policy Guidelines for Use of Aftermarket Fuel and Lubricant Additives," fax your request
to (810) 574-4244, or write: CDR. TACOM, Attn:
AMSTA-TR-D/21O (Fuels & Lubes Tech Team), Warren, MI
48397-5000.
Off The Shelf Additives
There are countless over the counter oil additives on the market, as there have been for a number of years. In recent years a number of companies have appeared on the scene with huge national television advertising campaigns, racecar sponsorship, and more, all designed to make the consumer believe that the products really work and you are doing yourself a favor by adding these to your car. The fact is that these products are not necessary, do very little to help your engine, and in many cases may actually do more harm than good. The major car companies do not endorse any of these products and in fact your owner's manual will undoubtedly advise you to avoid them.
Consumers Reports did a test (10/98) in an attempt to verify, or rebuke, one company's ad which claimed that their product "bonded" to the engines moving parts forming a protective barrier against wear. The ad claimed that their test car ran without any oil all over Southern California, in stop and go traffic, with the air on, for 4 hours and 40 minutes. The ad also claimed that the only reason the driver stopped was to get something to eat. Pretty unbelievable. In an attempt to prove or disprove the viability of the ad, Consumer Reports tested two Chevrolet Caprices, both with identical zero time rebuilt V6 engines. Both cars were broken in with normal petroleum oil per the manufacturer's recommendations. The oil and filter were then changed with one of the cars receiving the prescribed dose of this magic additive. Both cars were then driven for about 100 miles, allegedly long enough for this magical bonding to occur, and the oil subsequently drained. Both were then driven again, now with empty crankcases, in normal traffic to see how long they would last. Interestingly both engines failed, almost simultaneously, after about 14 minutes of driving thus proving the claims of the additive manufacturer to be nonsense. Consumer Reports notified the FTC of the test and their results and the manufacturer was subsequently forced to stop running the ad.
There are some over the counter additives that contain Teflon or PTFE. Once again the ads claim that the Teflon bonds to the internal working parts of the engine forming a slippery surface (like your Teflon frying pan) and therefore reducing wear. Fundamental laws of Physics prove that such claims are impossible, as the temperatures in internal combustion engines (200º-250ºF) are insufficient for any bonding to occur. Further, independent oil analysis labs have observed that the suspended Teflon particles actually tend to accumulate the microscopic metals that are normal in engine oil formulating much larger, and potentially much more harmful, deposits in engines than would normally occur if straight motor oil had been used. In some cases, the oil filters became clogged, oil pressures dropped across the filter and oil analysis showed significantly more wear than oil alone. Similar to the previous situation, the FTC challenged the makers of products with PTFE on their claims of "coating of PTFE" and "reduced engine wear" based again on Consumer Reports findings of "no discernible benefits" from use of the product. The makers of these products agreed with the FTC in a settlement to stop using the above phrases in their ads.
Just Say No to Aftermarket Additives
The performance benefits of aftermarket additives are mostly unsubstantiated.
AMSOIL has long discouraged motorists from using any kind of aftermarket lubricant additive. After all, AMSOIL synthetic lubricants use the finest quality synthetic base stocks and additive systems. AMSOIL's response to the question "Should aftermarket additives or aftermarket products be added to AMSOIL motor oils?" is " No, you don't need them. AMSOIL motor oils are formulated under the strictest quality control standards to provide superior lubrication performance. Additives cost money and only detract from the quality of AMSOIL motor oils." Additionally, not only do they detract from the quality of the motor oil, but they can also be damaging to your engine.
A perfect example of why AMSOIL discourages use of aftermarket additives is the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) recent lawsuit against zMax auto additives, seeking to halt false and misleading advertising and gain refunds for customers who purchased the products. According to the FTC, the enhanced performance benefits zMax claims its products provide are totally unsubstantiated, and in the same tests cited to support performance claims, motor oil treated with zMax actually produced more than twice as much bearing corrosion than motor oil by itself. They further allege that the three different zMax products- an engine additive, a fuel line additive and a transmission additive- are nothing more than tinted mineral oil.
The complaint states that since at least May of 1999, zMax has aired infomercials promoting its "Power System", a $39 package of three additives to be used in the engine, fuel line and transmission of automobiles. The infomercials are quite convincing, even going as far as featuring testimonials from various consumers and race car drivers making such claims as, "I as averaging about 22 miles to the gallon on the highway. I installed the zMax and so I jumped right up to about 28 miles per gallon" and "zMax guarantees a minimum of 10% gas mileage increase." Other advertising claims "zMax with LinKite has the scientific, CRC L38 proof it takes you car to the Max!" and 'Why zMax Works- Cuts carbon build-up on valve stems 66%; Lowers wear on valve stems 66%; Lowers wear on piston skirts 60%; Reduces blow-by leakage 17.7%; Increases combustion efficiency 9.25%; Lowers fuel consumption 8.5%- results of an independent CRC L38 test."
The CRC L38 test is a standard auto industry test which measures the bearing corrosion protection properties of motor oils. According to the complaint, in early 1997 an independent testing facility performed two CRC L38 tests of the zMaz products. The results showed motor oil treated with zMax additives produced more than double the bearing corrosion as motor oil alone. According to the FTC, the defendants eliminated the bearing corrosion results, as well as all other negative results, to produce one "report" from the two sets of tests, using this "report" in its infomercials and on its website. The FTC charge alleges that zMax did not possess and rely on reasonable substantiation fro the following product claims: increases gas mileage by a minimum of 10%, reduces engine wear, reduces or eliminates engine wear at startup, reduces engine corrosion, extends engine life and reduces emissions.
The FTC also alleges that the defendants falsely represent that the results of the CRC L38 test prove that zMax: increases gas mileage, reduces engine wear, extends engine life, lowers fuel consumption by 8.5%, lowers wear on valve stems by 66%, lowers wear on piston skirts by 60% and cuts carbon build-up on valve stems by 66%
Finally, the FTC charges that zMax does not have substantiation for the representation that the testimonials and endorsements shown in the zMax advertising are "the actual and current opinions, findings, beliefs, and/or experiences of those consumers; and typical or ordinary experience of members of the public who use the product." The lawsuit against zMax is the latest in a long line of FTC charges against auto additive manufacturers. The FTC has previously halted allegedly deceptive advertising by the marketers of Dura Lube, Motor Up, Prolong, Valvoline, Slick 50, STP and other major brands of engine treatment systems.
End of Article
Here is my opinion :
Stay away from all aftermarket additives! You simply do not need them and you surely don't need the problems they may cause with your engine. If your still not convinced then think about this statement: The major oil companies, including AMSOIL, are staffed with the, bar none, some of the best chemists, scientists and engineers the world has to offer. Now, don't you think that if they determined that their motor oil was lacking an additive that they would blend it in their additive package? They obviously have the technology and resources and the financial backing to do it. Then why don't they? The answer is simple: They are not needed!
How can it be that some fly by night additive manufacturer can have a miracle, cure-all additive without knowing the chemistry of the oil it will be used in? The answer is, they don't. They simply are out to get your money by using false and deceptive advertising to appeal to your desire to have what they are selling in your engine. They are masters at marketing, not science chemistry and engineering and I would equate them to nothing more than snake oil companies. Thank goodness for the FTC that is actually doing what it is supposed to be doing; protecting the consumer and going after these companies and hopefully put them out of business.
Ztrem Motorsports
