FridgeFreezer Posted March 16, 2010 Share Posted March 16, 2010 can only attribute the engines continued operation to the Slick 50 that I had in the engine. Or the fact that it would have behaved exactly the same if it had just had some normal oil in it you can run an engine for quite some time with no oil, even one that has never had oil in it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich_P Posted March 16, 2010 Share Posted March 16, 2010 Like this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBXYbYjQbTA Don't think it mentions it, but it also didn't have any oil. Lasted quite a long time given it was doing somewhere around 9,000 rpm. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon_CSK Posted March 16, 2010 Share Posted March 16, 2010 Or the fact that it would have behaved exactly the same if it had just had some normal oil in it you can run an engine for quite some time with no oil, even one that has never had oil in it. Fridge Would agree "IF" I had oil but there is no way you could run the 1.2l engine for 200 miles at 85-90mph with no oil and without it overheating at best. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lara Posted March 16, 2010 Share Posted March 16, 2010 Many years ago when we used to do modern race car engines and prep etc, we had a rep who swore blind that his Nulon oil additive worked miracles etc, so one day we did a test in front of him, with Nulon, Slick 50 and STP. We ran up a 2 litre Proton race car that was giving a constant and reliable 200bhp almost to the dot. We did 3 base tests all within one HP from one another using the standard oil (Mobil 1 I think) We then added the Nulon and tested 3 times, no difference other than a couple of hp drop that we put down to "test flexibility" We then did the test with the others, cleaning and flushing the engine before each product test. No engine test gave more than 200bhp until!! We flushed and drained again, and with clean standard oil (again Mobil one IIRC) 203bhp (probably again test flexibility but the highest we ever saw on this engine!! The Nulon man jumped on this and said "oh yes but the Nulon would still have been in there and now it has had a chance to coat everything" Point of interest. Additives are absolutely banned in aviation!! What does that tell us? Lara Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lara Posted March 16, 2010 Share Posted March 16, 2010 Like this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBXYbYjQbTA Don't think it mentions it, but it also didn't have any oil. Lasted quite a long time given it was doing somewhere around 9,000 rpm. This vid reminds me of an old 1300 mk2 escort estate that a mate of mine had about 20 years back as a runaround, when we had his new car finished and running (V8 engined Chrysler Avenger) we decided the Mk2 should die! so off we went to blow it up, 1st gear only was allowed and full throttle only! NO OIL what so ever. Well at the end of the day we got fed up and parked it in his drive, foot to the boards and did the same as the MR2 guy, at least 10-15 minutes later it started knocking and then it stopped knocking about 2 minutes after that, running on 3 and quiet We turned it off for a look, could see nothing, but found out when we tried to re-start it, the rod was buried through the block and half into the starter motor, It had no additives ever apart from some dirt and no oil or filter changes in my mates 2 year ownership! Lara Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicks90 Posted March 17, 2010 Share Posted March 17, 2010 As I said, My dad worked in aerospace for years, and in heavy civil engineering after that. Strangely, I'll take his well-formed opinion over that of someone who just repeats his generalisations in bigger letters. If you think that the FAA's approval for something to be used in light aircraft engines is trivial, you clearly have no idea of what you're talking about. Point of interest.Additives are absolutely banned in aviation!! What does that tell us? oohhh, so whos right then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heath robinson Posted March 17, 2010 Share Posted March 17, 2010 The FAA are american. As far as I can tell, Lubrilon's claims are genuine, but short of phoning the FAA, I can't easily check, but I'll have a go at finding out vial email. You can have a look at this .pdf file of the FAA's approval if you want. The page of references that I linked too was for you lot to have a gander at, and make your own minds up... From what I know of european aviation, I wouldn't be surprised if Lara was right 'round these parts, and in europe. If the FAA claim is correct, it would only cover light piston-engined aircraft in the continental US. Incidentally, I wouldn't touch Slick 50 with the proverbial soiled stick. While I was investigating Lubrilon, I found some proper horror stories of things like Slick 50. The Lubrilon stuff coats parts, apparently forming a permanent bond with the surface of the parts. After about 1500 miles, you change your oil again, replacing the oil with the additive in it with your regular oil. The PTFE-based oils don't get changed out, and provide additional slipperiness by re-coating the components as it's worn away. This causes small oil galleries to eventually clog up! I would also recommend that anyone do the kind of squinting around that I did before they put anything like this into their engine. Some bad reports of most of the products like this are staggering. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lara Posted March 18, 2010 Share Posted March 18, 2010 I will try to find the report and relevant info at home if I can find the time, Following a light aircraft engine failure accident (in the US) oil additives containing Graphite, PTFE, (Teflon) etc were banned, the report is quite detailed as you can imagine but the recommendations and subsequent legislation was also quite clear with its bans too. If I remember correctly it was an FAA report and the CAA followed up, will try to find it as it is interesting reading. Lara Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Superpants Posted March 18, 2010 Share Posted March 18, 2010 I remain sceptical about the claims made by the testing carried out by the various agencies regarding Lubrilon. It is fairly easy to extract something positive to say from a report carried out by a test house, even if the overall conclusions aren’t positive. I am always wary of claims such as this that are not backed up by a document reference where you can check the whole report. As the quote goes “You can prove anything with statistics”. The other thing of note on that page is that they are only tests carried out- There is no mention of actually supplying the additive to any of the agencies that tested them..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheRecklessEngineer Posted March 18, 2010 Share Posted March 18, 2010 My 2 cents, as a marine engineer... The largest cost (by far) in running a ship is the fuel. Consequently, anything that will save the slightest amount of fuel is used to try and make running a ship cheaper. This includes such measures as using CPP propellers in combination with variable RPM engines to achieve the maximum possible efficiency for a given transmission/propeller system (only a few % over much simpler systems). The frictional power loss in a marine engine is around 5-10%. If Slick50/Lubrilon really did reduce friction to the levels that they claim, this frictional loss would be reduced dramatically, and the entire plant efficiency would be increased. However, additives are not used in marine lubricating oils. Certainly I know of one manufacturer which prohibits their use (I have a reference somewhere, I'll dig it out). I can't speak for others. This suggests to me that these additives do not necessarily do what they claim. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FridgeFreezer Posted March 19, 2010 Share Posted March 19, 2010 The largest cost (by far) in running a ship is the fuel. Consequently, anything that will save the slightest amount of fuel is used to try and make running a ship cheaper. The same with a lot of other industries - hence why I'd disagree strongly with the claim further up that oil companies have no interest in making things run better/last longer. All of their main customers are demanding this from them and their competitors, if anything could squeeze a few more % out of a system everyone would be using it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheRecklessEngineer Posted March 19, 2010 Share Posted March 19, 2010 Certainly I know of one manufacturer which prohibits their use (I have a reference somewhere, I'll dig it out). I can't speak for others. The manufacturer I was thinking of is Wartsilla. I have the manual for one if their generator engines in front of me with a table of approved oils. I'm not going to type it out, but there are words to the effect of "If you use anything else, your warranty will be invalidated and your engine will expire in a fireball of doom shortly before bringing about the apocalypse". And just to add to Fridge's comment above. Oil changes on these engines are only generally done at major overhaul time - i.e. inspecting pistons/liners. That's about 20,000 hours on the same oil - and it's mineral, none of this synthetic stuff. Again, the cost of lube oil is a major consideration for anyone running any of these large engines. The sumps on the ship I was working were 5000 litres each, and they are small compared to other vessels. In this situation, it is in any given lube oil manufacturers best interests to make their oils last longer than other manufacturers. To say otherwise would be a little short sighted I think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.