Oil additive 'Active 8' in Commandos'

Status
Not open for further replies.
Fast Eddie

Fast Eddie

VIP MEMBER
Joined
Oct 4, 2013
Messages
20,653
Country flag
In the earlier thread about fork seal stiction, the topic of oil additive 'tests' came up.

I recall watching the 'Active 8' test at bike shows. They mounted a hardened roller on a pivot with a torque wrench and then pressed it against a spinning disc until it seized. Now, with me being a cynic, I watched really closely for switching of rollers or oils etc. but couldn't see any such 'tricks'.

The sales pitch was that whatever oil you tested, it always took far longer to seize with Active 8 added and sometimes it just wouldn't seize at all.

The relevance here is that this kind of test would seem to demonstrate a huge advantage to Commandos soft cam / flat follower / high wear related issues.

I took part a couple of times, and really heaved down on that torque wrench and was basically sold and used it for a while. I never experienced any downsides, but didn't notice any up sides either. I stopped using it when I started using Redline oil as I believe those guys get it 'right first time'.

However the cynic in me still knows it can't be that simple, so does anyone know anything about Active 8, or what its key ingredients are, or just whether or not it actually does work?
 
Hey Eddie what red line products are you using in your commando and what weight ie engine primary trans front forks chain lube I love their stuff too
 
The problem with that test is it shows how an additive can prevent a roller from seizing as quick when torqued against a spinning disc. Real oil and additive tests involve freshly-assembled engines, specific duty cycles, disassembly and measurement for wear. This is how oil companies determine what additives to blend into production oil. Additives such as ZDDP (the most well-known) physically separate moving parts by plating off onto the metal under pressure and leaving a protective layer until lubrication resumes. As long as high-quality metal components can be kept separate from each other, little or no wear occurs. Advances in lubrication have extended normal engine life and allowed high-revving, smaller-displacement engines to produce more power and last longer than their large-displacement, low-stressed predecessors. Unless these snake-oil additives contain the same types of chemical compounds as the oil companies add to their product, they are not likely to extend engine life and keep parts separated from each other.

STP Oil Treatment was a well-known "snake oil" additive that could raise the oil pressure, reduce smoking and oil burning and extend engine life (somewhat) of old, well-worn engines. It's use in newer engines was not considered good practice because, 1. It was actually a liquid plastic and coated the insides of the engines, insulating the block walls and inhibiting heat loss (cooling) and 2. It was too thick to flow well and stressed oil pumps.

My take on oil additives is, if they were any good, they would be in your oil already.
 
Danno said:
The problem with that test is it shows how an additive can prevent a roller from seizing as quick when torqued against a spinning disc. Real oil and additive tests involve freshly-assembled engines, specific duty cycles, disassembly and measurement for wear. This is how oil companies determine what additives to blend into production oil. Additives such as ZDDP (the most well-known) physically separate moving parts by plating off onto the metal under pressure and leaving a protective layer until lubrication resumes. As long as high-quality metal components can be kept separate from each other, little or no wear occurs. Advances in lubrication have extended normal engine life and allowed high-revving, smaller-displacement engines to produce more power and last longer than their large-displacement, low-stressed predecessors. Unless these snake-oil additives contain the same types of chemical compounds as the oil companies add to their product, they are not likely to extend engine life and keep parts separated from each other.

STP Oil Treatment was a well-known "snake oil" additive that could raise the oil pressure, reduce smoking and oil burning and extend engine life (somewhat) of old, well-worn engines. It's use in newer engines was not considered good practice because, 1. It was actually a liquid plastic and coated the insides of the engines, insulating the block walls and inhibiting heat loss (cooling) and 2. It was too thick to flow well and stressed oil pumps.

My take on oil additives is, if they were any good, they would be in your oil already.
Click to expand...

My understanding is that STP was basically straight Viscosity Index Improver and hence couldn't handle heat very well, like the VII in non-synthetic multi-weight oils with really big differences between the low and high numbers tend to break down when they get hot.

-Eric
 
Fast Eddie said:
In the earlier thread about fork seal stiction, the topic of oil additive 'tests' came up.

I recall watching the 'Active 8' test at bike shows. They mounted a hardened roller on a pivot with a torque wrench and then pressed it against a spinning disc until it seized. Now, with me being a cynic, I watched really closely for switching of rollers or oils etc. but couldn't see any such 'tricks'.

The sales pitch was that whatever oil you tested, it always took far longer to seize with Active 8 added and sometimes it just wouldn't seize at all.

The relevance here is that this kind of test would seem to demonstrate a huge advantage to Commandos soft cam / flat follower / high wear related issues.

I took part a couple of times, and really heaved down on that torque wrench and was basically sold and used it for a while. I never experienced any downsides, but didn't notice any up sides either. I stopped using it when I started using Redline oil as I believe those guys get it 'right first time'.

However the cynic in me still knows it can't be that simple, so does anyone know anything about Active 8, or what its key ingredients are, or just whether or not it actually does work?
Click to expand...

"THE INFAMOUS NO OIL DEMO
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 rid den 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."

http://www.carbibles.com/snakeoil.html
 
ewgoforth said:
My understanding is that STP was basically straight Viscosity Index Improver and hence couldn't handle heat very well, like the VII in non-synthetic multi-weight oils with really big differences between the low and high numbers tend to break down when they get hot.

-Eric
Click to expand...

“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.”

http://www.carbibles.com/snakeoil.html

“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.”

“The problem is, Petrolon and the other oil additive companies that claim scientific evidence from independent laboratories, all refuse to identify the laboratories that conducted the tests or the criteria under which the tests were conducted. They claim they are contractually bound by the laboratories to not reveal their identities.

In addition, the claim of 50 percent less wear has never been proven on anything approaching a long-term basis. Typical examples used to support the additive makers' claims involve engines run from 100 to 200 hours after treatment, during which time the amount of wear particles in the oil decreased. While this has proven to be true in some cases, it has also been proven that after 400 to 500 hours of running the test engines invariably reverted to producing just as many wear particles as before treatment, and in some cases, even more.

No matter what the additive makers would like you to believe, nothing has been proven to stop normal engine wear”
 
Eddie,
Yes did the "stall" test and at first it looked impressive.
BUT the guy selling the stuff said it only required 10% ,the oil trough was filled with 0ver 50% may by more?

I asked what part of a engine is subjected to this pressure? that torque bar and small area is 100X anything the engine is subjected to.


Fast Eddie said:
In the earlier thread about fork seal stiction, the topic of oil additive 'tests' came up.

I recall watching the 'Active 8' test at bike shows. They mounted a hardened roller on a pivot with a torque wrench and then pressed it against a spinning disc until it seized. Now, with me being a cynic, I watched really closely for switching of rollers or oils etc. but couldn't see any such 'tricks'.

The sales pitch was that whatever oil you tested, it always took far longer to seize with Active 8 added and sometimes it just wouldn't seize at all.

The relevance here is that this kind of test would seem to demonstrate a huge advantage to Commandos soft cam / flat follower / high wear related issues.

I took part a couple of times, and really heaved down on that torque wrench and was basically sold and used it for a while. I never experienced any downsides, but didn't notice any up sides either. I stopped using it when I started using Redline oil as I believe those guys get it 'right first time'.

However the cynic in me still knows it can't be that simple, so does anyone know anything about Active 8, or what its key ingredients are, or just whether or not it actually does work?
Click to expand...
 
I have been running STP in my old Bristish bikes for as long as i can remember, my Norton has well over a 140,000 miles, has had 2 major rebuilds (but the last one was to replace the crank cases) and my crank has never been regrown, the rod bearing have been replaced but the old bearings only had a slight wear mark on them as for my old 81 Triumph Thunderbird done 250,000 ks in 9 years running STP in it before i did a top end rebuild (rebore and valves) didn't even go into the bottom end, wheather the STP has helped with long life, who knows but I still mix it with my Norton oil (2 oil changes to a bottle of STP).

Ashley
 
ashman said:
I have been running STP in my old Bristish bikes for as long as i can remember, my Norton has well over a 140,000 miles, has had 2 major rebuilds (but the last one was to replace the crank cases) and my crank has never been regrown, the rod bearing have been replaced but the old bearings only had a slight wear mark on them as for my old 81 Triumph Thunderbird done 250,000 ks in 9 years running STP in it before i did a top end rebuild (rebore and valves) didn't even go into the bottom end, wheather the STP has helped with long life, who knows but I still mix it with my Norton oil (2 oil changes to a bottle of STP).

Ashley
Click to expand...

Impressive mileages Ashley!

What oil do you use matey and what's your oil change intervals?
 
I ran Penzoil racing 50 for over 20 years or more in my younger days, a old yank imported it straight from the USA by the drums, but as time went by it started to get harder to get, they still sell Penzoil here but its made here in Aussie land and is not the same oil, I am now running Penrite for older bikes, but for a few years I was using 20/50 grade oil that I was getting from work (don't tell the bosses) I mix half a bottle of STP in every tank of new oil before I put it in the oil tank..

Ashley
 
zefer said:
Hey Eddie what red line products are you using in your commando and what weight ie engine primary trans front forks chain lube I love their stuff too
Click to expand...

I use their 20/60 motorcycle engine oil. It is my belief that the very loose tolerances and the fact that most of our engines are lubricated by 'splash' mean that a thick oil is of benefit. Remember, with most brands (inc Redline) you must buy motorcycle specific oils if you want the high zinc levels.

I use their Lightweight shockproof oil in the gearbox (not the super lightweight favoured by many).

My primary is dry.

I don't use their chain lube (didn't know they did it), I'm still using up a bulk buy of PJ1 that I bought years ago!
 
Didnt Jim Comstock post a valve test on the forum of using STP in a valve stem/guide test with not so good results?
Regards Mike
 
Brooking 850 said:
Didnt Jim Comstock post a valve test on the forum of using STP in a valve stem/guide test with not so good results?
Regards Mike
Click to expand...

He did Mike, and that proved that you should not use neat STP to lubricate valve guides upon assembly because it burned and became super sticky (interestingly Castrol R can do the same).

But it didn't have any relevance to its use diluted with oil as an engine lubricant.
 
True, although i would would be a bit worried about its value when used as an additive during conditions when the oil temp got really high.
You keeping an eye on the spintron thread as I know you were keen on the JS2 cam initially but went with the JS1 for your build?
Regards Mike
 
Fast Eddie said:
Brooking 850 said:
Didnt Jim Comstock post a valve test on the forum of using STP in a valve stem/guide test with not so good results?
Regards Mike
Click to expand...

He did Mike, and that proved that you should not use neat STP to lubricate valve guides upon assembly because it burned and became super sticky (interestingly Castrol R can do the same).

But it didn't have any relevance to its use diluted with oil as an engine lubricant.
Click to expand...

From what I've read, even mixing two weights of similar oils (say 20 wt and 40 wt) does not yield a blend (30 wt) but rather a discontinuous mixture, parts of which are 20 and parts of which are 40, so if that's true, I'm sure STP is even more discontinuous, being about a 140 wt in thickness. More likely it clings to everything it touches leaving a boundary layer of lubrication in large clearances where the recommended viscosity could not. Which is why it's terrible as an assembly lube, because it's presence actually prevents the real oil from getting into the small spaces.
 
Well I have been using STP for 30 years mixed in my oil and I still running my orginal valves, I have had the head worked on and the guides have been replaced 2 time now on each rebuild, I have never had any troubles with valves sticking or any problems with the head at all in the 40 years of owning my Norton, it has been a every day ride till about 2 years ago when I brought my new Triumph Thruxton.

Ashley
 
Anyone else use the Activ8?

I'm not a "snake oil" fan, but succumbed to the Comstock report findings.
 
concours said:
Anyone else use the Activ8?

I'm not a "snake oil" fan, but succumbed to the Comstock report findings.
Click to expand...
IMO....adding anti friction type additives to a conventional push rod motor oil (so long as its compatible)..to me is a personal preference thing and will cause no potential harm...but some of our favorite pour in confidence boosters don't go well in a modern engine and will cause issues for sure (generally when the labels fine print has been over looked).....
Anyone know of a amazing stop leak additive/product for a dripping diesel Jeep ?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top