Ford Powerstroke Diesel Forum banner

1 - 20 of 23 Posts

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
12,955 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Ok guys......I have been running this test but until a conversation prompted it this evening I didn't even think to start a thread on it yet as a placeholder and a collection point for results. First I'd like to ask that if you participate in the thread, leave your anger at the door. I do not want this to become another name calling, personal bashing thread, typical oil thread.

The point of what I'm trying to do is to help prove/disprove the effect of Archoil as a friction modifier/lube and whether it really works to help decrease friction (and in so, wear) or if it doesn't. Unfortunately this won't be a good test for whether it is a stiction cure, but there are thousands of threads from people everywhere that have used it with success in this regard.....That's the primary reasons that many people, especially with 6.0s, end up trying it...to help with the stiction?

But what of the other benefits? Does the "nanoborate" stuff that it's made of actually DO anything in the real world? Studies have been quoted and shown in countless threads that the science behind it says yes....but does an improvement on a nano-scale in a controlled environment actually have any effect on your vehicle and how it runs? Can we improve longevity? These are a few of the questions that end up coming up again and again, and the supporters of Archoil say "yes" and the folks that don't believe say "no, it's snake oil." Whatever you think, please keep your mind open as we go through, ask questions, but don't take it personal if/when other people don't believe the things that you do. Everyone has the right to form their own opinion based on the facts, and I'm trying to provide some facts gained from real-world testing, in as controlled of an environment as I can.

So, without any ado, lets get started. Enter the test vehicles.......
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
12,955 Posts
Discussion Starter #2


These are two 2015 Polaris Pro RMK 800s. Both are identically equipped with 155" tracks, identical clutching, the same aftermarket can, and with riders similar in body weight. A friend and I bought these at the start of the season brand new in their crates with 0 miles. They have been ridden together (and will be at all times, even if both riders can't go), in the same elevation, on the same days, putting in similar miles. Mine does have some suspension mods done, but other than that, the chassis are exactly the same. Only non-ethanol premium gasoline is being used, both sleds are always filled from the same station at the same time. Both are running the same 2 stroke oil (Amsoil Interceptor), and both of them are running with the oil pumps adjusted the same to yield a 45:1 final ratio. The main difference between what's going through the engine is that mine has been (and will be) running Archoil products, his is not. I'm running both the AR9100 and the AR6200, both mixed at the appropriate ratios in each tank of fuel/oil. The only variable not 100% controlled is the rider and riding style. Between the two of us, it's VERY similar but not exact enough that the variable shouldn't be discounted.

The idea of this test will be to see what the wear looks like in each engine after a season or two, depending on miles. For anyone that hasn't been around them, 2 stroke engines are not known as the "most reliable" machines and low wear, and high performance snowmobile engines that spend the majority of their lives at 7000RPM+ are no exception. Ideally both machines will reach the target mileage at the same time, but even in this one season, we've already seen that the differences in riding style and how hard I play vs. he does adds up the miles. Right now, my sled sits at 450 miles, with his trailing almost 70 miles behind. So, we are going to start swapping machines (thanks Patriot) during the course of a day and should get both of them closer to "sync" soon. We don't have a target mileage in mind yet before we crack them open to refresh the top ends, but typically these CFI-2 engines need a little refreshment around 1500 miles. We will be opening up the power valves of the engines in the spring for their holdover service and we will be able to see what deposits have formed, and should be able to take a peekyboo through the exhaust ports and see the pistons.



It's not a PERFECT test I know, but it'll be one that hopefully people can look at to determine that if they don't have stiction, whether it's worth it to them to spend the extra money for the additive or is it just another expense? Thanks for watching, stay tuned for updates :D
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
5,971 Posts
I am going to be trying something similar with a friend of mine. He is planning on building his 6.4 with the same internals that I am and uses his truck pretty much the same that I do. Obviously it will be a much MUCH longer time frame as I don't plan to start my build for another year or 2 and after the rebuild I don't plan on pulling the cab for years to come. But he is a die hard opponent of additives whereas I am the exact opposite. We have already proven that fuel additives can keep the hpfp alive... I am at 118k miles and have no issues with rail pressure, he is at 120k and is on his 3rd hpfp... He just started using stanadyne after this last $6800 cab off repair lol. And we do fill up from the same station and follow a 8k filter change.

But I will definitely be following this.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
931 Posts
For those of us already using AR9100, I am not sure how we can participate. I added AR9100 at my first oil change at 5000 miles, but immediately left on an 11,000 mile towing trip with a 10K fifth wheel. I averaged 12.5 mpg on the trip with interstate towing speeds from 60-65 mph. I had an oil change mid trip and replenished the additive at the time.
I use it for the reduced friction and hopefully, longer engine life. I now have 23500 miles on my truck.
While I was able to document MPG improvement with the AR6200 fuel additive during my daily commute, I am about to retire so I won't have a comparable daily route for comparison.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
336 Posts
Definitely following
 

·
california deplorable
Joined
·
10,999 Posts
in for the win.
ie: subbed
i will say i believe i notice a difference when i run archoil so i do.
but my truck was hammered when i bought it and i have no idea what abuse the previous owner put it through.
I will say since doing what i have done it runs pretty darn good :D
but that in no way represents any type of scientific comparison to anything other than how it first ran when i got it which was ,
it didn't :doh:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
66 Posts
I just changed the oil in my 6.4 I run delo 5-40 and archoil. This will be my 3rd oil change with the archoil in, however I have changed the oil on the truck many times it has 230,000 miles I have always run. 10,000 mile intervals and analysis says it could go longer. I have noticed with the last two changes since adding the archoil that the oil is looking noticibly even at this many miles. For a long time the truck would also burn about 1.5 - 2 quarts, now it does not burn any oil at all.
 

·
'consent of the governed'
Joined
·
5,754 Posts
Did you make another thread about this? I know I recommended switching machines each ride to account for rider differences.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
12,955 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
No didn't make another thread....it's just not going to have a lot of action in it until we get to tear them down....which is why I wasn't even going to start it until we got to that point but it seemed like a good placesetter.

Yes we did some switching back and forth.....I didn't like it but it didn't kill me lol.

This season is over, both machines are sitting between 440-520 miles.....so honestly still hardly broken in, but we all know 2 strokes are another animal and 500 miles at 8,000RPM is much different than 500 miles at 3,500 RPM, which is one reason I think the test will have some serious merit....only time will tell though. Now that the garage is getting cleaned from all the spring truck projects that were piled up (tailgate, turbo, injectors, fuel pump, W/M, TrueTrac, etc.) the sleds will get off the trailer, get summarized and fogged and put away until the fall. If all goes well we'll crack them in the fall to put new 13:1 compression heads on and see what the pistons and cylinders look like.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,474 Posts
so just to clarify because im really interested in more benefits then a 6.0 injector as well.

now that the season is over your going to tear down the engines and examine parts and send oil in for analyzing or just inspect clearances, tolerances, wear etc?
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
12,955 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
so just to clarify because im really interested in more benefits then a 6.0 injector as well.

now that the season is over your going to tear down the engines and examine parts and send oil in for analyzing or just inspect clearances, tolerances, wear etc?
Well yes.....and no.

These snowmobiles are 2-strokes......so the oil is burned during the combustion process, and in so there won't be any to send in for analysis.

So it will be an inspection of clearances and wear on the cylinders, rings, and pistons. As well as an inspection of how dirty the parts are when we disassemble them. These engines don't have conventional intake and exhaust valves as we're used to seeing them. They don't have intake valves at all, and they use a variable exhaust valve to adjust the exhaust flow for optimal power throughout the RPM range. Typically, these need to be cleaned often due to the oil that remains in the exhaust gases and it sticks and gums up the valves. It will be interesting to see if there's an effect there as well.

If there are no discernible differences, we'll continue the test and see what they look like at the end of next season......
 

·
california deplorable
Joined
·
10,999 Posts
hadn't thought about that :doh: but interesting to see how archoil burns :dunno:
I suppose it could burn badly and actually add to the wear in a worst case scenario...
does anyone remember the flash point for nano borate? and was that even in the analysis? seems like i remember reading something on flash point, but thinking if my oil gets that hot i got way more problems than archoil is going to help with :rofl:
 

·
Mr. Crossthread
Joined
·
4,704 Posts
**FROM THE SITE**

FEATURES & BENEFITS
• Dissolves carbon, sludge and varnish build up
• Reduces emissions
• Reduces operating energy requirements
• Significantly reduces surface friction (CoF 0.037)
• Reduces wear and extends equipment life
• Reduces noise and vibration
• Reduces friction heat
• Minimizes fluid oxidation – extending the oil drain cycle
• Restores compression and torque
• Inhibits surface corrosion
• Extreme pressure agent (falex test failure at 4,000 lbs)
• Eliminates HEUI injector stiction (FORD POWERSTROKE and others)


APPLICATIONS
• Trucks & Cars – Treat at 1.2 oz per quart (One 16oz bottle of AR9100 treats approx. 15 quarts of engine oil)
• Motorcycles (wet clutch or not) – Treat at 1.2 oz per quart
• Gear oil – Treat at 3.2 oz per quart
• Slip differentials – Treat at 1 oz per quart
• Hydraulic oil – Treat at 3.2 oz per quart
• Power steering system – Treat at 1 oz per quart
• Boats (new and old) – Treat at 1.2 oz per quart


SPECIFICATIONS
Color………………….. Brown liquid
Base Fluid……………. Fatty acid esters
Viscosity………………. 150 SUS at 100F or 37.7C
Specific Gravity……… 1,000 at 25C
Nano Variants……….. Nanoborate (proprietary processing)
D.O.T…………………. Unregulated
V.O.C…………………. None
Flashpoint……………. 410F


So it looks like any liquid that has to do with lubrication can have archoil dumped in it. Other than diesel, but I wouldn't put ULSD in the lubricating category.

Not sure if this helps, but more info can't hurt. lol
Here is a chart of viscosity for 5w-40 engine oil, they didn't say which brand. Remember, the archoil viscosity was at 150 SUS (or kinematic viscosity) at 100F.
|Temp| |D. Viscosity| |K. Viscosity| |Density|
(F) |(mPa.s) (mm2/s) (g/cm5)
32 |753.52| |868.78| |0.8674|
50 |378.65| |439.85| |0.8609|
68 |206.89| |242.10| |0.8545|
86 |121.90| |143.70| |0.8483|
104 |76.551| |90.903| |0.8421|
122 |50.861| |60.849| |0.8358|
140 |35.409| |42.685| |0.8295|
158 |25.631| |31.135| |0.8232|
176 |19.181| |23.478| |0.8170|
194 |14.742| |18.185| |0.8106|
212 |11.619| |14.443| |0.8045|​
 
  • Like
Reactions: john galt

·
california deplorable
Joined
·
10,999 Posts
thank you good sir so at 410 flashpoint is is definitely burning in the cylinders or a sled :nod:
so that will most certainly have an effect on the combustion cylinders and valves etc...
it will be interesting to see if it leaves a residue or if it cleans by adding lubricity prior to combustion.
it has been a long time sine i worked on a sled but dont they have crankcase oil? seems like the ones i worked on 15 years ago did :dunno:
at any rate interested to see the out come :thumb:
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
12,955 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
No....no crankcase oil on a 2 stroke. The 4 stroke Yamahas have them, but they also weigh another 150-200lbs so I stay far away from those. Great power for a straight line but as far as snowmobiling goes IMO maneuverability is key.

You may be thinking of chaincase oil.....but those have gone away on these sleds too for weight loss and a cogged belt drive takes its place.

I too am thinking that internals should be cleaner, but we'll see once we crack them open
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
12,955 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
Ok, since @Patriot reminded me yesterday and I have a little time this morning to do the write up I'll fill you guys in with the update so far.

For those of you that were looking for a large dramatic difference between the two, I'm sorry but it just wasn't there. I was honestly hoping there wouldn't be at this point because in all reality, 500 miles ain't ch!t even on a lowly Polaris 2-stroke engine, but wrapping an engine out to 8000+RPM still can create some issues. Now.....that being said, these particular engines have developed a bad reputation over the years for top end failure, so it wouldn't have surprised me either, although the failures are usually due to water/snow ingestion, lack of oil due to the oil pump being turned to an absolute minimum for EPA regs, and piston skirt issues.

I went a little farther than originally intended because just pulling off the head is not a good indicator IMO of piston/cylinder wear. For that I needed the help of a machine shop. I ended up pulling the cylinders off the crankcase, removing the pistons, and sending them out for inspection. As far as wear goes, they were close enough to each other that I don't think there was a difference.
Before removal, I did measure piston to cylinder wall clearance and it was 0.0045 on both cylinders of my engine and 0.0045 on both cylinders of the other engine.--Results moot with no improvement one over the other (Spec. is 0.0040"-0.0055", service limit is 0.009"). Also I did check compression before tear down, both engines had 135lbs of compression +/- a hair on the gauge I was using, so that was a great starting point.

Upon removal of the parts and having the piston and cylinders checked, my engine spec'd out as follows:
PTO Cylinder: 3.3465", perfectly round top to bottom
Mag cylinder: 3.3465", perfectly round top to bottom
PTO Piston: 3.3415"
Mag Piston: 3.3416"

Other engine:
PTO Cylinder: 3.3465", still perfectly round top to bottom
Mag cylinder: 3.3464", 0.0001" taper towards the bottom, but not out of round [don't get excited, it's still normal and in spec, may have even come from the factory like that]
PTO Piston: 3.3413"
Mag Piston: 3.3415"

Cross hatching was still very visible and gorgeous on each set of cylinders, and there was no visible scarring or cracks.

Obviously there is one flaw in this test in that the engines weren't torn down and measured BEFORE the mileage, so at best I have only NIB parts to compare to. So I've spent quite a bit of time shuttling boxes of pistons back and forth to the machinist and the Polaris dealer so he could measure them. For the 25 other pairs of pistons that we checked, they were all 3.3413"-3.3417".......so there's some tolerance variables just in NEW pistons that probably accounts for the difference between the two engines now. If anything, I do have numbers now for a future comparison. I've also called a couple cylinder remanufacturers since nobody would let me borrow cylinder pairs at over $500/pr, and finished spec for the cylinders was 3.3465" with no taper.

A new set of wristpin bearings for each engine (since I was there) and new gaskets and they're both back and running now ready to go for this next year. For the "challenge" of this being that internal wear may be reduced due to the lower friction internal to the engine, I'll be the first to say that for this test, it did not seem to make a difference. I'd say with the minimal miles and large manufacturing tolerances that these are probably right where they were when they started. However, where I DID notice a huge difference was in the cleanliness of each engine. On mine, there were minimal carbon deposits on the underside of the head and on the Variable Exhaust Valves, and what was there easily wiped off with a towel and some carb cleaner. On the other engine, the combustion chambers were more caked with carbon that didn't easily come off, and it took a brass wire brush to remove the hard deposits that were left on the exhaust valves. There was a distinct film of oil on each cylinder in each engine too, so it's good to know that the base oil is sticking for lubrication like it should. Since these machines were always fueled up together, fuel difference is moot.......oil was the same (minus the additive) and riding area/temperature/elevation was always the same. The only other difference between the two is riding style and with me being more aggressive and being harder on the throttle-burning hotter, it may have helped with the cleanliness.....but that being said I've NEVER had a set of exhaust valves clean up that easy before.

So where does that leave us today? Well, I see no reason not to continue the test and see what happens now with some more extended miles on them....and now that I have solid BEFORE numbers, maybe there will be a difference in the AFTER later on. I will continue to use the additive, even if the only benefit is cleaner internals....that speaks volumes to me on how the engine is burning the fuel/oil mix and performing as a whole. Maybe there's more to the "combustion catalyst" benefit listed on the label than I originally gave it credit for? I'll upload the pictures taken during disassembly later when I can carve out another block of time to fight with photobucket for awhile, or open another picture account somewhere else but for now, here's the meat and potatoes of the "test".
 

·
Bump To Pass!!
Joined
·
11,903 Posts
Hmmm....

Well something I didn't think of was the 2-stroke aspect to it and the result of burning the 9100. It is very interesting that the one running the 9100 was cleaner then the other "stock" motor. Assuming same fuel was used (assuming it was since you own both sleds and they go out as a married couple), it does speak to the detergents to the 9100. I didn't think we would see much as far as wear differences, and if we did it would be hard to say one was because of the additive or not. It is interesting for sure. The only real way to get a clear answer on the wear is to do the DOE test using 9100 and then we would all know and finally have the "proof" that the nay-sayers want...even know the same technology was tested and proved to work....
 

·
'consent of the governed'
Joined
·
5,754 Posts
Seeing as it wasn't designed for 2 stroke, burning the oil, still pretty good. I'm thinking about designing a simple wear test. Any suggestions? I have a few ideas but input is welcome.
 

·
Bump To Pass!!
Joined
·
11,903 Posts
Seeing as it wasn't designed for 2 stroke, burning the oil, still pretty good. I'm thinking about designing a simple wear test. Any suggestions? I have a few ideas but input is welcome.
Yah...

My Idea is.....Don't waste your time!!

You know it will "prove" nothing to the tool sheds on here and other forums that just think snake oil....although lately they seem to all be out "protesting". I can hear it now...."Yah he did a test in his garage but what does that prove?" or "Its not a third party un-biased test so its still snake oil" and the like....Your call. I just can see the train wreck coming that would be that thread even know it would be full of usable information and proof.
 
1 - 20 of 23 Posts
Top