Marvel Mystery Oil

On 27 Jan 2006 10:51:09 -0800, "butch burton" >
wrote:

>At least one of the major car companies - DC I think sez in the owners
>manual that using crank case additives will void the warranty. Back in
>the days of lose engines - a increase in viscosity may have been a good
>thing - not today - will probably impede lubrication.

Actually, I think MMO would probably decrease the viscosity of the
oil, and I wouldn't want to do that either. MMO is an old product. If
it had any extraordinary benefits as a crankcase additive, its
components would have been incorporated into motor oils long ago.

That said, I have seen it recommended for various general and special
lubrication purposes. It is probably a very fine light-weight,
general purpose lubricating oil, but it is neither marvelous or
mysterious.

"butch burton" > wrote in
oups.com:

> At least one of the major car companies - DC I think sez in the owners
> manual that using crank case additives will void the warranty. Back in
> the days of lose engines - a increase in viscosity may have been a good
> thing



And when was this day of "lose" engines?


--
TeGGeR®

The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/

On 27 Jan 2006 23:38:20 GMT, "TeGGeR®" > wrote:

wrote in
roups.com:
>
>> Start saving up money... to buy a new catalytic converter.
>>
>> The whole concept of marvel oil is a little bogus. Gasoline already
>> has a lot of oily components in it, and that is what lubes the upper
>> cylinders well enough for engines to last 300,000+ miles.
>>
>> Now check out Brazil, which insisted on developing ethanol production
>> to replace gasoline use. Result is, engines don't last at all. The
>> alcohol has no lube qualities, and the engine is toast.
>>
>>
>
>
>
>You are full of bovine fecal matter. Gasoline is a SOLVENT, NOT a
>lubricant. It washes motor oils off the bore walls.
>
>Gasoline does have a touch of light machine oil in it, but that's for the
>injectors, not the bores.

I don't know. Gasoline may not be as good a lubricant as oil but I
can see how it would be a lot better than ethanol. Not saying that
he's right, but it isn't implausible IMO.

Do Brazilian liquor burners really go through engines like a drunken
sailor? I hear they are still selling well and by now everyone would
know it if they were self destructing. I couldn't find anything on
the web about it either.

On 2006-01-28, TWW > wrote:

> They still make that -- shades of JC Whitney....

Hey, don't knock JC Whitney. They've saved my butt more than once. An
example was replacing the aluminized batt insulation in a '69 Dodge
van engine box (the one between the seats) I once owned. I looked
everywhere. Dodge dealers, Autoshops, boat centers, RV centers,
custom shops, you name it. After 2 weeks I was at my wits end. My
buddy suggested I look in JC Whitney . Sure enough, twice as much as
I needed for $30, including shipping. JC Whitney is alright.

http://www.jcwhitney.com/autoparts/S...-10101/s-10101

nb

wrote:
> I've heard good things about Marvel Mystery Oil. Just curious how it
> works since you can put it in the oil and gasoline tanks and does it
> work well still with newer cars, I have 05 Civic.

dont waste your money.

> You are full of bovine fecal matter. Gasoline is a SOLVENT, NOT a
> lubricant. It washes motor oils off the bore walls.


I specifically said UPPER CYLINDER WALLS. Sure, it would be better to
have some 10W30 up there, but it isn't really happening. Solvent,
lube, whatever. Don't get hung up on labels. Did you take organic
chemistry 30 years ago like I did? There's a lot of oily in gasoline,
and it isn't due to any additive.


My wife has two relatives doing an extended project in Brazil right
now, and they'll agree with me regarding engine longevity.

That is "Male Bovine Fecal Matter"

Sid


"TeGGeR®" > wrote in message
...
> wrote in
> oups.com:
>
>> Start saving up money... to buy a new catalytic converter.
>>
>> The whole concept of marvel oil is a little bogus. Gasoline already
>> has a lot of oily components in it, and that is what lubes the upper
>> cylinders well enough for engines to last 300,000+ miles.
>>
>> Now check out Brazil, which insisted on developing ethanol production
>> to replace gasoline use. Result is, engines don't last at all. The
>> alcohol has no lube qualities, and the engine is toast.
>>
>>
>
>
>
> You are full of bovine fecal matter. Gasoline is a SOLVENT, NOT a
> lubricant. It washes motor oils off the bore walls.
>
> Gasoline does have a touch of light machine oil in it, but that's for the
> injectors, not the bores.
>
> --
> TeGGeR®
>
> The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
> www.tegger.com/hondafaq/

shawn > wrote in
:

> On 28 Jan 2006 02:00:59 GMT, "TeGGeR®" > wrote:
>
>>"butch burton" > wrote in
groups.com:
>>
>>> At least one of the major car companies - DC I think sez in the owners
>>> manual that using crank case additives will void the warranty. Back in
>>> the days of lose engines - a increase in viscosity may have been a good
>>> thing
>>
>>
>>
>>And when was this day of "lose" engines?
>
> I would guess back in 70s and earlier. Tolerances on the parts going
> into engines have gotten much tighter over the years.



Hmmm... Some examples:
2003 Acura RSX crank journal to bearing clearance: .0007"-.0020"
1991 Honda B18A1 crank journal to bearing clearance: .0009"-.0020"
1975 Toyota 2T-C crank journal to bearing clearance: .0006"-.0039"
1956 Chevrolet six or V8 crank journal to bearing clearance: .0007"-.0028".

The tight tolerance is essentially the same from 1956 to 2003, but the
older engines were permitted to get a lot looser before being considered
out-of-spec. I'd suspect metallurgy is a lot better now, so they can afford
to specify tighter tolerances and still get adequate life out of the
engine.

Also, oils back in 1956 or 1975 were not what they are now. Sort of with
poyethylene, back then you had to make it thick to get the film strength.
Now they can do it by making the polymer chains longer and stronger. I
think that and metallurgy have more to do with the lightness of modern oils
than viscosity requirements.


--
TeGGeR®

The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/

"TeGGeR®" > wrote in
:

> shawn > wrote in
> :
>
>> On 28 Jan 2006 02:00:59 GMT, "TeGGeR®" > wrote:
>>
>>>"butch burton" > wrote in
egroups.com:
>>>
>>>> At least one of the major car companies - DC I think sez in the
>>>> owners manual that using crank case additives will void the
>>>> warranty. Back in the days of lose engines - a increase in
>>>> viscosity may have been a good thing
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>And when was this day of "lose" engines?
>>
>> I would guess back in 70s and earlier. Tolerances on the parts going
>> into engines have gotten much tighter over the years.
>
>
>
> Hmmm... Some examples:
> 2003 Acura RSX crank journal to bearing clearance: .0007"-.0020"
> 1991 Honda B18A1 crank journal to bearing clearance: .0009"-.0020"
> 1975 Toyota 2T-C crank journal to bearing clearance: .0006"-.0039"
> 1956 Chevrolet six or V8 crank journal to bearing clearance:
> .0007"-.0028".


Another couple I just found:
1970 Ford 302 V8 crank journal to bearing clearance: .0005"-.0024"
1970 Ford 250 six crank journal to bearing clearance: .0005"-.0022"


I'm not sure those old engines were much looser than modern ones.


--
TeGGeR®

The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/

"TeGGeR®" > wrote in
:


>> 1975 Toyota 2T-C crank journal to bearing clearance: .0006"-.0039"


Oops. This is for the smaller 3K engine. the 2T clearances we
..0013"-.0022", only slightly bigger max than the '02 RSX.


--
TeGGeR®

The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/