Or any of those miracle lubricants for that matter?
I want to know because i have a mechanic friend that says it doesn’t work any better than synthetic oil. He says it’s better to change oil frequently.
Is there any lubricant that does what DuraLube claims?
This has been on my mind for ages…
Seeing those DuraLube commercials almost made me buy the stuff…
I believe DuraLube works in the sense that it’s made somebody a pile of money, but other than that, I couldn’t tell you. I’m hesitant to believe any of those claims, since I couldn’t trust any “proof testing” done any more than any other marketing ploy. For the money, I’ll stick to changing my Pennzoil every 3K. It’s a great way to kill an hour out in the garage (two if you do it right) and a few beers, while the SO cleans toilets.
Until I discovered what DuraLube is I thought this thread was going to be hot!
Bob Sikorsky is an automotive engineer who has written several consumer-oriented books and has a weekly question and answer column that appears in many newspapers. I get aggravated with his column (I’m an auto repair professional) because he often seem to miss the point of what’s has been asked, offering an answer that doesn’t address the real question. Nevertheless, he is knowledgeable and well educated in automotive technology.
In one of his columns where he did appropriately answer the question, he clearly condemns DuraLube and Prolong because they contain chlorine compounds. While these are effective extreme-pressure additives, they are corrosive and do more harm than good over time. This is his area of expertise and I have confidence in his assessment.
Auto manufacturers and oil refiners invest a lot in research and development. The increasingly long life of most modern engines indicates their efforts are yielding good results. You can be sure that if DuraLube-type substances were beneficial, they would incorporate them in their products. The fact that they don’t speaks volumes.
General rule of thumb: if it’s advertised in an infomercial, it’s probably not very good. If the product could stand on its own merits, it wouldn’t be necessary to go to such elaborate lengths to try to sell it.
Not pertinent to the DuraLube conversation, but I had to jump in. There are some great products advertised in infomercials. It can be a very cost effective means of direct advertising, and shouldn’t reflect negatively on the product. There are some products that are so new/revolutionary/unusual that it is nearly impossible to demonstrate their merits in a retail situation. Direct marketing is sometimes the only way a company can ensure that a product is presented fairly.
DuraLube not withstanding.
:rolleyes:
Yep, Bob Sikorsky has a great book “Drive it Forever” which is a good read for anyone trying to maintain their ride for any length of time.
Your mechanic friend is correct – keeping fresh clean oil in your engine is the key, not miracle additives. STP (or the formula) was invented by Germany during world war II since they were trying to stretch their supplies of petroleum as far as they could. We aren’t in that situation, thankfully.
Note that no aircraft manufacturers or associated companies recommend any kind of wonder-lube product – they use synthetic oils exclusively in the jet aircraft. Know any pilots who put duralube in their rotary piston engine aircraft? Bet you can’t find one. Would you put in your plane?
Don’t listen to anyone else on this subject. I am not quoting any so called experts who’s opinion matter more if they get paid to mention the product (such as Mr. Sikorsky) nor am I giving a second hand opinion.
In 1989, I entered a demolition derby with a 1974 Chevy Impala station wagon. The car had a 350 engine with about 105,000 miles on it. All I did to the engine was change the oil, adding 5 quarts of Valvoline 50 weight racing oil and one bottle of Duralube. The first thing I noticed when hot lapping the car, it was running about 20 degrees cooler than when I drove the car on the road. On a race track, the engine should have run warmer. For the final smash em up, 36 cars took to the track in all out mayhem. 5 minutes in, I took a direct hit to the radiator and lost all my coolant. Of course, my temp gauge pegged at 260 degrees. In any normal engine, 5 minutes at that temperature will cook bearings and things will start to seize up. My car continued to run fine without water, a broken idler arm 20 minutes after the radiator went finally stopped me.
The car was drug home and sat for over a year without being touched. I had to move and sold what was left of the car for $40. The kid that bought the car put a battery in it, started it up and drove it onto a car trailer. He put the engine in a pickup and got another 25,000 miles out of it. If you use a quality synthetic or synthetic blend, Duralube will add nothing. But for an older car, it could keep the car on the road much longer. You do not want to use it in a car that burns oil, it will ruin the catelytic converter. I regularly drive my vehicle to well over 150,000 miles and I have always used Duralube when the car hits about 100,000. I have owned a car that has suffered any major engine damage in the 30 or so years I have been driving.
The last line should read I have NEVER owned a car that has suffered any major engine damage.
Any worn engine that burns oil to any appreciable extent will degrade the catalyzer.
Still, if there were miracle additives wouldn’t you expect to see them utilized in aircraft? There’s no snake oil when it comes to aviation products.
Testimonials, true or not, sound great but don’t prove anything. That’s why they’re the favored advertising method for super diet pills and other things that don’t work.
The results of a carefully constructed, properly run scientific study with enough subjects to eliminate the occasional fluke experience might be helpful. Don’t hold your breath waiting, though.
Do you know how stupid this sounds? First of all, Sikorsky is an expert–not a “so-called” expert–on tribology (look it up). Secondly, why would anyone pay him to thoroughly pan the product? You’re not making any sense here.
I have a copy of Drive It Forever, which is an excellent book. Some of Sikorsky’s suggestions are very simple and practical, while others are a bit on the obsessive side, but he’s certainly a smart and thoughtful guy. Also, I believe he was a car engineer too.
I agree with the others; if the stuff was so good, GM would be pouring it in at the factory, and recommending it in the owner’s manual too.
One other thing not to forget. I’m almost SURE that people who use DuraLube get more life from their cars than people who don’t. Wanna know why? Because the kind of guy who would be interested in a product like DuraLube, also takes great care of his car in general, which is actually what makes his car last longer. Make sense?
I’ve been working on cars for over 13 years, and the best thing you can do for your car is to CHANGE THE OIL regularly. I’ve also worked in an auto parts store part-time and the best thing about the countless additives we’ve sold is the money it’s made my boss.
The one additive I do add occasionally is Chevron’s Techroline and it’s only because of the fact that when I used to work at a GM dealership, it was a RECOMMENDED FIX by GM ENGINEERS for a fuel clogging problem they were having. I figure if the engineers themselves recommended it, it can’t be that bad.
The last thing is, adding anything can’t hurt (to a certain extent).
I believe that’s *Techron[?i], LolaBaby. It’s the best in-the-tank fuel additive I’ve run across. It was also house-branded by some other auto manufacturers. And you’re right–if the car manufacturer recommends or sells it, that’s as good an endorsement as you’ll ever get.
Gotta disagree with this, though: The last thing is, adding anything can’t hurt (to a certain extent). Some additives do cause harm. Again, the auto manufacturers generally advise against them. It’s in the owner’s manuals, which no one reads.
Sorry, yeah…Techron. That’s the ONE thing I add to my cars…nothing else.
I remember old-school mechanics once, pouring transmission fluid down a carburetor and I was freaking out before they explained the carbon-blasting properties it had. I guess it worked to a certain extent. However, you can’t pull stunts like that today. 
And yeah…that’s why I added the “to a certain extent” at the end. Sugar in a gas tank will do no one any good. 
Let’s assume that Duralube won’t make your car last longer.
Here’s what I want to know:
Can you really put Duralube in, drain the radiator, drain the oil, etc., and run your car around for a while without seizing up? How long?
Sure. You can also skip putting in the DuraLube and do the same thing.
Not nearly as long as if you’d left it alone.
For the sake of argument, let’s assume that if you pull the above stunt with DuraLube, the engine runs 20 minutes before going south, and if you do it without the DuraLube it runs 5 nimutes before it’s toast. The question remains, so what? This isn’t how engines are normally used–it’s a bogus test. This is the type of thing infomercials are famous for, compelling and amazing demonstrations that have nothing to do with the true value–or lack thereof–of the product in question. If, for example, DuraLube were to ruin the crankshaft bearings over a 20,000 mile period, there would be no hint of it from doing the above.
Bloggers, I definitely am not qualified to comment on the efficacy of Duralube, et.al. However the argument that the failure of Boeing, Airbus, Cessna, & so in to adopt the product proves a product’s reliability fails to consider manufacturers complete for market share & may be regulated in what products can be used in manufacturing.
I lack any statutory reference for aircraft build requirements but consider that the recent rash of B777 failures seems to revolve around a new battery design which apparently was rushed through the FAA approval process & avoided the avoided the usual close scrutiny of USG testing requirements. I argue that if batteries require FAA approval, so too would a lubricant for a more critical aircraft component, the engine.
In regards to the argument that if Duralube proved superior to standard motor oil, GM & the rest would use it instead. Following that position to an inevitable conclusion I ask, why doesn’t every vehicle roll off the manufacturing plant with synthetic oil in the pan? Cost, obviously, controls most decisions. Also, anyone who purchased & subsequent looked under the hood of new knows the batteries, shocks, tires, & other components of a car do not come from top shelf products in the industry.
Finally in re aircraft, airlines save money where they can. Consider, @ least in the past, that airlines used retreaded tires )https://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/819/819.F2d.1519.85-6367.85-6414.86-6195.86-6047.html ) & components from a Lockheed L-1011 that crashed into the Everglades ( Eastern Air Lines Flight 401 - Wikipedia ).
The Boeing 787 Dreamliner is the airplane with the recent battery problems.
As for oil, since the 2011 model year, most Hondas roll off the line with a factory fill of 0W-20 synthetic, and GM cars also come with synthetic - 5W-30, I think. My 2006 Dodge pickup was born with synthetic oil in its pan, so your question appears to be moot.
ETA: Flight 401 was a failure of the crew to fly the airplane. They were distracted with a warning light and nobody was actually paying attention to keeping the airplane in the air. The plane may have had recapped tires, but the tires did not cause the warning light or the crash.
Ditto.