Allowed Oil Additives

[Eric Parham]

9.1.3.D.1.h: "Engine oil and oil additives are unrestricted."

9.1.3.D.1.q: "The application and/or use of any painting, coating, plating, or impregnating substance (i.e. anti-friction, thermal barrier, oil shedding coatings, chrome, anodizing, etc.) to any internal engine surface, including intake manifold internal surface, is prohibited."

Let's say someone were to add molybdenum to their oil, and some of it naturally settled out or attached to certain hot metallic internal engine surfaces. Compliant or non-compliant?

[CaptainWho]

IMO, non-compliant. A modification permitted under 9.1.3.D.1.h is performing a function prohibited under 9.1.3.D.1.q.

[Eric Parham]

IMO, non-compliant. A modification permitted under 9.1.3.D.1.h is performing a function prohibited under 9.1.3.D.1.q.
[/b]

I think that's the best answer, but consider this: Although the engine oil manufacturers don't list their ingredients, molybdenum turns out to be one of the most common non-oil components of retail engine oils, at least according to some who analyze that stuff. There may be some brands or batches that don't include it, but I can't even figure out which ones they are. Thus, the hotter our engines get, the more moly sticks to the internal surfaces. Is it really the intent of the current rules to DQ someone for failing to hot tank their internal engine components on a regular basis, particularly after using generally available retail engine oils that don't even list their ingredients?

[Speed Raycer]

9.1.3.D.1.q: "The application and/or use of any painting, coating, plating, or impregnating substance (i.e. anti-friction, thermal barrier, oil shedding coatings, chrome, anodizing, etc.) to any internal engine surface, including intake manifold internal surface, is prohibited."
[/b]

Wow.. there goes being able to fix my rotor housings... wait... there goes using the factory rotor housings ;)

[CaptainWho]

Is it really the intent of the current rules to DQ someone for failing to hot tank their internal engine components on a regular basis, particularly after using generally available retail engine oils that don't even list their ingredients?
[/b]

I doubt that's the intention, but I think this conflict is more related to the difficulty of writing the 9.1.3.D.1.q prohibition in a way that time and technology aren't going to "corrode" while still achieving the real intent, which I think is to prohibit doing those sorts of surface modifications after the engine leaves the factory.

[lateapex911]

Wow.. there goes being able to fix my rotor housings... wait... there goes using the factory rotor housings ;)
[/b]


Perhaps the phrase, "Except as euipped from the factory" or something similar needs to be added.

[tom91ita]

perfectly fine imho.

otherwise, oil could not be used per 9.1.3.D.1.q since it is an "anti-friction" material.

but then i am part of the "if it says you can, then you bloody well can!" crowd.

(i don't remember who said that first but i love it and am trying to accurately quote it)

iirc, the coating etc. were things that were being applied prior to engine assemby, etc. practically any oil ad on tv shows how the oil will better coat and protect your engine parts during start-up, etc.

oil is unrestricted. Q.E.D.

[Z3_GoCar]

Perhaps the phrase, "Except as euipped from the factory" or something similar needs to be added.
[/b]

Exactly,

What about factory anti-friction coated pistons. Not only are you not allowed to use the factory piston, you're not allowed to use "factory equvalent" pistons either as only non-equvalent pistons would come without the coating. The real reason for this rule is to eliminate the old practice of coating the block to improve oil drain back.

James

[lateapex911]

perfectly fine imho.

otherwise, oil could not be used per 9.1.3.D.1.q since it is an "anti-friction" material.

but then i am part of the "if it says you can, then you bloody well can!" crowd.

(i don't remember who said that first but i love it and am trying to accurately quote it)

iirc, the coating etc. were things that were being applied prior to engine assemby, etc. practically any oil ad on tv shows how the oil will better coat and protect your engine parts during start-up, etc.

oil is unrestricted. Q.E.D.
[/b]


The old IT sage Geo is the one who I think first uttered (typed) the phrase, "If it says you can, you bloody well can." IISYCYBWC in ointernet/text message lingo.



Exactly,
The real reason for this rule is to eliminate the old practice of coating the block to improve oil drain back.

James
[/b]


Actually i think that's just one of the reasons. Other items include internal coatings and external coatings in/on the intake manifold, meant for heat rejection and air smoothing, as well as some others.

[JeffYoung]

I would say no.

If you are using an additive solely to coat a block impermissibly, then the "you can use additives" loses out to the "you can't coat" under the impermissible funciton rule.

This goes back to the 50 lb cage gussets example I think. Guessets, legal to strengthen the cage. NOT legal to add ballast outside the footwell.

[joeg]

Eric--Back to your original question--Go right ahead.

The Rules are not addressing "restore in a bottle", "Liqui-moly" or any other snake oil anyone may wish to pour into their motor.

The rules address having individual pieces coated, etc.

[JeffYoung]

Joe, just playing devil's advocate -- what about something in a bottle that ends up coating internal pieces?

[joeg]

Go right ahead, Jeff. Do you think one can actually get any long lasting, even-application of whatever is in a bottle by pouring it into an assembled engine??

Who is going to find that on a tear down? Why would anyone even bother looking?

Cheers.