LT1 Based Engine Tech 1993-1997 LT1/LT4 Engine Related

Lucas Oil --- Good or Bad?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Mar 24, 2003 | 07:24 PM
  #16  
Mindgame's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 2,985
From: In a house by the bay
No additives needed.

Mobil 1 states rather adamantly, that no additives should be used with their oil. I'm sure many of the other oil companies feel the same way.

I've used a lot of products over the years... Slick 50, ProLong, STP etc., and all of these products have been found to do more damage than good. Lucas Oil doesn't list any of it's chemical makeup, which kind of bothers me because we've learned to look for PTFE, kerosene, zinc and alot of the other stuff thats been peddled in the products over the years.
Maybe it's a good product, who knows... I don't see a need, especially with the use of a good synthetic.

-Mindgame
Old Apr 14, 2003 | 10:00 PM
  #17  
FireAm94's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 699
From: Decatur, AL
Well....I have a very trusted mechanic friend who has been running Lucas for 7 years with no problems whatsoever in his 93K5. It has 140k on the clock too. I wouldn't hesitate to use it myself. The conditions were much different than the real world conditions inside a motor and would have to see an accurate test....not some plastic gear test. Just my opinion.....don't flame it please.

Joe
Old Apr 14, 2003 | 11:11 PM
  #18  
Dr.Mudge's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 2,148
From: Bay Area, CA
The only review of aftermarket additives that I can recall reading, was by David Vizard, so that that for whatever it might be worth. In summation, snake oil, and until someone shows proof of a product really doing something (and who will accept what, from whom as proof), then I see no reason why we should worry about using synthetic by itself when engines can easily last 500k on the stuff!

For that matter, I use Quaker State semi-synth because of the characteristics being so damn close to a full synthetic, that I see no reason to go to something else. Engines will last so long anyway, I just dont see the reasoning, I suppose if you wanted your stroker to do an honest 500k then maybe I'd investigate, I just dont see it out there. Enjoy your toys for what they are, all things die eventually, and when they do they just get faster
Old Apr 15, 2003 | 01:03 PM
  #19  
1994 RX7's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 9
From: Marietta, GA
Question about that test. If the lubricant with the lucas additive was so full of air, then why didn't the level rise? ...you know, density down, volume up.
Old Apr 15, 2003 | 07:32 PM
  #20  
chasmanz28's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,574
From: PA
Originally posted by 1994 RX7
Question about that test. If the lubricant with the lucas additive was so full of air, then why didn't the level rise? ...you know, density down, volume up.
ive used lucas in my car for years also, and just did i intake gasket job, everything inside was very clean, having cold climates where i live, thats why i use the stuff, mainly for dry startups, and that test does seem to be a little 1 sided i think, when i change my oil it never looks like that mess in his test, even when i check the oil after the car is running never looks like that foam crap in his test, JMO
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
HectorM52
Parts For Sale
26
Jul 30, 2017 11:46 AM
97TA-WS6-Con
Parts For Sale
7
Feb 1, 2015 01:01 PM
Amshnock
Fuel and Ignition
14
Jan 18, 2015 11:47 AM
mattszm6
LT1 Based Engine Tech
7
Dec 14, 2014 07:09 AM
Fbodfather
Automotive News / Industry / Future Vehicle Discussion
25
Jun 21, 2002 04:12 PM




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:25 PM.