Site search
and our replies
Lies related by some opponents of PTFE
Since the first PTFE treatments appeared on the market, certain opponents have repeatedly tried to put these in a bad light. In doing this, their imagination has known no boundaries, either technical or moral. They spread lies to the workshops through their representatives and to credulous motorists with the help of corrupted and/or friendly journalists, editors and publishers (luckily there are some honest ones too !), to damage the image of the product. They quote also technical and physical "facts" which are totally irrelevant or even technically or scientifically impossible.
Often the arguments which are brought forward remind one of the theoretically brilliant aerodynamicist who calculated in 1924 that the bumble bee could not fly. (It is said that he spent the last part of his life happily in the garden of a closed institution, running after bumble bees with a butterfly net and trying to persuade them to remain on the ground).
It is our opinion that:
Whoever stoops to such lies must be very short of genuine arguments !
We must conclude that people are taking the effect and value of our products very seriously, and that therefore every way is acceptable to make potential users unsure with negative claims, to disturb sales. Why ? We assume that the resulting reduction in oil and spare parts sales is considered unacceptable, and that also vanity plays its part (Our engines are perfect). It should also be noted that not one word is being spoken by these people about products containing chlorine, which really do cause damage and so promote spare parts sales, and which are being sold through massive dishonest TV promotions. Even in the famous "Sheet 219" of Mercedes manual of consumables no mention of chlorine is to be found.
We have in 20+ years sold some millions of PTFE treatments in Germany alone, without having any claim against the products or even any doubt. This is why we consider it essential to comment here (and put right) the lies and false technical claims which are regularly being made.
And what is to say about the so-called "oil experts" who are frequently quoted in the press ? We allow ourselves the remark that many of the following claims came from the lips of those who were responsible around 1980 for the most well-known breakthrough in oil technology of the last 40 years, the oil sludge death.
It should also be noted that PTFE treatments are a matter for tribologists, not "oil experts"
- A coating is not possible
- The PTFE particles could block the filter
- Modern engines have no problem doing 100/150/200,000 km anyway
- The oil-ways could be blocked
- The exhaust could become poisonous
- The piston rings could get gummed up
- The coating actually increases wear
- Use of PTFE could reduce the car maker’s guarantee performance
Or: The use of PTFE immediately voids the guarantee - There is indeed a coating produced, but not of PTFE, rather of highly corrosive iron fluoride
- PTFE coatings have not yet been tested by us, so damage cannot be ruled out
- Sequence III E is an American test and as such not relevant in Europe
- PTFE contains fluorine. Fluorine is a halogen. Halogens are in several compounds environmentally damaging
- When the pores in the metal of the cylinder walls are filled with PTFE, the lubrication of the engine will suffer
- If PTFE really brought only benefits, we would put it into our oils straight away
- It is not a coating. This product is a thinners, which makes the oil lighter running. This is how fuel is saved
- If you use a good oil, a PTFE treatment brings no benefits
- Old oil which has been treated with PTFE requires special disposal
- The friction in European engines is not the same as in American. So PTFE does not help in our engines
- PTFE coating will reduce the friction between the piston ring and its slot so much, that these will hit each-other with greater impact and so cause the piston to wear quicker
- At technical speeds (whatever these might be !) PTFE has a higher coefficient of friction than good lubricating oil
- A PTFE coating will fill the scorings on the cylinder wall, which are essential to ensure proper lubrication between piston and cylinder wall
- If you use a modern light-running oil, then the effect of SX-6000 will become minimal, or even nothing
- A PTFE treatment might initially bring benefits, but there will be problems later
- A coating is not possible. (This claim has been explained in at least four different, mutually incompatible ways)
Respected racers in Germany, that is to say people in contact with reality, not desk-bound theoreticians, who would have a lot to loose through making a bad choice and so are particularly critical, express themselves with high praise about the performance of the QMI treatments: that covers the increased performance, the savings in fuel and oil as well as the increased reliability of the friction parts in their engines and gearboxes.
A truck operator in the Rheinland with several trucks showed through old oil analysis that the use of PTFE in an engine with a very short remaining life expectancy not only reduced the fuel consumption by 2 litres per 100 km, but also reduced the wear rate by about 80% compared with that before treatment. The truck used in the year after treatment 3,500 litres less diesel fuel. The engine ran on for 100,000 km longer that expected. No-one had considered such a result possible.
Another large truck operator confirmed that, following treatment, the fuel consumption sank by 6.5%, and that this held for more than 120,000 km through routine oil changes. The oil consumption was reported to be 1.2 litres per 1000 km less as well, much to the displeasure, we assume, of certain oil companies. (Projected onto the national German truck fleet, this would reduce the consumption of motor oils by over 600 million litres per year, good for the environment, bad for the share-holders.)
The lasting effect of the coating (and so the fact of the coating itself) have been demonstrated many times over. But the proof that a coating is not possible still has to be presented by the opponents. Next time you are faced with this argument, ask simply how the effect can still be present after the treated oil has been changed, (possibly several times), if a durable coating has not been achieved ? We would like to know what the answer is ?
back to the top of the list
- The PTFE particles could block the filter
The producers of the QMI treatments thought about this more than 20 years ago and formulated the product after long tests optimally. The standard vehicle filter only holds back particles bigger than about 35 microns, and hardly any PTFE product has particles bigger than 5 microns. The particles in the QMI products are smaller than 0.5 microns and cannot be caught in even the finest by-pass filter of 1 or 0.8 microns. (Test reports – from an independent source, of course – are available).
back to the top of the list
- Modern engines have no problem doing 100/150/200,000 km anyway.
Many engines last this long. But these are almost exclusively those which do long journeys. But what about, for example, doctors’ cars ? Very few of these pass the 50,000 km mark, because, as is well known, starting causes over 80% of all engine wear. In the very same week that one magazine made this claim again, another magazine reported from a long-term test of a car, that the gearbox was in need of replacement, at 70,000 km ! And how often does one see advertisements for used cars with "80,000 km, exchange engine 20,000 km" ?
back to the top of the list
The long-distance driver will use less fuel for his 150,000 km. With the increase in fully zinc-coated vehicles, his car will hold its re-sale value for many more years. In Germany in 1977 the average age at which cars were scrapped was about 8 years. Today the figure is over 12, and still rising, with less and less beig scrapped because of rust, more because it is no longer economic to replace a major mechanical component. What can one have against a car which runs for 500,000 km ? - The oil-ways could be blocked
Often claimed, never proved. On the contrary, PTFE particles can only adhere in places where heat and pressure are, so only in friction surfaces. The fact that over 50 million vehicles in the world have been treated is clear proof, that PTFE will not block the oil ways.
back to the top of the list
- The exhaust could become poisonous.
Before the PTFE forms the coating, it is suspended in the oil. But even for this relatively short time there are clear test results showing that no fluorine compounds are in the exhaust. Thereafter, when the particles are not circulating in the oil, they cannot possibly get into the combustion area. This was confirmed to us in 1986 by the TÜV. Since then, there have been further tests which confirmed this again. Also, DuPont confirms the danger-free nature of the products of combustion, even in the case where one deliberately burns PTFE.
back to the top of the list
- The piston rings could get gummed up.
Here, our opponents conjure up the picture of a sticky mass of PTFE. The claim is pure imagination. The statement of a south German car maker, that "it has not been proved to us that it cannot happen" shows the desperate attempts to put PTFE into a bad light and produce new fictions after each one is knocked down. It is absurd to demand proof that something cannot happen. This too ignores the 50 million engines which have been treated and which have "survived" their treatments. But all is justified so as not to have to admit that their engines can be improved. The experience from the road and the race track are left aside, what is not wanted just cannot be possible. Why, we ask ?
back to the top of the list
- The coating actually increases wear.
Here an oil company quoted tests (in a clearly "sponsored" article in – up till that time – one of Germany’s most respected car magazines), which it claimed to have carried out together with a south German car maker. According to this, the application of PTFE had led to increased wear in the valve train. This just happens to be the area where the 88% wear reduction was established for QMI’s product by a testing institute of world repute. We hold the original letter from the car maker, confirming that no such test was ever carried out. How embarassing !
back to the top of the list
- Use of PTFE could reduce the car maker’s guarantee performance. Or: The use of PTFE immediately voids the guarantee.
With this argument car and truck owners are verbally warned-off the use of PTFE. But the legal situation is the same in Europe as in the USA, and so a written statement to this effect will never be obtained. This legal position (as also confirmed by Mercedes and other makers in writing) says effectively that " in the case of damage which is shown to have been caused by the use of ‘special additives’, our guarantee performance will be reduced accordingly". Here "is shown" is the important point. No other position is legally possible.
back to the top of the list
- There is indeed a coating produced, but not of PTFE, rather of highly corrosive iron fluoride.
(Here the technical manager of a German subsidiary of an international oil company was quoted in a "friendly" magazine)
Ignoring the laughable idea that a highly corrosive chemical could ever form a coating, we asked a real expert about this point, and how, if at all, iron fluoride could be formed. Mr. Cavanaugh gave us his reply. He is a long-serving application specialist for PTFE at DuPont, after all the firm which invented PTFE. He told us: "If you take iron particles of 1 micron and mix them 1:1 with similar-sized PTFE particles, and then heat up the mixture to over 400°C, there will be a reaction. Of the total input weight, you might get 1% iron fluoride. But such high temperatures are not present in engines. Even the most expensive oils cannot survive 220°C." Further, he asked how the originator of the statement could possibly be qualified for his job.
back to the top of the list
- PTFE coatings have not yet been tested by us, so damage cannot be ruled out. (In the technical documentation of a German car maker).
It is new to us that testing can eliminate damage, even if the testing is carried out by a car maker of repute. They also test oils, but this does not rule out that engines and gearboxes break. For the QMI engine treatment there is proof enough that it cannot cause damage. The "Sequence III E" test is the official test of the oil industry. QMI came out of this test with totally normal results for a good oil, with the one exception that, compared with oil alone, there was 88% less wear. If it were otherwise, our opponents would by now have ensured that such damage was widely publicised, as, with over 50 million treated engines, they would have certainly had enough cases to report. But, since facts are not available, ........... (Since then, we have, with the help of lawyers, received confirmation from this company, that it does not consisder SX-6000 to be dangerous.)
back to the top of the list
- Sequence III E is an American test and as such not relevant in Europe.
Here again they are grasping at straws. The "Sequence III E" test results are proudly shown in leaflets of the oil companies (assuming the results were good !) world-wide, as this test was defined for the world oil industry. The fact that the test is run in only one laboratory, and that this is in the USA, is totally irrelevant, except as a childish argument for the provincially-minded. As an alternative, it is also argued that the oil used for the test was US-quality, so not suited for the high speeds in Europe, particularly Germany. We can answer that we use for the German product only high quality oils suitable for Autobahns and with the approvals of all major car and truck manufacturers. See also 22 below.
back to the top of the list
- PTFE contains fluorine. Fluorine is a halogen. Halogens are in several compounds environmentally damaging. Therefore we would never approve a product containing fluorine for our engines.
The three statements are correct, but still the subject is being presented falsely. Firstly, for many years now, the car industry has being using PTFE in engines, for example for valve stem seals. The chemical stability of PTFE up to 380°C is a major factor in the choice of this material. All Formula 1 cars rely to a large extent on PTFE.
Secondly, what is being disregarded is that chlorine too is one of the halogen group. And, certainly until very recently, chlorine was to be found in engine oils. Chlorine is much more reactive than fluorine. By using PTFE, the oil consumption and so the chlorine contamination is reduced by much more than the total fluorine which would be released if all the PTFE in the treatment were to be burned.
In contrast to chlorine, which in the exhaust can be part of dioxine, when old cars are being melted down, the smoke is catalytically cleaned, so no environmental damage occurs.
Car driving is not totally environmentally friendly. But one can take steps to reduce the problem. One of the simplest ways is to treat the vehicle with PTFE.
To quote Castrol: "A low oil consumption reduces the pollution in the exhaust and so the load on the environment".
back to the top of the list
- When the pores in the metal of the cylinder walls are filled with PTFE, the lubrication of the engine will suffer.
Here two areas are being addressed. But the practical relevance of these theorist-arguments has been shown to be unimportant or even totally irrelevant in practice.
Firstly it is being claimed that, when the engine is turned off, the oil cannot remain so well on the friction surfaces. This may well be true, but during cold starts following treatment with QMI it is always established that the battery load when starting is about 25% lower. This can only mean lower friction, which in turn must mean less wear. As 80% - 90% of all engine wear is caused by starting the engine, reduction of friction at this time is a major factor in reducing wear in total.
Secondly, one is talking of the ability of the oiled surfaces, especially at high speeds, to retain and maintain the oil film. It is correct that a PTFE-coated surface offers less retention for the oil, but in practice this has shown itself to only offer advantages, that is, less fuel consumption and less wear. Our racing drivers too report, with engines running at up to 20,000 rpm, that they have less wear, higher top rpm, and more power. With the QMI coating they no longer fear going over the red line, and so can drive through the curves more quickly. Further, in the event that the oil film should break down (which only happens for fractions of a second), the PTFE offers full protection. See also 22 below.
back to the top of the list
- If PTFE really brought only benefits, we would put it into our oils straight away.
Even low density PTFE (for example, "Teflon"), is heavier than oil and will sink to the bottom of a container. Without the additional, expensive chemicals used in all PTFE treatments, the PTFE would then stick together like putty and never separate again. Even so, there are some PTFE products, using other sorts of PTFE and also other such chemicals, where one has to shake the bottle for up to 5 minutes to disperse the sunken PTFE again before putting it into the engine.
So, if the oil companies were to simply add PTFE to their oil (which already would make it more expensive) we would finally see in practice the claimed blocked filters. Using the normal calculation of the oil companies, to produce and sell a safe product they would have no alternative but to charge about € 90 per litre at the petrol station. The oil companies know that they are lying here.
Further, as the QMI treatment lasts at least 80,000 km, what would be the sense to sell such a product for use as a top-up, or even at every oil change ?
back to the top of the list - It is not a coating. This product is a thinners, which makes the oil lighter running. This is how fuel is saved. (This was the statement of the top "oil expert" (a Ph.D. !) of one of Germany’s biggest car makers, who claimed to have investigated our product).
There were and still are additives which work in this way. But the opponent of PTFE still has to answer two points: 1. How then is wear reduced ? With a product which thins the oil, more wear must be expected. 2. How does the effect last so long ? An oil thinner will, if it has not already evaporated off (most do), leave the engine with the next oil change. But the effect of QMI’s treatment lasts through 3, 4 or even 5 oil changes.
back to the top of the list
- If you use a good oil, a PTFE treatment brings no benefits.
The coating still brings economic benefits when using the best oils. There is still no oil which stays on the oiled surfaces after the engine stops, so cold start wear is still a problem. All oils, even the so-called light-running oils, produce drag between the moving parts and the oil film. Whatever oil one uses, this drag, and so the fuel consumption, is reduced by the QMI coating.
What were the best oils at the time when this argument was first brought up now classify to the worst oils. The argument is today just as untrue as it was then.
See also 16 below.
back to the top of the list
- Old oil which has been treated with PTFE requires special disposal.
This argument was brought up by the producer of a heavily chlorinated additive, which most certainly should be treated as special waste, the treated oil containing after draining not only hydrochloric acid (very good, especially for aluminium engines !) but also, so reports Mercedes, dioxins.
Tests carried out by TÜV and oil disposal firms have always confirmed that the disposal of QMI-treated oils is no problem.
back to the top of the list
- The friction in European engines is not the same as in American. So PTFE does not help in our engines.
When PTFE treatments started to gain acceptance in the early 1980s in the USA, attempts were made in Germany to block them in Europe before they got started here. In this particular case, a leading car maker tried to claim that the laws of physics were not the same on both sides of the Atlantic. Do apples fall from trees there quicker or slower then here ?
The fact that this was reported as fact in a leading car journal does nothing to increase the respect for the intelligence, educational level or objectivity of motoring journalists.
back to the top of the list
- PTFE coating will reduce the friction between the piston ring and its slot so much, that these will hit each-other with greater impact and so cause the piston to wear quicker.
A motorcyclist reported this to us after attending a tribology seminar led by one of Germany's leading tribologists, who made this statement.
What is interesting is that he states that the coating does reduce friction. Normally in his seminars he never refers to PTFE as a possible lubricant except when asked, and then only negatively.
We have, in over 20 years, never heard of any such happening in practice, and do not expect to in the next 20. Quite simply, not only is the friction between ring and slot reduced, but also that between ring and cylinder wall.
We can only consider wear in this area possible if the oil is poluted with hard particles. But then, it would cause wear at other points in the engine too.
The fact that such nonsense is talked by a professional accademic tribologist supports clearly our view, that one would have to search high and low in Germany to find an Instutute which has not fallen under the corrupting influence of certain oil companies.
A world leader in tribology, the Cranfield Institute (UK) has, by contrast, determinedly maintained independance from all oil companies. 1984-1989 they studied the use of PTFE as an industrial lubricant. It was concluded that it could be used beneficially in all situations and machines, where a reduction in friction would be advantageous. Countries where the influence of the oil industry has not had such a corrupting effect on opinion in industry have, since then, being taking advantage of the benefits.
back to the top of the list
- At technical speeds (whatever these might be !) PTFE has a higher coefficient of friction than good lubricating oil.
Should this be correct, than how does one explain that a motorcycle engine, which, before being treated, topped-out at 12,000 rpm., reaches 12,500 rpm. after treatment, and that without without damage, in fact with less wear ?
back to the top of the list
- A PTFE coating will fill the scorings on the cylinder wall, which are essential to ensure proper lubrication between piston and cylinder wall.
This was claimed by a vehicle manufacturer on his homepage.
Here we offer the experience of one of our racing drivers. Thomas Krüger from Stollberg drove for many years a Honda Civic in long-distance races. He carried out a SX-6000 treatment immediately the engine was run in. The level of tuning allowed him also to use the car as his daily transport.
One day, the electrode broke off one of the spark-plugs and jammed a piston. As the spark-plug manufacturer refused to accept responsibility, he was forced to have the engine inspected by an assessor. After going over the engine thoroughly, and before writing his report, he phoned Thomas for some details, including the total distance the car had travelled. The following conversation took place:
Assessor: „How many kilometres has you car been driven ?“
Thomas „How many do you think, then ?“
Assessor „12,000 to at most 15,000, the scorings are still visible on the bores“.
Thomas „It's the original motor from new. Take the reading on the dashboard“.
Assessor „That cannot possibly be right, it reads 96,000 km“.
Thomas „Then it has to be 96,000 km“.
Conclusion:
If an assessor considers that the scoring should no longer be visible after 15,000 km, (so, worn away), then one has to ask, how do the manufacturers ensure "proper lubrication“ after this point ? After all, they claim that these and the pores of the metal are vitally important. Perhaps they are, but only as an arguement against SX-6000 (see also 13 above).
Clearly, SX-6000 protects the scorings, whether they really serve any purpose or not. They survived over six times as long as the assessor considered possible.
The fact that SX-6000 causes a coating is not, here, put in doubt.
back to the top of the list
- If you use a modern light-running oil, then the effect of SX-6000 will become minimal, or even nothing.
(As claimed by oil company reps and other „oil experts“.)
How strange, then, that scientists of the Technical University, Heilbronn, reported that SX-6000 reduced the frictional losses by 3 – 8%, depending on rotation speed and load, using the oil industry's pride and joy, 0W-30. These values agree closely with our experience in the field, with any oil grade. Truck operators report regularly a fleet average reduction of at least 6%. This brings a return on investment of 5 to 7 times, increasing further as fuel prices rise, and only calculated on the fuel saving, not the reductions in oil burning and in wear.
back to the top of the list - A PTFE treatment might initially bring benefits, but there will be problems later. (The answer of an employee of a major oil company on the company's stand at a trade show, having been told that the questioner had had only good experience.)
The problems were, however, not specified. One wonders how long is should be, before these problems come up. After the third, sixth or tenth re-treatment ? So far, no-one has reached this point in practice. Again, the absence of facts makes it essential to suggest undefined, unhappy results. As in another article from a clearly bought journalist: "It is not possible to calculate the risks".
back to the top of the list