Which Oil Stop Leak Additive Brand Wins?

pretty cloudy when mixed, separated from the motor oil after a couple of minutes, remixed before testing

became very cloudy, separated from the motor oil and settled at the bottom after 5 minutes, restirred before testing

very high viscosity, reminded the narrator of Motor Honey, no separation from the motor oil

no separation from the motor oil after 5 minutes

became very cloudy but did not separate after 5 minutes

became very cloudy, separated from the oil like Lubegard and AT-205, remixed before testing

became very cloudy but did not separate after 5 minutes

no cloudiness when mixed, did not separate after 5 minutes

got along nicely with the oil, stayed together after 5 minutes with no separation, unlike most other products

very high viscosity, though not quite as high as Bardahl's; no separation from motor oil after 5 minutes

very low viscosity compared to 5W-30 motor oil, no separation from the oil

no separation from motor oil after 5 minutes

no problems mixing with motor oil, did not separate after 5 minutes

no result found in the transcript; Seal Lube does not appear in the initial lubricity wear-scar test at all, a probable gap (see videoNotes)

the most damage of any product up to that point in testing

the best (lowest) result of any product tested, outperforming straight motor oil's 7.05 mm baseline

outperformed the straight motor oil control (7.05 mm), less friction than the control per the energy use meter

tied with CD-2 for the most damage of any product tested

quite a bit of damage; described as blowing off steam like Justice Brothers

no result found in the transcript; Hapco does not appear in the initial lubricity wear-scar test at all, a probable gap (see videoNotes)

tied with Justice Brothers for the most damage of any product tested at that point ('by far the most yet'); test pin very hot to the touch

the largest (worst) wear scar of any product tested; energy use meter in the 580s, test pin extremely hot from metal-on-metal contact

a smaller wear scar than the straight motor oil control (7.05 mm)

a large wear scar; a lot of noise and friction, energy use meter over 570 W, test pin pretty hot

hurt the performance of the motor oil versus the 7.05 mm control, more friction than straight oil

no result found in the transcript; Snake Oil does not appear in the initial lubricity wear-scar test at all, a probable gap (see videoNotes)

loss, described as a bigger loss than Hapco's

loss, the most of any product up to that point in testing

completely unfazed by the heat, no measurable loss, the best result of any product

loss

boiled off 8.78 g, described as the most evaporative loss of all the brands tested; oil blend was observed actively boiling at around 200 F during the heat exposure

loss

loss

loss, a good (low) result

loss, a very low/good result

loss, a very low/good result

loss

loss, described as very good (lowest loss of any product tested)

only 0.1 g loss, described as performing well in this test

second-best result behind AT-205

third-best result behind AT-205 and Seal Lube; narrator: 'the Lubegard actually works, the O-ring did recover some of its original size'

did not help much versus the 0.194 in hardened baseline

similar to Bar's Leak, little improvement over the 0.194 in hardened baseline

better than average

same as Justice Brothers

described as some improvement

did not help the O-ring expand in size; no specific thickness figure given in the transcript for this brand

described as helping restore the O-ring's thickness 'a little', but the specific figure appears to be missing from the transcript at this point (a probable caption drop); hardness given separately

same as XADO

same as Lucas

very little change from the 0.194 in hardened baseline

did not help restore the O-ring

second-best (second-softest) result behind AT-205's 65.5

fully restored to the original healthy value of 75, fourth-best (per the final recap listing AT-205, Seal Lube, Justice Brothers, then Lubegard)

only a slight softening from the hardened baseline of 89.5

a small softening from the hardened baseline of 89.5

very close to the original healthy value of 75, third-best result behind AT-205 and Seal Lube

softened from the hardened baseline of 89.5

softened from the hardened baseline of 89.5

only a small softening from the hardened baseline of 89.5

softened from the hardened baseline of 89.5

same as Bardahl and XADO

same as Bardahl and Lucas

remained unchanged at the hardened value of 89.5, no softening at all

remained very hard at 89.5, no softening at all

second-best result behind AT-205's 430 g

described as the best result up to that point in testing at the time

a little better than CD-2's 760 g but not a large improvement over the 798 g control

described as the best result yet at that point in testing

moved into third place behind AT-205 and Lubegard at that point in testing

very close to Lubegard's result

described in the transcript as '200 g better than the control' though the 798 g heat-hardened control minus 492 g is actually a 306 g difference; the verbatim spoken comparison is preserved rather than corrected; third place behind AT-205 and Seal Lube in the final recap

a little better than the 798 g control but not as good as Liqui Moly or Lubegard

described as showing some improvement over the 798 g control

described only as 'a little bit better than the Bardahl, but the improvement is pretty small compared to the Lubegard'; no specific gram figure is given in the transcript for this brand, a probable gap

very close to the Bardahl and Lucas results

worse (harder) than the 798 g heat-hardened control, described as unable to soften the gasket

performed better than the 798 g heat-hardened control, though not as well as most real stop-leak products

separated from the oil and went down the cold-flow slide quickly, a poor result

separated from the oil and quickly went down the cold-flow slide, a poor result

had a huge impact on cold oil flow performance, a poor result

froze and moved down the cold-flow slide like an egg yolk, a poor result

moved a little faster than the motor oil control, but viscosity seemed acceptable

separated from the motor oil, a poor result

flowed a little faster than the motor oil control

flowed a little faster than motor oil, but viscosity was not too far off from the control

flowed a little faster than the motor oil control

had a huge impact on cold oil flow performance, grouped with Bardahl as a poor cold-weather result

moved a little faster than motor oil, but viscosity seemed acceptable

outpaced (flowed faster than) the motor oil control alongside Liqui Moly

flowed a little too fast, an altered/poor cold result

caused a healthy, unheated O-ring to swell to 0.215 in (tied with AT-205 for the largest swell) and its hardness to drop to 72.5

caused a healthy, unheated O-ring to swell to 0.2125 in and its hardness to drop to 71.5

hardness unchanged at 75

hardness unchanged at 75

hardness softened to 71

same as Justice Brothers, hardness 71.5

hardness softened to 71

a little larger than the 0.207 in control, hardness unchanged at 75

described as very little impact, hardness unchanged at 75

(identical to the 0.207 in control, essentially no change), hardness unchanged at 75

described as not hurting the new O-ring, hardness unchanged at 75

and hardness 75, identical to the control, no measurable effect

no result found in the transcript for the 48 hour healthy-O-ring soak test; this control does not appear to have been included in that particular sub-test