Miracle lubricant??


Active Member
Local time
1:42 PM
Sep 30, 2006
Alabama Holly Pond
On that DailyKos diary written last week, one of the ladies made an intriguing comment, since we are trying to "lighten our pollution footprint", I'll post it here, hope the link works.

Recently my husband saw a segment on CSPAN touting a gas additive. CA-40, which is described thusly:

Calcium sulfonate is the second best metallic lubricant on the planet, and is used in the best greases. It's also one of the major components of CA-40. The problem has been that no one has ever been able to keep calcium suspended in fuel. Until now.

CA-40 keeps calcium in suspension through our patented blending process. When CA-40 is added to gasoline or diesel, the calcium bonds to hydrocarbons within the fuel, causing it to burn more efficiently. What this means to consumers is increased fuel efficiency, increased lubricity, and a decrease in harmful emissions.
CA-40 site
I am now getting 270 miles per tank (in my '98 Cutlass) instead of about 200. And though it may be my imagination, the exhaust fumes seem much less stinky.

Here's an interview with manufacturer:

There's a sucker born every minute. If a fuel additive would improve fuel economy, don't you think the automakers would be using it? Auto makers spend a ton of $$ to meet their CAFE standards.
I don't think that car makers spend as much on CAFE standards as they do on giving you GPS, On Star, DVD players and cup warmers. I would bet that the same people who sit on the board of directors for GM also sit on the board of BP. (I know this is a generalization, but you get my drift?)
I don't think that car makers spend as much on CAFE standards as they do on giving you GPS, On Star, DVD players and cup warmers. I would bet that the same people who sit on the board of directors for GM also sit on the board of BP. (I know this is a generalization, but you get my drift?)

Nope, I don't get your drift. Your argument is typical anti-big business spew and your "drift" is simplistic. I should take you up on your bet about the board of directors for GM and BP; you are wrong.

The General Motors Board of Directors
Percy N. Barnevik
Retired Chairman,
AstraZeneca PLC
Director since 1996

Erskine B. Bowles
The University of North Carolina
Director since 2005

John H. Bryan
Retired Chairman
and Chief Executive Officer,
Sara Lee Corporation
Director since 1993

Armando M. Codina
and Chief Executive Officer,
Flagler Development Group
Director since 2002

Erroll B. Davis, Jr.
University System of Georgia
Director since 2007

George M.C. Fisher
Retired Chairman
and Chief Executive Officer,
Eastman Kodak Company
Director since 1996

Karen Katen
Pfizer Foundation,
Retired Vice Chairman,
Pfizer Inc and Retired President,
Pfizer Human Health,
Director since 1997
Kent Kresa
Chairman Emeritus,
Northrop Grumman Corporation
Director since 2003

Ellen J. Kullman
Executive Vice President,
DuPont Safety & Protection;
DuPont Coatings & Color Technologies;
Marketing & Sales; Safety and Sustainability,
E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company
Director since 2004

Philip A. Laskawy
Retired Chairman
and Chief Executive Officer,
Ernst & Young
Director since 2003

Kathryn V. Marinello
and Chief Executive Officer,
Ceridian Corporation
Director since 2007

Eckhard Pfeiffer
Retired President
and Chief Executive Officer,
Compaq Computer Corporation
Director since 1996

G. Richard Wagoner, Jr.
& Chief Executive Officer,
General Motors Corporation
Director since 1998

Tony Hayward
Group Chief Executive

Member of the BP board of directors, head of the BP executive management team.

David Allen
Group Chief of Staff

Iain Conn
Chief Executive, Refining and Marketing

Byron Grote
Chief Financial Officer

Andy Inglis
Chief Executive, Exploration and Production
Oh, do we really need more pollution? This additive contains sulfur which is not only harmful to the environment but can damage emission equipment on newer vehicles.

The same folks who bash big business are stupid enough to give their money to businesses created soley to take advantage of the uniformed with a fraudulent product.

I'm done.
As for do gooders who think you are saving the planet by running a motored bike, you are probably creating more pollution even with burning less fuel:

According to U.S. EPA comparisons of 4-cycle and 2-cycle recreational vehicles, a 2-cycle engine emits 30 times more hydrocarbons (benzene, butadiene and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons) and 40 times the particulate matter as does the more efficient 4-cycle engine.

Other hydrocarbons disproportionately emitted by 2-cycle engines react with sunlight to form smog, particularly in hot, sunny weather. Smog irritates the respiratory system and can have serious health effects on people with lung disease or susceptibility to asthma. Breathing smog can cause permanent lung damage to children.

The United States Environmental Protection Agency has previously written rules that phase out 2-cycle engines in lawnmowers and that set emission standards for most other off-road engines. These rules are being phased in over the next several years.

Recently the U.S. EPA proposed new rules for 2-cycle engines in snowmobiles, all terrain vehicles and personal watercraft. These proposed rules are weak; they don’t set standards clean enough to require the phase-out of 2-cycle engines.

According to the National Park Service, a 2-stroke snowmobile produces 300 times more hydrocarbons than driving an automobile.

One hour on a typical snowmobile emits more air pollution than driving a modern car for a year.

Studies show that a 2-stroke personal watercraft engine operating for seven hours produces the same amount of cancer-causing and smog-forming pollutants as an automobile being driven over 100,000 miles

So, while our motorbikes do burn less fuel, they probably omit more pollution per mile than a car.
Hi RC,
So, my argument is "spew" and my drift is "simplistic"? Let's see if I can respond without casting aspersions on your intellect and/or point of view.
I will maintain my opinion of the incestuous nature of the powers behind major international corporations despite lack of concrete, irrefutable evidence of direct conflicts of interest (though I feel it could be argued that any major holdings in the stock market would constitute such conflict). I intended the "generalization" reference to apply to the "board of directors" comment.
I appreciate the information about the sulfer content, and agree that such content should be avoided (sulfer build-up in old oil is the primary reason for the necessity of oil changes, not suspended particulates). Thank you for doing the research to provide that info.
As for the "do gooders" reference, thank you for not automatically placing that label on me. I assure you that I am not. I don't ride my bike to save the planet. I ride for transportation and to have fun. Pure self interest. My opinion of the future of the planet (more specificaly, human life on it) is not optimistic, and I see no personal responsibility to try to save anyone. I think it's probably too late for that.
Have a nice day.

Similar threads