Talk:Marvel Mystery Oil

History

I am wondering why there is not a listing for Marvel Mystery Oil? Its historical information. I have re written the article (before I had basically just used the Marvel Mystery Oil about page).

If someone would like to make this article way better, go for it, just seemed wikipedia was lacking without a mention of this historical oil product.

They say it was used in many WWII vehicles. If anyone would like to contribute any historical usage facts, that would be awesome.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ipunchouthorses (talk • contribs) 23:17, September 30, 2009‎

great product....

It is a great product with a long history....but, as Wikipedia wants "cites" - this article will simply die and slip away from the site. I had many WW2 lessons, and nowhere was the mention of "Marvel Mystery Oil" - course, that could just be due to the poor education system in Florida? :P Even so, it's likely one of those "useless" tidbits that historians simply didn't document during that time period..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.204.253.120 (talk) 17:42, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Mystery

This little stub article is mainly an advertisement for an additive product. I think if Wikipedia is going to include an entry on this product (or any such additive type), then it should contain documented information. The fact is that although Marvel Mystery Oil has been used throughout most on the 20th century, especially in recent decades illegally in general aviation piston powered aicraft, there is NOT ONE SMIDGEON of scientifically generated data which supports ANY of the claims made for it. All the support for this product comes from anecdotal (and therefore totally useless) pseudodata. About the best that can be said for it is that it may do no harm. Possibly. No double-blinded study of its so-called salutary effects on the performance or reliability in piston engines has ever been done, and what less rigorous studies have been done have shown no benefit or even negative effects. The company has steadfastedly refused to divulge the ingredients in this snake oil, which is why the FAA has consequently steadfastedly (and reasonably) refused approval for use in aircraft engines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.170.194.117 (talk) 16:04, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

The article should be revised to reflect that it is a historical product in the particular industry. Unverified product claims probably aren't appropriate in Wikipedia. On a different note, the fact the company has refused to divulge ingredients is irrelevant; many companies refuse to do that.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.88.167.123 (talk • contribs) 01:54, September 12, 2011‎

So really, whether a product page should be on wiki depends on what the page is saying. The existence of a product page on Wiki could be argued as simply an encyclopedic acknowledgement of the existence of such a product in the marketplace. It wouldn't have to (or shouldn't) confirm product claims without supporting evidence.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.0.96.90 (talk • contribs) 16:59, September 13, 2011‎

Article no longer reads like an advertisement since it mentions the substance's alleged link to an airplane crash and includes the fact that its claimed benefits are not supported with objective data, so the heading was no longer appropriate — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1004:B106:67BD:5CE:9F84:8525:8462 (talk) 03:34, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

No, it still reads like an advetrtisement. In the first paragraph it makes claims that it does things there is no evidence it does. It's just stated as fact. I can't believe it's been allow do stay. citation needed is not enough. It has to go and not come back until someone provides evidence backing the claim. Jackhammer111 (talk) 20:34, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Criteria For Deletion

I've seen pages nominated for deletion b/c of various criteria like "non-notability of the company". I am wondering what makes a page such as this satisfactory but not one for a company like "Bell Performance/Bell Additives". Chancat74 (talk) 22:46, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Inherently contradictory nature of product & its claims

It should be addressed somewhere in the article that while it claims to increase engine compression that if it actually does so it would lower the octane rating of the fuel simultaneously as it supposedly is comprised of 25% Stoddard solvent, which has an octane rating around 50 and hence could trigger engine knock in the newly high-compression engine. 2600:1004:B106:67BD:5CE:9F84:8525:8462 (talk) 03:42, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

It sort of sounds like it is a more penetrating oil than motor oil.

I have seen tests where they compare a 50/50 solution of Kerosene and Automatic Transmission Fluid to 8 or 10 commercial penetration fluids. The results were that the 50/50 solution outperformed the commercial products by a long way. Type this into a You Tube site and you will see some tests. Homemade Penetrating Fluid, How to Make Your Own. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.51.177.128 (talk) 19:49, 5 November 2015 (UTC)