1985-1998 [Subscribe to Daily Digest] |
Members do not see ads below this line. - Help Keep This Site Online - Signup
Maybe some people are getting a bit bored with this, but since we have the attention of Clayton Parks of Bar's Products, I thought I should keep the topic current so we can solicit more input from him.
I was interested to see some material that Clayton forwarded to Bob. One was the case study that is available on their web site (http://www.barsleaks.net) on a 1970s car. The other, however, I had not seen before (I can try to make it available on the web, if anyone's interested). It is a photo of a pile of documents, including what appear to be purchase orders from some of the OEM manufacturers cited in Bar's marketing information, all dated around 1980. As a centrepiece is a testimonial, dated 1981, to its success in stopping leaks in an industrial application. However, the interesting thing I found was a letter on the left from Jaguar Cars, explaining to Bar's the withdrawal and re-approval of the installation of Bar's on the production line due to the investigation of a cooling system problem that turned out not to be the fault of Bar's Leaks. I'm setting the context here - I don't mean to implicate Bar's Leaks in any problems Jaguar was having. Anyway, the letter continues:
"One good point that did come out of the exercise was that your
product does seal minor leaks. The warranty claims increased rapidly once
the production use of Bars Leak stopped. We are still unable to seal by
"Engineering methods" core plugs, screwed fittings etc. without the use of
your product.
Based on these results Modification No. 518367 was issued re-
introducing on production Bars Leak for all our models."
That is evidence that one reason Jaguar Cars used (uses?) Bar's Leaks was to reduce warranty claims due to leaks. There is so far no evidence that they had any other purpose in mind.
Even though it is clear that Bob Davis and I have a different approach to the use of Bar's, from the foregoing discussion I think we both agree that the following points are not in dispute:
1) The product works as a stop-leak agent.
2) There has been no evidence presented that it harms well-maintained cooling systems in any way.
3) It should not be installed in a poorly maintained system without
thoroughly flushing first.
4) It's prowess as a conditioner has not been proven by the scientific method, with the evidence of it working better as a conditioner than modern coolant alone being anecdotal.
Another point both Bob and I agree on is that Bar's Products' marketing material is sadly out of date. Nothing I have seen from them appears to have been produced any later than the early 1980s. Perhaps reflecting the attitude of that time, it appears to a foreigner such as myself to be very America-centric, i.e. touting "A good old American Product for good old American cars". Since our cars are very different in many ways to most American cars of that period, perhaps Bar's would do themselves a great service by updating their marketing information to give modern European (and Asian?) car owners more confidence in the product. They seem to rely almost completely on their "Since 1947" record, as if that is all people need to know. To me, it is not compelling evidence to know that that Oldsmobile used it in the '50s to help extend water pump life, when I know that a modern Saab water pump can last 200K miles with no more cooling system maintenance (or additives) than recommended by Saab. I would have thought that some indication of how Bar's Leaks has kept up with automotive development over the last 55 years would be advantageous to the company's marketing effort.
Where Bob and I differ is in our approach to dealing with cooling system leaks. Bob prefers to install BL up front and be unaware of any small leaks that Bar's might seal. In this way, he seeks to "raise the threshold of awareness" of cooling system leaks. I can understand this approach. Bob has encountered the "popular" heater core leak in a 9000 that wasn't treated with BL.
My own personal preference is to know when a small leak occurs (Bar's wont seal a large one anyway), before it becomes any worse. Unlike many 9000 owners, I am happy to fix a leak "properly" when it occurs, replacing any parts necessary to achive a permanent repair. I cite again the only cooling system leak I have ever had, which was due to forgetting to tighten a hose clip after a routine coolant drain and refill. The leak was apparent very quickly (after driving for a few miles) and was easily fixed. However, my concern is that had Bar's Leaks been in the system and sealed the leak, I would have remained unaware of the problem until pressure in the system under speed and load (perhaps on a warm day) had blown the hose off, with potentially disastrous results. I hope that explains why I take the attitude I do, even if other people think this attitude is not for them.
In contrast to Bob's experience, I have never seen a heater core leak in my ownership of 5 9000s, and none of those had been treated with BL. That's no more proof against Bar's than Bob's experience is for it, though.
posted by 161.71.171...
No Site Registration is Required to Post - Site Membership is optional (Member Features List), but helps to keep the site online
for all Saabers. If the site helps you, please consider helping the site by becoming a member.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
