Well, here's where my skepticism comes from: 2-stroke oil is neither exotic, nor expensive, but it was designed for a specific purpose... to lubricate a motor that, by design, cannot use a conventional sump lubrication system by feeding lubricant with the fuel, since the fuel mixture contacts the entire rotating assembly.
A 4-stroke engine has all of its rotating assemblies lubricated by a purpose-engineered system. The only surface contacted by both the fuel and the oil are the cylinder walls. Unless you simply refuse to change your oil, this is not a common failure point except at very high milages, and not a catastrophic failure point.
If there was as drastic of a benefit for general motor health and operation as this guy claimed, why the hell does our gasoline not contain these small quantities of heavy oils. Even buying consumer-size packages of oil, the cost is claimed to be negligible. If oil companies were mixing the shit in at the refining step, there would probably be no noticable price difference for the consumer. So that brings us to the two scenarios I see:
-There is a massive conspiracy between the oil companies and car manufacturers to make our cars run dirtier and fail more quickly.
-This is a classic case of a poorly-conducted experiment with no controls and completely biased reporting.
To expand on the second scenario, who else is going to take the time to think up the idea and add 2-stroke oil to their gas except someone who presumably is obsessed with maintaining their vehicle? And how many of these people are taking two identical cars, and driving and maintaining them identically except for the fuel additive?
In my opinion, the guy is probably well-meaning, but he honestly sounds like he thinks he knows a lot more than he does. That's the difference between theoretical knowledge and practical knowledge. And it's also precisely why you never believe something startling you read on the internet without independent verification.
