1. Reverse‑engineering is technically possible
Many commenters point out that the “secret” formulas of WD‑40 and Coca‑Cola could be cracked with standard analytical chemistry.
“I strongly suspect a motivated party could use analytical chemistry to work it out.” – hurricanepootis
“Someone recently did this for Coke… the video shows how it was done.” – 542458
2. WD‑40 is a solvent/water‑displacer, not a true lubricant
The product’s original purpose and its real performance are repeatedly clarified.
“It’s a solvent, not a lubricant.” – p0w3n3d
“WD‑40 is not a lubricant – it’s a water‑displacement product.” – bythreads
3. The “secret” is largely marketing, not a technical advantage
The mystique around the recipes is dismissed as PR fluff; the brand itself is the real selling point.
“The secret formula is just marketing fluff.” – mrandish
“The whole point of the 40th formula is fooling customers to keep buying a commodity.” – tonymet
4. Practical users recommend better, purpose‑built lubricants
When the discussion turns to real‑world use, commenters consistently suggest more suitable products for lubrication, cleaning, or rust protection.
“Use lithium grease or penetrating oil instead.” – jonway
“Use a proper grease or a non‑oxidizing oil for lasting lubrication.” – b00ty4breakfast
These four themes capture the bulk of the conversation: the feasibility of reverse‑engineering, the true nature of WD‑40, the marketing spin around its secrecy, and the practical advice for better alternatives.