Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
cessna

fuel additive

Recommended Posts

I think this accurately sums up my thoughts on most all fuel and or oil additives:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snake_oil

 

;D

 

Edit:  Maybe I was too quick to judge.  I've just seen way too much of this kind of stuff that promises the world, but does nothing.  I am up for a good honest test.  If it does work, I want to know about it.  I wish there was a smaller, like $5 amount that could be used for a test.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I have used a few fuel additives over many years and found them effective- I have also seen a lot of snake oil. This one makes a lot of claims without enough independent lab work and claims to work in gas and diesel. There are many effective additives out there for diesel fuels from fungicides, pour point enhancers, cloud point enhancers, lubrication enhancers, and multi-function additives that control smoke, raise cetane, serve as detergents, and lubricate all in one package. These effective ones are generally made by GE Betz, Lubrizol, and Ethyl Corp who have chemists posted inside oil refineries around the clock--you cannot buy their full strength branded stuff (unless you are a large jobber or oil company)so they sell to others that usually weaken it or package it so that if is difficult to tell who really made it and how effective it may be. Smaller manufacturers like Schaeffer do brand their own and have a pretty good product. Most of the material on store shelves is questionable as to value. The material offered by this company for all fuels seems to be too good to be true (I hope I am wrong because I like the underdog) and with the claim that it is calcium based and the Q&A talks about sulfur content- I wonder if it is calcium sulfate which is common to one of the grease families. There are not many true additives for gasoline (other than ethanol and detergents) since gasoline already has so many components and needs far less than the more problematic diesel fuels.

 

Guess i am becoming a doubter in my old age ::) I will say that I saw fairly consistent MPG improvements with Oxytane (in E85 only) so I am willing to try things (and do want to continue the test on it).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only fuel additive that I've known to be approved by the manufacturer for use in E85 fuel is a product called Fuel Power, or "FP100" available at www.lubecontrol.com 

If you search the additives forum at www.bobistheoilguy.com you'll see lots of favorable reviews on it.  I've used it in gasoline and diesel engines with excellent results, but never tried it in a E85 engine (yet).  Ethanol burns clean enough, I personally don't feel a fuel additive is even necessary.  Some feel a little top end lubrication is beneficial due to the inherent "dryness" of ethanol.  Fuel Power would fit the bill for top end lube nicely.

 

Just as a disclaimer, I'm in no way connected with this company, even though sometimes my thoughts sound like a sales pitch.  I just really like this product, and hope others share my good results if they decide to try it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  There's science behind all the myths. A fuel lubricant is a perfect example of an additive with a purpose, and it isn't even for combustions' sake. Oxytane works to speed up the burn, atomize the fuel, and remove carbon deposits. It even allows E85 to absorb some water and not separate. Tuning the functions of a fuel and its mixture is some meaty science.

  Nano-fuel combustion science has got to be one of the most presumptuous fields to work in when it comes to public relations. Everybody thinks they've seen it all and nothing is ever like leaded gas. When the goal is lost of how to affect molecular behavior and you begin searching for inapplicable or happenstance miracles, then any science involved is hopelessly misconstrued. Glitzy marketing and poor functionality sells junk. I'm happy being overloaded with data and totally sucking at marketing ;D. I've been so quiet lately mostly due to that and school. I'l take a marketing class, but it's not on the menu for this semester :P.

  You can run an engine on anything that combusts as long as you can deliver the fuel source and mix it with air. We're searching for the best combustion option that fits a number of different variables. Ethanol is the first option in a long time to come along that smears gasoline up the wall in terms of performance and useability. It happens to be renewable and pretty friendly, too. Obtaining more of it cheaply and easily is the production challenge.

   Ideally, we would want a fat combustible molecule that contains plenty of energy. We want that easily produced or obtained. The really hard part is finding one we can run at very lean mixtures, make plenty of power, and not run hot or detonate while maintaniing a friendly emissions profile. You want a fuelling miracle? Try doing that. Those are some of the ideal qualities worth pursuing from fuel. What doubles the challenge is making the emissions profile friendly. Tetraethyl lead was actualy pretty functional, but the lead was the problem. It fixed one problem and created another. A win-win situation with fuel would be harder to do than finding other acceptable trade-offs.

  Enough rambling....classwork calls :).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That CA40 web site sets off alarm bells for me as they throw around a lot of pseudosience buzz words but not much of it makes sense. Same goes for the "test" results. They post a "spectrum analysis, but the plot has nothing at all to do with spectrum analysis, it is a pressure vs time chart that is supposedly produced using "accelerometers" to gather the data ??

 

The problem is some of these additives and new fuel saving technologies actually may have a bit of merit to them but they do such a song and dance in their advertising that it is hard to tell.

 

In the Case of Gary's tests with Oxtane there appears to be some tangible benefit to the stuff so I give it the benefit of the doubt as Gary has enough real world testing results that seem to show some improvement that can only be explained with the product doing something useful.

 

The sad truth is that 99.5% of all the "new discoveries" that show up have either no benefit and no valid science behind them or only accidently cause improvements in a few select cases that cannot be expanded to all engines. Even the "tornado" actually works in a few isolated cases, I know a guy that runs a top line cylinder head and dyno operation and he slapped one on a couple engines and it did have a small measurable improvement on one engine, but it was the result of it accidently helping to cover up a basic problem that engine had. On a well tuned engine they were at best zero gain devices or down right negative, and certainly not worth what they are sold for.

 

In fairness that is part of the hurdle that E85 is contending with, its performance and emissions claims are far enough out of the ordinary that most folks dismiss the claims due to their experience with other "snake oil" fixes for fuel milage etc. But in time the brute force of positive experience by experimenters has forced the main stream performance community to look at the product and the overwhelming result is essentially everyone that has made a well engineered conversion is as happy as a clam with the results. That will in time wash away the doubts.

 

As far as additives, I generally don't mess with them. I have on occasion used octane boosters and lubrication additives (GM EOS which is now discontinued), properly used they did/do work but when an additive manufacture has a laundry list of 30 things the additive does and the "technical discription" strikes me a double talk and bad science, I will let other experiment with it. If it is good, they will have enough proof to make the product successful. If it stays as a nich product supported only by a few hard core advocates it probably has limited merit.

 

Larry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would agree Larry. I too do not use additives except in diesels. Do not get me wrong- additives can be a very good thing. Motor oil is a perfect example- approx. 5-20% (by volume) of conventional motor oils are additives such as detergents, anti-wear, viscosity index improvers (this is how you get muti-vis oils such as 5w-30), ph bufffers, anti-oxidants, ect). Would you put a straight grade non-detergent oil in your car today? It just is better when the manufacturer of the product can additize it because they have their chemist and the additive chemist look at the base stock to see what it needs and insure the additives do not clash. The only problem with that approach is when the two companies try to save money and under additize the product for a price market such as the truck stop diesel (truckers have seen too much snake oil to even believe when there is a difference) or consumer oils on store shelves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...