Ceratec results on 2 engines
- Thread starter nicholas
- Start date
- Status
Negative energy?
When I was a research technologist for a large corporation, I should have used that line when the Ph.D scientists questioned and examined my data.
Originally Posted By: nicholas
No you didn't - it this moment in time, posting raw data to a forum where I mostly get negative energy, is not on the top of my priority list.
Take my testimonial with a grain of salt, not empirical scientific data.
When I was a research technologist for a large corporation, I should have used that line when the Ph.D scientists questioned and examined my data.
Originally Posted By: nicholas
No you didn't - it this moment in time, posting raw data to a forum where I mostly get negative energy, is not on the top of my priority list.
Take my testimonial with a grain of salt, not empirical scientific data.
On the other hand, if your raw data supports your testimonial why wouldn't you post it?
Originally Posted By: nicholas
No you didn't - it this moment in time, posting raw data to a forum where I mostly get negative energy, is not on the top of my priority list.
Take my testimonial with a grain of salt, not empirical scientific data.
Originally Posted By: nicholas
No you didn't - it this moment in time, posting raw data to a forum where I mostly get negative energy, is not on the top of my priority list.
Take my testimonial with a grain of salt, not empirical scientific data.
He didn't post it because then we would be asking about the standard deviation of the data and asking if what fraction of the standard deviation was the observed improvement!
I have no problem when somebody claims improved butt dyno or saying they believe they are getting better mileage but if they want to prove it to others they need to provide the data which can be scrutinized.
I have no problem when somebody claims improved butt dyno or saying they believe they are getting better mileage but if they want to prove it to others they need to provide the data which can be scrutinized.
Originally Posted By: DrAdmin
Skepticism on answers has some ground. The amount of friction inside an engine do not affect gasoline consumption so drastically. Unless your oil has no any friction modification.
Hogwash.
I personally ran a fuel consumption test in my charger when I bought it. My drive is 30 miles each way. Flat road,cruise set at 70mph.
I forget the exact details however I ran I think 3000-5000 miles to establish a trend. Then changed the oil using the exact same oil but added mos2.
Then I ran iirc 8000 miles using mos2 and the fuel consumption improvement speaks for itself. Iirc I gained 5+mpg highway,since my drive was basically all highway.
As far as controlled conditions the only variable in my testing was wind,which could vary consumption significantly.
I didn't follow the mpg gauge either until it was proved to be accurate when compared to litres filled/miles driven.
Ceratec takes time to plate and anneal surfaces. So maximum effect isn't gained for 500 miles or so.
In my experience ceratec didn't do anything in regards to fuel economy in my testing however mos2 did.
Regardless thank you Nicholas for posting. This is a tough crowd here so don't take it personally. Many here come from a background rooted in science so for them it's tough to prove anything.
However 1 litre change in consumption isn't enough to really prove anything.
Skepticism on answers has some ground. The amount of friction inside an engine do not affect gasoline consumption so drastically. Unless your oil has no any friction modification.
Hogwash.
I personally ran a fuel consumption test in my charger when I bought it. My drive is 30 miles each way. Flat road,cruise set at 70mph.
I forget the exact details however I ran I think 3000-5000 miles to establish a trend. Then changed the oil using the exact same oil but added mos2.
Then I ran iirc 8000 miles using mos2 and the fuel consumption improvement speaks for itself. Iirc I gained 5+mpg highway,since my drive was basically all highway.
As far as controlled conditions the only variable in my testing was wind,which could vary consumption significantly.
I didn't follow the mpg gauge either until it was proved to be accurate when compared to litres filled/miles driven.
Ceratec takes time to plate and anneal surfaces. So maximum effect isn't gained for 500 miles or so.
In my experience ceratec didn't do anything in regards to fuel economy in my testing however mos2 did.
Regardless thank you Nicholas for posting. This is a tough crowd here so don't take it personally. Many here come from a background rooted in science so for them it's tough to prove anything.
However 1 litre change in consumption isn't enough to really prove anything.
"He didn't post it because then we would be asking about the standard deviation of the data and asking if what fraction of the standard deviation was the observed improvement!"
You are quite full of yourself!!!
The spreadsheet was done before we replaced our hard drive on our laptop, it was backed up along with all the other files on an external hard drive. It took about 5 mins looking for it when I realized that it was not worth the energy and time to look for and post for people like you.
Honestly give your head a shake - I have nothing to prove to you or anybody else on this forum.
You are quite full of yourself!!!
The spreadsheet was done before we replaced our hard drive on our laptop, it was backed up along with all the other files on an external hard drive. It took about 5 mins looking for it when I realized that it was not worth the energy and time to look for and post for people like you.
Honestly give your head a shake - I have nothing to prove to you or anybody else on this forum.
nicolas - as I previously posted (last post on page 1)
I'm very interested in this thread (and all related to Liqui-Moly) as I'm currently running Ceratec, but not for any fuel economy purpose.
I only have 685 miles on it in the Beetle since last October.
I think Clevy is correct about Ceretec, MoS2 and fuel economy. MOS seems to reduce oil consumption.
I had a pretty nasty UOA in 8/13 ("excessive metal in the oil", Iron at 173, etc.) so I'm curious what, if anything, all the snake oil does to my next sample.
"UOA won't tell you anything!"
Yes, I've heard that one before too!
Throughout life there will be naysayers. Your choice whether you listen or ignore - but keep posting! Please!
I'm very interested in this thread (and all related to Liqui-Moly) as I'm currently running Ceratec, but not for any fuel economy purpose.
I only have 685 miles on it in the Beetle since last October.
I think Clevy is correct about Ceretec, MoS2 and fuel economy. MOS seems to reduce oil consumption.
I had a pretty nasty UOA in 8/13 ("excessive metal in the oil", Iron at 173, etc.) so I'm curious what, if anything, all the snake oil does to my next sample.
"UOA won't tell you anything!"
Yes, I've heard that one before too!
Throughout life there will be naysayers. Your choice whether you listen or ignore - but keep posting! Please!
" Hogwash." - really
Talking roughly 15% saving just to use a friction modificatiors does is sound right? Especially when manufacturers itself claim 4-5% with statement of ideal condition and so and so.
personally my car is precision on gas consumption, when I idling then go slow computer shows 30-40 L/100km (8-6 mpg) reset it when I moving 9.5 L/100km (25 mpg) average 12.1 L/100km in 1000 km.
maybe i got .5 with ceratec .... but it unrealistically to measure it righ, 2-3 pedal to metal in 1000 km range i will have 12.3 - Really ?
Talking roughly 15% saving just to use a friction modificatiors does is sound right? Especially when manufacturers itself claim 4-5% with statement of ideal condition and so and so.
personally my car is precision on gas consumption, when I idling then go slow computer shows 30-40 L/100km (8-6 mpg) reset it when I moving 9.5 L/100km (25 mpg) average 12.1 L/100km in 1000 km.
maybe i got .5 with ceratec .... but it unrealistically to measure it righ, 2-3 pedal to metal in 1000 km range i will have 12.3 - Really ?
Originally Posted By: Clevy
............ Then changed the oil using the exact same oil but added mos2.
Then I ran iirc 8000 miles using mos2 and the fuel consumption improvement speaks for itself. Iirc I gained 5+mpg highway,since my drive was basically all highway......
Originally Posted By: DrAdmin
" Hogwash." - really
Talking roughly 15% saving just to use a friction modificatiors does is sound right? Especially when manufacturers itself claim 4-5% with statement of ideal condition and so and so.
personally my car is precision on gas consumption, when I idling then go slow computer shows 30-40 L/100km (8-6 mpg) reset it when I moving 9.5 L/100km (25 mpg) average 12.1 L/100km in 1000 km.
maybe i got .5 with ceratec .... but it unrealistically to measure it righ, 2-3 pedal to metal in 1000 km range i will have 12.3 - Really ?
You mean Clevy's claims of 5 mpg hiway boost might be pure fiction? How could that be????
Clevy can sell us all perpetual motion machines in his spare time.....
............ Then changed the oil using the exact same oil but added mos2.
Then I ran iirc 8000 miles using mos2 and the fuel consumption improvement speaks for itself. Iirc I gained 5+mpg highway,since my drive was basically all highway......
Originally Posted By: DrAdmin
" Hogwash." - really
Talking roughly 15% saving just to use a friction modificatiors does is sound right? Especially when manufacturers itself claim 4-5% with statement of ideal condition and so and so.
personally my car is precision on gas consumption, when I idling then go slow computer shows 30-40 L/100km (8-6 mpg) reset it when I moving 9.5 L/100km (25 mpg) average 12.1 L/100km in 1000 km.
maybe i got .5 with ceratec .... but it unrealistically to measure it righ, 2-3 pedal to metal in 1000 km range i will have 12.3 - Really ?
You mean Clevy's claims of 5 mpg hiway boost might be pure fiction? How could that be????
Clevy can sell us all perpetual motion machines in his spare time.....
Originally Posted By: fredfactory
You mean Clevy's claims of 5 mpg hiway boost might be pure fiction? How could that be????
Clevy can sell us all perpetual motion machines in his spare time.....
No, no its based on friction!
Based on some of the glowing reviews, I have tried LM MoS2 in both of my vehicles - a couple of times. There may have been a reduction in noise, but I can no longer say that is true. No discernible mpg change, though. Try as I might, hope, etc - I just can't find something that gives me noticeable increases in fuel mileage. I want to, but can't.
You mean Clevy's claims of 5 mpg hiway boost might be pure fiction? How could that be????
Clevy can sell us all perpetual motion machines in his spare time.....
No, no its based on friction!
Based on some of the glowing reviews, I have tried LM MoS2 in both of my vehicles - a couple of times. There may have been a reduction in noise, but I can no longer say that is true. No discernible mpg change, though. Try as I might, hope, etc - I just can't find something that gives me noticeable increases in fuel mileage. I want to, but can't.
Originally Posted By: fredfactory
Originally Posted By: Clevy
............ Then changed the oil using the exact same oil but added mos2.
Then I ran iirc 8000 miles using mos2 and the fuel consumption improvement speaks for itself. Iirc I gained 5+mpg highway,since my drive was basically all highway......
Originally Posted By: DrAdmin
" Hogwash." - really
Talking roughly 15% saving just to use a friction modificatiors does is sound right? Especially when manufacturers itself claim 4-5% with statement of ideal condition and so and so.
personally my car is precision on gas consumption, when I idling then go slow computer shows 30-40 L/100km (8-6 mpg) reset it when I moving 9.5 L/100km (25 mpg) average 12.1 L/100km in 1000 km.
maybe i got .5 with ceratec .... but it unrealistically to measure it righ, 2-3 pedal to metal in 1000 km range i will have 12.3 - Really ?
You mean Clevy's claims of 5 mpg hiway boost might be pure fiction? How could that be????
Clevy can sell us all perpetual motion machines in his spare time.....
Originally Posted By: Clevy
............ Then changed the oil using the exact same oil but added mos2.
Then I ran iirc 8000 miles using mos2 and the fuel consumption improvement speaks for itself. Iirc I gained 5+mpg highway,since my drive was basically all highway......
Originally Posted By: DrAdmin
" Hogwash." - really
Talking roughly 15% saving just to use a friction modificatiors does is sound right? Especially when manufacturers itself claim 4-5% with statement of ideal condition and so and so.
personally my car is precision on gas consumption, when I idling then go slow computer shows 30-40 L/100km (8-6 mpg) reset it when I moving 9.5 L/100km (25 mpg) average 12.1 L/100km in 1000 km.
maybe i got .5 with ceratec .... but it unrealistically to measure it righ, 2-3 pedal to metal in 1000 km range i will have 12.3 - Really ?
You mean Clevy's claims of 5 mpg hiway boost might be pure fiction? How could that be????
Clevy can sell us all perpetual motion machines in his spare time.....
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: surfstar
Originally Posted By: fredfactory
You mean Clevy's claims of 5 mpg hiway boost might be pure fiction? How could that be????
Clevy can sell us all perpetual motion machines in his spare time.....
No, no its based on friction!
Based on some of the glowing reviews, I have tried LM MoS2 in both of my vehicles - a couple of times. There may have been a reduction in noise, but I can no longer say that is true. No discernible mpg change, though. Try as I might, hope, etc - I just can't find something that gives me noticeable increases in fuel mileage. I want to, but can't.
I got an nice mpg boost going from 31-35 psi in the tires on a recent road trip. I'm not one for logging mpg, but my gas gauge in my 00 Century doesn't work, I typically fill up every 300 miles. So on road trips I will check mpg. The 4 extra psi seemed to make a difference on the return trip, ride quality suffered a bit though. The extra air for increased mpg is something I typically take for granted.
Originally Posted By: fredfactory
You mean Clevy's claims of 5 mpg hiway boost might be pure fiction? How could that be????
Clevy can sell us all perpetual motion machines in his spare time.....
No, no its based on friction!
Based on some of the glowing reviews, I have tried LM MoS2 in both of my vehicles - a couple of times. There may have been a reduction in noise, but I can no longer say that is true. No discernible mpg change, though. Try as I might, hope, etc - I just can't find something that gives me noticeable increases in fuel mileage. I want to, but can't.
I got an nice mpg boost going from 31-35 psi in the tires on a recent road trip. I'm not one for logging mpg, but my gas gauge in my 00 Century doesn't work, I typically fill up every 300 miles. So on road trips I will check mpg. The 4 extra psi seemed to make a difference on the return trip, ride quality suffered a bit though. The extra air for increased mpg is something I typically take for granted.
nicholas, I do not mind if you pm me the results. Thanks in advance.
First off I am many things by a liar I am not so any of you imply as such know where you can go.
Secondly I made a thread when I did the mos2 testing. You can very easily look up the results yourselves since its in the archives
I've tried mos2 in a vast amount of different engines. The only engines I've gotten a fuel economy improvement that was measurable were in Chevy v8 engines and Chrysler hemi engines. 4 and 6 cylinders don't seem to benefit or achieve a fuel consumption reduction.
I'm guessing it's because there isn't really a whole lot of friction to begin with however I don't know for sure.
My mustangs got mos2 as well but the ohc engines never changed as far as fuel economy went.
I tracked every litre of fuel burned for months in my charger and posted every fill up while at the gas station just so there wasn't any chance of error.
Look for yourselves
I don't care what anyone here thinks. I post honestly because my integrity won't allow any other kind of post. Sometimes I'm wrong and I immediately admit it once I know and apologize.
So say what you want. I couldn't care less.
Secondly I made a thread when I did the mos2 testing. You can very easily look up the results yourselves since its in the archives
I've tried mos2 in a vast amount of different engines. The only engines I've gotten a fuel economy improvement that was measurable were in Chevy v8 engines and Chrysler hemi engines. 4 and 6 cylinders don't seem to benefit or achieve a fuel consumption reduction.
I'm guessing it's because there isn't really a whole lot of friction to begin with however I don't know for sure.
My mustangs got mos2 as well but the ohc engines never changed as far as fuel economy went.
I tracked every litre of fuel burned for months in my charger and posted every fill up while at the gas station just so there wasn't any chance of error.
Look for yourselves
I don't care what anyone here thinks. I post honestly because my integrity won't allow any other kind of post. Sometimes I'm wrong and I immediately admit it once I know and apologize.
So say what you want. I couldn't care less.
I get a slight mpg gain with MoS2 in my Jeep I-6, around .5 to .75 mpg. The naysayers will say I can't tell that but I don't care I am buying the gas, I know.
It is a fairly large six though, 4.0, and very old school so maybe that is why I can squeak out marginal gains with it.
It is a fairly large six though, 4.0, and very old school so maybe that is why I can squeak out marginal gains with it.
- Status
