TCW3 vs Lucas Fuel Treatment For This Appication?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Mar 14, 2003
Messages
226
Location
Glenolden Pa.
Real quick, 1/oz of TCW3 per 1-gallon of diesel in my ole 7.3 diesel is quite nice, it helps lube the injectors and injection pump and makes the diesel engine run quieter.

Sooooo what benefits or warnings (if) I consider 1-oz of TCW3 to 5 gallons of 93 octane gas, for my BBC 468, 600hp 10.50:1 compression Jet Boat that rpms to 5300 on occasion?

Also considering it for my older Vette and Harley too!

TCW3 > good idea or not???
Thanks for any feedback
 
Good idea. There's a couple of threads which outlined the UCL benefits of TCW3, one of them smoothing out an idle as well as a mild MPG boost in some applications.
 
Originally Posted By: Bluestream
I would check with the manufacturer and see if they recommend using it

Seriously doubt any 'gas engine' manufacture would recommend using two-stroke oil mixed with 'gas' in a 'gas' engine. However, that doesn't mean TCW3 wouldn't have some good benefits...looking for some knowledgeable feedback from the mad scientists here
wink.gif
 
Over the last 1 1/2 years, I have tinkered with fuel adds, I have tried MMO, TCW3, Lucas UCL, Redline SI-1, Techron, Gummout Regane, I like the products that contain PEA for cleaning, they all seemed to work equelly well, with my top rating going to Redline SI-1. As far as UCL goes MMO does work, did not like the way the engine responded to TWC3, I tried lower doses, still no good. Lucas UCL didn't work at all, I felt no change in how the engine was running.

Now I tried a new to me product FP-60, 1oz / 5gal, performance improvment very notciable, engine runs great, smooth quiet acceleration, better idle quality.
 
Originally Posted By: FMC
Over the last 1 1/2 years, I have tinkered with fuel adds, I have tried MMO, TCW3, Lucas UCL, Redline SI-1, Techron, Gummout Regane, I like the products that contain PEA for cleaning, they all seemed to work equelly well, with my top rating going to Redline SI-1. As far as UCL goes MMO does work, did not like the way the engine responded to TWC3, I tried lower doses, still no good. Lucas UCL didn't work at all, I felt no change in how the engine was running.

Now I tried a new to me product FP-60, 1oz / 5gal, performance improvment very notciable, engine runs great, smooth quiet acceleration, better idle quality.


How could you tell the cleaners work? Did you look at the spark plug hole?

Also, how could you tell MMO worked? MPG change?

Sorry for all these questions, but I'm new to fuel additives.
 
As far as the PEA cleaners go, I would use a product and then reset my cars fuel computer, note avg mpg for that tank of fuel and subsequent tankfulls, I would see an increase of about .5 avg, this was done every 5000 miles. Also noted was drivability performance, after about 10 gallons of treated fuel used, the engine becomes noticably more responsive, even the vibrations during acceleration change, during the accrued 5000 miles the MPG would drop back to the starting point and develop a slight decrease in performance, I would repeat the whole process for each of the brands and do it more than once, the cleaners just restore MPG & performance. I also have easy access to the front bank of spark plugs, remove plug and using a long flexable LED light I can see into the cylinder, it does become noticably cleaner, not perfect, but it looks better. Lucas did nothing noticable for my car. I like Redline Products.


Now onto the UCL, once again fuel computer is used and reset for each tank of fuel, slight increase in MPG is noted, .5 avg along with smoother feel during acceleration and better idle quality, MMO worked fairly well but at a reduced dosage, 4oz to 6oz per 20 gal, TCW3 created a smooth running engine but performance dropped off, I would notice a lack of response during light throttle, I could drive through it and get the rpm's up, even at a reduced dosage, same thing. Lucas did nothing. Now the gem of the fuel adds FP-60, this was noticable right off, very smooth acceleration, very stable idle, increase in performace, better throttle response and it's also a cleaner, so from here on out looks like i'm going to be a FP-60 user. Also to keep in mind, most cars today have a returnless fuel system, so it takes me ".4 gallons used" of fuel before I notice any changes with the UCL, it seems it takes .4 gallon of fuel to make it through the fuel lines and filter to the fuel rail and into the injectors.
 
Originally Posted By: FMC
TCW3 created a smooth running engine but performance dropped off, I would notice a lack of response during light throttle, I could drive through it and get the rpm's up, even at a reduced dosage, same thing.


What was your mix ratio of TC-W3?

What brand of TC-W3 did you use?

How long did you use TC-W3?

What is/was the test vehicle?

Thanks, Jim
 
Originally Posted By: AstroTurf
Originally Posted By: FMC
TCW3 created a smooth running engine but performance dropped off, I would notice a lack of response during light throttle, I could drive through it and get the rpm's up, even at a reduced dosage, same thing.


What was your mix ratio of TC-W3?

2oz/10gal then dropped it to 1oz/10gal

What brand of TC-W3 did you use?

Mag1 from Pepboys


How long did you use TC-W3?

4 tankfuls about 1 month

What is/was the test vehicle?

2007 Ford 500 3.0L

Thanks, Jim
 
My own opinion here...

If we are going to test such a product in our vehicles, We should test with the best products.

I have been testing with Amsoil HP Injector TC-W3 Oil. I have had very good results and will not go back, Nor will I test with a lesser oil.

There is a difference.

Jim
 
FMC,
thanks for the very detailed explanation. Like I said, I'm just learning about fuel additives.

It's amazing how you can detect 0.5 MPG difference. I'm using Prius for my tests (only car I have with MPG computer) and hwy runs ranged 44-51 MPG on 100 miles of the same road. City trials vary a lot with the range of 55-65MPG per round trip 20+miles commute. Furthermore the MPG computer reads 0-3MPG higher compared to the fillup method and it's not consistent (or the gas pumps are not consistent).

Due to those factors, It's hard for me to detect minute MPG differences. I did enough hwy trials to decide no MPG difference with TCW3. City, I'm not decided yet. Toward the end of second tank without TCW3, city mileage seems closer toward the lower value in the range. Maybe the TCW3 effects persist beyond treated gas? I will do one more city tank with TCW3 to make sure.

As for my PEA experience, my test car is corolla with easy access to spark plugs and piston carbon problems. A tankful of regane brand cleaner and chevron gas was used after MMO piston soak and the piston was actually more dirty compared to right after the MMO soak. I'm following with Techrone concentrate + more chevron gas. Maybe i should have used Redline product instead.

I used Lucas in the past in Subaru and was disapointed. Heck I even tried acetone then (2005-2006 IIRC) with nothing to show.

Re: FP-60, where do you buy it and how much is it?

Thanks again!
 
Originally Posted By: friendly_jacek

It's amazing how you can detect 0.5 MPG difference.


You can't detect .5MPG difference. There's so much "noise" in tank-to-tank mileage calculations and effects of intervening variables such as traffic conditions, temperature, driver habits, etc. etc. etc. that to say that .5MPG is due to [fill in the blank] is simply not statistically possible.

To get that kind of data you'd need a LARGE sample and a fairly comprehensive set of data taken, along with the multivariate regression model for it all. You are NOT going to be able to make that statement based on some data you take on one car because it's just Placebo Effect.
 
Originally Posted By: GeneralEclectic
Originally Posted By: friendly_jacek

It's amazing how you can detect 0.5 MPG difference.


You can't detect .5MPG difference. There's so much "noise" in tank-to-tank mileage calculations and effects of intervening variables such as traffic conditions, temperature, driver habits, etc. etc. etc. that to say that .5MPG is due to [fill in the blank] is simply not statistically possible.

To get that kind of data you'd need a LARGE sample and a fairly comprehensive set of data taken, along with the multivariate regression model for it all. You are NOT going to be able to make that statement based on some data you take on one car because it's just Placebo Effect.



My driving schedule is very consistant, I use the same gas station and same pump, first nozzle click off at full. I then reset the fuel computer in the car, drive until DTE hits 0, repeat, the fuel computer will show my average mpg for that tank of fuel, 5 tankfulls I average the mpg.

Non treated fuel avg per tankful
19.2
18.7
19.0
19.6
18.9
avg 19.0


Treated fuel avg per tankful
19.2
19.7
20.0
19.5
19.8
avg 19.5

What do you think ?

edited to add - I'm using the car's computer, Ford developed the Algorithm, my guess is, it would be accurate.
 
Last edited:
Sorry, there are just too many exogenous variables for you to ascribe the difference in these data sets to a single cause. It's just not statistically valid. There's nothing wrong with how you collected your measurements, it's just that there are too many other factors that interfere with inferring causality.

If you want to read up on this field, Google "Design of Experiments" which will get you a wealth of information on how to set up experimental conditions and data-collection techniques that yield valid data from which one can draw valid conclusions.

Don't feel bad, there's a fair amount of baseless decision-making by BITOG denizens on similar statistically-invalid data. If it makes them feel good, so be it. However, such wishful thinking won't invalidate mathematically robust principles, much as some folks would like.
 
This is very informative. I was not aware Amsoil had this product. I'm going to order a gallon. Thanks for posting this.


Originally Posted By: AstroTurf
My own opinion here...

If we are going to test such a product in our vehicles, We should test with the best products.

I have been testing with Amsoil HP Injector TC-W3 Oil. I have had very good results and will not go back, Nor will I test with a lesser oil.

There is a difference.

Jim
 
Originally Posted By: GeneralEclectic
Sorry, there are just too many exogenous variables for you to ascribe the difference in these data sets to a single cause. It's just not statistically valid. There's nothing wrong with how you collected your measurements, it's just that there are too many other factors that interfere with inferring causality.

If you want to read up on this field, Google "Design of Experiments" which will get you a wealth of information on how to set up experimental conditions and data-collection techniques that yield valid data from which one can draw valid conclusions.


Actually, quick t-test show highly statistically significant difference between these 2 sets of data (p=0.01). Now, the big question is why the difference?

If his experiments were well controlled in regard to speed, temp, load, wind, and makeup of the fuel, than he has a valid point. Unfortunately, in real word, I doubt the 2 sets of data were properly controlled.

The difference could be in the change of ambient temps as we can't stop the earth rotation for those types of experiments. I ran into this issue when I put together a study of 100% gas vs 10% ethanol MPG.
 
Not sure why you are asking me, but it is true.
Now, let me ask you a question: how big is the drop with 1:500 oil concentration. Could you actually measure that drop?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top