Approximating the power of FP60/3000

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Sep 5, 2006
Messages
196
Location
New Jersey
I am currently in possession of a VW 2.8L 30V V6. It was new in 2003 and currently has 97,000 miles. Over the years this car has transmigrated into all sorts of vagabondage I can't even speak about here. I have noticed a rough idle, less overall power, and the gas mileage shrinking.

Aside from valve clearance, I am convinced that carbonaceous deposits are a key culprit in this villainy. I understand that Fuel Power is meant as a maintenance-dose remedy. I also get that one-shot elixirs like Amsoil PI and RLI Bio-Plus are stronger but harsher. Though I am an established fan, I'm unsure if FP60/3000 is up to the task. In truth, I am not concerned with cost-effectiveness, or trying out both products, or any other logical point of fact. My only question is, about how much FP-treated fuel equals the approximate cleaning action of one "shock" product application? Several tanks? Several hundred tanks?

Another thing I understand is how hopelessly unattainable it is to get an objective answer to this infinitely variable question. But I feel that a bunch of people taking stabs in the dark is better than nothing. And if that bunch of people were oil enthusiasts, well, it would be like a bunch of people with flashlights taking stabs in the dark. Just maybe we'll get lucky and stab something... that thing that we're stabbing at. You know what I mean. Don't pretend that you don't.

I am also using FP60 in my '06 Civic. This car has received enviable treatment (even when compared amongst humans) both inside and out. Fuel Power has provided no increased gas mileage, no improvement in idle quality, and no decrease in fuel pump or injector noise. In accordance to my ego, I believe this means my engine was in perfect working shape prior to the use of FP60. Hopefully, the cleaning and lubrication of parts is going as planned.
 
Quote:
My only question is, about how much FP-treated fuel equals the approximate cleaning action of one "shock" product application? Several tanks? Several hundred tanks?


The shock dose for FP is, IIRC, double the routine dose. The same as RLI Bio-Plus. The thought being that any more is a waste. That would lead on to think that multiple double doses may be required to effect rapid results.

There was a discussion long ago about how to, more or less, prove FP's effectiveness. It was suggested that you first find a bona fide heavy deposit engine, and shock dose it per FP instructions until noted reductions occurred. You would then revert back to the maintenance dose and then reevaluate it periodically for improvement. This was just to shorten the time frame of testing. This would naturally require the use of a borescope (boroscope?).

There was one member who used it on an air cooled lawn mower engine who had cause to pull the head. The head and pistons were not clean. The problem was that no one knew the condition before using FP ..so, as you've figured out, it was inconclusive in that application as to its performance ..or lack of performance.

I've never used the product but have taken interest in others observations.
 
I've been using the recommended dose of FP60 for 65,000 miles in my '97 Camry V-6 (185,000 miles). I've noticed small increases in both power and mileage (2 mpg), and it's improved with continuous use. In the past, I constantly had trouble with dirty fuel injectors, but I haven't had any such problems in 65K miles.

If there are carbon deposits inside the cylinders, I would be surprised. Yes, my car idles and runs rougher than when it was new, but that's due to normal engine wear, as I drove it VERY hard for the first 130,000 miles. A worn engine won't run any smoother if it's clean inside. In fact, it might run rougher.

I'm not saying your problem is due to engine wear. There are many other potential sources of the problems described. I wouldn't be so quick to blame the FP.
 
Last edited:
Are there any known "before and after" UOAs using Fuel Power, all other variables being constant?

I need some extra convincing that FP is doing something. I may even have to deal with the fact that I won't ever be convinced.
 
i have access to a fiber optic bore scope through a mechanic buddy of mine. they use it as a quick and dirty test for head gasket problems. i should be able to snake it through the intake manifold and get a good look at the back of my intake valves. i have already seen the combustion chambers on my truck through the spark plug hole. not pretty. i plan on getting some photo proof of a few products effectiveness on deposits. with any luck i will be testing the new FP plus on my acura with 155k miles.
 
Do us a favor, James. Before you start can you outline "your plan" before hand? That way as many members as possible can place objections and suggestions as to how to close any "trap doors" in the process. I try and leave as few loop holes for others to find suspect in after the fact peer review. Any stone left unturned will be offered as being the one hiding the essential data that would have confirmed ...beyond a doubt..the exact opposite of what you concluded by the test. If not the exact opposite it would contain the real reason why the product was either effective or ineffective.

So far, out of all the products that are offered up for benefit, I have to give top honors to Auto-Rx. There's just been too many visual evidence of its worth. Most others offer evidence on the tertiary level and are usually accompanied by butt dyno testimonials and reported increases in mpg and whatnot. Not that anyone is reporting false notions ..but it's a bit hard to remote view someone's driving technique in any "survey". It's a bit harder to dispute visual evidence of cleaning when cleaning is the alleged primary function of the agent.

If you see what I mean
55.gif
 
Gary is right as always. You should discuss your test methods in advance with the forum, and if you have grave concerns about the cleanliness of your engine, then Auto-Rx is the way to go. It's not as fast as shock treatments, but it's safer and more thorough. Hopefully, you've eliminated any other mechanical or electrical problems (such as simply needing a tune-up).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top