I forgot about the cleaning effect. It could be worth trying just for that effect. I will order one.
Whoa! Coincidence? FPC-1 works!
- Thread starter T-Keith
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: manofscience
They have all kinds of discounts they told me about.
1. Return customer discount.
2. Refer a friend discount.
3. Write a testimonial discount.
4. Advertising discount. (If you use their bumper sticker.)
How much are those discounts? Can you combine them? Can you use them for initial order?
BTW, if you want to get the refer a friend discount, PM me as I'm interested.
They have all kinds of discounts they told me about.
1. Return customer discount.
2. Refer a friend discount.
3. Write a testimonial discount.
4. Advertising discount. (If you use their bumper sticker.)
How much are those discounts? Can you combine them? Can you use them for initial order?
BTW, if you want to get the refer a friend discount, PM me as I'm interested.
Originally Posted By: Da Game
How can we us the refer a friend discount? There is enough interest here already. I want a case just like others.
It sounds like someone has to buy the initial $0.10 per treated gallon and then everyone just refers everyone else.
How can we us the refer a friend discount? There is enough interest here already. I want a case just like others.
It sounds like someone has to buy the initial $0.10 per treated gallon and then everyone just refers everyone else.
Having taken a look at their web site, I'm not terribly impressed. They have 8 published reports, but they are not published in scientific or engineering publications. Rather, they are published in lesser publications:
- Test 123, Earth Moving - An article published in Australian Mining, written by Brid Walker, regional manager of Fuel Technology Pty Ltd. Fuel Technology Pty Ltd. is the Australian distributor of FPC.
- Test 173, Fuel Technology - A series of articles published in Australian Mining, again written by Brid Walker, regional manager of Fuel Technology Pty Ltd.
- Test 128, Motor Magazine - This is a general article on carbon deposits, their effect on various engine components, and how to clean them. At no time is FPC or Fuel Technology Pty Ltd. mentioned in the article.
- Test 124, News Caster - This is an article in the Geneva Steel house organ. It reports on a 50 day trial of FPC in Geneva Locomotives using test equipment provided by FPC.
- Test 192, Peru Rail - This is an article in Latin Tracks concerning Peru Rail's application of safe operating practices. There is a 1 paragraph "blurb" quoting the General Manager of Peru Rail saying essentially, that FPC works great.
- Test 125, Railway Age - This is a one paragraph entry in Railway Age saying that Montana Rail Link has ordered bulk FPC.
- Test 126, The Daily Herald - An article in The Daily Herald, Provo, UT concerning the decision to use FPC in the city's diesel fuel.
- Test 127, The Plus Factor - The Plus Factor is a publication of the Australian Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts. There is a short article on the use of FPC with data provided by Fuel Technology Pty Ltd., the Australian distributor of FPC.
Of course, none of this says that FPC is worthless. However, when 17 of 20 of their lab tests begin by saying that the test is copyrighted by FPC International, Inc, that is a clear indication that they paid for the test. Since the test was not truly independent, one has to worry about just how unbiased it is. The other three tests, performed by Southwest Research Institute, are locked and require you send an email to FPC. It is interesting that according to the summary of the one SRI locked test that specifically looked at fuel economy, there was only a 1.7% improvement. That kind of savings basically pays for the FPC-1, if you buy it in bulk.
In my opinion, if FPC-1 were as outstanding as the marketing claims, someone would have published an independent study in one of the major scientific/engineering/technical publications. A paper at an SAE or ASTM conference, for example.
- Test 123, Earth Moving - An article published in Australian Mining, written by Brid Walker, regional manager of Fuel Technology Pty Ltd. Fuel Technology Pty Ltd. is the Australian distributor of FPC.
- Test 173, Fuel Technology - A series of articles published in Australian Mining, again written by Brid Walker, regional manager of Fuel Technology Pty Ltd.
- Test 128, Motor Magazine - This is a general article on carbon deposits, their effect on various engine components, and how to clean them. At no time is FPC or Fuel Technology Pty Ltd. mentioned in the article.
- Test 124, News Caster - This is an article in the Geneva Steel house organ. It reports on a 50 day trial of FPC in Geneva Locomotives using test equipment provided by FPC.
- Test 192, Peru Rail - This is an article in Latin Tracks concerning Peru Rail's application of safe operating practices. There is a 1 paragraph "blurb" quoting the General Manager of Peru Rail saying essentially, that FPC works great.
- Test 125, Railway Age - This is a one paragraph entry in Railway Age saying that Montana Rail Link has ordered bulk FPC.
- Test 126, The Daily Herald - An article in The Daily Herald, Provo, UT concerning the decision to use FPC in the city's diesel fuel.
- Test 127, The Plus Factor - The Plus Factor is a publication of the Australian Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts. There is a short article on the use of FPC with data provided by Fuel Technology Pty Ltd., the Australian distributor of FPC.
Of course, none of this says that FPC is worthless. However, when 17 of 20 of their lab tests begin by saying that the test is copyrighted by FPC International, Inc, that is a clear indication that they paid for the test. Since the test was not truly independent, one has to worry about just how unbiased it is. The other three tests, performed by Southwest Research Institute, are locked and require you send an email to FPC. It is interesting that according to the summary of the one SRI locked test that specifically looked at fuel economy, there was only a 1.7% improvement. That kind of savings basically pays for the FPC-1, if you buy it in bulk.
In my opinion, if FPC-1 were as outstanding as the marketing claims, someone would have published an independent study in one of the major scientific/engineering/technical publications. A paper at an SAE or ASTM conference, for example.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: ac_tc
Why hasent any oil company blended this stuff in their products?
Because it's snake oil, mouse milk, etc. Just as you suspect.
Why hasent any oil company blended this stuff in their products?
Because it's snake oil, mouse milk, etc. Just as you suspect.
JHZR2
Staff member
Originally Posted By: manofscience
Originally Posted By: AstroTurf
MoS,
Thanks for the quick reply.
I think that even at 10 cents a gallon, if it can clean up the burn of the fuel (think ethanol ) it would be well worth it.
Jim
I agree. I just finished their independent laboratory report section. There is some very interesting science behind this stuff. Much more than "Yeah we promise it works.", and a testimonial from "Mike down the street".
So what is the interesting "science", and is the physics behind it sound?
Originally Posted By: AstroTurf
MoS,
Thanks for the quick reply.
I think that even at 10 cents a gallon, if it can clean up the burn of the fuel (think ethanol ) it would be well worth it.
Jim
I agree. I just finished their independent laboratory report section. There is some very interesting science behind this stuff. Much more than "Yeah we promise it works.", and a testimonial from "Mike down the street".
So what is the interesting "science", and is the physics behind it sound?
Originally Posted By: OldCowboy
Having taken a look at their web site, I'm not terribly impressed. They have 8 published reports, but they are not published in scientific or engineering publications. Rather, they are published in lesser publications:
Of course, none of this says that FPC is worthless. However, when 17 of 20 of their lab tests begin by saying that the test is copyrighted by FPC International, Inc, that is a clear indication that they paid for the test. Since the test was not truly independent, one has to worry about just how unbiased it is. The other three tests, performed by Southwest Research Institute, are locked and require you send an email to FPC. It is interesting that according to the summary of the one SRI locked test that specifically looked at fuel economy, there was only a 1.7% improvement. That kind of savings basically pays for the FPC-1, if you buy it in bulk.
In my opinion, if FPC-1 were as outstanding as the marketing claims, someone would have published an independent study in one of the major scientific/engineering/technical publications. A paper at an SAE or ASTM conference, for example.
I don't see why the lab reports wouldn't be independent. I don't know anyone that would put information out there and not copyright it as theirs. Sounds like a good way to get you data stolen. Also, I had the same question about the lock on some pages. SWRI doesn't allow people to post their results for public view and the 1.7% is on a brand new engine, so the test shows that FPC is acting on the combustion process and not just cleaning the engine. there are some field test locked as well just because that company asked for it to be locked.
Having taken a look at their web site, I'm not terribly impressed. They have 8 published reports, but they are not published in scientific or engineering publications. Rather, they are published in lesser publications:
Of course, none of this says that FPC is worthless. However, when 17 of 20 of their lab tests begin by saying that the test is copyrighted by FPC International, Inc, that is a clear indication that they paid for the test. Since the test was not truly independent, one has to worry about just how unbiased it is. The other three tests, performed by Southwest Research Institute, are locked and require you send an email to FPC. It is interesting that according to the summary of the one SRI locked test that specifically looked at fuel economy, there was only a 1.7% improvement. That kind of savings basically pays for the FPC-1, if you buy it in bulk.
In my opinion, if FPC-1 were as outstanding as the marketing claims, someone would have published an independent study in one of the major scientific/engineering/technical publications. A paper at an SAE or ASTM conference, for example.
I don't see why the lab reports wouldn't be independent. I don't know anyone that would put information out there and not copyright it as theirs. Sounds like a good way to get you data stolen. Also, I had the same question about the lock on some pages. SWRI doesn't allow people to post their results for public view and the 1.7% is on a brand new engine, so the test shows that FPC is acting on the combustion process and not just cleaning the engine. there are some field test locked as well just because that company asked for it to be locked.
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Originally Posted By: manofscience
Originally Posted By: AstroTurf
MoS,
Thanks for the quick reply.
I think that even at 10 cents a gallon, if it can clean up the burn of the fuel (think ethanol ) it would be well worth it.
Jim
I agree. I just finished their independent laboratory report section. There is some very interesting science behind this stuff. Much more than "Yeah we promise it works.", and a testimonial from "Mike down the street".
So what is the interesting "science", and is the physics behind it sound?
If you read the lab results from the UWA which was paid for by BHP Billiton and the Australian government as well as FPC(refering to last post). The science is that FPC causes multiple flame fronts instead of just the one your engine normally makes. Due to this the one flame front doesn't have to burn all the fuel; it just has to burn to the nearest next flame front allowing more complete burning of the fuel (a picture of this is shown in the report).
Originally Posted By: manofscience
Originally Posted By: AstroTurf
MoS,
Thanks for the quick reply.
I think that even at 10 cents a gallon, if it can clean up the burn of the fuel (think ethanol ) it would be well worth it.
Jim
I agree. I just finished their independent laboratory report section. There is some very interesting science behind this stuff. Much more than "Yeah we promise it works.", and a testimonial from "Mike down the street".
So what is the interesting "science", and is the physics behind it sound?
If you read the lab results from the UWA which was paid for by BHP Billiton and the Australian government as well as FPC(refering to last post). The science is that FPC causes multiple flame fronts instead of just the one your engine normally makes. Due to this the one flame front doesn't have to burn all the fuel; it just has to burn to the nearest next flame front allowing more complete burning of the fuel (a picture of this is shown in the report).
Originally Posted By: OldCowboy
Originally Posted By: ac_tc
Why hasent any oil company blended this stuff in their products?
Because it's snake oil, mouse milk, etc. Just as you suspect.
Yes, because oil companies hate making money. They are gonna start using this to save their customers money. Oh wait that isn't how a business operates?
I know it's an "additive", but if you are gonna make that claim at least give some form of proof..
Originally Posted By: ac_tc
Why hasent any oil company blended this stuff in their products?
Because it's snake oil, mouse milk, etc. Just as you suspect.
Yes, because oil companies hate making money. They are gonna start using this to save their customers money. Oh wait that isn't how a business operates?
I know it's an "additive", but if you are gonna make that claim at least give some form of proof..
Originally Posted By: manofscience
Originally Posted By: OldCowboy
Originally Posted By: ac_tc
Why hasent any oil company blended this stuff in their products?
Because it's snake oil, mouse milk, etc. Just as you suspect.
Yes, because oil companies hate making money. They are gonna start using this to save their customers money. Oh wait that isn't how a business operates?
I know it's an "additive", but if you are gonna make that claim at least give some form of proof..
If an oil company could exclusively use an additive that was proven to increase mileage by 3-5%, they would jump on it. The little bit of profit they lost on a per-user basis would be made up many times over by their significant increase in market share. It's called competition.
This snake oil uses anecdotal evidence and "independent research" which they funded. This type of "independent research" usually produces the results the funding organization seeks. Their published articles are in little know publications and quote their marketing materials. The one study that potentially is completely unbiased is the one from SwRI that says their product only improves fuel economy by 1.7%. This study is locked and the two requests I have made for the results have been ignored. BTW, at current gasoline prices, a 1.7% fuel economy increase will just pay for the snake oil, if you buy it in bulk.
Originally Posted By: OldCowboy
Originally Posted By: ac_tc
Why hasent any oil company blended this stuff in their products?
Because it's snake oil, mouse milk, etc. Just as you suspect.
Yes, because oil companies hate making money. They are gonna start using this to save their customers money. Oh wait that isn't how a business operates?
I know it's an "additive", but if you are gonna make that claim at least give some form of proof..
If an oil company could exclusively use an additive that was proven to increase mileage by 3-5%, they would jump on it. The little bit of profit they lost on a per-user basis would be made up many times over by their significant increase in market share. It's called competition.
This snake oil uses anecdotal evidence and "independent research" which they funded. This type of "independent research" usually produces the results the funding organization seeks. Their published articles are in little know publications and quote their marketing materials. The one study that potentially is completely unbiased is the one from SwRI that says their product only improves fuel economy by 1.7%. This study is locked and the two requests I have made for the results have been ignored. BTW, at current gasoline prices, a 1.7% fuel economy increase will just pay for the snake oil, if you buy it in bulk.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: manofscience
The science is that FPC causes multiple flame fronts instead of just the one your engine normally makes. Due to this the one flame front doesn't have to burn all the fuel; it just has to burn to the nearest next flame front allowing more complete burning of the fuel (a picture of this is shown in the report).
And just how does this magic elixir manage to convert a flame front that begins at a single point into multiple flame fronts???? Does it use the quantum foam?
Snake oil and mouse milk.
BTW, here's the way it works when an entity pays for research. The entity gets to define the testing conditions. This includes the equipment used in the test, many times to the point that the testers use equipment supplied by the entity and with the "assistance" of personnel supplied by the entity. The entity usually has the right to reject any data that is outside of "normal parameters."
Here's the thing. If this stuff was as great as they claim it is, there would be a papers published in major engineering/scientific/technical journals about it. Apparently, no such publications exist, since they are not listed by FCP.
The science is that FPC causes multiple flame fronts instead of just the one your engine normally makes. Due to this the one flame front doesn't have to burn all the fuel; it just has to burn to the nearest next flame front allowing more complete burning of the fuel (a picture of this is shown in the report).
And just how does this magic elixir manage to convert a flame front that begins at a single point into multiple flame fronts???? Does it use the quantum foam?
Snake oil and mouse milk.
BTW, here's the way it works when an entity pays for research. The entity gets to define the testing conditions. This includes the equipment used in the test, many times to the point that the testers use equipment supplied by the entity and with the "assistance" of personnel supplied by the entity. The entity usually has the right to reject any data that is outside of "normal parameters."
Here's the thing. If this stuff was as great as they claim it is, there would be a papers published in major engineering/scientific/technical journals about it. Apparently, no such publications exist, since they are not listed by FCP.
Last edited:
Here are a couple of additional thoughts on the FPC "research."
The University of Western Australia (UWA) is not generally thought of as a premier research institution. One might ask why similar research has not been performed by MIT or Stanford or Cal Tech. BTW, in these instances, the company that holds the copyright (FPC) is the major contributor to the study and the entity that determines the experimental conditions.
The Southwest Research Institute (SwRI) is renowned for intellectual honesty, scientific integrity, and experimental rigor. Their studies are the only research that I would consider compelling on FPC. As I noted in a previous post, SwRI did find that FPC increased fuel economy (according to the FPC synopsis) but at a level (1.7%) that did not make economic sense since the savings would only pay for FPC if it were bought in bulk.
The bottom line: Does FPC work? Yes. Does it make sense economically? No.
The University of Western Australia (UWA) is not generally thought of as a premier research institution. One might ask why similar research has not been performed by MIT or Stanford or Cal Tech. BTW, in these instances, the company that holds the copyright (FPC) is the major contributor to the study and the entity that determines the experimental conditions.
The Southwest Research Institute (SwRI) is renowned for intellectual honesty, scientific integrity, and experimental rigor. Their studies are the only research that I would consider compelling on FPC. As I noted in a previous post, SwRI did find that FPC increased fuel economy (according to the FPC synopsis) but at a level (1.7%) that did not make economic sense since the savings would only pay for FPC if it were bought in bulk.
The bottom line: Does FPC work? Yes. Does it make sense economically? No.
Originally Posted By: OldCowboy
Originally Posted By: manofscience
Originally Posted By: OldCowboy
Originally Posted By: ac_tc
Why hasent any oil company blended this stuff in their products?
Because it's snake oil, mouse milk, etc. Just as you suspect.
Yes, because oil companies hate making money. They are gonna start using this to save their customers money. Oh wait that isn't how a business operates?
I know it's an "additive", but if you are gonna make that claim at least give some form of proof..
If an oil company could exclusively use an additive that was proven to increase mileage by 3-5%, they would jump on it. The little bit of profit they lost on a per-user basis would be made up many times over by their significant increase in market share. It's called competition.
This snake oil uses anecdotal evidence and "independent research" which they funded. This type of "independent research" usually produces the results the funding organization seeks. Their published articles are in little know publications and quote their marketing materials. The one study that potentially is completely unbiased is the one from SwRI that says their product only improves fuel economy by 1.7%. This study is locked and the two requests I have made for the results have been ignored. BTW, at current gasoline prices, a 1.7% fuel economy increase will just pay for the snake oil, if you buy it in bulk.
I highly doubt they have been ignored. They sent me one within 24 hours. Please tell me you aren't calling "ignored" waiting 1 day for a reply from a company. I think you are just a glass half empty kinda person. No oil company will ever use a product that will save a consumer money. One reason would be you would go out and call it snake oil fuel, that they are trying to get more money, and go right to the cheaper non-treated fuel. This would not help their market share at all. Also, the RP-503 is on a BRAND NEW engine. The 1.74% is the purely working on the combustion equation, and is not a number you would see on an in service engine. Lastly, I would like to know why you think ESDC, EPA, University of Perugia, and University of western Australia would lie?
Originally Posted By: manofscience
Originally Posted By: OldCowboy
Originally Posted By: ac_tc
Why hasent any oil company blended this stuff in their products?
Because it's snake oil, mouse milk, etc. Just as you suspect.
Yes, because oil companies hate making money. They are gonna start using this to save their customers money. Oh wait that isn't how a business operates?
I know it's an "additive", but if you are gonna make that claim at least give some form of proof..
If an oil company could exclusively use an additive that was proven to increase mileage by 3-5%, they would jump on it. The little bit of profit they lost on a per-user basis would be made up many times over by their significant increase in market share. It's called competition.
This snake oil uses anecdotal evidence and "independent research" which they funded. This type of "independent research" usually produces the results the funding organization seeks. Their published articles are in little know publications and quote their marketing materials. The one study that potentially is completely unbiased is the one from SwRI that says their product only improves fuel economy by 1.7%. This study is locked and the two requests I have made for the results have been ignored. BTW, at current gasoline prices, a 1.7% fuel economy increase will just pay for the snake oil, if you buy it in bulk.
I highly doubt they have been ignored. They sent me one within 24 hours. Please tell me you aren't calling "ignored" waiting 1 day for a reply from a company. I think you are just a glass half empty kinda person. No oil company will ever use a product that will save a consumer money. One reason would be you would go out and call it snake oil fuel, that they are trying to get more money, and go right to the cheaper non-treated fuel. This would not help their market share at all. Also, the RP-503 is on a BRAND NEW engine. The 1.74% is the purely working on the combustion equation, and is not a number you would see on an in service engine. Lastly, I would like to know why you think ESDC, EPA, University of Perugia, and University of western Australia would lie?
Originally Posted By: OldCowboy
Here are a couple of additional thoughts on the FPC "research."
The University of Western Australia (UWA) is not generally thought of as a premier research institution. One might ask why similar research has not been performed by MIT or Stanford or Cal Tech. BTW, in these instances, the company that holds the copyright (FPC) is the major contributor to the study and the entity that determines the experimental conditions.
The Southwest Research Institute (SwRI) is renowned for intellectual honesty, scientific integrity, and experimental rigor. Their studies are the only research that I would consider compelling on FPC. As I noted in a previous post, SwRI did find that FPC increased fuel economy (according to the FPC synopsis) but at a level (1.7%) that did not make economic sense since the savings would only pay for FPC if it were bought in bulk.
The bottom line: Does FPC work? Yes. Does it make sense economically? No.
OldCowboy, I have no problem with you not believing in the product, but like I've said before, instead of just saying there are no major publications, which has nothing to do with the viability of FPC, give me some proof as to why you think it won't work.
Originally Posted By: OldCowboy
And just how does this magic elixir manage to convert a flame front that begins at a single point into multiple flame fronts???? Does it use the quantum foam?
Snake oil and mouse milk.
When you say this stuff I know you didn't read anything about the product you just came here and started bashing. It's one thing to come to a discussion and give some facts as to why the product wouldn't work but you are just talking. ferrous picrate is a detonator and that's what causes the multiply flame front. BTW this is in the literature if you bothered to read it before coming here uneducated.
I'm not against hearing why people think FPC wouldn't work in fact I want to know why it wouldn't work. As a consumer I need to know. However, I need something I can look at and say "yeah that sounds right". Not having a publication of sufficient taste doesn't make me say that.
Here are a couple of additional thoughts on the FPC "research."
The University of Western Australia (UWA) is not generally thought of as a premier research institution. One might ask why similar research has not been performed by MIT or Stanford or Cal Tech. BTW, in these instances, the company that holds the copyright (FPC) is the major contributor to the study and the entity that determines the experimental conditions.
The Southwest Research Institute (SwRI) is renowned for intellectual honesty, scientific integrity, and experimental rigor. Their studies are the only research that I would consider compelling on FPC. As I noted in a previous post, SwRI did find that FPC increased fuel economy (according to the FPC synopsis) but at a level (1.7%) that did not make economic sense since the savings would only pay for FPC if it were bought in bulk.
The bottom line: Does FPC work? Yes. Does it make sense economically? No.
OldCowboy, I have no problem with you not believing in the product, but like I've said before, instead of just saying there are no major publications, which has nothing to do with the viability of FPC, give me some proof as to why you think it won't work.
Originally Posted By: OldCowboy
And just how does this magic elixir manage to convert a flame front that begins at a single point into multiple flame fronts???? Does it use the quantum foam?
Snake oil and mouse milk.
When you say this stuff I know you didn't read anything about the product you just came here and started bashing. It's one thing to come to a discussion and give some facts as to why the product wouldn't work but you are just talking. ferrous picrate is a detonator and that's what causes the multiply flame front. BTW this is in the literature if you bothered to read it before coming here uneducated.
I'm not against hearing why people think FPC wouldn't work in fact I want to know why it wouldn't work. As a consumer I need to know. However, I need something I can look at and say "yeah that sounds right". Not having a publication of sufficient taste doesn't make me say that.
Hi manofscience,
I started reading this thread with great interest, hoping that there really was some hard, independently produced data to support their claims. I was disappointed when I saw their "test library."
- The 8 publications were published in newspapers, house organs, and trade publications. They were written by FPC or utilized FPC marketing materials.
- The 30 testimonials can be dismissed out-of-hand. The world is full of proven worthless snake oil with more testimonials than you can shake a stick at.
- The 151 field tests are, as near as I can tell, copyrighted by FPC. This means FPC paid for the test, supplied the test equipment, supplied the test technicians and may have even supplied the fuel used in the test. If you don't think this is the case, ask yourself how many companies have the equipment and trained technicians to do the testing which is reported?
- With the exception of the three SwRI reports, I have the same objection to the 17 laboratory tests which are copyrighted by FPC. If FPC provided anything but the FPC-1, they can influence the results.
BTW, I did finally receive the SwRI RP-503 report. The report used two engines for the testing:
- A large single cylinder Caterpillar 1G2 engine which was used for,"...a preliminary evaluation of the effect of the additive on overall engine performance, deposits, and wear before testing in the full-size locomotive engine." The results of this test were, "The difference between the baseline test results and the treated fuel results are within test-to-test repeatability." This may be the new engine you are referencing, since they measured, "...the amount of carbon and lacquer in the piston grooves and lands..." Presumably, the engine was rebuilt between the tests.
- A Twelve-Cylinder EMD 645E3B Engine was used for the other tests according to the procedures prescribed by Phase IV of the RP-503 procedure.
What makes the SwRI research so compelling is that the only thing FPC provided was the FPC-1 and the recommended use concentrations. The fuel, engines, technicians, and test equipment are all provided by SwRI. Additionally, one must understand that SwRI has an entire Department of Engine Research and they have been performing these kinds of tests for a long time. They understand how to control and evaluate complex engine test conditions.
Based on the rigor of the SwRI RP-503 report, I absolutely believe in the product. I absolutely believe it will improve fuel economy by less than 2% and will provide savings that just pay for the product, if you buy it in bulk.
I started reading this thread with great interest, hoping that there really was some hard, independently produced data to support their claims. I was disappointed when I saw their "test library."
- The 8 publications were published in newspapers, house organs, and trade publications. They were written by FPC or utilized FPC marketing materials.
- The 30 testimonials can be dismissed out-of-hand. The world is full of proven worthless snake oil with more testimonials than you can shake a stick at.
- The 151 field tests are, as near as I can tell, copyrighted by FPC. This means FPC paid for the test, supplied the test equipment, supplied the test technicians and may have even supplied the fuel used in the test. If you don't think this is the case, ask yourself how many companies have the equipment and trained technicians to do the testing which is reported?
- With the exception of the three SwRI reports, I have the same objection to the 17 laboratory tests which are copyrighted by FPC. If FPC provided anything but the FPC-1, they can influence the results.
BTW, I did finally receive the SwRI RP-503 report. The report used two engines for the testing:
- A large single cylinder Caterpillar 1G2 engine which was used for,"...a preliminary evaluation of the effect of the additive on overall engine performance, deposits, and wear before testing in the full-size locomotive engine." The results of this test were, "The difference between the baseline test results and the treated fuel results are within test-to-test repeatability." This may be the new engine you are referencing, since they measured, "...the amount of carbon and lacquer in the piston grooves and lands..." Presumably, the engine was rebuilt between the tests.
- A Twelve-Cylinder EMD 645E3B Engine was used for the other tests according to the procedures prescribed by Phase IV of the RP-503 procedure.
What makes the SwRI research so compelling is that the only thing FPC provided was the FPC-1 and the recommended use concentrations. The fuel, engines, technicians, and test equipment are all provided by SwRI. Additionally, one must understand that SwRI has an entire Department of Engine Research and they have been performing these kinds of tests for a long time. They understand how to control and evaluate complex engine test conditions.
Based on the rigor of the SwRI RP-503 report, I absolutely believe in the product. I absolutely believe it will improve fuel economy by less than 2% and will provide savings that just pay for the product, if you buy it in bulk.
Last edited:
One ounce for every twenty gallons of gas, at $24.00 a case and $8.00 for shipping. In effect the more miles you drive and buy in bulk, it pays for itself. Just having a efficent running engine makes FPC-1 a good choice. Any other users out there?
Originally Posted By: OldCowboy
Based on the rigor of the SwRI RP-503 report, I absolutely believe in the product. I absolutely believe it will improve fuel economy by less than 2% and will provide savings that just pay for the product, if you buy it in bulk.
I thought you said "Snake oil and mouse milk."
Based on the rigor of the SwRI RP-503 report, I absolutely believe in the product. I absolutely believe it will improve fuel economy by less than 2% and will provide savings that just pay for the product, if you buy it in bulk.
I thought you said "Snake oil and mouse milk."
Why is this thread in oil additive section?
- Status
Similar threads
