BG 44K Review

Status
Not open for further replies.
OK, I don't.

Your first post here is to opine on the wonders of BG products?

Originally Posted By: DPK
Just my input on this subject..

[snipped lots of blah blah]

So anyway, don't trust me..Call a Jaguar service dealer near you and ask them what they would recommend or use...
 
Originally Posted By: Sixxer
Test Subject
2008 Mustang v6 48k miles

I'm not one to look toward for answers, but this stuff works. I have tried seafoam in low concentrations in the fuel tank before and noticed nothing. You can claim placebo effect, but wouldn't I notice that with seafoam? After driving about 80 miles or so my butt dyno tells a difference. Going through the RPM's seems more fluid, the car revs smoother/nicer, engine sounds different, the exhaust smells different(not like it means anything), increase in throttle response, and we will see if I notice a MPG increase. I know many of you are against fuel additives, but it seems to work. Now before you say anything, yes this is my word against yours. I have no test or an analysis, Im just an average joe who likes throwing money at my car. Let the debate begin
Originally Posted By: PZR2874
Boss302fan said:
Sixxer said:
All I have used in the past is seafoam. I just read so much good stuff about BG44k I had to try it. Im on the second day of using it and it ROCKS! I think this will become a routine maintenance for me and use seafoam through the brake booster or maybe even forget seafoam overall and do a MMO piston soak(I heard those are good)
Overall I am quite impressed and will try it on some other cars to see what results I can get.




Nice disclaimer. It's the equivalent of putting on the flame suit.

OP
I'm of the impression that stuff is pretty strong,so if you are going to suck it in through a vacuum line I suggest inspecting the cylinder with a plug out just to confirm you've actually got a deposit issue. Otherwise there really isn't a confirmed problem and you might be throwing money away trying to fix a non existent problem.
I like seafoam too however if there's more than minor deposits to attack seafoam just isn't strong enough to be very effective.
As far as mmo goes by accident I ended up testing it against tc-w3 for cleaning the stock pistons that came out of my Harley.
They guy I bought it from put a junk fuel pack on it to richen up the fuel map. In 12000 miles there was a significant layer of carbon on the piston crowns from the map being richened up in an attempt to cool the combustion temps but the reality was there was a constant incomplete burning condition which just caked rock hard carbon to the crowns.
I forget if I accidentally spilled tc-w3 or mmo on the first piston but after a few days sitting the deposits that previously required a belt sander or angle grinder to remove wiped right off leaving a clean,dull looking surface.
So I purposely tried the other product but this time,since I'm intentionally pouring it on I completely covered the piston crown,insuring the rock hard deposits look wet and the product absorbing into the deposits.
When I went back to my garage the next weekend these deposits wiped right off with a simple shop towel.
These results led me to conclude an mmo piston soak will certainly soften up hard carbon and may even improve ring seal if they are coked up.
An mmo soak needs a few days for sure to soak. Seafoam is very thin and I think it would seep by the piston rings whereas mmo is a bit thicker which translates into the fluid seeping slower which means it sticks around longer.
Give it a shot after you've confirmed there is an actual problem.
I use an inverse oiler in my dd so deposits just don't accumulate anywhere

Thanks for sharing your experience with the bg.
 
I purchased 3 cans on eBay back in March for just under $50, so about $16/can. I used one in the 2008 Nissan Altima Coupe that I had and another in our 2007 Saturn VUE, simply as preventative maintenance. I'd read good things about the stuff and used it instead of my usual Regane or Techron. The vehicles each had around 65K on them at the time and were running great. My "butt dyno" didn't notice anything; I didn't expect it to.

Shortly after I used the third can in my mother-in-law's 2001 Honda Civic which had around 96K on it. She was having problems with it intermittently stalling out on a cold start when she put it in gear to back it out of her garage. I searched the Civic forums and found some possible culprits, but decided to give the BG 44K a try. IT HASN'T STALLED SINCE!

I think it's overkill for a standard treatment done at the same interval as OCIs. I'll use Regan or Techron for that. But once every 2-3 years or 50K miles I won't hesitate to spring for a can.
 
I'm on a dose of the BG44K now in my '01 Tundra with 120k on it. This truck sits for a week or so at a time for the last few years and I've been chasing performance issues with it. It really quieted my ticking injectors since I first put it in. Power was down a little initially but seems to be getting better now after about 3/4 of a tank. I attributed this to the ECU relearning the new ratios. I would like to run another tank full but I don't want to put any O2 sensors at risk. I ran a Chevron Techron about 10k miles ago with similar results. Both seem to be improving things, but I won't know for sure on the BG44k until I finish with it.
 
I am using three products from BG when doing oil change:

1. BG EPR - engine flush - my technican give me advice that effect will be better if engine will be hotter when doing this flush - so I drive at higher RPMs just before engine flush
2. into new oil - BG MOA
3. into fuel tank - BG 44K

I have done this 2 times on Honda Civic 2004. I have better results on emission check required by law in my country after doing that.

I have put all pros and cons and FAQ of BG44K here:
BG44K review

If you could add something into that review, please free to contact me.
 
Good reminder.
4 cans at $67 on Amazon.
Not sure the Altima needs it with only 62k

Run it with 20 gallons like it says, more or less fuel???
25 gallon tank.
 
Last edited:
My researcher wrote that, if you have some tips for changing something (maybe going more into detail) - feel free to contact me and I will alter it + give you credit
wink.gif
 
Any thoughts on this? Running it in my truck with 25 gallons be to dilute?
Any reason to run with ethanol free gasoline?
 
It seems that BG44K doesnt rely on PEA. If you insist on PEA I would pick: Sea Foam SF-16 or Red Line (60103) SI-1.
 
Originally Posted By: Johnsik
My researcher wrote that, if you have some tips for changing something (maybe going more into detail) - feel free to contact me and I will alter it + give you credit
wink.gif



What do you mean by that? You didn't write it? I thought you were the one who used it? What "researcher"?

I thought you said it was a review, but that's a sales piece written to promote the product. It's not even a testimonial (as useless as that would be anyway).

Weird stuff. First DPK joins just to tell us the wonders of BG products, now you.
 
I have just said before:
Quote:
I have put all pros and cons and FAQ of BG44K here
and then
Quote:
my researcher wrote that
= I have put what my researcher ( editor ) wrote about this product into that article. Editor is always trying to search all information around the internet about product. Isn't that useful for visitor when he is in decision if he want to buy that product ? He doesn't need to search for all that information ( negative information, positive information, frequently asked questions), it is served in one review/research article.

You are right, I have used BG44K in my car ( also with BG EPR a BG MOA as I wrote in previous post ) - I don't see why I couldn't point to article which wasn't written by me. Maybe I should put disclaimer that I am not author, next time I will to avoid these confusions. In the first paragraph there is link to other cleaners, it is not promotion of this one product - it is article about one of the best according what can be found about them ( based on not fake ratings, not fake reviews, experience of users around the globe ... ).

If there is something wrong ( you are probably more experienced in this topic ) don't hesitate to PM me to discuss it ( as I wrote in my first post - that was reason why I joined here - to discuss it with more experienced people ), I will be more than happy to alter it.

Sorry for my low level of english, it is not my native language.
 
Quote:
why do you believe Seafoam SF16 has PEA?


My mistake, sorry. I though that SF16 has also PEA content.
 
Your researcher/editor? That sentence doesn't make sense, so you put into an article what an editor wrote? Editors edit articles, not the other way around.

So did you write it or did your "editor"? If you have an editor, what company do you work for?

Where did the information come from?

Originally Posted By: Johnsik
= I have put what my researcher ( editor ) wrote about this product into that article. Editor is always trying to search all information around the internet about product. Isn't that useful for visitor when he is in decision if he want to buy that product ? He doesn't need to search for all that information ( negative information, positive information, frequently asked questions), it is served in one review/research article.

You are right, I have used BG44K in my car ( also with BG EPR a BG MOA as I wrote in previous post ) - I don't see why I couldn't point to article which wasn't written by me. Maybe I should put disclaimer that I am not author, next time I will to avoid these confusions. In the first paragraph there is link to other cleaners, it is not promotion of this one product - it is article about one of the best according what can be found about them ( based on not fake ratings, not fake reviews, experience of users around the globe ... ).

If there is something wrong ( you are probably more experienced in this topic ) don't hesitate to PM me to discuss it ( as I wrote in my first post - that was reason why I joined here - to discuss it with more experienced people ), I will be more than happy to alter it.

Sorry for my low level of english, it is not my native language.
 
Researcher = editor = writer = author of those texts - sorry that I didn't use correct word - are we going to discuss all this nonsense or we will stick to topic ? Author is working for me to put all that information about one specific product. He send me all information available ( which could be obtained on internet from many sources - as I said before - ratings, product reviews, experience of other users, product description from manufacturer and so on... ) and I just put in on the website. I work for my own IT company, I don't work for any those companies which produces these products. What is problem with that that I showed something what he put together ?
 
Lol, stick to topic? You posted that it was a "review" per your link, yet it is not a review. It is a sales piece for that and other BG products, complete with a link to buy it on Amazon. So far the only nonsense in this exchange has been what you've written.

First you say you wrote it, then you say you didn't. One of your earlier posts said "I have put all pros and cons and FAQ of BG44K here", implying that it was your "review" based on the usage information you listed in the same post. Yet once again, not only isn't it based on your usage (nor is it a review at all), you didn't write the information.

All of which points to you being a shill for the product or someone who gets click-through profit (considering you work for your own IT company I'm going to guess the latter), and are posting here on BITOG as a disinterested party who just happened to use the product. Your unclear and conflicting statements go beyond just English not being your native language, they are deliberately tying to obfuscate who you are and what that article actually is.

Bottom line, show me what part of that link is your actual review of the product.

Originally Posted By: Johnsik
Researcher = editor = writer = author of those texts - sorry that I didn't use correct word - are we going to discuss all this nonsense or we will stick to topic ? Author is working for me to put all that information about one specific product. He send me all information available ( which could be obtained on internet from many sources - as I said before - ratings, product reviews, experience of other users, product description from manufacturer and so on... ) and I just put in on the website. I work for my own IT company, I don't work for any those companies which produces these products. What is problem with that that I showed something what he put together ?
 
Definition of review - check here. I think that content meets that. There are thousands of "reviews" on other websites and those reviews just evaluate product ( many times they don't own that product, but just evaluate everything what they can find ). Are you going to catch me for every single word ? I didn't say that I wrote it, I have said that I put all pros and cons, FAQ into that review - I have just put it on the website, omg...

I wrote in my first post here my experience how I personally used BG products in my car and since it was relevant I also included that review/report/article/content/whateveryouwish of that product with also mention that if somebody can add something to that review I will be happy ( because users on this forum have more experience in this field than me ).

This is big off-topic and this discussion between us should be private. Nobody can benefit from that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top