Recent Topics
Looking For Economical Vehicle
by 13Tacoma
Today at 01:54 AM
M/T Fluid Change in '06 Corolla
by BrandonVA
Today at 01:10 AM
Biggest AC Delco/Fram Ultra for GM LSA?
by GM4LIFE
Today at 12:10 AM
using M1 High Mileage... having doubts, switch?
by Legend11
Yesterday at 11:55 PM
What is white mask symbol on violet back ground
by jorton
Yesterday at 11:39 PM
Took the Amsoil plunge today.
by 340_Magnum
Yesterday at 11:32 PM
2013 Silverado 5.3 lifter noise
by gofasterrrr
Yesterday at 10:12 PM
Installed my last PureOne today.
by Hollow
Yesterday at 09:55 PM
2014 silverado oil issue
by Jschreffler81
Yesterday at 09:14 PM
Ford Duratec 2.0
by pbm
Yesterday at 08:47 PM
Improving Vision
by lawman1909
Yesterday at 08:19 PM
Made a headlamp harness for the Miata
by Klutch9
Yesterday at 08:09 PM
Newest Members
340_Magnum, aselinger, extrabigjon, monron, Jschreffler81
51672 Registered Users
Who's Online
20 registered (HKPolice, Falcon_LS, david_ES2, 3800Series, 901Memphis, 1 invisible), 547 Guests and 153 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Stats
51672 Members
64 Forums
221089 Topics
3494874 Posts

Max Online: 2862 @ 07/07/14 03:10 PM
Donate to BITOG

Page 3 of 3 < 1 2 3
Topic Options
#3395897 - 06/12/14 05:13 PM Re: A chemists view on gasoline additives [Re: Trav]
Garak Offline


Registered: 12/05/09
Posts: 11606
Loc: Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
Originally Posted By: Trav
Interesting if you like tripe.

Fill us in, Trav. Your perspective here could be enlightening, considering what you work with each day. I'm beginning to think the idea of switching up on occasion might not be a bad idea, given a recent experience and how far I dug into the matter, and how it was eventually resolved. My reasoning is that not every fuel station (or even not every Top Tier station) uses PEA.
_________________________
Plain, simple Garak.

2008 Infiniti G37 coupe - Mobil Delvac 1 ESP 5w-40, Hastings LF113
1984 F-150 4.9L six - Quaker State GB 10w-30, Wix 51515

Top
#3395998 - 06/12/14 07:22 PM Re: A chemists view on gasoline additives [Re: Garak]
Trav Offline


Registered: 11/20/06
Posts: 9951
Loc: MA, Mittelfranken.de
I see lots of injectors everyday. Its very rare to have any come in with higher mileage (80-100K) that flow close to OEM spec and have a decent spray pattern.
This guys theories don't take a few things into account such as the minute dirt particles that inevitably end up in your tank and ethanol laced fuels that are hygroscopic in nature.

Some of these particles are so small they get past the main fuel filter and end up in the injectors internal filer basket or worse in the nozzle where they accumulate and partially clog the flow or disrupt the spray pattern.

At around 30K some deterioration of flow or disruption in spray pattern is common and gradually worsens over time and miles.
Mistakenly most owners/drivers attribute this to the car just getting old or getting high miles and is normal, often it is so gradual it goes totally unnoticed.
Does anyone really remember how their car drove 6 years ago, it still runs good today.

There are many different types of spray pattern depending on engine design. Boosted engines like a atomized straight shot or in some cases almost a needle spray.
Multi valve heads use two distinct spray streams one to each intake valve, if one of these get clogged the injector my flow okay but only one valve will be receiving the fuel causing an unevenness in the cylinder.
This can cause pinging, hot spots and uneven idle.

Poor flow (to much or too little) on one injector can send the whole bank lean or rich as the O2/AFM reads the bank as a whole and tries to correct by metering the others.
The point is keeping them clean is imperative for proper engine function, long cat life, maintaining oil NOACK and fuel dilution.

I have cleaned a few control sets of injectors over the years. I brought them back to OEM spec with the correct degree of spray angle and installed them.
We then used Redline SI-1 in one and nothing in the other. 30K later we pulled them (same car, engine with similar miles and same injector#).

The Redline treated ones maintained their flow and pattern while the untreated lost 10-20% flow and spray pattern was less than optimal.
We did this with a few sets all with similar results, GM, Ford 5.4 2V and Honda V6 were the mules.

If i am going to recommend this to customers i better not be blowing smoke up anyones backside. The once every 3K worked as well as a couple of ounces every full tank.
My good friend Frank (Demarpaint) had trouble with his van for many years, it got to the point he didn't even want to drive it anymore.
Everyone told him it wasnt the injectors that they were fine and didn't cause this sort of problem, i finally convinced him to put some injectors in it. Frank claims a miracle.

He sent me the old ones to test, the flow was miserable with less than 50% of normal flow and terrible spray pattern. They are not repairable to the point i would want them installed in an engine.

The last point is the swapping fuels business. I tested a M35X run on Shell V Power since day 1.
It did keep the injectors relatively clean with less than 10% reduction over 30K (no other additives) but there are no deposits whatsoever on the back of the intake valves or in the combustion chambers.
The other injectors were run on whatever was around at the time of fill but no cheap no name fuel.

Sorry for the long winded post. Thats my take on it.
_________________________
ASE L1, Master. Deutsch Meisterbrief.

Top
#3395999 - 06/12/14 07:24 PM Re: A chemists view on gasoline additives [Re: TTK]
dave5358 Offline


Registered: 04/25/13
Posts: 669
Loc: North Bend
Originally Posted By: TTK
I am sure you think that, but there are Federal requirements for fuel additives for motor cars. By Federal law it must have a certain level of additives. What you can buy additionally at COSTCO is over and above the Federal additive requirements, and you pay extra for it.

+1. This captures the situation pretty well. Probably all the gasoline that comes down the pipeline meets the Federal minimum additive standards, or else 'minimum additives' are added by the local tank farm immediately upon receipt. The tank farm operator simply cannot sell it otherwise. Everything else - whether from Costco's own tank, or added due to customer request by the tank farm operator - is over and above the Federal minimums. And, you pay extra for it.
_________________________
2006 Forester XT
2008 Corolla LE

Top
#3396001 - 06/12/14 07:27 PM Re: A chemists view on gasoline additives [Re: y_p_w]
dave5358 Offline


Registered: 04/25/13
Posts: 669
Loc: North Bend
Originally Posted By: y_p_w
Where would a testing lab get such fuel? Obviously an unadditized fuel is listed as being required for most testing procedures for the baseline as well as for the testing of the additive performance.

Are you sure about that? Wouldn't the test lab want to know how their additive would work when added on top of Federal minimum add packs. That's how it's going to be used.
_________________________
2006 Forester XT
2008 Corolla LE

Top
#3396015 - 06/12/14 07:46 PM Re: A chemists view on gasoline additives [Re: Trav]
Garak Offline


Registered: 12/05/09
Posts: 11606
Loc: Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
Originally Posted By: Trav
Sorry for the long winded post. Thats my take on it.

Not at all, Trav, thanks for that! I'm definitely a believer in the Red Line stuff (and other PEA additives). I've got a story I need to run by you later in PM - I'd love to hear your thoughts on it!
_________________________
Plain, simple Garak.

2008 Infiniti G37 coupe - Mobil Delvac 1 ESP 5w-40, Hastings LF113
1984 F-150 4.9L six - Quaker State GB 10w-30, Wix 51515

Top
#3396093 - 06/12/14 09:55 PM Re: A chemists view on gasoline additives [Re: Eosyn]
gregk24 Offline


Registered: 04/13/13
Posts: 2929
Loc: FL, USA
So would this also be true about motor oils? Additives building up that is?
_________________________
2006 Honda Accord LX 2.4 i-vtec 125K
Mobil 1 AFE 0w20
Fram Ultra 7317

2005 Chevy Uplander 3.5 117K
Mobil 1 HM 5w30
Fram Ultra 3387

Top
#3396208 - 06/13/14 03:12 AM Re: A chemists view on gasoline additives [Re: dave5358]
y_p_w Offline


Registered: 05/06/05
Posts: 2527
Loc: SF Bay Area
Originally Posted By: dave5358
Originally Posted By: y_p_w
Where would a testing lab get such fuel? Obviously an unadditized fuel is listed as being required for most testing procedures for the baseline as well as for the testing of the additive performance.

Are you sure about that? Wouldn't the test lab want to know how their additive would work when added on top of Federal minimum add packs. That's how it's going to be used.

I was thinking more in the line of a bulk fuel additive that's meant to be added to unadditized base fuel. Like the Top Tier test or the CARB deposit control test. For Top Tier, they have to have the base fuel tested to establish a baseline that includes a minimum level of deposit formation. I would think the minimum EPA level of detergents would probably prevent this from happening.

Quote:
http://www.toptiergas.com/deposit_control.html

1.3.1.2 Base Fuel. The base fuel shall conform to ASTM D 4814 and shall contain commercial fuel grade ethanol conforming to ASTM D 4806. All gasoline blend stocks used to formulate the base fuel shall be representative of normal U.S. refinery operations and shall be derived from conversion units downstream of distillation. Butanes and pentanes are allowed for vapor pressure adjustment. The use of chemical streams is prohibited. The base fuel shall have the following specific properties after the addition of ethanol:

1. Contain enough denatured ethanol such that the actual ethanol content is no less than 8.0 and no more than 10.0 volume percent.
2. Contain no less than 8 volume percent olefins. At least 75% of the olefins shall be derived from FCC gasoline as defined by CARB (advisory letter, April 19, 2001).
3. Contain no less than 28 volume percent aromatics as measured by ASTM D 1319 or D 5580.
4. Contain no less than 24 mg/kg sulfur as measured by ASTM D 2622 or D 5453. At least 60% of the sulfur shall be derived from FCC blend stock.
5. Produce a 90% evaporation distillation temperature no less than 290F. as measured by ASTM D 86.
6. Produce IVD no less than 500 mg averaged over all intake valves.

Also - minimum add packs can be odd. Not all detergents are the same. I know it's assumed that PEA is the dominant detergent on the market (probably is) but it isn't the only kind on the market. You're probably not going to get much better performance if the detergent in an aftermarket additive is chemically dissimilar to the add pack in the test fuel.

I was just saying that it's possible to get unadditized base fuel and frankly required for some testing purposes, such as testing a bulk fuel additive meant to be added at a fuel depot or otherwise to unadditized base fuel.

Top
#3396210 - 06/13/14 03:40 AM Re: A chemists view on gasoline additives [Re: Eosyn]
Shannow Online   content


Registered: 12/12/02
Posts: 26797
Loc: a prison island
I agree with some of the points in the article, but want to give Trav a big thanks for telling us what he sees "at the pointy" end of the discussion.

Top
#3396267 - 06/13/14 06:42 AM Re: A chemists view on gasoline additives [Re: Eosyn]
Eosyn Offline


Registered: 07/15/11
Posts: 357
Loc: Michigan
Nice post Trav. So what is your opinion on his suggestion of switching brands of gasoline to keep the fuel injectors clean of build up? That's what I'm mostly interested in.

Also, GregK24's question is a good one. Would the same issue apply to engine oil additives?
_________________________
05 Toyota Corolla LE: 98k, Maxlife Silver Bottle/Napa gold filter.
02 Toyota Celica GT: 147k, Maxlife Silver Bottle/Napa gold filter.

Top
#3396288 - 06/13/14 07:05 AM Re: A chemists view on gasoline additives [Re: Trav]
Turk Offline


Registered: 02/03/06
Posts: 8020
Loc: MN
Originally Posted By: Trav
I see lots of injectors everyday. Its very rare to have any come in with higher mileage (80-100K) that flow close to OEM spec and have a decent spray pattern.
This guys theories don't take a few things into account such as the minute dirt particles that inevitably end up in your tank and ethanol laced fuels that are hygroscopic in nature.

Some of these particles are so small they get past the main fuel filter and end up in the injectors internal filer basket or worse in the nozzle where they accumulate and partially clog the flow or disrupt the spray pattern.

At around 30K some deterioration of flow or disruption in spray pattern is common and gradually worsens over time and miles.
Mistakenly most owners/drivers attribute this to the car just getting old or getting high miles and is normal, often it is so gradual it goes totally unnoticed.
Does anyone really remember how their car drove 6 years ago, it still runs good today.

There are many different types of spray pattern depending on engine design. Boosted engines like a atomized straight shot or in some cases almost a needle spray.
Multi valve heads use two distinct spray streams one to each intake valve, if one of these get clogged the injector my flow okay but only one valve will be receiving the fuel causing an unevenness in the cylinder.
This can cause pinging, hot spots and uneven idle.

Poor flow (to much or too little) on one injector can send the whole bank lean or rich as the O2/AFM reads the bank as a whole and tries to correct by metering the others.
The point is keeping them clean is imperative for proper engine function, long cat life, maintaining oil NOACK and fuel dilution.

I have cleaned a few control sets of injectors over the years. I brought them back to OEM spec with the correct degree of spray angle and installed them.
We then used Redline SI-1 in one and nothing in the other. 30K later we pulled them (same car, engine with similar miles and same injector#).

The Redline treated ones maintained their flow and pattern while the untreated lost 10-20% flow and spray pattern was less than optimal.
We did this with a few sets all with similar results, GM, Ford 5.4 2V and Honda V6 were the mules.

If i am going to recommend this to customers i better not be blowing smoke up anyones backside. The once every 3K worked as well as a couple of ounces every full tank.
My good friend Frank (Demarpaint) had trouble with his van for many years, it got to the point he didn't even want to drive it anymore.
Everyone told him it wasnt the injectors that they were fine and didn't cause this sort of problem, i finally convinced him to put some injectors in it. Frank claims a miracle.

He sent me the old ones to test, the flow was miserable with less than 50% of normal flow and terrible spray pattern. They are not repairable to the point i would want them installed in an engine.

The last point is the swapping fuels business. I tested a M35X run on Shell V Power since day 1.
It did keep the injectors relatively clean with less than 10% reduction over 30K (no other additives) but there are no deposits whatsoever on the back of the intake valves or in the combustion chambers.
The other injectors were run on whatever was around at the time of fill but no cheap no name fuel.

Sorry for the long winded post. Thats my take on it.



What a fantastic & informative post, Trav!

You should form this into its own Thread, add a few pictures and have the Mods make it a "Sticky"!

thumbsup

_________________________
03 GMC Sierra 4x4 200k, M1 TDT
00 Saturn SL2 89 YO Lady Car. 79k Miles! PU
98 Saturn SC2 "Red Hot" PYB + LubeGard + Kreen
97 Camry 207k Maxlife


Top
#3396296 - 06/13/14 07:16 AM Re: A chemists view on gasoline additives [Re: Eosyn]
Trav Offline


Registered: 11/20/06
Posts: 9951
Loc: MA, Mittelfranken.de
I run Shell all the time and rarely use anything else, in Germany i use it exclusively.
I ran a brand new engine on shell V Power for 12 yrs and 240K and had no significant deposits in the combustion chambers or on the valves.

Of course if i am on the road and need gas i use whatever i can find but its rare.
I don't see it making any difference switching between this one and that one in real world use.
Years ago Sunoco was using some additive that caused the plugs to look like they had rust on the them, switching brands removed the color. Turns out it was just harmless discoloration and not deposits.

I don't believe it applies to oil unless you have one that is leaving deposits with normal OCI, i tend to use the same oils and fuels long term.
Engines with 100+ K on them are clean and in good condition.

Guys like Tig1 have been running the same brand of oil since he first used it on his horse drawn buggy axles and has no issues with deposits.
IMHO keeping the oil changed at a reasonable interval, using the correct viscosity that meets the manufacturers spec is more important than the brand.
_________________________
ASE L1, Master. Deutsch Meisterbrief.

Top
#3396428 - 06/13/14 09:57 AM Re: A chemists view on gasoline additives [Re: Trav]
y_p_w Offline


Registered: 05/06/05
Posts: 2527
Loc: SF Bay Area
Originally Posted By: Trav
I run Shell all the time and rarely use anything else, in Germany i use it exclusively.
I ran a brand new engine on shell V Power for 12 yrs and 240K and had no significant deposits in the combustion chambers or on the valves.

I think the most advanced fuel additives packages are probably balanced such that if one component might cause the valves to gunk up, another one is added to prevent that. However, the big deal about PEA was that it was something that didn't specifically create valve deposits and even cleaned them up.

Top
Page 3 of 3 < 1 2 3