Need input on TCW3 testing methods

[linksep]

I like to experiment. I am about to jump on the TCW3 bandwagon, however since NOBODY (that I can find anywhere on the interwebs) has showed photographic or scientific proof of the claims about TCW3 (positive or negative claims) I guess it's up to me to check it out on my own.

Many of the positive claims about TCW3 sound plausible, but I haven't found any PROOF of those claims. Sure there are pics of clean two-stroke pistons, but I can't find before and after pics of a 4-stroke piston that has been used with TCW3.

Most of the negative claims about TCW3 sound pretty dumb to me ("Running 640:1 will be instant death for O2 and Cat and foul plugs... Yeah manufacturers generally spec 1qt oil consumed per 1,000 miles as acceptable limit but I haven't done the math to see that is a 284:1 mix in a 14 MPG truck or a 132:1 mix in a 30MPG car...") Well my car is currently consuming PP5W30 at a rate of 1 qt per 5,000 miles so it's already running a 668:1 gasmotor)-oil mix and nothing bad has happened.

Here are some of the before/after tests I have come up with, if you have ideas for additional simple cheap/free tests I can do with my existing tools I'm open to suggestions.

• Compression Test all cyls (AB test for sure, maybe ABA or ABAB)
• Piston deposits (look at pistons with USB bore-scope)
• Spark plug inspection for cleanliness
• Check for Intake valve deposits (snake bore-scope through throttle-body and intake manifold)
• Used oil analysis (I already have two consecutive UOAs as a baseline) I will see if anything changes when using TCW3. (Wear metals, insolubles, etc.)
• Engine smoothness using the water slosh test (this test may be largely invalidated as I need to replace motor mounts somewhat soon).
• Oil consumption - I will see if oil consumption changes with TCW3 in the gas.

I will be ignoring MPG unless it is dramatic. I generally get anywhere between 27 and 32 MPG on a tank, that's too big of a range unless I start getting 33 MPG or better consistently (I have only gone above 34 MPG for maybe 8 tanks in 11 years that I have owned the car).

I may try to look at the Cat with my borescope, depends on how motivated I am to buy some high-temp anti-seize and if I can snake the bore-scope through the O2 bung. That would shut-up the naysayers...or give them the proof they've been looking for that TCW3 users are dumb.

 

[zach1900]

My question is why tcw3 and not regular 2cycle oil. Tcw3 is intended for lower temp water cooled outboard motors where as regular 2 cycle oil is intended for higher temps of an air cooled engine. Which one burns more completely in an automotive application.

 

[zach1900]

Tcw3 is nothing more than an EPA mandate. Call me skeptical.

 

[mjk]

Get Clevy involved. He and I are talking behind the scenes with regards to TCW3 dosing and MPG...

He has changed his methods, and you might be really surprised to see the results.

I just went from a 1oz/5gallon mix to 1oz/2gallon dosing. I'll report any findings in about a week.

 

[linksep]

Originally Posted By: zach1900
My question is why tcw3 and not regular 2cycle oil. Tcw3 is intended for lower temp water cooled outboard motors where as regular 2 cycle oil is intended for higher temps of an air cooled engine. Which one burns more completely in an automotive application.


Because 99.99% of cars run the lower temps of a water cooled engine (because 99.99% cars are water cooled). Just a guess that TCW3 burns more completely at the lower temperature of a water cooled engine than oil designed for hotter running air cooled engines (I'm not a scientist but I play one on the internet). Just because (most fresh-water) marine engines draw cold lake/river water for their cooling does not mean they operate at lake water temperature; they still have thermostats to regulate engine water temp around 180-200 degrees the same as a water cooled car.

 

[friendly_jacek]

Originally Posted By: linksep
I like to experiment. I am about to jump on the TCW3 bandwagon, however since NOBODY (that I can find anywhere on the interwebs) has showed photographic or scientific proof of the claims about TCW3 (positive or negative claims) I guess it's up to me to check it out on my own.


have you tried googling?
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2722671
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/3306086/pictures_from_engine_teardown_

 

[CourierDriver]

Originally Posted By: linksep
I like to experiment. I am about to jump on the TCW3 bandwagon, however since NOBODY (that I can find anywhere on the interwebs) has showed photographic or scientific proof of the claims about TCW3 (positive or negative claims) I guess it's up to me to check it out on my own.

Many of the positive claims about TCW3 sound plausible, but I haven't found any PROOF of those claims. Sure there are pics of clean two-stroke pistons, but I can't find before and after pics of a 4-stroke piston that has been used with TCW3.

Most of the negative claims about TCW3 sound pretty dumb to me ("Running 640:1 will be instant death for O2 and Cat and foul plugs... Yeah manufacturers generally spec 1qt oil consumed per 1,000 miles as acceptable limit but I haven't done the math to see that is a 284:1 mix in a 14 MPG truck or a 132:1 mix in a 30MPG car...") Well my car is currently consuming PP5W30 at a rate of 1 qt per 5,000 miles so it's already running a 668:1 gasmotor)-oil mix and nothing bad has happened.

Here are some of the before/after tests I have come up with, if you have ideas for additional simple cheap/free tests I can do with my existing tools I'm open to suggestions.

• Compression Test all cyls (AB test for sure, maybe ABA or ABAB)
• Piston deposits (look at pistons with USB bore-scope)
• Spark plug inspection for cleanliness
• Check for Intake valve deposits (snake bore-scope through throttle-body and intake manifold)
• Used oil analysis (I already have two consecutive UOAs as a baseline) I will see if anything changes when using TCW3. (Wear metals, insolubles, etc.)
• Engine smoothness using the water slosh test (this test may be largely invalidated as I need to replace motor mounts somewhat soon).
• Oil consumption - I will see if oil consumption changes with TCW3 in the gas.

I will be ignoring MPG unless it is dramatic. I generally get anywhere between 27 and 32 MPG on a tank, that's too big of a range unless I start getting 33 MPG or better consistently (I have only gone above 34 MPG for maybe 8 tanks in 11 years that I have owned the car).

I may try to look at the Cat with my borescope, depends on how motivated I am to buy some high-temp anti-seize and if I can snake the bore-scope through the O2 bung. That would shut-up the naysayers...or give them the proof they've been looking for that TCW3 users are dumb.
sent u a PM on it...

 

[Vikas]

Forget AB or ABA or ABAB tests. Do the AAA tests first and find the variation in your testing methodology then only you will be able to make any scientific conclusion.

I am betting a six pack that the variation in your AAA tests would be at least as much as the one between ABAB tests!

 

[linksep]

Originally Posted By: mjk
Get Clevy involved. He and I are talking behind the scenes with regards to TCW3 dosing and MPG...

He has changed his methods, and you might be really surprised to see the results.

I just went from a 1oz/5gallon mix to 1oz/2gallon dosing. I'll report any findings in about a week.


I'm not after MPG, I'm more interested in proving or disproving the more easily verified claims. I am planning on targeting 640:1 because that's what most people do. I may adjust the dose running somewhere in the 500:1 through 850:1 neighborhood during the experiment and settle on something other than 640:1 but I want to stay in that 500-850 range specifically because that's what is most widely accepted and used. Some people think 640:1 is so diluted it won't do anything, some think it'll be a gooey carbon disaster... I'm going to find out.

Plus, as I did the math in my first post I can say with confidence that these ratios are very safe considering it is WELL below manufacturer's acceptable oil consumption limits per 1,000 miles.

 

[linksep]

Originally Posted By: friendly_jacek
Originally Posted By: linksep
I like to experiment. I am about to jump on the TCW3 bandwagon, however since NOBODY (that I can find anywhere on the interwebs) has showed photographic or scientific proof of the claims about TCW3 (positive or negative claims) I guess it's up to me to check it out on my own.


have you tried googling?
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2722671
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/3306086/pictures_from_engine_teardown_


Thanks for the links, I had seen the bike teardown thread, but what I'm really after is more of a "Chrisfix" (youtube) style before and after. See example here: https://youtu.be/h8i9qftqKNY?t=3m38s I have not seen that type of side by side before/after comparison with TCW3.

I did find someone that said back in the 70's they had an auto shop teacher that showed repeatable 6 or 7 psi compression test differences by turning a top oiler on and off (with a run around the block to oil or de-oil the cyls after changing the top oiler setting).

 

[linksep]

Originally Posted By: friendly_jacek

have you tried googling?
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2722671
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/3306086/pictures_from_engine_teardown_


LOL, I just googled again and this thread is the #2 search result for "pictures before after tcw3". Wow google is fast!

Anyway, I'm like rubicon_joey (post #9) in this thread: http://forum.highlifter.com/WELL-WORTH-THE-TIME-TCW3-2cycle-oil-in-gas-m3792907.aspx except I'm not a naysayer immediately dismissing the idea and I have a much better attitude (and I know the difference between 150A at 12V and 200A at 240V). Okay, so I'm nothing like rubicon_joey but I do share his desire to see proof of something (positive or negative).

 

[CourierDriver]

Here is a write up from a driver on , Been Testing from 2013


I've been using TCW-3 in everything since I had a long conversation with Sarge about 3 years ago or so. I put it in everything from the lawn mower to the daily drivers to the classic cars, even my diesel truck. Years before I would add MMO once in a while to the classic cars, and then used Lucas gas treatment for years for it's lubricity. But switched to TCW-3 oil a few years ago because it was so much cheaper ($11 a gallon and it treats about 600 gallons of gas at the 1 oz per 5 gallon mix ratio)

On the gas power cars I consistently get better MPG using TCW-3. My wifes 2000 SS camaro gets 22 mpg around town. If I go 2-3 tanks without using it it drops to 20.5 to maybe 21 mpg. Add TCW-3 at a ratio of 1 oz per 5 gallons of gas and it will imediately get 22+ mpg on that tank of fuel. So I use it all the time every time in all the cars and trucks. It does make starting easier, even one car I have that doesn't use a choke. Running it now in the little VW powered sandrail as well and it has really quieted down the valve train noise in it, and MPG jumped as well.

I don't notice any MPG change in the duramax at all, but any time you can add lubricity to the fuel it's a good thing for the fuel system and valve train. Diesel fuel lost it's lubricity when they switched over to that low sulfer [censored]. And we all know gasoline lost it's lubricity when they started taking the lead out in the early 1970's.
Without the lead to lubricate valves and seats, the TCW-3 is a great alternative to use even if you aren't seeing MPG changes. It's ability to clean valves, injectors, and keep them clean is an added bonus.

 

[Jetronic]

I'm not using tcw3, but add my own homebrew oil mix in a 1:300 to 1:250 ratio depending on the amount I can get in the tank. I did add 1:40 once, and noticed no ill effect besides maybe sooner regen of the DPF.

I removed the TMAP sensor from the intake manifold the other day, and besides an oily coating, the sensor was spotless. The EGR system is still active, and I have no remaps or other changes to my car and engine, other than the fluids used...

Regensare usually 500+ miles in between, which is awesome considering I do 90% city traffic these days. My average speed must be about 25 Mph... I do see a lot of other dpf equipped cars at work daily, but none get as much distance between dpf regens; most are 150 miles if they're used in city traffic a lot.

 

[linksep]

Originally Posted By: Vikas
Forget AB or ABA or ABAB tests. Do the AAA tests first and find the variation in your testing methodology then only you will be able to make any scientific conclusion.

I am betting a six pack that the variation in your AAA tests would be at least as much as the one between ABAB tests!


Well if you're in North East Minneapolis it looks like I owe you a sixer. I have done 5 compression tests on each cyl and numbers have varied so much I'm basically throwing that test out (one cyl had 6psi variation between tests only 10 minutes apart and had 20psi variation from low test one day to high test another day. I was also unable to snake my camera through the intake manifold to look at the valves because the intake air goes through a 300+ degree loop before entering the head. Also I forgot to do the water slosh test. I'm really wishing I had remembered that one but oil is in the fuel and the car has been driven since. Plugs look excellent, should be very easy to seen any fouling, or excess carbon buildup.

 

[Brad_C]

Originally Posted By: linksep
I was also unable to snake my camera through the intake manifold to look at the valves because the intake air goes through a 300+ degree loop before entering the head.


Excuse the dumb question, but is your vehicle port fuel injected? I get a great view of the intake valves through the injector holes and pulling the fuel rail on my tractor is about a 5 minute job.

 

[demarpaint]

I'm interested in your methods and results.

 

[Clevy]

I'm putting a quart of Tc-w3 in a 100+ litre tank. Have for a couple years now.
640-1 isn't enough to do a whole lot in my opinion. I sure didn't notice any difference.
My c3 is awd with a 6.0 engine with 325hp/375tq. When I first got it 16mpg was the best highway mileage I could get. Now at 60mph with cruise set 24mpg isn't uncommon.
I never get less than 20mpg even in horrible wind. I use mos2 too though. I think the combination of what I'm doing is why I'm getting such great fuel economy. My driving is also consistent.
Find me another 6.0 on the planet getting this kind of mileage. Truck has 225k on the odo now I think.

 

[linksep]

Well Brad, I didn't even look at how much work it would be to remove the fuel rail... That's a good idea but unfortunately the experiment has started (and I will have at least a full tank @ 768:1 run through before I get another chance to play). I had 8 gallons mixed up at 500:1 at home that I dumped in the car, then I went to the gas station and topped up another 4 gallons making a total of 12 gallons give-or-take a couple pints. I might try looking at the valves again after this first tank (before it's had a lot of time to do much, especially at my thin 768:1 first tank ratio).

 

[Mephy]

I do not use Tcw3 but an homebrew mix.

My experience is that there is a better combustion, I think due to better atomization of fuel.

The proof is the carbon deposit on the exhaust pipe.

This is the only thing that you can see with your eyes.

Logically better combustion you can guess all the benefit that you have.

 

[Shrubitup]

Originally Posted By: Clevy
I'm putting a quart of Tc-w3 in a 100+ litre tank. Have for a couple years now.


essentially a 100:1 ratio then?