Upper cylinder lube vs. oil additives

Posted by: dino33

Upper cylinder lube vs. oil additives - 01/13/14 08:35 PM

So, we like additives to extend our engine life, keep them running at top performance, and maybe even get some extra mileage with our fuel. the question is do we use additives and ignore an upper cylinder? Is a ucl as effective as an additive? And is there any evidence or proof that an upper cylinder lubricant is effective at lessening wear and keeping your engine in top shape? For what it's worth I'm using ceretec/Mos2 with good oil. As well, I've been using Lucas ucl for the last year. I want to get at least a half a million kms out of the Prius. So far so good.... Thanks in advance...
Posted by: gregk24

Re: Upper cylinder lube vs. oil additives - 01/13/14 08:45 PM

I believe additives are unnecessary with a quality oil.
Posted by: dino33

Re: Upper cylinder lube vs. oil additives - 01/13/14 08:47 PM

A lot of people have that opinion. What do you think about a good UCL?
Posted by: AandPDan

Re: Upper cylinder lube vs. oil additives - 01/13/14 08:49 PM

Additives are a waste of money.
Posted by: EricG

Re: Upper cylinder lube vs. oil additives - 01/13/14 08:58 PM

Ask yourself what an upper cylinder lube does that a lower cylinder lube (AKA, motor oil) does not do!
Posted by: Ducked

Re: Upper cylinder lube vs. oil additives - 01/13/14 09:00 PM

It DOES NOT MATTER what we think about UCL's.

To answer your question usefully, you'd need the statistics for long term wear-related engine failure modes for the Toyota Prius.

If upper-cylinder wear was a (or the) predominant cause of failure (requiring an engine rebuild) then UCL would be worth further consideration.

I'd bet money that no one is going to post that information on here. I suspect even Toyota may not have that information, but they'd be the people to ask.
Posted by: Donald

Re: Upper cylinder lube vs. oil additives - 01/13/14 09:13 PM

Originally Posted By: dino33
So, we like additives to extend our engine life, keep them running at top performance, and maybe even get some extra mileage with our fuel. the question is do we use additives and ignore an upper cylinder? Is a ucl as effective as an additive? And is there any evidence or proof that an upper cylinder lubricant is effective at lessening wear and keeping your engine in top shape? For what it's worth I'm using ceretec/Mos2 with good oil. As well, I've been using Lucas ucl for the last year. I want to get at least a half a million kms out of the Prius. So far so good.... Thanks in advance...


Who is we??

Use high quality synthetic oil and forget the additives.
Posted by: NMBurb02

Re: Upper cylinder lube vs. oil additives - 01/13/14 09:21 PM

Many board members run TC-W3 2-stroke oil and/or MMO in their gas as an UCL. I experimented a bit myself with MMO, TC-W3, and a MMO/TC-W3 mix in the gas and saw no real improvements in mileage or motor oil consumption (some say running an UCL results in a better ring seal and therefore less motor oil pushing past the rings into the combustion chamber). I gave up completely with the GP and am finishing off my current supply of TC-W3, but may pick up again with some MMO dosing in both just to see what happens.

I don't know that anyone has made claims of better engine longevity from use of an UCL. Clams have mostly been related to fuel efficiency, smooth engine running, and/or improved butt dyno results.
Posted by: Clevy

Re: Upper cylinder lube vs. oil additives - 01/13/14 09:22 PM

As far as upper cylinder lubes go I cannot say for sure whether they affect wear in any measurable way however I still use tc-w3 in my fuel just in case. It costs pennies to treat a tankful and hasn't hurt yet. I've never had a fouled plug or anything.
Tc-w3 has detergents in it and because it's an oil it may help fuel pumps and rubber seals exposed to the drying effects of ethanol.
Either way its cheap and in my mind its not hurting anything.
Posted by: turtlevette

Re: Upper cylinder lube vs. oil additives - 01/13/14 09:38 PM

Originally Posted By: Clevy
As far as upper cylinder lubes go I cannot say for sure whether they affect wear in any measurable way however I still use tc-w3 in my fuel just in case. It costs pennies to treat a tankful and hasn't hurt yet. I've never had a fouled plug or anything.
Tc-w3 has detergents in it and because it's an oil it may help fuel pumps and rubber seals exposed to the drying effects of ethanol.
Either way its cheap and in my mind its not hurting anything.


I assume you're running much less than a 50:1 ratio as used in outboard motors. Does it produce that stinky exhaust that outboards have? What is the threshold?
Posted by: Finz

Re: Upper cylinder lube vs. oil additives - 01/13/14 09:47 PM

Originally Posted By: Clevy
As far as upper cylinder lubes go I cannot say for sure whether they affect wear in any measurable way however I still use tc-w3 in my fuel just in case. It costs pennies to treat a tankful and hasn't hurt yet. I've never had a fouled plug or anything.
Tc-w3 has detergents in it and because it's an oil it may help fuel pumps and rubber seals exposed to the drying effects of ethanol.
Either way its cheap and in my mind its not hurting anything.


+1
Posted by: Cujet

Re: Upper cylinder lube vs. oil additives - 01/13/14 09:51 PM

I hate to admit it, but I tried MMO in the gas in my 2003 Jaguar X-Type 2.5L V6. I was experiencing a rough idle and started thinking about poor valve sealing, sticky rings, balky injectors and so on. Considering that MMO has been known to help in such matters, I tried it. Success!

I added nearly a quart of the stuff to a 15 gallon tank. The engine was nearly instantly smooth. And, it clearly remains so many tanks later.

What happened? I really don't know. And, while I prefer scientific methodology and reasoning over "old wives tales", I can only speculate on the reasons why it worked. I will refrain from doing so.
Posted by: Finz

Re: Upper cylinder lube vs. oil additives - 01/13/14 09:51 PM

Originally Posted By: turtlevette


I assume you're running much less than a 50:1 ratio as used in outboard motors. Does it produce that stinky exhaust that outboards have? What is the threshold?



Personally, I'm running 1 oz to every 5 gals of petrol... 600:1
Posted by: MinamiKotaro

Re: Upper cylinder lube vs. oil additives - 01/13/14 10:29 PM

I put MMO in my Bug's gas because it makes the fuel pump quieter. The pump is INCREDIBLY loud otherwise. Any cleaning or other benefits are simply a plus.

I'll be trying TCW3 shortly. Its a lot thicker so I imagine it would do more to quieten the pump. The Pennzoil kind is cheaper than MMO so if it does the job I'll switch.

I've been putting Lucas UCL in my Polaris, mostly to use it up as it did absolutely nothing for quieting the fuel pump in the Bug. I can't really tell any difference using vs. not using it.

I found a box of mothballs and I've been putting them in the brown van, one per fill-up, to see if the old-timers may have been onto something. The thing seems to be smoother but no improvement in MPG, or anything. Could be my imagination or the naphtha may have cleaned out a little something in the carburetor.
Posted by: mongo161

Re: Upper cylinder lube vs. oil additives - 01/13/14 10:31 PM

A blended mix of 1 oz, per gallon of Gas, for TC-W3 and 3 ounces of Chevron Techron at every fill up or every other fill up. It's very important to use this mix when the Winter Gas is sold at the pump. This mix will lube everything between the gas tank and the upper cylinder.

Don't forget to use ONLY TC-W3 since this engine oil is "ash-less" and burns clean. The 3 ounces of Chevron Techron Fuel System cleaner at every fill up is just a maintenance dose and combined with the TC-W3 it fills up my empty 6 ounce bottles that are used for dosing at fill up time.

I've been using this combo for 3+ years now and I've never had a problem.
Posted by: earlyre

Re: Upper cylinder lube vs. oil additives - 01/13/14 10:43 PM

Originally Posted By: Finz
Originally Posted By: turtlevette


I assume you're running much less than a 50:1 ratio as used in outboard motors. Does it produce that stinky exhaust that outboards have? What is the threshold?



Personally, I'm running 1 oz to every 5 gals of petrol...
600:1


not to split hairs, and at these concentrations it hardly makes a difference, but 1 oz to 5 Gal makes it 640:1
the first week i tried this ratio(week between Christmas and new years), the car did seem to run smoother, and get incrementally better mileage, but i also was able to park in the garage that week, vs outside...

personally i'm using the Valvoline tcw-3(it's what the store had) $4.66/qt, which at 640:1 (gas:oil), works out to about 2.7 cents /gallon of gas.
Posted by: bvance554

Re: Upper cylinder lube vs. oil additives - 01/14/14 12:19 AM

Doesn't the upper cylinder get lubed by the crankcase oil? Tolerances are engineered into engines and designed for a little oil to get past the rings and lube the cylinder (yes all engines burn a little oil). I've never used any UC lube and I get lots and lots of miles out of my vehicles. The expense and cerebral fortitude that went into the engineering of my engine far out weigh the benefit of any UC lube i could add IMO.
Posted by: otlew

Re: Upper cylinder lube vs. oil additives - 01/14/14 08:25 AM

I have never tested any fuel additive, by test I mean gathered and analyzed the before and after data.

Further I only know of one circumstance of such testing and the additive used was Marvel Mystery Oil.

I know that a respected retired Houston NASA Mechanical Engineer, tested a car on a dynamometer with and without MMO. The result was a 5 Horse Power increase using the MMO, not a show stopping result to me.

I did not participate in or witness the testing and did not commence using MMO after hearing the results. I am not sure if the testing was performed more than once, what controls were in place and if it was repeatable, in other words met scientific rigor.

Anyone have access to a test facility?
Posted by: dave5358

Re: Upper cylinder lube vs. oil additives - 01/14/14 09:33 AM

Originally Posted By: bvance554
Doesn't the upper cylinder get lubed by the crankcase oil? Tolerances are engineered into engines and designed for a little oil to get past the rings and lube the cylinder (yes all engines burn a little oil).

Basically, no - not unless your rings are passing oil or your valve stem seals are leaking, neither of which is really desirable. Some very old engine designs (e.g. L-head and flat head engines) needed upper cylinder lubrication to keep the valves functioning. It is/was a popular addition to stationary engines - pumps, oil rigs, etc. With UCL, these utility engines will last just about forever.

Most modern engine designs don't require it, but some form of upper cylinder lubrication may still provide some benefit - slightly increased compression, for example. UCL creates a better seal for the top compression ring. Some engines are prone to burning exhaust valves. One fix is to rebuild the engine with better valve material, but UCL may solve this problem using the existing valves.

Depending on how you input the UCL, you may get some cleaning or other benefits as well. Another responder said it lubricated and quieted his fuel pump.
Posted by: demarpaint

Re: Upper cylinder lube vs. oil additives - 01/14/14 09:38 AM

Originally Posted By: dave5358
Originally Posted By: bvance554
Doesn't the upper cylinder get lubed by the crankcase oil? Tolerances are engineered into engines and designed for a little oil to get past the rings and lube the cylinder (yes all engines burn a little oil).

Basically, no - not unless your rings are passing oil or your valve stem seals are leaking, neither of which is really desirable. Some very old engine designs (e.g. L-head and flat head engines) needed upper cylinder lubrication to keep the valves functioning. It is/was a popular addition to stationary engines - pumps, oil rigs, etc. With UCL, these utility engines will last just about forever.

Most modern engine designs don't require it, but some form of upper cylinder lubrication may still provide some benefit - slightly increased compression, for example. UCL creates a better seal for the top compression ring. Some engines are prone to burning exhaust valves. One fix is to rebuild the engine with better valve material, but UCL may solve this problem using the existing valves.

Depending on how you input the UCL, you may get some cleaning or other benefits as well. Another responder said it lubricated and quieted his fuel pump.


Nice write up Dave.
Posted by: KCJeep

Re: Upper cylinder lube vs. oil additives - 01/14/14 11:20 AM

I have used MMO continuously in the gas for my old glorified tractor engine'd Jeep 4.0 for over two years. I get better mpg, smoother running and my last UOA showed aluminum at 1 ppm, this in an engine known for piston skirt issues. I believe this is due to the UCL benefits of MMO. That's my conclusion, I can't prove it correct nor can anyone prove it wrong either.

It works for me, I like it, its cheap and I won't gas the Jeep without MMO. I don't care if somebody else likes it or not as long as I'm still able to buy it, I will. I experimented briefly with TCW3 but I prefer the cleaning benefits of MMO so I stick with that.

When used in the crankcase the oil always notably darkens within a couple hundred miles as well, my use there has been sporadic however.
Posted by: Challenger71

Re: Upper cylinder lube vs. oil additives - 01/14/14 01:38 PM

This is absolutely why people who are concerned about their vehicles utilize a UCL: to counter the effects of corrosive ethanol. All other benefits are a just a plus, especially the fuel pump.

Originally Posted By: Clevy
As far as upper cylinder lubes go I cannot say for sure whether they affect wear in any measurable way however I still use tc-w3 in my fuel just in case. It costs pennies to treat a tankful and hasn't hurt yet. I've never had a fouled plug or anything.
Tc-w3 has detergents in it and because it's an oil it may help fuel pumps and rubber seals exposed to the drying effects of ethanol.
Either way its cheap and in my mind its not hurting anything.
Posted by: dailydriver

Re: Upper cylinder lube vs. oil additives - 01/14/14 05:30 PM

Originally Posted By: Finz
Originally Posted By: turtlevette


I assume you're running much less than a 50:1 ratio as used in outboard motors. Does it produce that stinky exhaust that outboards have? What is the threshold?



Personally, I'm running 1 oz to every 5 gals of petrol... 600:1


^^^Yes, a four stroke, ICE in an automobile might not even run on a 50:1 ratio!
Posted by: dave5358

Re: Upper cylinder lube vs. oil additives - 01/15/14 01:16 PM

Originally Posted By: Challenger71
This is absolutely why people who are concerned about their vehicles utilize a UCL: to counter the effects of corrosive ethanol.<snip>


Challenger raises a good point. I'm not so sure ethanol is really corrosive, but it sure doesn't provide much lubrication either. In the last 50 years or so, vehicles have used leaded gasoline, then unleaded gasoline and now unleaded gasoline with ethanol added. A very few vehicles use LPG/CNG - just one more step along this line (our local public utility powers its fleet with LPG/CNG - some cities use LPG/CNG to power buses and other public vehicles as well).

Each of these fuels have less lubrication properties than it's predecessor. Yet, materials and technology inside the vehicle engine really hasn't changed that much in this same period.

These changes in fuels have not gone unnoticed. Even such stuffy folks as Rolls-Royce weighed in on the use of upper cylinder lubrication in their engines - this on the eve of the Aussies removing tetra-ethyl lead from consumer motor fuel. Rolls-Royce engines (and the whole vehicle, for that matter) tend to last a very long time. As I recall, Rolls' engineers decided that UCL was not required. You may note that many Rolls-Royce engines run at very low compression, in the range of ~6:1 - solid but stuffy. Your 11:1 compression-ratio hot-dog dream car may not be as forgiving.

And, several companies, such as AMPCO still market inverse oilers or lubricators - mostly aimed at the LPG/CNG vehicles. If you want your engine to last but there's no lube in the fuel, they might be worth a look.

At the opposite end of the oily-fuel scale is diesel. I used to have a civil engineer friend who drove an ancient Mercedes 180D. The car had about 500,000 miles on the clock and he was still on the original, never opened engine. It was going to run forever, the fact of which he bragged about endlessly (to everyone's annoyance). Why not? High quality construction plus super conservative engineering plus a fuel which provided great upper cylinder lubrication - it ought to run forever.
Posted by: OVERKILL

Re: Upper cylinder lube vs. oil additives - 01/15/14 01:41 PM

Originally Posted By: dave5358
Originally Posted By: Challenger71
This is absolutely why people who are concerned about their vehicles utilize a UCL: to counter the effects of corrosive ethanol.<snip>


Challenger raises a good point. I'm not so sure ethanol is really corrosive, but it sure doesn't provide much lubrication either. In the last 50 years or so, vehicles have used leaded gasoline, then unleaded gasoline and now unleaded gasoline with ethanol added. A very few vehicles use LPG/CNG - just one more step along this line (our local public utility powers its fleet with LPG/CNG - some cities use LPG/CNG to power buses and other public vehicles as well).

Each of these fuels have less lubrication properties than it's predecessor. Yet, materials and technology inside the vehicle engine really hasn't changed that much in this same period.

These changes in fuels have not gone unnoticed. Even such stuffy folks as Rolls-Royce weighed in on the use of upper cylinder lubrication in their engines - this on the eve of the Aussies removing tetra-ethyl lead from consumer motor fuel. Rolls-Royce engines (and the whole vehicle, for that matter) tend to last a very long time. As I recall, Rolls' engineers decided that UCL was not required. You may note that many Rolls-Royce engines run at very low compression, in the range of ~6:1 - solid but stuffy. Your 11:1 compression-ratio hot-dog dream car may not be as forgiving.

And, several companies, such as AMPCO still market inverse oilers or lubricators - mostly aimed at the LPG/CNG vehicles. If you want your engine to last but there's no lube in the fuel, they might be worth a look.

At the opposite end of the oily-fuel scale is diesel. I used to have a civil engineer friend who drove an ancient Mercedes 180D. The car had about 500,000 miles on the clock and he was still on the original, never opened engine. It was going to run forever, the fact of which he bragged about endlessly (to everyone's annoyance). Why not? High quality construction plus super conservative engineering plus a fuel which provided great upper cylinder lubrication - it ought to run forever.


There are plenty of LEO and limo Crown Vic's and Town Cars with obscene mileage on them that have never seen a UCL in their lives as another data point.
Posted by: Trav

Re: Upper cylinder lube vs. oil additives - 01/15/14 02:00 PM

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
There are plenty of LEO and limo Crown Vic's and Town Cars with obscene mileage on them that have never seen a UCL in their lives as another data point.


There is a lot of truth to that.
I think a lot has to do with oils and piston ring designs and materials many years ago when these types of products may have really helped.

Personally I want as little oil based products going through the cat as possible.
JMHO.
Posted by: dave5358

Re: Upper cylinder lube vs. oil additives - 01/15/14 02:58 PM

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
There are plenty of LEO and limo Crown Vic's and Town Cars with obscene mileage on them that have never seen a UCL in their lives as another data point.


That well could be, particularly if these vehicles were used in taxi or limo service. For many such vehicles, the engine is rarely turned off, except maybe to refuel, for maintenance, driver runs in to a lunch counter, etc. The number of 'cold starts' is really quite small.The big V-8's are really never strained. And... the engines lasts forever. I don't mean to knock Crown Vic's, but I've never been that impressed with them otherwise. I've knew Mercedes-Benz and Crown Victoria, you're no Mercedes-Benz. Back in the real world, 'cold starts' are a fact of life.

As for LEO vehicles, they don't last so long. Even if the engine holds up, the rest of the vehicle has a hard life. Watch your local auto auctions - LEO vehicles rarely go for much. I'm not counting the Chief's car or Captain's car, recently purchased new, rarely driven, offered to him at a sweetheart price upon his retirement, etc.
Posted by: OVERKILL

Re: Upper cylinder lube vs. oil additives - 01/15/14 04:42 PM

Originally Posted By: dave5358
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
There are plenty of LEO and limo Crown Vic's and Town Cars with obscene mileage on them that have never seen a UCL in their lives as another data point.


That well could be, particularly if these vehicles were used in taxi or limo service. For many such vehicles, the engine is rarely turned off, except maybe to refuel, for maintenance, driver runs in to a lunch counter, etc. The number of 'cold starts' is really quite small.The big V-8's are really never strained. And... the engines lasts forever. I don't mean to knock Crown Vic's, but I've never been that impressed with them otherwise. I've knew Mercedes-Benz and Crown Victoria, you're no Mercedes-Benz. Back in the real world, 'cold starts' are a fact of life.

As for LEO vehicles, they don't last so long. Even if the engine holds up, the rest of the vehicle has a hard life. Watch your local auto auctions - LEO vehicles rarely go for much. I'm not counting the Chief's car or Captain's car, recently purchased new, rarely driven, offered to him at a sweetheart price upon his retirement, etc.


Around here the LEO Vic's usually get bought up by cab companies and retired somewhere north of 500,000Km when the bodies take them to scrap yard.

And don't worry, I wasn't comparing a Vic to a Benz wink I was just pointing out that in these applications Ford's Modular engine seems to do just fine racking up obscene mileage without a UCL. The "Million Mile van" is another one of those, a 5.4L Modular in a van used as a courier.

And while I'm sure these vehicles don't get a lot of cold starts, the reason for that is because of how much they are used, which is of course how they get the mileage they do on them. Most cars up here go to the scrap yard either due to transmission failure and age, the body rotting off, being in an accident or complete and utter neglect (running the engine out of oil). A properly maintained vehicle with an engine that doesn't have some sort of predisposition for self destruction doesn't go to the wreckers because somebody wore the engine out by not running a UCL smile

A couple examples:

Town Car:
http://www.autotrader.ca/a/Lincoln/Town+Car/MARKHAM/Ontario/19_7577085_/

653,000Km on it (405,000 miles)

Town Car:
http://www.autotrader.ca/a/Lincoln/Town+Car/BRAMPTON/Ontario/19_7698930_/

495,000Km on it (307,000 miles)
Posted by: OVERKILL

Re: Upper cylinder lube vs. oil additives - 01/15/14 04:44 PM

Originally Posted By: Trav
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
There are plenty of LEO and limo Crown Vic's and Town Cars with obscene mileage on them that have never seen a UCL in their lives as another data point.


There is a lot of truth to that.
I think a lot has to do with oils and piston ring designs and materials many years ago when these types of products may have really helped.

Personally I want as little oil based products going through the cat as possible.
JMHO.



Yes, and they have coated skirts on the pistons too.

We've never run a UCL in anything, not even our antique boat engines or Ford 8N tractor (which is still going). Just good oil changed at reasonable intervals.
Posted by: Challenger71

Re: Upper cylinder lube vs. oil additives - 01/15/14 07:34 PM

Because a taxi can run and achieve 500k miles is significant in it's own right and deserves some merit. However because vehicle gets that far does not mean it operates at optimum. All we know is that it runs well enough and thats about it. Especially with taxis I see around here with their shot valve seals. I try to achieve optimum as best that I can for my vehicles and when it comes to fuel I try to apply a buffer to ethanol with the use of a UCL for the entire fuel system.
Posted by: OVERKILL

Re: Upper cylinder lube vs. oil additives - 01/15/14 07:59 PM

Originally Posted By: Challenger71
Because a taxi can run and achieve 500k miles is significant in it's own right and deserves some merit. However because vehicle gets that far does not mean it operates at optimum. All we know is that it runs well enough and thats about it. Especially with taxis I see around here with their shot valve seals. I try to achieve optimum as best that I can for my vehicles and when it comes to fuel I try to apply a buffer to ethanol with the use of a UCL for the entire fuel system.


Yeah but a UCL isn't going to prevent those valve seals from failing either wink

I'm not an engine guru, but I've torn a number of them down (or been involved in the tear down process) for performance upgrades and stuff, mostly SBF's but a buddy of mine has had a few SBC's that we've been into too. Even the very high mileage examples, run on just good oil and fuel, the SBF's still had visible cross-hatching on the walls, the pistons were pristine....etc. shrug I'm not sure what a UCL would have prevented in a situation like that, because it certainly wouldn't be wear, since there wasn't any, LOL!

Perhaps as Trav alluded to, there are some engines that benefit from it. My experience has shown that I've never owned or worked on one of those engines though wink
Posted by: Garak

Re: Upper cylinder lube vs. oil additives - 01/15/14 08:21 PM

And it's important to note that taxis in my day (SBC engines) were on propane, which was considered substantially "worse" than unleaded fuel from a lubricating standpoint. There was no feasible way to use an UCL, and the vehicles went hundreds of thousands of kilometres.

I'm not going to say that a UCL is harmful. I'm sure the contrary is true. But, does it make a real difference?
Posted by: demarpaint

Re: Upper cylinder lube vs. oil additives - 01/15/14 09:06 PM

Anyone care to explain how an engine the consumed a qt. of oil every 1,500 miles goes to a qt. of oil every 1,800-1,900 miles and the only thing that changed was the addition of a UCL? Same oil, same filter, same PCV valve, same OCI. As Trav alluded to there are some engines that can benefit from it. hide
Posted by: 147_Grain

Re: Upper cylinder lube vs. oil additives - 01/15/14 11:21 PM

Perhaps the UCL helped loosen up the partially stuck oil control rings.
Posted by: Trav

Re: Upper cylinder lube vs. oil additives - 01/16/14 04:27 AM

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Yes, and they have coated skirts on the pistons too.

We've never run a UCL in anything, not even our antique boat engines or Ford 8N tractor (which is still going). Just good oil changed at reasonable intervals.


I never used it either but i was thinking about these old cars (20's- 50's) that many people installed the inverse oilers on.

I dont know about the oil and fuels available back in those times and the effects they had on the top end.
Posted by: dave5358

Re: Upper cylinder lube vs. oil additives - 01/16/14 06:58 AM

Originally Posted By: Garak
And it's important to note that taxis in my day (SBC engines) were on propane, which was considered substantially "worse" than unleaded fuel from a lubricating standpoint. There was no feasible way to use an UCL, and the vehicles went hundreds of thousands of kilometres.


Ehhh? Why no feasible way? I can't imagine an engine on which an oiler could not be installed. And, you could always add a UCL to the fuel tank, although that might be unlikely for a taxi.

As for taxis running propane, that was fairly unusual - a few very large cities with serious pollution issues. Taxis tend to rack up high mileage and last a long time because the engines rarely cools down, and most taxis are driven in a fairly conservative manner. Plus, fleet owners tend to take maintenance quite seriously.
Posted by: Garak

Re: Upper cylinder lube vs. oil additives - 01/17/14 12:17 AM

Originally Posted By: dave5358
Why no feasible way? I can't imagine an engine on which an oiler could not be installed. And, you could always add a UCL to the fuel tank, although that might be unlikely for a taxi.

My fleet was on propane for most years, so dumping a little 2 cycle oil into the fuel tank wasn't an option. wink

Propane taxis were very common here at one time given how cheap the fuel was at the time.
Posted by: Shannow

Re: Upper cylinder lube vs. oil additives - 01/17/14 02:36 AM

I had an oiler on my propane vehicle...It already had valve seat recession when I got it, so I wanted it to not get worse.
Posted by: Garak

Re: Upper cylinder lube vs. oil additives - 01/17/14 04:32 AM

How was such a thing set up on the propane vehicle? The LPG became big here when leaded fuel was being eliminated, so engines had been upgraded in regard to seats.
Posted by: Shannow

Re: Upper cylinder lube vs. oil additives - 01/17/14 04:49 AM

A bit like this kit...
http://www.supercheapauto.com.au/online-...rom=60402#Cross

I made a "T" piece out of brass tubing that fit in the PCV line to the Q-Jet, and fitted the oiler kit...worked on the premise that the carb manifold would be careful to distribute PCV fumes more evenly tan a hole drilled in the manifold.

You "tune" it to the number of drops per minute of UCL (flashlube is a lead replacement additive, we only lost lead in 1990ish, having unleaded and low lead since 1987).

Lubricates only while there is vacuum across the throttle plate, but that's most times in a car's life.
Posted by: demarpaint

Re: Upper cylinder lube vs. oil additives - 01/17/14 06:01 AM

Originally Posted By: Shannow
A bit like this kit...
http://www.supercheapauto.com.au/online-...rom=60402#Cross

I made a "T" piece out of brass tubing that fit in the PCV line to the Q-Jet, and fitted the oiler kit...worked on the premise that the carb manifold would be careful to distribute PCV fumes more evenly tan a hole drilled in the manifold.

You "tune" it to the number of drops per minute of UCL (flashlube is a lead replacement additive, we only lost lead in 1990ish, having unleaded and low lead since 1987).

Lubricates only while there is vacuum across the throttle plate, but that's most times in a car's life.


That's exactly how my MMO Inverse Oiler works. A Tee fitting plumbed into the PCV vacuum line, dial in how many drips per minute you want it to feed and your gtg. It should consume about 1 qt. per 1,000 miles. It can also be set up on stationary engines or any engine that produces vacuum.

There are copies of it out there IIRC they all work the same way.
Posted by: dave5358

Re: Upper cylinder lube vs. oil additives - 01/17/14 08:07 AM

Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: dave5358
Why no feasible way? I can't imagine an engine on which an oiler could not be installed. And, you could always add a UCL to the fuel tank, although that might be unlikely for a taxi.

My fleet was on propane for most years, so dumping a little 2 cycle oil into the fuel tank wasn't an option. wink

Propane taxis were very common here at one time given how cheap the fuel was at the time.


Right, you can't easily dump an upper cylinder lube into a pressurized propane gas tank. But you could install a lubricator. All you need is a vacuum tap, preferably beyond the throttle body.

Propane conversions are normally done by professional shops on engines originally designed to run on gasoline. I'm surprised an oiler wasn't installed as part of the conversion. By comparison to propane, gasoline seem absolutely oily. When a UCL is used in a propane/cng conversion, the dosage rate can be very low.

You raised a good point that I had forgotten about - propane is really cheap. Our local gas-electric utility ran its vehicles on propane and operating economy was probably a big motivation. The $2000-4000 cost of a propane conversion would pay for itself in just a few years.
Posted by: Mephy

Re: Upper cylinder lube vs. oil additives - 01/17/14 08:50 AM

Originally Posted By: dino33
A lot of people have that opinion. What do you think about a good UCL?


If you want a good UCL I discuss this here:

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb...cep#Post3247925

Foget about Lucas Interceptor will cost you less as well.
Posted by: dave5358

Re: Upper cylinder lube vs. oil additives - 01/17/14 08:52 AM

Originally Posted By: Shannow
A bit like this kit...
http://www.supercheapauto.com.au/online-...rom=60402#Cross

I made a "T" piece out of brass tubing that fit in the PCV line to the Q-Jet, and fitted the oiler kit...worked on the premise that the carb manifold would be careful to distribute PCV fumes more evenly tan a hole drilled in the manifold.

You "tune" it to the number of drops per minute of UCL (flashlube is a lead replacement additive, we only lost lead in 1990ish, having unleaded and low lead since 1987).

An ideal way to insert a UCL is to drip it into the center of the air/fuel stream. Marvel and other oiler/lubricator makers made installation kits to accomplish this task for popular engines and carburetors.



This particular kit is just a throttle body spacer (silver piece, top of picture) with a small tube inserted - it appears to be soldered in. It drips the oil down two of the carburetor barrels. But less-than-perfect installations work quite well, such as using the PCV tap. The oil vaporizes in the manifold turbulence.

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Lubricates only while there is vacuum across the throttle plate, but that's most times in a car's life.

Most lubricators 'sense' the vacuum level because they are designed to insert oil inversely to the vacuum level. So, a heavily loaded engine - wide open throttle - gets more oil than just cruising down the boulevard. And, when the vacuum is very high - coasting down a hill on closed throttle - almost no UCL goes in. If you simply put the UCL into the gas tank, you get some of this variable rate benefit since more fuel is consumed with a wide open throttle. But a mechanical oiler can greatly accelerate this rate of oil input gain.

The UCL actually gets sucked into the engine based on Bernouli's Principle. So oilers work fine on turbo- or super-charged engines, because there is always air/fuel flowing into the engine, regardless of vacuum or pressure in the manifold. The tip of the UCL input point basically works like a unsealed Pitot tube.
Posted by: Ramblejam

Re: Upper cylinder lube vs. oil additives - 01/17/14 06:20 PM

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Ford's Modular engine seems to do just fine racking up obscene mileage without a UCL.


There are certainly many high-mileage ones out there.

I find it rather interesting though to park my idling, 225,00 mile F-150 farm truck next to another of the same vintage -- with the standard dosage of 1oz/5gal TC-W3, it's noticeably quieter in comparison.
Posted by: OVERKILL

Re: Upper cylinder lube vs. oil additives - 01/17/14 06:50 PM

Originally Posted By: Ramblejam
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Ford's Modular engine seems to do just fine racking up obscene mileage without a UCL.


There are certainly many high-mileage ones out there.

I find it rather interesting though to park my idling, 225,00 mile F-150 farm truck next to another of the same vintage -- with the standard dosage of 1oz/5gal TC-W3, it's noticeably quieter in comparison.


Perhaps you've just looked after it better shrug

Both our 5.4L's are extremely quiet. The one (my dad's) has had a steady diet of M1 since pretty much new. Mine currently has an exhaust leak. Again. Bloody manifolds mad
Posted by: CourierDriver

Re: Upper cylinder lube vs. oil additives - 01/17/14 07:04 PM

Originally Posted By: Finz
Originally Posted By: Clevy
As far as upper cylinder lubes go I cannot say for sure whether they affect wear in any measurable way however I still use tc-w3 in my fuel just in case. It costs pennies to treat a tankful and hasn't hurt yet. I've never had a fouled plug or anything.
Tc-w3 has detergents in it and because it's an oil it may help fuel pumps and rubber seals exposed to the drying effects of ethanol.
Either way its cheap and in my mind its not hurting anything.


+1
+1 again
Posted by: CourierDriver

Re: Upper cylinder lube vs. oil additives - 01/17/14 07:05 PM

Originally Posted By: Cujet
I hate to admit it, but I tried MMO in the gas in my 2003 Jaguar X-Type 2.5L V6. I was experiencing a rough idle and started thinking about poor valve sealing, sticky rings, balky injectors and so on. Considering that MMO has been known to help in such matters, I tried it. Success!

I added nearly a quart of the stuff to a 15 gallon tank. The engine was nearly instantly smooth. And, it clearly remains so many tanks later.
+1 on that, still my fav....
What happened? I really don't know. And, while I prefer scientific methodology and reasoning over "old wives tales", I can only speculate on the reasons why it worked. I will refrain from doing so.
Posted by: Trav

Re: Upper cylinder lube vs. oil additives - 01/18/14 08:07 AM

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
[ Mine currently has an exhaust leak. Again. Bloody manifolds mad


Same side? I used aftermarket ones or Gibson shorty SS headers on a few of these and they didn't rust anywhere near like the OEM, the SS not at all.
Did they use the new Ford SS studs?

I always do both sides on these, one almost always follows the other, plus the drivers side is a lot easier.
Posted by: OVERKILL

Re: Upper cylinder lube vs. oil additives - 01/18/14 10:36 AM

Originally Posted By: Trav
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
[ Mine currently has an exhaust leak. Again. Bloody manifolds mad


Same side? I used aftermarket ones or Gibson shorty SS headers on a few of these and they didn't rust anywhere near like the OEM, the SS not at all.
Did they use the new Ford SS studs?

I always do both sides on these, one almost always follows the other, plus the drivers side is a lot easier.


Same side. It is getting the stainless headers this time. Yes, it got the new stainless studs from Ford.
Posted by: Challenger71

Re: Upper cylinder lube vs. oil additives - 01/18/14 12:05 PM

Another great analogy and because of this most taxis have much less start-up wear.

Originally Posted By: dave5358
As for taxis running propane, that was fairly unusual - a few very large cities with serious pollution issues. Taxis tend to rack up high mileage and last a long time because the engines rarely cools down, and most taxis are driven in a fairly conservative manner. Plus, fleet owners tend to take maintenance quite seriously.
Posted by: Garak

Re: Upper cylinder lube vs. oil additives - 01/18/14 08:54 PM

Originally Posted By: dave5358
Propane conversions are normally done by professional shops on engines originally designed to run on gasoline. I'm surprised an oiler wasn't installed as part of the conversion. By comparison to propane, gasoline seem absolutely oily. When a UCL is used in a propane/cng conversion, the dosage rate can be very low.

Yep, Shannow gave me a very cool link. For the taxis, other motorists killed taxis before dry fuel did. wink

Originally Posted By: dave5358
You raised a good point that I had forgotten about - propane is really cheap. Our local gas-electric utility ran its vehicles on propane and operating economy was probably a big motivation. The $2000-4000 cost of a propane conversion would pay for itself in just a few years.

My best price on propane, at one time, was getting paid two cents per litre to take it. The pump price was five cents per litre (price war) and the included, refundable tax (by mail in rebate) was seven cents per litre. So, I got paid to take the fuel. wink
Posted by: Trav

Re: Upper cylinder lube vs. oil additives - 01/19/14 01:05 PM

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: Trav
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
[ Mine currently has an exhaust leak. Again. Bloody manifolds mad


Same side? I used aftermarket ones or Gibson shorty SS headers on a few of these and they didn't rust anywhere near like the OEM, the SS not at all.
Did they use the new Ford SS studs?

I always do both sides on these, one almost always follows the other, plus the drivers side is a lot easier.


Same side. It is getting the stainless headers this time. Yes, it got the new stainless studs from Ford.


Have you looked at the Gibson SS shorties? I used them on an 04 Expedition 5.4, nice!
They have the egr provision and a nice thick flange, perfect fit.
Posted by: OVERKILL

Re: Upper cylinder lube vs. oil additives - 01/19/14 11:13 PM

Originally Posted By: Trav
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: Trav
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
[ Mine currently has an exhaust leak. Again. Bloody manifolds mad


Same side? I used aftermarket ones or Gibson shorty SS headers on a few of these and they didn't rust anywhere near like the OEM, the SS not at all.
Did they use the new Ford SS studs?

I always do both sides on these, one almost always follows the other, plus the drivers side is a lot easier.


Same side. It is getting the stainless headers this time. Yes, it got the new stainless studs from Ford.


Have you looked at the Gibson SS shorties? I used them on an 04 Expedition 5.4, nice!
They have the egr provision and a nice thick flange, perfect fit.


Yessir, those are the ones thumbsup
Posted by: MolaKule

Re: Upper cylinder lube vs. oil additives - 01/20/14 11:25 AM

Originally Posted By: dino33
So, we like additives to extend our engine life, keep them running at top performance, and maybe even get some extra mileage with our fuel. the question is do we use additives and ignore an upper cylinder? Is a ucl as effective as an additive? And is there any evidence or proof that an upper cylinder lubricant is effective at lessening wear and keeping your engine in top shape? For what it's worth I'm using ceretec/Mos2 with good oil. As well, I've been using Lucas ucl for the last year. I want to get at least a half a million kms out of the Prius. So far so good.... Thanks in advance...


There is little benefit from top oils:

Quote:
Others try to simply "lubricate" the valve seats with upper cylinder oil. The temperatures involved are much to[o]
great for simple lubricants.

Redline Link
Posted by: demarpaint

Re: Upper cylinder lube vs. oil additives - 01/20/14 11:38 AM

Originally Posted By: MolaKule

There is little benefit from top oils:


Interesting, it makes me wonder why Redline adds a UCL to their FI cleaner, and then advertises about it? shrug
Posted by: nleksan

Re: Upper cylinder lube vs. oil additives - 01/20/14 12:25 PM

Probably because everyone else does, and they don't want to lose sales over semantics.
Posted by: demarpaint

Re: Upper cylinder lube vs. oil additives - 01/20/14 12:41 PM

Originally Posted By: nleksan
Probably because everyone else does, and they don't want to lose sales over semantics.


That could very well be, if so then they aren't the stellar ethical company I thought they were. Oh well.
Posted by: MolaKule

Re: Upper cylinder lube vs. oil additives - 01/20/14 02:13 PM

Originally Posted By: nleksan
Probably because everyone else does, and they don't want to lose sales over semantics.


Here is what I think they think: If you have a public out there who thinks they need a particular product, you may as well sell them the product to increase sales.

It has been bantered around and claimed in some adv. that certain esters can function as an Upper Cylinder Lube.

I have yet to see any STLE, SAE, or lab document that shows any scientific (thermodynamic, tribological, chemical, or mechnical) evidence to support the need for an upper cylinder lubricant.

If and when I ever find such a document I will write a white paper on it.

I can see where a fuel additive may help lubricate say the pintle/valve in a diesel fuel injector system when using low sulfur fuel. But how much wear would it actually reduce?

Again, some supportable, repeatable data would be nice.

Posted by: TrevorS

Re: Upper cylinder lube vs. oil additives - 01/20/14 02:32 PM

When I used Gumout All In One for the PEA, I was unaware that it had the UCL / friction modifier.

I did notice the car was smoother, and that this lasted for a couple more tanks. My wife noticed it too.

Now the manufacturer does say not to use UCL so I will follow their instructions going forward as I presume they have looked at this far more completely and figured that any potential gains (if any) are outweighed by known and unknown risks.

Of course, UCLs must do something otherwise people wouldn't buy them. For some, that something is in their heads, but I would guess that some smoothness does occur for some people.
Posted by: MolaKule

Re: Upper cylinder lube vs. oil additives - 01/20/14 02:34 PM

UCL Definition:

IF one defines a UCL as a fuel injector lubricant, then that seems to be valid.

But then again, one has to realize the Materials Science and metallurgy that goes into injector part materials, valve seats, and valves, etc. is very advanced, compared to the 50's and 60's.

So, can the injector nozzles, valves, and valve seats survive without UCL's?

It seems that even the old technology parts survived before the advent of these so-called specialty lubricants.
Posted by: MolaKule

Re: Upper cylinder lube vs. oil additives - 01/20/14 03:02 PM

Originally Posted By: TrevorS
When I used Gumout All In One for the PEA, I was unaware that it had the UCL / friction modifier.

I did notice the car was smoother, and that this lasted for a couple more tanks. My wife noticed it too.

Now the manufacturer does say not to use UCL so I will follow their instructions going forward as I presume they have looked at this far more completely and figured that any potential gains (if any) are outweighed by known and unknown risks.

Of course, UCLs must do something otherwise people wouldn't buy them. For some, that something is in their heads, but I would guess that some smoothness does occur for some people.


Was it the PEA that made the engine run smoother or was it the UCL?

I maintain it was the PEA that increased combustion efficiency through better fuel atomization.
Posted by: demarpaint

Re: Upper cylinder lube vs. oil additives - 01/20/14 03:10 PM

I achieved a smoother running engine in older cars with a UCL, the two I used contained no PEA, MMO and TCW3. TCW3 producing better results when it came to making an engine run smoother. In fact I skipped a few tankfuls and added RL FI cleaner and the engine idled the same as it did before the UCL. Switching back to the UCL the idle improved again. I guess it depends a lot on the age and condition of the engine. I would expect to see little to no improvement in a new well running engine.
Posted by: Clevy

Re: Upper cylinder lube vs. oil additives - 01/20/14 03:15 PM

Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Originally Posted By: TrevorS
When I used Gumout All In One for the PEA, I was unaware that it had the UCL / friction modifier.

I did notice the car was smoother, and that this lasted for a couple more tanks. My wife noticed it too.

Now the manufacturer does say not to use UCL so I will follow their instructions going forward as I presume they have looked at this far more completely and figured that any potential gains (if any) are outweighed by known and unknown risks.

Of course, UCLs must do something otherwise people wouldn't buy them. For some, that something is in their heads, but I would guess that some smoothness does occur for some people.


Was it the PEA that made the engine run smoother or was it the UCL?

I maintain it was the PEA that increased combustion efficiency through better fuel atomization.


So Molekule are you saying that PEA helps fuel atomize? And is that the same as reducing the surface tension of the fuel?
And Molekule do you know at what treat rate PEA is effective at helping fuel atomize and at what point is it fuel over treated or is that possible?

Thanks Molekule.
Posted by: TrevorS

Re: Upper cylinder lube vs. oil additives - 01/20/14 03:23 PM

Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Originally Posted By: TrevorS
When I used Gumout All In One for the PEA, I was unaware that it had the UCL / friction modifier.

I did notice the car was smoother, and that this lasted for a couple more tanks. My wife noticed it too.

Now the manufacturer does say not to use UCL so I will follow their instructions going forward as I presume they have looked at this far more completely and figured that any potential gains (if any) are outweighed by known and unknown risks.

Of course, UCLs must do something otherwise people wouldn't buy them. For some, that something is in their heads, but I would guess that some smoothness does occur for some people.


Was it the PEA that made the engine run smoother or was it the UCL?

I maintain it was the PEA that increased combustion efficiency through better fuel atomization.


I wondered the same thing, and in balance I would say it was the UCL.

The reason being that I had already cleaned out the fuel system and switched to top tier and this addition of Gumout All In One was an annual preventative. Previously I could feel the vehicle improvement during the course of a tank. This time, the improvement that I ascribe to PEA happened during the first quarter tank or so and then the smoothness continued for a few tankful a before tailing off. I'd find it hard to believe the tailing off of smoothness was the fuel system gunking up again, although the Techron engineers did establish deposits build surprisingly fast.
Posted by: TrevorS

Re: Upper cylinder lube vs. oil additives - 01/20/14 03:28 PM

Originally Posted By: Clevy
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Originally Posted By: TrevorS
When I used Gumout All In One for the PEA, I was unaware that it had the UCL / friction modifier.

I did notice the car was smoother, and that this lasted for a couple more tanks. My wife noticed it too.

Now the manufacturer does say not to use UCL so I will follow their instructions going forward as I presume they have looked at this far more completely and figured that any potential gains (if any) are outweighed by known and unknown risks.

Of course, UCLs must do something otherwise people wouldn't buy them. For some, that something is in their heads, but I would guess that some smoothness does occur for some people.


Was it the PEA that made the engine run smoother or was it the UCL?

I maintain it was the PEA that increased combustion efficiency through better fuel atomization.


So Molekule are you saying that PEA helps fuel atomize? And is that the same as reducing the surface tension of the fuel?
And Molekule do you know at what treat rate PEA is effective at helping fuel atomize and at what point is it fuel over treated or is that possible?

Thanks Molekule.


I think he is saying that PEA cleans injectors which helps fuel atomize better.

The PEA treat rates are in the Techron white paper. They found that above a certain dosage, PEA had no further effect. The treat rate and mileage intervals on Techron and other PEA cleaners are based on actual scientific testing. These companies want the product to work optimally for you. Now some vehicles don't build up deposits like others, with or without top tier fuel. But in their testing they found deposits build in as little as 3000 miles regardless of age of car.
Posted by: nleksan

Re: Upper cylinder lube vs. oil additives - 01/21/14 01:00 AM

I agree with the above as to what I read Molakul's statement to mean.

As for RL being ethical, I would say that in the rather cutthroatworld of engi ne products, if they are producing a product superior to the competition but with the same basic level chemistry behind it, and the other guys get to add "UCL" as a bullet point, RL would be stupid not to advertise the same thing. In fact, I welcome it, as the more people who buy it for a psychological benefit (UCL), the cheaper and more available it becomes for the rest of us who want to use it for what it is actually the best at...

I admire a number of companies for their transparency and honesty, Redline, StopTech, Performance Friction, etc, and I have made purchasing decisions based on the appearance of the company in tthe past when I was split otherwise. That's why you will never see me running aftermarket Brembo brakes, and instead see ST/PFC/AP Racing. It's why I am willing to support Redline as much as I do, or any one of a hundred other examples.
But, at the end of the day, they'reall bbusinesses, and it's in the best interest of no one but the dishonest, opaque companies for them to go out of business. We as customers lose out big time.
Posted by: TrevorS

Re: Upper cylinder lube vs. oil additives - 01/21/14 02:25 AM

I also like to support companies that are transparent. No time for people or organizations who want my money while hiding pertinent info.

I also don't understand where the attack on Redline as an unethical company came from. Totally uncalled for. I know others on this board have had a lot of success receiving information from them.
Posted by: Garak

Re: Upper cylinder lube vs. oil additives - 01/21/14 02:27 AM

Originally Posted By: nleksan
As for RL being ethical, I would say that in the rather cutthroatworld of engi ne products, if they are producing a product superior to the competition but with the same basic level chemistry behind it, and the other guys get to add "UCL" as a bullet point, RL would be stupid not to advertise the same thing.

Up here, with Red Line's product being priced better than Regane, I have no issue with that. Now, if they were really pushing the UCL thing and doubled the price of the product, I might have a concern. As it stands, advertising the UCL (real or imagined benefits) and having a good price make it an easy choice.
Posted by: demarpaint

Re: Upper cylinder lube vs. oil additives - 01/21/14 06:10 AM

Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Originally Posted By: nleksan
Probably because everyone else does, and they don't want to lose sales over semantics.


That could very well be, if so then they aren't the stellar ethical company I thought they were. Oh well.


I've used RL FI cleaner for years, and IMO it blows away the competition. Deep down inside I believe they're putting in the UCL because they believe it has some benefit, maybe a benefit in lubing injectors themselves as mentioned above. If it boosts sales more power to them. They've always been the most straight forward company out there when it came to answering questions, and they take the time to really answer questions. It seems some people missed where I was coming from with this comment, and struck a cord, sorry. Just to clear the air those comments were intended to be sarcastic, I should have used this. smirk Oh well. I've always commented positively about them and will continue to do so.

BTW nleksan, we seem to agree on some points. smile

Posted by: Mephy

Re: Upper cylinder lube vs. oil additives - 01/21/14 08:45 AM

I use two stroke snowboard oil as UCL.

I believe the main benefit of UCL is the better fuel atomization.
Posted by: richport29

Re: Upper cylinder lube vs. oil additives - 01/21/14 02:31 PM

Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: nleksan
As for RL being ethical, I would say that in the rather cutthroatworld of engi ne products, if they are producing a product superior to the competition but with the same basic level chemistry behind it, and the other guys get to add "UCL" as a bullet point, RL would be stupid not to advertise the same thing.

Up here, with Red Line's product being priced better than Regane, I have no issue with that. Now, if they were really pushing the UCL thing and doubled the price of the product, I might have a concern. As it stands, advertising the UCL (real or imagined benefits) and having a good price make it an easy choice.


Where do you buy the redline product in Canada?
Posted by: nleksan

Re: Upper cylinder lube vs. oil additives - 01/21/14 05:32 PM

I completely missed the sarcasm, one of the dangers of the Internet! wink

I have generally agreed with you in pretty much every post I've read (I say generallyonly bbecause I can't think of any examples to the contrary, but I never was good at playing well with others so I am sure at some point I contradicted you just because I am always right and must make sure that everyone on the Internet is well aware of this! :p).

I will see what my "contact" at the company has to say. One benefit of racing in moderately high profile series, even as an independent competitor, is that companies take note when you use their products religiously and the good ones, like Redline, go out of their way to help you out (even if you decline any help that would benefit you financially), offer advice and recommendations, and such.
But what really impresses me is that they are just as helpful to people who are not providing them free publicity, and will give straight, honest answers to anyone who asks! I have seen them even recommend that their products may not be ideal for a specific application, and to me, a company who is willing to lose a sale because they are not able to provide the best product for an application, is a company that has a customer for life; I judge mechanics thes ame way, and my engine/BMW mechanic and my body/paint guys both will always recommend against doing unnecessary work despite it costing them easy money.
THAT, is like finding a freaking unicorn in today's business world!
Posted by: demarpaint

Re: Upper cylinder lube vs. oil additives - 01/21/14 06:19 PM

Originally Posted By: nleksan
I completely missed the sarcasm, one of the dangers of the Internet! wink

I have generally agreed with you in pretty much every post I've read (I say generallyonly bbecause I can't think of any examples to the contrary, but I never was good at playing well with others so I am sure at some point I contradicted you just because I am always right and must make sure that everyone on the Internet is well aware of this! :p).

I will see what my "contact" at the company has to say. One benefit of racing in moderately high profile series, even as an independent competitor, is that companies take note when you use their products religiously and the good ones, like Redline, go out of their way to help you out (even if you decline any help that would benefit you financially), offer advice and recommendations, and such.
But what really impresses me is that they are just as helpful to people who are not providing them free publicity, and will give straight, honest answers to anyone who asks! I have seen them even recommend that their products may not be ideal for a specific application, and to me, a company who is willing to lose a sale because they are not able to provide the best product for an application, is a company that has a customer for life; I judge mechanics thes ame way, and my engine/BMW mechanic and my body/paint guys both will always recommend against doing unnecessary work despite it costing them easy money.
THAT, is like finding a freaking unicorn in today's business world!


Cheers2 You nailed it, one of the dangers of the internet. Next time I'm being sarcastic, or kidding I'll try and make it more obvious. We have people here that feed off those types comments looking for a fight. I realized that later on when it was too late to edit or delete the post. Oops.......I'm glad it didn't go down that road.

I'd be interested in what your contact has to say. As far as ethics and oil goes RL is way up high on the list, way up!
Posted by: Garak

Re: Upper cylinder lube vs. oil additives - 01/21/14 07:42 PM

Originally Posted By: richport29
Where do you buy the redline product in Canada?

There's an independent parts store here called Albert North Auto. That's where I get my Red Line fuel injector cleaner and Wix filters.
Posted by: fpracha

Re: Upper cylinder lube vs. oil additives - 01/28/14 06:15 AM

Originally Posted By: Garak
Now, if they were really pushing the UCL thing and doubled the price of the product, I might have a concern.

Can you please comment: is it safe to use PEA-type additives in the latest engines ?
What are the real concerns about purely UCL additives in the newer engine models?
Posted by: leroyd92

Re: Upper cylinder lube vs. oil additives - 01/28/14 07:26 AM

Originally Posted By: Cujet
I hate to admit it, but I tried MMO in the gas in my 2003 Jaguar X-Type 2.5L V6. I was experiencing a rough idle and started thinking about poor valve sealing, sticky rings, balky injectors and so on. Considering that MMO has been known to help in such matters, I tried it. Success!

I added nearly a quart of the stuff to a 15 gallon tank. The engine was nearly instantly smooth. And, it clearly remains so many tanks later.

What happened? I really don't know. And, while I prefer scientific methodology and reasoning over "old wives tales", I can only speculate on the reasons why it worked. I will refrain from doing so.



Mmo was what got me into using additives in my fuel... ive never used it as an ucl but one of our trucks developed a pinging under load and it hand never done that before....

20gallons of gas, 32oz of mystery oil, and ten minutes of idle made her buttery smooth, no more pinging under a load, exhaust smelled like a candy factory, truck started easier then ever before, and for that tank, black soot would bellow out if you stepped on the go pedal...

No idea what it cleaned, had no intention to lube the cylinders, just wanted it to clean whatever broke free in the fuel system... and it worked.... that's why I use tcw3 in my gas...can't hurt

Sorry to go off on a speachel lol
Posted by: Garak

Re: Upper cylinder lube vs. oil additives - 01/28/14 07:31 AM

I'd use PEA additives in new engines, no concern at all. Those are about the only ones I've seen recommended or approved by even a few automakers. I do use the Red Line and Regane in my G on occasion.

As for a pure UCL additive, the only concern I would have is what I believe Shannow mentioned in one of these threads - burning something that might not be all that friendly to cats. Additionally, are there enough benefits?

I haven't seen a lot of evidence for a significant benefit to a UCL for vehicle longevity, aside from certain niche applications. Something that still had valves from the unleaded gasoline days might benefit. Rotary engines burn oil by design. Running a tiny dose of two cycle oil in the gas as many do here is probably harmless, even to the cat. Is it going to significantly add to the lifespan of my engine? I'm not so sure.

Any pure UCL additives, also, should work as advertised, rather than being snake oil. There are too many companies like Lucas involved in that segment of the market.

If I decided I wanted to use a UCL, I'd just use Red Line SI-1 in maintenance doses.
Posted by: Triton_330

Re: Upper cylinder lube vs. oil additives - 01/28/14 02:31 PM

Questions:
So, is MMO both a UCL and a cleaner?
If so, could one say that MMO is better than the lucas fuel additive?

I've used MMO in my gas before from time to time, because the only gas station in my hometown is Caseys... And let's just say that, even the good old guys down at O'reilly's will tell you that Caseys gas is (insert expletive word). I knew a guy whose check engine light would come on when he filled up at Casey's, but as soon as that tank was out, if he filled up at BP, the light went out and the truck ran noticeably better.
Posted by: Clevy

Re: Upper cylinder lube vs. oil additives - 01/28/14 02:54 PM

Originally Posted By: Triton_330
Questions:
So, is MMO both a UCL and a cleaner?
If so, could one say that MMO is better than the lucas fuel additive?

I've used MMO in my gas before from time to time, because the only gas station in my hometown is Caseys... And let's just say that, even the good old guys down at O'reilly's will tell you that Caseys gas is (insert expletive word). I knew a guy whose check engine light would come on when he filled up at Casey's, but as soon as that tank was out, if he filled up at BP, the light went out and the truck ran noticeably better.



Actually the Lucas upper cylinder lube contains pib,and pib will improve gas mileage by helping fuel burn more completely.
There's lots of info on pib and fuel efficiency,google should bring something up for you.
As far as the cats are concerned tc-w3 shouldn't affect them at all because it's ashless and leaves no residue behind,right?
I use tc-w3 in every fuel burning machine I own,including my zoomboom and everything I use it in runs better with it.
Probably subjective but for the pennies it costs to dose I'm gonna keep on keeping on.
Posted by: Triton_330

Re: Upper cylinder lube vs. oil additives - 01/30/14 02:45 AM

Originally Posted By: Clevy

Actually the Lucas upper cylinder lube contains pib,and pib will improve gas mileage by helping fuel burn more completely.
There's lots of info on pib and fuel efficiency,google should bring something up for you.
As far as the cats are concerned tc-w3 shouldn't affect them at all because it's ashless and leaves no residue behind,right?
I use tc-w3 in every fuel burning machine I own,including my zoomboom and everything I use it in runs better with it.
Probably subjective but for the pennies it costs to dose I'm gonna keep on keeping on.


So, I took your advice and went out and bought some tcw3. Where I am right now it's cold... My face went numb just walking to my truck out in the parking lot... So I also bought some MMO for my oil haha. I tell you what, I can't stand Ford's dummy oil pressure gauge. Scares me when it shows no pressure, but then I remember that if its below something like 10, (or was is 5?) psi it just won't read anything. So I'm hoping the MMO will thin my oil enough to help me out on cold starts.
As for the tcw3, I bought the Quicksilver Premium Plus 2-Cycle Outboard Oil... Havn't used it yet since I had previously already had MMO in the tank, still about 3/4 a tank, so I'm gonna wait til the next fill up. Is the Quicksilver tcw3 good?
Posted by: demarpaint

Re: Upper cylinder lube vs. oil additives - 01/30/14 03:35 AM

Originally Posted By: Triton_330

Is the Quicksilver tcw3 good?


It sure is, you can also use a less expensive TCW3 oil if you'd like. I bought Pennzoil's version for about $10 a gallon on some sort of closeout a few years ago. You can also use Supertech TCW3 if there's a Walmart near you.
Posted by: JHZR2

Re: Upper cylinder lube vs. oil additives - 01/30/14 06:47 AM

Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Originally Posted By: Triton_330

Is the Quicksilver tcw3 good?


It sure is, you can also use a less expensive TCW3 oil if you'd like. I bought Pennzoil's version for about $10 a gallon on some sort of closeout a few years ago. You can also use Supertech TCW3 if there's a Walmart near you.


Yeah but that st stuff stinks, literally.

Made that mistake, thought I was slick buying cheapo ST oil to use as an additive, couldn't get past the odor!
Posted by: Triton_330

Re: Upper cylinder lube vs. oil additives - 01/30/14 10:28 AM

Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Originally Posted By: Triton_330

Is the Quicksilver tcw3 good?


It sure is, you can also use a less expensive TCW3 oil if you'd like. I bought Pennzoil's version for about $10 a gallon on some sort of closeout a few years ago. You can also use Supertech TCW3 if there's a Walmart near you.


Yeah but that st stuff stinks, literally.

Made that mistake, thought I was slick buying cheapo ST oil to use as an additive, couldn't get past the odor!


Most likely, if I see positive results from using this, I will just buy a gallon off Amazon. The prices on Amazon were cheaper than what I saw at Walmart. I just wanted to try a smaller container out first so I could verify that it helps my truck.
Posted by: Ramblejam

Re: Upper cylinder lube vs. oil additives - 01/30/14 12:03 PM

Originally Posted By: Triton_330
Is the Quicksilver tcw3 good?


I don't see why not.

I've been using Evinrude/Johnson Super Premium in my '03 F-150 as it carries TC-W3RL approval.

Let us know how it works out for you.
Posted by: Triton_330

Re: Upper cylinder lube vs. oil additives - 01/30/14 02:26 PM

Originally Posted By: Ramblejam
Originally Posted By: Triton_330
Is the Quicksilver tcw3 good?


I don't see why not.

I've been using Evinrude/Johnson Super Premium in my '03 F-150 as it carries TC-W3RL approval.

Let us know how it works out for you.


Sorry to be naive, but what does the "RL" part of that mean? I believe what I bought is just tc-w3, not tc-w3rl. Is there a difference?

P.S. Nice to see someone on here with the same Gen of F-150 as me. What oil do you use in it?
Posted by: Ramblejam

Re: Upper cylinder lube vs. oil additives - 01/30/14 03:17 PM

Originally Posted By: Triton_330
Sorry to be naive, but what does the "RL" part of that mean? I believe what I bought is just tc-w3, not tc-w3rl. Is there a difference?

P.S. Nice to see someone on here with the same Gen of F-150 as me. What oil do you use in it?


RL certification is supposedly the latest & greatest when it comes to TC-W3 oils -- Evinrude specifically states that if their XD100 oil (100:1 ratio) is unavailable, an RL product is to be used. Looking at ad copy alone: "It is certified RL which means it has high film strength for improved lubricity that results in increased engine efficiency, reduced bearing wear and cleaner emissions with less smoke."

Of course, if you browse over to the NMMA site, every single oil listed carries an RL number, so who knows: http://www.nmma.org/assets/cabinets/Cabinet456/2013%20TC-W3.pdf

As for the F-150, I've been running Mobil 1 High Mileage 5w-20 with a Motorcraft FL-820S.
Posted by: demarpaint

Re: Upper cylinder lube vs. oil additives - 01/30/14 03:39 PM

Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Originally Posted By: Triton_330

Is the Quicksilver tcw3 good?


It sure is, you can also use a less expensive TCW3 oil if you'd like. I bought Pennzoil's version for about $10 a gallon on some sort of closeout a few years ago. You can also use Supertech TCW3 if there's a Walmart near you.


Yeah but that st stuff stinks, literally.

Made that mistake, thought I was slick buying cheapo ST oil to use as an additive, couldn't get past the odor!


LOL Honestly the smell doesn't bother me, but then again I've been using up my stash of the $10/gallon Pennzoil TCW3 I bought.
Posted by: Triton_330

Re: Upper cylinder lube vs. oil additives - 01/30/14 04:06 PM

Originally Posted By: Ramblejam

RL certification is supposedly the latest & greatest when it comes to TC-W3 oils -- Evinrude specifically states that if their XD100 oil (100:1 ratio) is unavailable, an RL product is to be used. Looking at ad copy alone: "It is certified RL which means it has high film strength for improved lubricity that results in increased engine efficiency, reduced bearing wear and cleaner emissions with less smoke."

Of course, if you browse over to the NMMA site, every single oil listed carries an RL number, so who knows: http://www.nmma.org/assets/cabinets/Cabinet456/2013%20TC-W3.pdf

As for the F-150, I've been running Mobil 1 High Mileage 5w-20 with a Motorcraft FL-820S.


Well shoot, that's kind of confusing. It lists ALL of them as RL's...

It seems to me that it might just be the next gen API spec - like how tc-w2 went to tc-w3. But I could've sworn the bottle I bought only said tc-w3 and didn't say RL, but yet on that list it has the RL. Either way, even if what I bought isn't RL spec (which it could well be), it's not like the tc-w3 non-RL is going to hurt anything. Right?

As for our trucks, one thing I've always wondered is if there really is that big of a deal between running 5w-20 and 5w-30. We have the 2V version, and AFAIK, that (our) generation of F-150 didn't have the ticking problems that the next gen (the 3V) had. I read somewhere that, if not for CAFE (etc.), then the 97-03 F-150s would have been spec'd for 5w-30. There's been some debate on whether or not there was any change in tolerance between 2V and 3V, but honestly, I don't really care. I run 5w-30 and my 2V Triton has never given me troubles. I just wonder, after using 5w-30 for a while, if I could still put in 5w-20 if I wanted to.
Posted by: Clevy

Re: Upper cylinder lube vs. oil additives - 01/30/14 04:57 PM

Originally Posted By: Triton_330
Originally Posted By: Clevy

Actually the Lucas upper cylinder lube contains pib,and pib will improve gas mileage by helping fuel burn more completely.
There's lots of info on pib and fuel efficiency,google should bring something up for you.
As far as the cats are concerned tc-w3 shouldn't affect them at all because it's ashless and leaves no residue behind,right?
I use tc-w3 in every fuel burning machine I own,including my zoomboom and everything I use it in runs better with it.
Probably subjective but for the pennies it costs to dose I'm gonna keep on keeping on.


So, I took your advice and went out and bought some tcw3. Where I am right now it's cold... My face went numb just walking to my truck out in the parking lot... So I also bought some MMO for my oil haha. I tell you what, I can't stand Ford's dummy oil pressure gauge. Scares me when it shows no pressure, but then I remember that if its below something like 10, (or was is 5?) psi it just won't read anything. So I'm hoping the MMO will thin my oil enough to help me out on cold starts.
As for the tcw3, I bought the Quicksilver Premium Plus 2-Cycle Outboard Oil... Havn't used it yet since I had previously already had MMO in the tank, still about 3/4 a tank, so I'm gonna wait til the next fill up. Is the Quicksilver tcw3 good?
as far as using mmo to thin your oil I've never,ever recommended it for that to anyone for that purpose.
I have recommended it for engines that may have deposits forming though.
And I'm using mmo in my inverse oiler on my charger.
I use a frankenbrew of either acetone/xylene/toluene and the cheapest tc-w3 I can find off the shelf.
Tc-w3 is a spec so all oils that meet it should perform exactly the same. And let's be honest,1 ounce per 5 gallons of fuel isn't a whole lot so any potential benefits aren't going to be seen right away.
Over time using it could lead to keeping the entire fuel system clean,the injectors maintaining the proper spray pattern for longer,on port injection designs the intake valve remains spotless and that minute leftover layer of oil may help seal the valve which means less potential compression loss.
My 99 chev Z-71 had a whiny fuel pump. Using tc-w3 stopped the whining.
I can't say whether tc-w3 will help on the exhaust side as far as valve cleaning or not.
I use the stuff in everything and have for years. Whenever I take something apart the fuel system is always perfect.
The carbs on my air compressors and generators never have little leaks where the ethanol has eaten away at it. They start easy,first pull most times. There's no cats to foul. They never have carb issues unless I've somehow done something.
I'm know millions of vehicles drive all their miles with just fuel in the tank and they ran great and I'm happy for those drivers however I figure for the pennies it costs to use I might as well.
I feel over time engine lose that little bit of responsiveness that new vehicles have. I feel that using tc-w3 may help keep that like new pep for longer.
I do piston/intake soak with mmo too every 20k too. Pour a whole bottle in the intake line so it completely soaks the intake tract,intake valves,piston crowns and the exhaust valve. I pour it fast so it stalls the engine then give it 20 minutes to soak,half hour if its the first time.
If you think sea foam puts on a smoke show its got nothin on mmo.
I then take the vehicle out for a spirited drive getting the rpm up high enough to suck all the mmo through,and in high gear at low rpm and full throttle to really expand the ring packs against the cylinder walls helping break loose deposits and re-creating that positive seal,which can. Cause oil consumption over time.
These little things rob the instant responsiveness from an engine.
PEA is great stuff for helping remove carbon deposits from the combustion chambers and the exhaust valve. It seems to be able to scrub carbon after being burned,or so it seems.
Anyways be sure to update with any observations. I'm interested in your results,and if any are noticeable.
Posted by: 147_Grain

Re: Upper cylinder lube vs. oil additives - 01/30/14 05:10 PM

Clevy:

What type or style of inverse oiler are you using? Pics would be helpful (if available).
Posted by: Clevy

Re: Upper cylinder lube vs. oil additives - 01/30/14 05:18 PM

Originally Posted By: Triton_330
Originally Posted By: Ramblejam

RL certification is supposedly the latest & greatest when it comes to TC-W3 oils -- Evinrude specifically states that if their XD100 oil (100:1 ratio) is unavailable, an RL product is to be used. Looking at ad copy alone: "It is certified RL which means it has high film strength for improved lubricity that results in increased engine efficiency, reduced bearing wear and cleaner emissions with less smoke."

Of course, if you browse over to the NMMA site, every single oil listed carries an RL number, so who knows: http://www.nmma.org/assets/cabinets/Cabinet456/2013%20TC-W3.pdf

As for the F-150, I've been running Mobil 1 High Mileage 5w-20 with a Motorcraft FL-820S.


Well shoot, that's kind of confusing. It lists ALL of them as RL's...

It seems to me that it might just be the next gen API spec - like how tc-w2 went to tc-w3. But I could've sworn the bottle I bought only said tc-w3 and didn't say RL, but yet on that list it has the RL. Either way, even if what I bought isn't RL spec (which it could well be), it's not like the tc-w3 non-RL is going to hurt anything. Right?

As for our trucks, one thing I've always wondered is if there really is that big of a deal between running 5w-20 and 5w-30. We have the 2V version, and AFAIK, that (our) generation of F-150 didn't have the ticking problems that the next gen (the 3V) had. I read somewhere that, if not for CAFE (etc.), then the 97-03 F-150s would have been spec'd for 5w-30. There's been some debate on whether or not there was any change in tolerance between 2V and 3V, but honestly, I don't really care. I run 5w-30 and my 2V Triton has never given me troubles. I just wonder, after using 5w-30 for a while, if I could still put in 5w-20 if I wanted to.


And the clearances never changed on the early 4.6 npi head engines to the pi head Romeo engines that went in vehicles until the end of 2000.
In 2001 the power trains started coming from Romeo instead of Windsor and even though they were both 4.6 litre sohc engines there were differences and parts weren't interchangeable between the Windsor and Romeo engines either which for hot rodders sucked because it cut the available parts pool in half.
But with all the changes between the 2000 and 2001 engines their clearances never changed appreciably.
I think it was 2001 when the 20 grade back-spec came out for ford. My oil oil cap said 5w-30 however that may have just been a cap that got mixed up with another.
I thought there was some big conspiracy and so on. I read the cafe requirement and read all the "is my engine going to dissolve threads" along with the comments insisting the "tighter tolerances" were the reason for the change,yet the year prior to the back-spec no new engines were introduced and yes the "tolerances" may have increased but the clearances were the same,and the clearances are what matter,and what get specified.
And to throw a monkey wrench in the thin oil conspiracy the engines using 20 grades were living just as long as their thick oil predecessors.which kinda kyboshed the wearing out faster conspiracy idea.
Posted by: Triton_330

Re: Upper cylinder lube vs. oil additives - 01/30/14 05:35 PM

Originally Posted By: Clevy
as far as using mmo to thin your oil I've never,ever recommended it for that to anyone for that purpose.
I have recommended it for engines that may have deposits forming though.
And I'm using mmo in my inverse oiler on my charger.


Yah, I know that using it to thin the oil isn't really what it's supposed to be used for, but I only put in a pint... My F-150 has the notorious dummy oil pressure gauge that will show no pressure if the psi goes under like 5 or 10 psi (can't remember which one it is for sure). When I went to start up my truck to go to Walmart (thus before adding MMO), the pressure gauge read as no pressure for a long time before finally reading normal about halfway to Walmart. (My campus is only 2.1 miles away from Walmart, so that's basically a mile before it read normal). But, since I probably only have 1000 miles left on my OCI, I'm not too worried about the MMO. It'll clean up my oil, and help with cold starts for a while, but I assume that after a while it'll just vaporize off after driving on the highway enough. Sorry to use it in the way it wasn't intended, but I really don't think a pint of MMO for just 1k left on my OCI will hurt anything.

Originally Posted By: Clevy

If you think sea foam puts on a smoke show its got nothin on mmo.


LOL yah I know. I agree, sea foam's got nothing on MMO. I don't ever really use sea foam anyway.

Originally Posted By: Clevy

PEA is great stuff for helping remove carbon deposits from the combustion chambers and the exhaust valve. It seems to be able to scrub carbon after being burned,or so it seems.


My truck doesn't really have any problems with deposits AFAIK. I just put MMO in the tank sometimes because at home all I have is Casey's gas... I'll just leave it at that haha. But, what would you say about MMO vs, say, lucas fuel additive? In my mind, I don't think I really need the lucas stuff (or any PEA), but if there were more benefits from a PEA than you've stated so far, I might use one every once in a while.

Originally Posted By: Clevy

Anyways be sure to update with any observations. I'm interested in your results,and if any are noticeable.


I intend on going home this weekend, so once I use up the fuel I have now (that I added MMO to), I will use the tc-w3 when I fill back up. (I'm in college - my home is about 1.5 hours away from campus, so I think I should be able to use enough of the fuel to be able to fill up and put in the tc-w3 for the ride back to campus). Would you rather me post the results in this thread, or just send you a PM, Clevy? I'd be fine doing either one. It'll likely be Sunday or Monday when I report back about it.
Posted by: Triton_330

Re: Upper cylinder lube vs. oil additives - 01/30/14 05:46 PM

Originally Posted By: Clevy

And the clearances never changed on the early 4.6 npi head engines to the pi head Romeo engines that went in vehicles until the end of 2000.
In 2001 the power trains started coming from Romeo instead of Windsor and even though they were both 4.6 litre sohc engines there were differences and parts weren't interchangeable between the Windsor and Romeo engines either which for hot rodders sucked because it cut the available parts pool in half.
But with all the changes between the 2000 and 2001 engines their clearances never changed appreciably.
I think it was 2001 when the 20 grade back-spec came out for ford. My oil oil cap said 5w-30 however that may have just been a cap that got mixed up with another.
I thought there was some big conspiracy and so on. I read the cafe requirement and read all the "is my engine going to dissolve threads" along with the comments insisting the "tighter tolerances" were the reason for the change,yet the year prior to the back-spec no new engines were introduced and yes the "tolerances" may have increased but the clearances were the same,and the clearances are what matter,and what get specified.
And to throw a monkey wrench in the thin oil conspiracy the engines using 20 grades were living just as long as their thick oil predecessors.which kinda kyboshed the wearing out faster conspiracy idea.


Well, just to clarify, my 2001 F-150 has the 5.4L Triton. And, on the inside of my door, on the door sticker, it says Windsor right on it. So, I'm not sure what differences there were between the 4.6 and the 5.4... As for the whole debate on the oil grades, I agree about the fact that there are Tritons running both grades, and that they've all lasted the same amount. I have to admit, I got my truck before I was a BITOGer, and had the mindset to run 5w-30, so I did. When became a BITOGer, I had already gotten into the habit of using 5w-30 in my truck and, well, to be totally honest, I guess I just wasn't sure if switching back to 5w-20 would be ok after having used 5w-30 for the time that I did. I mean, being the humble person that I am, I admit that I still am kind of naive sometimes. Do you think it'd be okay for me to switch back to 5w-20 for my next oil change? Or should I just continue running 5w-30. (Or, does it really even matter either way?)
Posted by: Ramblejam

Re: Upper cylinder lube vs. oil additives - 01/30/14 06:19 PM

Originally Posted By: Triton_330
it's not like the tc-w3 non-RL is going to hurt anything. Right?


Correct.

Originally Posted By: Triton_330
As for our trucks, one thing I've always wondered is if there really is that big of a deal between running 5w-20 and 5w-30. We have the 2V version, and AFAIK, that (our) generation of F-150 didn't have the ticking problems that the next gen (the 3V) had. I read somewhere that, if not for CAFE (etc.), then the 97-03 F-150s would have been spec'd for 5w-30. There's been some debate on whether or not there was any change in tolerance between 2V and 3V, but honestly, I don't really care. I run 5w-30 and my 2V Triton has never given me troubles. I just wonder, after using 5w-30 for a while, if I could still put in 5w-20 if I wanted to.


5w-20 vs. 5w-30 was, and is, blown way out of proportion.

Personally, I subscribe to the "thin as possible, thick as necessary" mindset when it comes to selecting an oil. With the 5.4L timing chain/tensioner setup, OHC, and high pressure system, I've found a 5w-20 (notably, Mobil 1 High Mileage) to work very well, delivering exceptional cold starts, but also minimal usage and quiet operation at the other end of the temperature spectrum.

Originally Posted By: Triton_330
My F-150 has the notorious dummy oil pressure gauge that will show no pressure if the psi goes under like 5 or 10 psi (can't remember which one it is for sure). When I went to start up my truck to go to Walmart (thus before adding MMO), the pressure gauge read as no pressure for a long time before finally reading normal about halfway to Walmart.


I don't understand -- you have no oil pressure on cold start?

Originally Posted By: Triton_330
But, what would you say about MMO vs, say, lucas fuel additive?


I've ran a couple treatments of Regane High Mileage (PEA cleaner, with a couple of bottles in each tank, so four bottles total) back-to-back, along with a good cleaning of the throttle body (with the appropriate throttle body/air intake cleaner, such as the CRC product I used). Combine that with continued usage of TC-W3, and I'm good to go.
Posted by: Triton_330

Re: Upper cylinder lube vs. oil additives - 01/30/14 07:43 PM

Originally Posted By: Ramblejam

Originally Posted By: Triton_330
My F-150 has the notorious dummy oil pressure gauge that will show no pressure if the psi goes under like 5 or 10 psi (can't remember which one it is for sure). When I went to start up my truck to go to Walmart (thus before adding MMO), the pressure gauge read as no pressure for a long time before finally reading normal about halfway to Walmart.


I don't understand -- you have no oil pressure on cold start?


I do have oil pressure, but it is low, and the gauges won't actually display the true psi level (just the Low to High range), and if the psi is like under 10, it just displays as not having any, even though it really does still have oil pressure.

UNLESS... Do you think that there actually is something wrong? The cold start this occurred in was when the outside temp was 20*F with a windchill of like zero. The oil in my truck now is Kendall GT-1 semi-syn 5w-30.

When I start[ed] my truck, the gauge fluctuated between showing normal pressure (half-way-ish between H and L) and then drop to no reading on L. It's like this: I've never seen the pressure read as 1/4 --- it's pretty much either at half-way (normal), or none. I don't know why it does this. It won't display having 1/4 pressure (like, if L=0 and H=1). As soon as the temp gauge reads above C (Cold) by just a little bit, the pressure gauge reads normal for the remainder of operation.


Originally Posted By: Ramblejam

I've ran a couple treatments of Regane High Mileage (PEA cleaner, with a couple of bottles in each tank, so four bottles total), along with a good cleaning of the throttle body (with the appropriate throttle body/air intake cleaner, such as the CRC product I used). Combine that with continued usage of TC-W3, and I'm good to go.


Ok, so, does this PEA have any other benefits than just cleaning, or does it also act as a UCL?
I'm just not sure that I really need the PEA since I will be using the tc-w3 and MMO in my gas. Obviously, the tc-w3 acts as a UCL, and the MMO helps with cleaning (and probably helps a little with fuel stabilization, right?). Does the PEA offer something that using tc-w3 and MMO doesn't offer?
Posted by: Clevy

Re: Upper cylinder lube vs. oil additives - 01/30/14 07:52 PM

Triton.
I don't think PEA has any lubricating effects.
Posted by: Triton_330

Re: Upper cylinder lube vs. oil additives - 01/30/14 07:53 PM

Originally Posted By: Clevy
Triton.
I don't think PEA has any lubricating effects.


Thanks Clevy. I think, then, it'd be alright for me to just stick with using MMO and tc-w3, right?
Posted by: Ramblejam

Re: Upper cylinder lube vs. oil additives - 01/30/14 08:01 PM

Originally Posted By: Triton_330
I do have oil pressure, but it is low


How do you know you have low oil pressure? Have you actually hooked up a mechanical gauge to test, or relying upon what you have to make an assessment?
Posted by: Clevy

Re: Upper cylinder lube vs. oil additives - 01/30/14 08:01 PM

Triton.
I don't think PEA has any lubricating effects.

PEA is a proven product for cleaning combustion chamber deposits,I don't know that either mmo or tc-w3 have that property and clean when burned.
Tc-w3 and mmo will basically do the same thing in a nutshell and to be honest mixing a fuel additive that contains pea with tc-w3 would accomplish a few things,a multi-purpose additive.
I have been experimenting lately with the prestone line of fuel additives. The labels claim amines in the products.
I mixed a bottle of their fuel system/octane booster with some motomaster tc-w3 and added it to this latest fill up today.
I can't say I notice anything different.
I've got mmo in an inverse oiler on my charger.
Its funny. When that inverse oiler gets completely drained I can feel slightly less pep in the pedal when operating at light pedal pressures. It's almost like the engine has just that bit more "snap" with mmo in the inverse oiler.
I've used a bunch of different stuff in my inverse oiler too. I think they would be ideal for a direct injection engine. Never again paying for manual cleaning valves.
Posted by: Ramblejam

Re: Upper cylinder lube vs. oil additives - 01/30/14 09:04 PM

Originally Posted By: Triton_330
UNLESS... Do you think that there actually is something wrong?


Obviously, something isn't right. I'm assuming there are no apparent issues indicating low oil pressure, and this is solely a sender/gauge issue.

Originally Posted By: Triton_330
Does the PEA offer something that using tc-w3 and MMO doesn't offer?


Documented proof of efficacy. http://www.redlineoil.com/content/files/tech/S1-1%20Tech%20Info.pdf

The idea here is to use a PEA-based product to get everything clean, and then use TC-W3 which should keep new deposits from forming, while offering the benefit of fuel system lubrication.
Posted by: Triton_330

Re: Upper cylinder lube vs. oil additives - 01/30/14 09:52 PM

Originally Posted By: Ramblejam

How do you know you have low oil pressure? Have you actually hooked up a mechanical gauge to test, or relying upon what you have to make an assessment?


Well, I'd assume if it didn't have pressure, I would be able to hear/feel/realize that my truck is running badly. But, it was running seemingly fine, no oddball noises, normal throttle response, etc... I don't think I'd have been able to drive a mile without incidence if there was a serious lack of pressure.

Originally Posted By: Ramblejam
Originally Posted By: Triton_330
UNLESS... Do you think that there actually is something wrong?


Obviously, something isn't right. I'm assuming there are no apparent issues indicating low oil pressure, and this is solely a sender/gauge issue.


So, if this is true - that it's a sender/guage issue - need I worry? Or not?

Originally Posted By: Ramblejam


Documented proof of efficacy. http://www.redlineoil.com/content/files/tech/S1-1%20Tech%20Info.pdf

The idea here is to use a PEA-based product to get everything clean, and then use TC-W3 which should keep new deposits from forming, while offering the benefit of fuel system lubrication.


Hmmm... Well, I will use it sometime just to see what happens. I don't doubt it works, as a simple glance at the link was enough, but MMO is cheaper ounce per ounce. But, like I said, sometime in the future I'll run some, in combo with the tc-w3.

Originally Posted By: Clevy

PEA is a proven product for cleaning combustion chamber deposits,I don't know that either mmo or tc-w3 have that property and clean when burned.
Tc-w3 and mmo will basically do the same thing in a nutshell and to be honest mixing a fuel additive that contains pea with tc-w3 would accomplish a few things,a multi-purpose additive.
The labels claim amines in the products.
I mixed a bottle of their fuel system/octane booster with some motomaster tc-w3 and added it to this latest fill up today.
I can't say I notice anything different.
I've got mmo in an inverse oiler on my charger.
Its funny. When that inverse oiler gets completely drained I can feel slightly less pep in the pedal when operating at light pedal pressures. It's almost like the engine has just that bit more "snap" with mmo in the inverse oiler.


Like I said, I do believe that it works... but what are amines? And as for your inverse oiler --- So, you run all 3 (PEA, tc-w3, and MMO) at once? I wouldn't mind trying that, but TBH, I really don't have the money for doing it habitually. I mean, haha, I'm in college.
Posted by: Ramblejam

Re: Upper cylinder lube vs. oil additives - 01/30/14 10:39 PM

Originally Posted By: Triton_330
So, if this is true - that it's a sender/guage issue - need I worry? Or not?


It's not exactly ideal, is it.

Originally Posted By: Triton_330
but MMO is cheaper ounce per ounce.


I'd certainly hope so. Have you bothered taking a look at the MSDS for MMO? Remember as well that the PEA product isn't for continual usage in this application, but solely to get everything clean (as a good starting point).

With that said, don't get carried away with additives -- spend time making sure all the various vehicle systems/components have been serviced and are operating properly.
Posted by: Triton_330

Re: Upper cylinder lube vs. oil additives - 01/30/14 11:35 PM

Originally Posted By: Ramblejam
Originally Posted By: Triton_330
So, if this is true - that it's a sender/guage issue - need I worry? Or not?


It's not exactly ideal, is it.

Originally Posted By: Triton_330
but MMO is cheaper ounce per ounce.


I'd certainly hope so. Have you bothered taking a look at the MSDS for MMO? Remember as well that the PEA product isn't for continual usage in this application, but solely to get everything clean (as a good starting point).

With that said, don't get carried away with additives -- spend time making sure all the various vehicle systems/components have been serviced and are operating properly.


Oh dear... believe me, if my truck was having problems I'd know it. It could well just be the blistering cold. I never have any oil pressure warnings during the spring, summer, or fall - but in the winter if it gets cold enough, then I would expect the blood (oil) to be a little thick, no? So, I am not worried by it.

And when did I ever give the implication that I was going to get carried away with additives? I'm not. I don't have the money to do it in the first place even if I wanted to (but I don't want to).

As for spending time making sure everything is serviced and whatnot... I am constantly doing that. Both out of OCD, and because I'm a gearhead and I just like doing it.

So, no worries on any of the above.

Anyway - yes, I have seen MMO's MSDS. I know that the PEA is stronger, better stuff, but I have experience with MMO and I trust it. What are all the brands of PEAs out there? As far as some quick googling has showed me, it seems like Gumout, STP, Lucas, Star Tron, Techron, Bardahl, Amsoil, Redline, and even Valvoline all offer a fuel additive with PEA in it. I'd bet there's even more than that, too. So, following that, it seems like there's quite a few options to choose from when buying some PEA...
Posted by: dave5358

Re: Upper cylinder lube vs. oil additives - 01/31/14 08:51 AM

Originally Posted By: Clevy
I've got mmo in an inverse oiler on my charger.
Its funny. When that inverse oiler gets completely drained I can feel slightly less pep in the pedal when operating at light pedal pressures. It's almost like the engine has just that bit more "snap" with mmo in the inverse oiler.

It's not a good idea to leave it drained. It wears the metering seat in the oiler and disturbs the engine vacuum (as in 'leak'). If you are out of MMO or whatever, then disconnect the oiler and plug the hose to the engine.
Posted by: 147_Grain

Re: Upper cylinder lube vs. oil additives - 01/31/14 08:55 AM

Originally Posted By: 147_Grain
Clevy:

What type or style of inverse oiler are you using? Pics would be helpful (if available).


+1
Posted by: Clevy

Re: Upper cylinder lube vs. oil additives - 01/31/14 09:05 AM

Originally Posted By: dave5358
Originally Posted By: Clevy
I've got mmo in an inverse oiler on my charger.
Its funny. When that inverse oiler gets completely drained I can feel slightly less pep in the pedal when operating at light pedal pressures. It's almost like the engine has just that bit more "snap" with mmo in the inverse oiler.

It's not a good idea to leave it drained. It wears the metering seat in the oiler and disturbs the engine vacuum (as in 'leak'). If you are out of MMO or whatever, then disconnect the oiler and plug the hose to the engine.[/


I've learned to fill it every 2 weeks. At that point there's maybe 1/2 quart left in the tank. It holds 2 quarts.

Originally Posted By: 147_Grain
[quote=147_Grain]Clevy:

What type or style of inverse oiler are you using? Pics would be helpful (if available).


+1


I don't know how to posts pics here but if you inbox me your email addy I can snap a pic and send it to you.
Posted by: dave5358

Re: Upper cylinder lube vs. oil additives - 01/31/14 09:21 AM

Originally Posted By: Clevy
I've learned to fill it every 2 weeks. At that point there's maybe 1/2 quart left in the tank. It holds 2 quarts.


Originally Posted By: 147_Grain
Clevy:

What type or style of inverse oiler are you using? Pics would be helpful (if available).


Originally Posted By: Clevy
I don't know how to posts pics here but if you inbox me your email addy I can snap a pic and send it to you.


If it holds two quarts, you're using a model TU:

Posted by: Triton_330

Re: Upper cylinder lube vs. oil additives - 01/31/14 04:52 PM

Originally Posted By: Triton_330

I intend on going home this weekend, so once I use up the fuel I have now (that I added MMO to), I will use the tc-w3 when I fill back up. (I'm in college - my home is about 1.5 hours away from campus, so I think I should be able to use enough of the fuel to be able to fill up and put in the tc-w3 for the ride back to campus). Would you rather me post the results in this thread, or just send you a PM, Clevy? I'd be fine doing either one. It'll likely be Sunday or Monday when I report back about it.


Well, bad news... Weather strikes again, and I am not able to go home this weekend. It has snowed and sleeted at a minimum of 2 inches in some areas, and a maximum of 8 inches in the areas between my campus and my home. Add to that the fact that I'm 67 miles away from home, I'm not about to risk it. Especially when considering the ESDA (I have a free text msg subscription to my local ESDA) sends a text saying that travel is hazardous and is not advised. I will have to wait to tell you guys my results with the quicksilver tc-w3 until I'm able to get on the roads long enough for anything to report.
Posted by: demarpaint

Re: Upper cylinder lube vs. oil additives - 02/01/14 12:59 PM

Originally Posted By: dave5358
Originally Posted By: Clevy
I've learned to fill it every 2 weeks. At that point there's maybe 1/2 quart left in the tank. It holds 2 quarts.


Originally Posted By: 147_Grain
Clevy:

What type or style of inverse oiler are you using? Pics would be helpful (if available).


Originally Posted By: Clevy
I don't know how to posts pics here but if you inbox me your email addy I can snap a pic and send it to you.


If it holds two quarts, you're using a model TU:





I have two of these, one is currently not in use but will be soon. I've had them since about 1984 and never had a problem with either one of them.