adding a few oz's of diesel fuel to a gas engine
- Thread starter pbm
- Start date
- Status
ULSD doesn't offer much lubricity. If you're looking for an upper cylinder lubricant, you're definitely better off with TCW3 or MMO.
That said, I've put up to a gallon of diesel plus enough gas to fill the tank into my Cobalt with no noticeable effects. Why? For science.
That said, I've put up to a gallon of diesel plus enough gas to fill the tank into my Cobalt with no noticeable effects. Why? For science.
Some of the V6 daily drivers are so compack that it requires that intake manifolds must be removed to change spark plugs
for $400. So much for the advantage of the sideways engine location.
for $400. So much for the advantage of the sideways engine location.
Only if you believe in those anecdotal posts here on BITOG.
I never believe in the claims/benefits of UCL, lubricating fuel pumps, etc. citing that if that is indeed the case/truth (RE: the need of UCL properties or lubrication to fuel pumps in general), then all the E-85 flex fuel vehicles sold during the past many years would have suffered from catastrophic mechanical failures already, from either repeatedly burned out fuel pumps, upper compression rings worn out (dramatic loss in compression, oil burning, etc.) or both.
I never add anything that claimed to have UCL properties or lubricates fuel pumps in all of the vehicles I own/owned or serviced. Never seen one failed yet...
Q.
I never believe in the claims/benefits of UCL, lubricating fuel pumps, etc. citing that if that is indeed the case/truth (RE: the need of UCL properties or lubrication to fuel pumps in general), then all the E-85 flex fuel vehicles sold during the past many years would have suffered from catastrophic mechanical failures already, from either repeatedly burned out fuel pumps, upper compression rings worn out (dramatic loss in compression, oil burning, etc.) or both.
I never add anything that claimed to have UCL properties or lubricates fuel pumps in all of the vehicles I own/owned or serviced. Never seen one failed yet...
Q.
Why do you feel the need to add anything to gas except Techron once or twice a year?
Originally Posted By: Quest
Only if you believe in those anecdotal posts here on BITOG.
I never believe in the claims/benefits of UCL, lubricating fuel pumps, etc. citing that if that is indeed the case/truth (RE: the need of UCL properties or lubrication to fuel pumps in general), then all the E-85 flex fuel vehicles sold during the past many years would have suffered from catastrophic mechanical failures already, from either repeatedly burned out fuel pumps, upper compression rings worn out (dramatic loss in compression, oil burning, etc.) or both.
I never add anything that claimed to have UCL properties or lubricates fuel pumps in all of the vehicles I own/owned or serviced. Never seen one failed yet...
Q.
The e-85 comment is certainly interesting.
Does anyone here run e-85 100% of the time?
As far as diesel adding lubricity I doubt it. As far as an upper cylinder lube being beneficial I've had pre-95 vehicles that seemed to get better mileage with Lucas fuel treatment and newer vehicles that tc-w3 and Lucas fuel treatment did nothing for in the fuel economy department.
Over hundreds of thousands of miles there may be a benefit,and I use tc-w3 in every tank of fuel hoping that there is some benefit. I'm sure at my treat rate its not hurting at all and its cheap enough for me not to worry a whole lot about the cost.
Quest does make a good point about e-85 however I don't know anyone who uses the stuff.
Only if you believe in those anecdotal posts here on BITOG.
I never believe in the claims/benefits of UCL, lubricating fuel pumps, etc. citing that if that is indeed the case/truth (RE: the need of UCL properties or lubrication to fuel pumps in general), then all the E-85 flex fuel vehicles sold during the past many years would have suffered from catastrophic mechanical failures already, from either repeatedly burned out fuel pumps, upper compression rings worn out (dramatic loss in compression, oil burning, etc.) or both.
I never add anything that claimed to have UCL properties or lubricates fuel pumps in all of the vehicles I own/owned or serviced. Never seen one failed yet...
Q.
The e-85 comment is certainly interesting.
Does anyone here run e-85 100% of the time?
As far as diesel adding lubricity I doubt it. As far as an upper cylinder lube being beneficial I've had pre-95 vehicles that seemed to get better mileage with Lucas fuel treatment and newer vehicles that tc-w3 and Lucas fuel treatment did nothing for in the fuel economy department.
Over hundreds of thousands of miles there may be a benefit,and I use tc-w3 in every tank of fuel hoping that there is some benefit. I'm sure at my treat rate its not hurting at all and its cheap enough for me not to worry a whole lot about the cost.
Quest does make a good point about e-85 however I don't know anyone who uses the stuff.
Originally Posted By: Quest
Only if you believe in those anecdotal posts here on BITOG.
Almost everything posted on BITOG is anecdotal. So, why do you even follow the forum?
BTW, have you ever used an upper cylinder lubricant?
Originally Posted By: Quest
I never believe in the claims/benefits of UCL, lubricating fuel pumps, etc. citing that if that is indeed the case/truth (RE: the need of UCL properties or lubrication to fuel pumps in general), then all the E-85 flex fuel vehicles sold during the past many years would have suffered from catastrophic mechanical failures already, from either repeatedly burned out fuel pumps, upper compression rings worn out (dramatic loss in compression, oil burning, etc.) or both.
Turn the calendar back a few decades. Lead in gasoline helped lubricate the valves and upper engine. Unleaded gasoline does not have this benefit. In the first few years of the 'unleaded era', there were plenty of engine problems. Eventually, the car makers got things sorted out.
Even before this, remember the era of smog pumps - a truly bad idea in automotive engineering. It was a quick fix to an environmental issue which caused all sorts of side issues, like burned valves, failed rings, etc.
As for E-85 flex fuel vehicles, I suspect more than a few of the early models had serious engine lubrication or premature wear issues. You may believe the car makers got it right the first time, but I wouldn't hold my breath. And, if we should switch to LPG/CNG for motor fuel, expect a whole new set of lubrication/wear issues.
Originally Posted By: Quest
I never add anything that claimed to have UCL properties or lubricates fuel pumps in all of the vehicles I own/owned or serviced. Never seen one failed yet...
Most vehicles should run okay without the addition of some UCL product. That does not mean that they might not run better or last longer if a UCL was added. Here's an MMO story that you are welcome to dismiss as an anecdote:
Many years ago, a part-time Army job took me by several area high schools with auto tech shops. At the time, I was driving a 1972 MGB-GT - straight-4 cast-iron OHV engine, upright, very accessible spark plugs. I had a Marvel inverse oiler mounted in the vehicle that was putting MMO into the engine at the rate of ~1 quart per 1000 miles (works out to ~1 quart per 40 gallons of fuel). The hose from the oiler (1/4" reinforced fuel line) went to a Tee - then down into the intake streams, just behind two side-draft SU carburetors. Typical engine cylinder pressures were in the ~165-170 psi range.
On several occasions, one shop teacher (who knew about MMO and inverse oilers!) demonstrated the following to his class: You could measure the engine compression. Next, you could block the oiler (pinch the hose - see that it stopped dripping). Drive the vehicle around the block. Measure engine compression again and it would drop ~6 pounds per cylinder. Finally, you could reverse these steps: unblock the oiler hose, drive the vehicle around the block again, measure the cylinder pressures again and they would be up again. If you work through the numbers, the increased cylinder pressures simply meant more power or greater efficiency. It also stopped valve burning.
The MGB-GT originally came with a smog pump (a truly bad idea) and it had a voracious appetite for exhaust valves - which is why I put an inverse oiler on in the first place. A grizzled old machinest in Sparta, Wisconsin knew about oilers and, after rebuilding my cylinder head at 20,000 miles, said that I really needed one. He was right, for more reasons than he knew. Clearly, another fix for the valve problem would have been to install better valves - a better grade of austenitic steel, nimonic or nimonic-80, titanium or sodium cooled. In fact, Leyland did upgrade their valve material by 1975 or so.
Upper cylinder lubrication was simply a solution to a known wear problem with L-head and flat-head engines. It worked. That's why the MMO folks have been in business since 1923. You're welcome to not 'believe' in UCL... and you are also welcome to believe the earth is flat.
Only if you believe in those anecdotal posts here on BITOG.
Almost everything posted on BITOG is anecdotal. So, why do you even follow the forum?
BTW, have you ever used an upper cylinder lubricant?
Originally Posted By: Quest
I never believe in the claims/benefits of UCL, lubricating fuel pumps, etc. citing that if that is indeed the case/truth (RE: the need of UCL properties or lubrication to fuel pumps in general), then all the E-85 flex fuel vehicles sold during the past many years would have suffered from catastrophic mechanical failures already, from either repeatedly burned out fuel pumps, upper compression rings worn out (dramatic loss in compression, oil burning, etc.) or both.
Turn the calendar back a few decades. Lead in gasoline helped lubricate the valves and upper engine. Unleaded gasoline does not have this benefit. In the first few years of the 'unleaded era', there were plenty of engine problems. Eventually, the car makers got things sorted out.
Even before this, remember the era of smog pumps - a truly bad idea in automotive engineering. It was a quick fix to an environmental issue which caused all sorts of side issues, like burned valves, failed rings, etc.
As for E-85 flex fuel vehicles, I suspect more than a few of the early models had serious engine lubrication or premature wear issues. You may believe the car makers got it right the first time, but I wouldn't hold my breath. And, if we should switch to LPG/CNG for motor fuel, expect a whole new set of lubrication/wear issues.
Originally Posted By: Quest
I never add anything that claimed to have UCL properties or lubricates fuel pumps in all of the vehicles I own/owned or serviced. Never seen one failed yet...
Most vehicles should run okay without the addition of some UCL product. That does not mean that they might not run better or last longer if a UCL was added. Here's an MMO story that you are welcome to dismiss as an anecdote:
Many years ago, a part-time Army job took me by several area high schools with auto tech shops. At the time, I was driving a 1972 MGB-GT - straight-4 cast-iron OHV engine, upright, very accessible spark plugs. I had a Marvel inverse oiler mounted in the vehicle that was putting MMO into the engine at the rate of ~1 quart per 1000 miles (works out to ~1 quart per 40 gallons of fuel). The hose from the oiler (1/4" reinforced fuel line) went to a Tee - then down into the intake streams, just behind two side-draft SU carburetors. Typical engine cylinder pressures were in the ~165-170 psi range.
On several occasions, one shop teacher (who knew about MMO and inverse oilers!) demonstrated the following to his class: You could measure the engine compression. Next, you could block the oiler (pinch the hose - see that it stopped dripping). Drive the vehicle around the block. Measure engine compression again and it would drop ~6 pounds per cylinder. Finally, you could reverse these steps: unblock the oiler hose, drive the vehicle around the block again, measure the cylinder pressures again and they would be up again. If you work through the numbers, the increased cylinder pressures simply meant more power or greater efficiency. It also stopped valve burning.
The MGB-GT originally came with a smog pump (a truly bad idea) and it had a voracious appetite for exhaust valves - which is why I put an inverse oiler on in the first place. A grizzled old machinest in Sparta, Wisconsin knew about oilers and, after rebuilding my cylinder head at 20,000 miles, said that I really needed one. He was right, for more reasons than he knew. Clearly, another fix for the valve problem would have been to install better valves - a better grade of austenitic steel, nimonic or nimonic-80, titanium or sodium cooled. In fact, Leyland did upgrade their valve material by 1975 or so.
Upper cylinder lubrication was simply a solution to a known wear problem with L-head and flat-head engines. It worked. That's why the MMO folks have been in business since 1923. You're welcome to not 'believe' in UCL... and you are also welcome to believe the earth is flat.
Originally Posted By: Clevy
The e-85 comment is certainly interesting.
Does anyone here run e-85 100% of the time?
Not using it right now, because cost differential is too small, but ran E-85 straight for the last 6 months. Nary a problem. Lots of folks here in central Iowa run E-85 frequently. Have never heard of anyone having any issues. Except for the anti-ethanol crowd that thinks just 1% will destroy an engine.
The e-85 comment is certainly interesting.
Does anyone here run e-85 100% of the time?
Not using it right now, because cost differential is too small, but ran E-85 straight for the last 6 months. Nary a problem. Lots of folks here in central Iowa run E-85 frequently. Have never heard of anyone having any issues. Except for the anti-ethanol crowd that thinks just 1% will destroy an engine.
I run E-85 100% of the time from about March to December here in Iowa...then I switch to E-30 for easier cold starts. My truck has started in the past on below zero morning with E-85...but you could tell it was not happy about it. With E30 on the coldest months it starts easier due to the higher vapor pressure. I also run 5 ounces of TCW3 on every fill up ~24 gallons per fill of a 26 gallon tank.
I definitely would not be adding diesel fuel to gasoline to provide lubricity.... 2T oil would do a better job and is designed for spark-ignited engines. I know that with electronic knock-control, adding diesel fuel may not cause a knock problem... but I have a hard time believing it is a good idea to add straight-chain fuel to gasoline to decrease the octane number.
I've never heard of any issues with "too high" an octane number. Just that you use fuel that has enough compression stability to prevent knock in your engine.
As far as UCL goes - I have not seen much in the way of data either way. I would suspect that UCL could not hurt, and top-dead-center of the stroke is where you get the fastest liner wear (very little oil film and highest contact pressure between liner-ring)
I've never heard of any issues with "too high" an octane number. Just that you use fuel that has enough compression stability to prevent knock in your engine.
As far as UCL goes - I have not seen much in the way of data either way. I would suspect that UCL could not hurt, and top-dead-center of the stroke is where you get the fastest liner wear (very little oil film and highest contact pressure between liner-ring)
Originally Posted By: dave5358
Originally Posted By: Quest
Only if you believe in those anecdotal posts here on BITOG.
That's why the MMO folks have been in business since 1923. You're welcome to not 'believe' in UCL... and you are also welcome to believe the earth is flat.
Nice story telling, BTW.Just your own subjective observation but still short on hard facts (just like the maker of MMO lacks actual research-grade test results to prove their effectiveness anyways)
Say it anyway you want it. Afterall: methinks you are in for the Anecdotal reading here on BITOG, not me.
I share my 2decades+ mech experience with good friends here, and take on the real factual info on BITOG (and learn from it).
I'm not aware of any other industrialised automobile countries outside of US would have actively sell otc additives that claimed UCL benefits to modern IC engines (older, poorly designed/executed engines may benefits from it, more like nursing them engines along just to get by ....)...not in Germany, and certainly not in Japan ( I go to Japan on a regular basis)
My seeing is that eventually, all IC engines will suffer from out-of-taper cylinder wear, compression rings will all wear out leading to lowered compression; all rotational seals will becomes hardened and leaks; all valve stem seals will harden and leak, and when that happens: it's time to get it replaced/serviced.
Q.
Originally Posted By: Quest
Only if you believe in those anecdotal posts here on BITOG.
That's why the MMO folks have been in business since 1923. You're welcome to not 'believe' in UCL... and you are also welcome to believe the earth is flat.
Nice story telling, BTW.Just your own subjective observation but still short on hard facts (just like the maker of MMO lacks actual research-grade test results to prove their effectiveness anyways)
Say it anyway you want it. Afterall: methinks you are in for the Anecdotal reading here on BITOG, not me.
I share my 2decades+ mech experience with good friends here, and take on the real factual info on BITOG (and learn from it).
I'm not aware of any other industrialised automobile countries outside of US would have actively sell otc additives that claimed UCL benefits to modern IC engines (older, poorly designed/executed engines may benefits from it, more like nursing them engines along just to get by ....)...not in Germany, and certainly not in Japan ( I go to Japan on a regular basis)
My seeing is that eventually, all IC engines will suffer from out-of-taper cylinder wear, compression rings will all wear out leading to lowered compression; all rotational seals will becomes hardened and leaks; all valve stem seals will harden and leak, and when that happens: it's time to get it replaced/serviced.
Q.
Originally Posted By: Quest
Originally Posted By: dave5358
Originally Posted By: Quest
Only if you believe in those anecdotal posts here on BITOG.
That's why the MMO folks have been in business since 1923. You're welcome to not 'believe' in UCL... and you are also welcome to believe the earth is flat.
Nice story telling, BTW.Just your own subjective observation but still short on hard facts (just like the maker of MMO lacks actual research-grade test results to prove their effectiveness anyways)
Say it anyway you want it. Afterall: methinks you are in for the Anecdotal reading here on BITOG, not me.
I share my 2decades+ mech experience with good friends here, and take on the real factual info on BITOG (and learn from it).
I'm not aware of any other industrialised automobile countries outside of US would have actively sell otc additives that claimed UCL benefits to modern IC engines (older, poorly designed/executed engines may benefits from it, more like nursing them engines along just to get by ....)...not in Germany, and certainly not in Japan ( I go to Japan on a regular basis)
My seeing is that eventually, all IC engines will suffer from out-of-taper cylinder wear, compression rings will all wear out leading to lowered compression; all rotational seals will becomes hardened and leaks; all valve stem seals will harden and leak, and when that happens: it's time to get it replaced/serviced.
As before, have you ever used an upper cylinder lubricant?
Originally Posted By: dave5358
Originally Posted By: Quest
Only if you believe in those anecdotal posts here on BITOG.
That's why the MMO folks have been in business since 1923. You're welcome to not 'believe' in UCL... and you are also welcome to believe the earth is flat.
Nice story telling, BTW.Just your own subjective observation but still short on hard facts (just like the maker of MMO lacks actual research-grade test results to prove their effectiveness anyways)
Say it anyway you want it. Afterall: methinks you are in for the Anecdotal reading here on BITOG, not me.
I share my 2decades+ mech experience with good friends here, and take on the real factual info on BITOG (and learn from it).
I'm not aware of any other industrialised automobile countries outside of US would have actively sell otc additives that claimed UCL benefits to modern IC engines (older, poorly designed/executed engines may benefits from it, more like nursing them engines along just to get by ....)...not in Germany, and certainly not in Japan ( I go to Japan on a regular basis)
My seeing is that eventually, all IC engines will suffer from out-of-taper cylinder wear, compression rings will all wear out leading to lowered compression; all rotational seals will becomes hardened and leaks; all valve stem seals will harden and leak, and when that happens: it's time to get it replaced/serviced.
As before, have you ever used an upper cylinder lubricant?
Originally Posted By: dave5358
As before, have you ever used an upper cylinder lubricant?
To quell your curiosity: yes, I have used MMO before, and used duralube in gearbox, etc.
I use 2T oil in 2T engines only (which I have a standby portable genset and a scooter).
Q.
As before, have you ever used an upper cylinder lubricant?
To quell your curiosity: yes, I have used MMO before, and used duralube in gearbox, etc.
I use 2T oil in 2T engines only (which I have a standby portable genset and a scooter).
Q.
Originally Posted By: Quest
Originally Posted By: dave5358
As before, have you ever used an upper cylinder lubricant?
To quell your curiosity: yes, I have used MMO before, and used duralube in gearbox, etc.
If you used MMO as a fuel additive (you didn't specify how you used it), then you should have experienced increased cylinder pressures. You could have measured this increase with a compression gauge. I have no thoughts on using MMO as an oil additive - never been there. Per the fine folks at Wikipedia, "[Marvel Mystery Oil as a fuel additive] proved beneficial for engines by creating a top ring seal producing higher compression, preventing blow-by on power strokes, resulting in more power."
I certainly agree that my MGB had an old-design engine. The BMC 'B' engine was designed back in 1937 or 1938, as I recall. That design was still in use through ~1980. Developed 'B' engines have produced upwards of 400 bhp and been used in several land speed record holding vehicles. But the reason my 1972-vintage 'B' engine needed UCL was not old design but rather the smog pump (or inadequate valve material - take your pick). Modern engines, whether from Japan or Germany or wherever, still use valves and still use piston rings, and MMO works just the same in modern engines. On the downside, it is not really cat friendly.
Is it necessary today? Probably not. Will your engine run better with it? Probably so, if your engine still has rings and valves. And, you can measure this improvement - just test the engine compression.
Is MMO cost effective? Probably not, but you could say that for almost all additives - whether fuel or oil variety. Your engine will like it, you'll get a bit more power and your engine will probably run forever.
Originally Posted By: dave5358
As before, have you ever used an upper cylinder lubricant?
To quell your curiosity: yes, I have used MMO before, and used duralube in gearbox, etc.
If you used MMO as a fuel additive (you didn't specify how you used it), then you should have experienced increased cylinder pressures. You could have measured this increase with a compression gauge. I have no thoughts on using MMO as an oil additive - never been there. Per the fine folks at Wikipedia, "[Marvel Mystery Oil as a fuel additive] proved beneficial for engines by creating a top ring seal producing higher compression, preventing blow-by on power strokes, resulting in more power."
I certainly agree that my MGB had an old-design engine. The BMC 'B' engine was designed back in 1937 or 1938, as I recall. That design was still in use through ~1980. Developed 'B' engines have produced upwards of 400 bhp and been used in several land speed record holding vehicles. But the reason my 1972-vintage 'B' engine needed UCL was not old design but rather the smog pump (or inadequate valve material - take your pick). Modern engines, whether from Japan or Germany or wherever, still use valves and still use piston rings, and MMO works just the same in modern engines. On the downside, it is not really cat friendly.
Is it necessary today? Probably not. Will your engine run better with it? Probably so, if your engine still has rings and valves. And, you can measure this improvement - just test the engine compression.
Is MMO cost effective? Probably not, but you could say that for almost all additives - whether fuel or oil variety. Your engine will like it, you'll get a bit more power and your engine will probably run forever.
Much to my regret, dave, 2 things of note:
(a)I would never cite info from wikipedia, due to lack of credibility.
(b)I'm aware of internal combustion engine designs and the developments of it...and I never believe in the need for additional so-called "lubrication" coming from the fuel mixture side to what? lubricate valves and seats...yadda...yadda...
compared to your automobiles which you cherished (and I bet they all get your special MMO treatment), all other 99.99% of average motoring joes out there still cruising along with most fundamental(if not absolute bare minimum) maintenance such as adding run-of-da-mill pump gas into their tanks and drive. Minimal oil changes(based on their awareness, etc.) and most automobile engines still live a happy life until other issues (wrecked/rusted bodies, engine started burning oil,etc.) and typically that's over 120 to 150k nowadays. Properly maintained vehicles (including those in my fleet of clienteles') typically go close to 250k w/ no need for additional so-called UCL or whatever in gas to get that far (until engine starts to burn oil due to stuck oil control rings)
If UCL is proven to be so beneficial to modern engines, I wouldn't doubt EPA or all NA major automobile manufacturers would immediately introduce(or re-introduce, post refinery stage) some form of UCL just to extend their engine's service life go safely, if not consistently go beyond 100k (typical of NA auto manufacturer's standard powertrain or 8yr in Cali emissions warranty terms).
Q.
p.s. I have over 2 decades worth of mechanical repair experiences in my shoes, including engine rebuilding/blueprinting days for SCCA racing....FYI.
(a)I would never cite info from wikipedia, due to lack of credibility.
(b)I'm aware of internal combustion engine designs and the developments of it...and I never believe in the need for additional so-called "lubrication" coming from the fuel mixture side to what? lubricate valves and seats...yadda...yadda...
compared to your automobiles which you cherished (and I bet they all get your special MMO treatment), all other 99.99% of average motoring joes out there still cruising along with most fundamental(if not absolute bare minimum) maintenance such as adding run-of-da-mill pump gas into their tanks and drive. Minimal oil changes(based on their awareness, etc.) and most automobile engines still live a happy life until other issues (wrecked/rusted bodies, engine started burning oil,etc.) and typically that's over 120 to 150k nowadays. Properly maintained vehicles (including those in my fleet of clienteles') typically go close to 250k w/ no need for additional so-called UCL or whatever in gas to get that far (until engine starts to burn oil due to stuck oil control rings)
If UCL is proven to be so beneficial to modern engines, I wouldn't doubt EPA or all NA major automobile manufacturers would immediately introduce(or re-introduce, post refinery stage) some form of UCL just to extend their engine's service life go safely, if not consistently go beyond 100k (typical of NA auto manufacturer's standard powertrain or 8yr in Cali emissions warranty terms).
Q.
p.s. I have over 2 decades worth of mechanical repair experiences in my shoes, including engine rebuilding/blueprinting days for SCCA racing....FYI.
Originally Posted By: Quest
(a)I would never cite info from wikipedia, due to lack of credibility.
I should cite you instead?
Originally Posted By: Quest
(b)I'm aware of internal combustion engine designs and the developments of it...and I never believe in the need for additional so-called "lubrication" coming from the fuel mixture side to what? lubricate valves and seats...yadda...yadda...
There's 'belief' creeping into the debate. Do you own a compression gauge? Do you know how to use it? Do you believe that higher compression is better, other things being equal?
Originally Posted By: Quest
compared to your automobiles which you cherished (and I bet they all get your special MMO treatment), all other 99.99% of average motoring joes out there still cruising along with most fundamental(if not absolute bare minimum) maintenance such as adding run-of-da-mill pump gas into their tanks and drive. Minimal oil changes(based on their awareness, etc.) and most automobile engines still live a happy life until other issues (wrecked/rusted bodies, engine started burning oil,etc.) and typically that's over 120 to 150k nowadays. Properly maintained vehicles (including those in my fleet of clienteles') typically go close to 250k w/ no need for additional so-called UCL or whatever in gas to get that far (until engine starts to burn oil due to stuck oil control rings)
You misunderstand. I am not advocating the use of MMO (or any other additive, for that matter). But, if you should choose to use the additive, then you should see the following change, improvement, etc. I previously stated that UCL is probably not necessary. So?
Originally Posted By: Quest
If UCL is proven to be so beneficial to modern engines...
If you use UCL, you will get increased compression. I suggest that is beneficial.
Originally Posted By: Quest
... I wouldn't doubt EPA or all NA major automobile manufacturers would immediately introduce(or re-introduce, post refinery stage) some form of UCL just to extend their engine's service life go safely, if not consistently go beyond 100k (typical of NA auto manufacturer's standard powertrain or 8yr in Cali emissions warranty terms).
In the last 30 years or so, we've gone from leaded gasoline to unleaded gasoline to unleaded gasoline with ethanol added. Environmental concerns aside, each of these fuels provides less lubrication than it's predecessor. If you put LPG/CNG at the end of the list, the lubrication properties are almost zero.
Why fuel makers or car makers do a particular thing is hard to say, but almost always, the principal motive is profit. As you point out, most vehicle engines will last 100k+ miles with little or no maintenance. Beyond the warranty period, most car makers may secretly hope your engine fails! Why would they advocate something that works against this?
Originally Posted By: Quest
p.s. I have over 2 decades worth of mechanical repair experiences in my shoes, including engine rebuilding/blueprinting days for SCCA racing....FYI.
I am impressed that you can't grasp the simple idea that more compression is better.
(a)I would never cite info from wikipedia, due to lack of credibility.
I should cite you instead?
Originally Posted By: Quest
(b)I'm aware of internal combustion engine designs and the developments of it...and I never believe in the need for additional so-called "lubrication" coming from the fuel mixture side to what? lubricate valves and seats...yadda...yadda...
There's 'belief' creeping into the debate. Do you own a compression gauge? Do you know how to use it? Do you believe that higher compression is better, other things being equal?
Originally Posted By: Quest
compared to your automobiles which you cherished (and I bet they all get your special MMO treatment), all other 99.99% of average motoring joes out there still cruising along with most fundamental(if not absolute bare minimum) maintenance such as adding run-of-da-mill pump gas into their tanks and drive. Minimal oil changes(based on their awareness, etc.) and most automobile engines still live a happy life until other issues (wrecked/rusted bodies, engine started burning oil,etc.) and typically that's over 120 to 150k nowadays. Properly maintained vehicles (including those in my fleet of clienteles') typically go close to 250k w/ no need for additional so-called UCL or whatever in gas to get that far (until engine starts to burn oil due to stuck oil control rings)
You misunderstand. I am not advocating the use of MMO (or any other additive, for that matter). But, if you should choose to use the additive, then you should see the following change, improvement, etc. I previously stated that UCL is probably not necessary. So?
Originally Posted By: Quest
If UCL is proven to be so beneficial to modern engines...
If you use UCL, you will get increased compression. I suggest that is beneficial.
Originally Posted By: Quest
... I wouldn't doubt EPA or all NA major automobile manufacturers would immediately introduce(or re-introduce, post refinery stage) some form of UCL just to extend their engine's service life go safely, if not consistently go beyond 100k (typical of NA auto manufacturer's standard powertrain or 8yr in Cali emissions warranty terms).
In the last 30 years or so, we've gone from leaded gasoline to unleaded gasoline to unleaded gasoline with ethanol added. Environmental concerns aside, each of these fuels provides less lubrication than it's predecessor. If you put LPG/CNG at the end of the list, the lubrication properties are almost zero.
Why fuel makers or car makers do a particular thing is hard to say, but almost always, the principal motive is profit. As you point out, most vehicle engines will last 100k+ miles with little or no maintenance. Beyond the warranty period, most car makers may secretly hope your engine fails! Why would they advocate something that works against this?
Originally Posted By: Quest
p.s. I have over 2 decades worth of mechanical repair experiences in my shoes, including engine rebuilding/blueprinting days for SCCA racing....FYI.
I am impressed that you can't grasp the simple idea that more compression is better.
@dave,
You have not been able to provide factual evidence or even research-grade evidence RE:MMO mixed with gasoline(by following manufacturer's instructions) provide UCL benefits...things such as increased compression, etc.
Until you can prove me otherwise, I'd say in Scrooge's terms: "bahh...humbug!"
Q.
You have not been able to provide factual evidence or even research-grade evidence RE:MMO mixed with gasoline(by following manufacturer's instructions) provide UCL benefits...things such as increased compression, etc.
Until you can prove me otherwise, I'd say in Scrooge's terms: "bahh...humbug!"
Q.
Originally Posted By: Quest
You have not been able to provide factual evidence or even research-grade evidence RE:MMO mixed with gasoline(by following manufacturer's instructions) provide UCL benefits...things such as increased compression, etc.
There is no amount of evidence that will change your belief.
The compression test suggested many messages above is simple and can be repeated on any vehicle by any person who has a compression gauge. It helps to pick a vehicle with accessible spark plugs. The results are certainly more dramatic if you are using an inverse oiler and can simply stop the flow. Otherwise, you would need to empty the fuel tank or something of the sort.
This result is the same a cited by Wikipedia... but you don't believe them either.
You have not been able to provide factual evidence or even research-grade evidence RE:MMO mixed with gasoline(by following manufacturer's instructions) provide UCL benefits...things such as increased compression, etc.
There is no amount of evidence that will change your belief.
The compression test suggested many messages above is simple and can be repeated on any vehicle by any person who has a compression gauge. It helps to pick a vehicle with accessible spark plugs. The results are certainly more dramatic if you are using an inverse oiler and can simply stop the flow. Otherwise, you would need to empty the fuel tank or something of the sort.
This result is the same a cited by Wikipedia... but you don't believe them either.
- Status
Similar threads
