The betting is that if one was to put kerosene in a late model engine, that engine would be toast long before you got to a gasoline station. True, kerosene isn't as horribly bad for a gasoline engine as is diesel fuel, but that ain't sayin' much.
I don't think it was a safety issue. This was designed to be safely carried in a vehicle because it's ignition temperature was high enough that it would not ignite unless first preheated. This is why it would not work in a cold engine.
Don't bet the ranch (or your car's engine for that matter) on it. Kerosene is much closer to diesel fuel than gasoline and as such has virutally no anti-knock properties. Can you say "Detonation under idle, severe detonation under load"? Sure, I knew you could. If one was to run out of gas, pour in a couple of quarts of kerosene, and then attempt to drive to a gas station, your engine would likely be only good for use as a boat anchor before you got there.
we only pour in jet fuel and kerosene in our fuel tanks to clean the injectors and fuel systems, only in small percentages.
Kerosene is more viscous and closer to diesel....
but in a jam, when one has a little or no gas...like being stranded , it may be the only last resort...but One must realize that the engine may be shot after such an endeavor.
YOU are your own Warranty, when adding non spec fuel into your vehicle...
It also works the other way around: as I recall, US helicoptors that run on jet fuel , can in a pinch, use regular gasoline, but will need major rebuild right after such use.
in this day and age, why oh why would one put non-spec fuel in a vehicle or a US helicopter? i mean, you must be pretty desperate to do so.
wouldn't it be smarter and cheaper to pay to have someone come with the proper fuel to you? even a tow would be cheaper than wrecking an engine.
and think of it, in a helicopter? more than likely if the helo is down and you need to go looking for fuel - you should reconsider NOT attempting to restart and liftoff.
ok, the only thing i might consider changing fuels in is my coleman stove and lantern that i happen to know is designed "dual fuel".
"...as I recall, US helicopters that run on jet fuel , can in a pinch, use regular gasoline, but will need major rebuild right after such use."
While I have no first hand experience of seeing a gasoline damaged military turbine engine, I too have heard that whole "It'll run but..." story. Thinking about it logically, I'm trying to figure out what damage will occur. I mean, gasoline contains less power per gallon (or pound for that matter, even though it weighs roughly a pound less per gallon) and burns cooler than the heavier distillates, so producing too much power or too hot of a burn isn't likely to happen. Hmmm, maybe due to all of the additives needed to make gasoline function properly in a piston engine, a turbine will get all deposited up. It would be interesting to find out for sure. ;-)
yes...you must be in pretty desperate situation, to want or have to use non spec fuel in your vehicle. Again, more so for military vehicles & planes & helos, they all have emergency measures and steps they can take to ensure reaching safety, even at the cost of a million dollar piece of machinery.
I would do it if i were stranded in a desert or snow bound mountain...
with that said, did you know that when normally all oil companies have specific tanks for specific products ?
There are big tank farms ( those big round flat tops ) which has many tanks, a portion of tanks for unleaded, a portion for benzene, a portion for lite gas, premium, diesel, jet, crude, etc....
but when they are in a pinch, and pumped out most of the previous product, they then would pump in another completely different product. SOmetimes, there may be a large portion of jet or water, plus water and wastes and debris still in the tank, mixing with unleaded gas , etc..
Our fuel that we put in our gas tanks are NOT as pristine as Oil companies want you to think they are.
I worked for a year as oil industry lab consultant, and had to climb quite a few tank farms and tanker ships. Take it from me, they have all sorts of stuff mixed in their tank..and then into your tank.
ok, but the sheer volume of product mixing results in a very low ratio of debris or non-spec fuel to the spec fuel right? i mean, that's why we have to change our fuel filters every so often right?
agree on the desert or snow-bound mountain scenarios. one person's life is worth much more than a plane or helo. however, even a military jet or helo pilot is probably gonna rig the unit to explode if tampered, or call in a drop if necessary - not go searching for some unknown / questionable / uncharted fuel source...
and we shouldn't do that with our vehicles either.
Sorry, but you couldn't be more wrong. I will grant you that there's junk at the bottom of the large tanks but that's where it statys until cleaned out. I've hauled millions of gallons of gasoline for ARCO and you can look inside the tank truck and you'll see a spotless tank. When a tank farm receives product there's a time in the pipe that they pump into another tank and resell that as transmix. They used to use water slugs in the pipe but stopped that years ago. But when they ship diesel then gasoline there's nothing in between those products so they will take a portion of that tender and call it transmix. So your assertion that the fuel delieverd to the stations is dirty is just plain wrong. Just because you worked in an area of large tanks does not give you any knowledge of what ends up in the service station. You are aware of the test the states do on the product aren't you? You are aware that any damage done to vehicles by bad product will be repair at the companies cost aren't you? You are aware of all the QA steps that are taken to ensure clean fuel aren't you? BTW there is no Benzene at a tank farm unless it's at the refinery. If you see a tank farm without the refinery then there are only a few products at that farm, gasoline, diesel, jet-A and maybe a couple of others depending on the area. But benzene is not a fuel so it won't be there.
I guess, from your post, that you usually see the final end product...eh >? NOt really involved with what goes on in between, eh ?
I see the other end....where stuff is mixed....dirty water and crap and all sorts of stuff on the bottom of tanks, tanker ships, etc.... before and after they add products.
The stuff inside gasoline stations' tanks are better. I am sure, if your tanker truck is assigned or rated to carry a few types, than that would be what you did. I am sure your gasoline truck may not have all those pollutants visible. I am sure you know what you are talking about, based on what you see at your end.
Yes, all oil companies do their own tests....but the seller often times inflate the quality of the product...whereas the buyer sometimes deflate it....and we are the independent consultants who are called in and assay the samples objectively.
We go to all refineries, all tankers, all products.
It would seem that you have hauled alot of products, after all the mixing and clean up. The quality of fuel that you haul , while they may be within ASTM spec, are variable from batch to batch. They do not test for many dissolved pollutants in each batch of gas, for your information.
I did independent testing of a lot of oil products...so I think I know what I am talking about, but hey, maybe you are more knowledgeable than I...it is possible.
Sure, you haul the product...but we are the ones who test them and have final say in the quality and price.
SO I guess people should believe the delivery person, or the taste tester , on the quality of the guormet food ??
When I was running tankers (ships) for Sabine (and later Irving), I used to stuff a football down the line when we were switching tank draws. When the football shot out the other end the shore crew would switch to the next tank. Didn't do much for crossmix, but made it a bit more efficient. Also, maybe the bottom of tank trucks are clean, but you would gag at the mung that accumulates at the bottom of a ships tank... pure, unadulterated swill that smells like a weeks worth of diapers
When I had to board a few ships...I took samples of the gunk...and the captain wanted to know what stuff was on the bottom of the tanks....I told him, half jokingly, "my left over biology experiment."
there was stuff like water, diff oils, crude, dark flaky stuff, moldy stuff, all sorts of weird jello like stuff.
Most of this stuff does stay on the bottom, some get filtered out...though the added product would sometimes absorb some of the gunk and stuff.
Your gasoline is different and the same . Mostly it is the same ( the internal combustion engine doesn't care that much....but in reality, each batch is slightly diff in terms of makeup and dissolved organics, additives, octane numbers, RVP vapor pressure, cloud points, etc...
I just bought an 05 tbird and I usually use Mobil 1 synth. oil in my vehicles. The owners manual calls for 5w-20. What weight of Mobil 1 should I use as I don't think it comes in 5w-20? Also, what is the best method or product for cleaning and protecting the convertible top. My top is a light blue or grey color. :confuse:
They've had testing for years from the independent research lab that tests oil for motor oil warranty. All oil manufactures have to test with this test. It is a certified ASTM test by the American Petroleum Institute.
That's not the test you want. That test means zilch because it doesn't apply to conditions under which a car engine lives. And we have to pay $5 to see it? C'mon.
The test you want is a fleet test of engines treated with and without the additive, all run under identical condition, and then torn down and measured for wear. Other than that, any "test" is just blue sky, smoke and mirrors for the average motorist.
Just adding to an engine doesn't prove anything. I could add a cup of apple juice to a car engine and it would probably finish the Indy 500 just fine. (just burn off).
I opened a bottle of SFRs ProTecta Synthetic Engine Oil Booster today and took a good sniff. "Hmmm," I thought, "that smells familiar but I can't quite place it. Oh yeah! It smells just like snake oil."
Just lettin you in on this new additive that is causing some excitment up here in the heartland of the United States. This new product is made in Minnesota. They have a web site if you would like to check it out www.ca40g.com I just started running this in my 07 Silverado. And I can tell you that it does WORK. Today was my first test of it. I drove the same route I did yesterday to Grand Forks, ND. Yesterday with the cruise set at 70, I averaged 18.1 mpg. Today with weather conditions the same, same wind speed, I averaged 20.1 mpg with this additive in there. I followed their instructions for an ounce to 15-20 gallons of gas. This stuff works with Diesel, Gasoline and E85. Alot of farmers up here have started using this in their tractors and some are experiencing up to a 20% gain in fuel economy. Very interesting, the guys that came up with this have been interviewed on radio and tv state wide and have flat out said oil companies have approached them wanting to buy them out, but they are not selling. Give it a look, I can attest first hand that it works.
> the guys that came up with this have been interviewed on radio and tv state wide and have flat out said oil companies have approached them wanting to buy them out, but they are not selling
They aren't going to accept tens and hundreds of millions for a "proven" gas mileage increasing additive, but they're going to sell it to us folk and make a dollar at a time?
In my reply made on the same day (at the below link) I said, "Given that that was marcosoft's first post, I seriously suspect that A) he/she is nothing more than a shill, and won't be back for a second post."
Their reasoning behind not selling to the oil companies is that they really do want to increase our efficiency. This stuff really does work. I am not one to go and try new things on a whim, but after hearing others experience with it and now after my own, I can really tell you that it does work. For a longtime, it has been known that only a portion of the hydrocarbons get combusted in an internal combustion engine, if that helps this problem, more power to them. Its a cheap experiment for people. 1 gallon is 30 bucks, that can treat alot of fuel to get an accurate judgement.
You can't be serious. How is it that you think that your single vehicle non-scientific experiment is even remotely proof that this stuff works? I've got news for you, it's not. Not by a long shot.
Where are you from? I invite you to make a little trip up here to ND,SD, MN region. You can tell the farmers that are running it that it doesnt work. You can tell the truckers it doesnt work. Do you honestly think that an oil company would want something like this to succeed, no. Yes I will admit that this is a new product, but obviously when a gain over 15% is experienced personally and statewide with use of this, there is something to it. I have nothing to do with this product, I am a loan officer for the Farm Credit system and alot of co workers have also been using this with similar results. Write the people that came up with this product for questions. I am just letting people know what we have been doing up in this part of the country and there is something to it. Alot of the merchants (Cenex) that sell it, have added it because of requests from numerous farmers around the region.
Do you honestly think your line of reasoning is new and unique? Sorry, it ain't. Your comments smack of a confidence game that is bordering on fraud. Like it or not, until the likes of the SAE and their peers organizations have published certified scientific documentation proving the effacacy of this stuff, then all you are doing is selling snake oil on your say-so alone.
Oh, and as for your slippery dodge around the preposterous statement about not wanting to sell to the oil companies because "...they really do want to increase our efficiency." Oh puleaze. If the oil companies were really so interested, and if they really wanted to make a difference, they'd sell in a heart beat.
But aside from anecdotal evidence, which is often faulty, there's nothing here than proves the claim whatsoever. Plenty of people take vitamins and plenty believe in psychics, but that doesn't prove these things work. All it proves is that the people believe what they say they believe. What one is proving is people's sincerity, which is not in doubt. What's in doubt is that they are right.
What small amount of fluid could possibly add 15% energy to a tankful of gasoline? It defies all logic and reason. It is....well...impossible.
Automakers spend millions...no...hundreds of millions....to get ONE more mpg out of an engine, and here we get 15% more for pennies by adding some goo that looks like honey?
This sounds like...well...a religion...in the sense that we are asked to believe a miracle.
Do you honestly believe that the automakers are getting all they can out of vehicles as far as mileage???? That is BS, if they wanted, they could sure as heck get better mileage in all their vehicles, there are so many little things that can be done such as gear ratios and other things. Im not saying I know everything about this stuff, but from personal experience and others, I stand by my claim. You can dismiss it or whatnot, but I truthfully know that when this stuff is in the gas tank, the cost per mile is driven down. It has been widely known that an internal combustion engine does not efficiently use all the hydrocarbons in fuel. That is why the most efficient i.c engine would be one with no spark plugs. If this stuff can cause the hydrocarbons to be combusted even a little more efficiently, then it works. This is such a new product there hasnt been enough testing done so far, but trust me, I'm not lying, it works and it works in other people's vehicles also. You can bicker all you want, but I know that my cost per mile is less than all of yours without it.
Well I haven't seen any credible proof that's based on any science whatsoever, so I don't believe it, sorry. I'd be careful if I were you not to give your money to these people. I'm not questioning the sincerity of your beliefs.
Dude, you need to do a little more studying and a whole lot less preaching.
"Do you honestly believe that the automakers are getting all they can out of vehicles as far as mileage???? That is BS, if they wanted, they could sure as heck get better mileage in all their vehicles, there are so many little things that can be done such as gear ratios and other things."
Conspiracy theorists unite. It appears that y'all have another member. In answer to your question, yes, I think they are doing pretty well given current technology.
"Im not saying I know everything about this stuff, but from personal experience and others, I stand by my claim. You can dismiss it or whatnot, but I truthfully know that when this stuff is in the gas tank, the cost per mile is driven down."
Like it or not, personal experience doesn't mean squat from a scientific perspective. Until your claims are backed up by verifiable science, then they're just so much bilge water.
"It has been widely known that an internal combustion engine does not efficiently use all the hydrocarbons in fuel. That is why the most efficient i.c engine would be one with no spark plugs."
Where on Earth did you get that little gem. Or maybe the better question to ask is, "Who told you to say that?"
FWIW, the spark ignition version of the intermittent combustion engine is actually a little more efficient than the compression ignition version. How can I make that claim when Diesel engines get so much better mileage compared to gasoline fueled engines? Simple, Diesel fuel has WAY more caloric content both by volume and by weight (in spite of the fact that Diesel weighs roughly sixteen percent more than gasoline by volume), however, spark ignition engines actually convert a higher percentage of the available calories into usable work.
"...but trust me, I'm not lying,..."
Trust you? Not a chance.
You're not lying? Hmmm, lots of gray area there. You may actually believe what you're saying about the snake oil that you're peddling, and as such, you're not lying per-se. That said, I'll bet one hundred to one odds that your truth isn't verifiable by science. So, if you're not lying and yet you're not telling the truth either, what do you call it?
"...it works and it works in other people's vehicles also. You can bicker all you want, but I know that my cost per mile is less than all of yours without it."
That's almost a direct cut and paste from some dude a couple of years back claiming that by adding acetone to gasoline you'll see something like a five to thirty-five percent improvement in fuel economy, guaranteed. Like I said before, until your claims are scientifically verified (or at the very least backed up by some heavily convincing empirical data), they mean absolutely nothing. Said another way, saying it, saying it again, and again and again and again still ain't gonna make ot so.
FWIW, take a gander at the following link. It is pointing to the beginning of the Actone debate that started in early December 2005, I'm sure you'll be able to pick up lots of good material from that series of posts. :P brj, "Fuel and Oil Additives" #644, 1 Dec 2005 11:10 pm
You are dead wrong on your statement that an internal combustion engine would not be more efficient without spark plugs. I took 3 courses in college dealing with engine efficiency and technology. It is a known fact that with a spark plug ignition system that there is a lot of energy that does not get used. I could easily go find my college textbooks and give you a page number to get that info. A compression ignition system is more efficient because you can achieve a higher compression ratio. If you tried to turn a gas engine's compression ratio up, you would start to pre-ignite simply due to the the gasoline and its flash point. Im sorry sir, but you are totally wrong with your statement. I still would like to know what part of the country you are from? This is such a new product that there hasnt been any "scientific" studies done on it so far. But I would put a little belief in some real world application especially with the number of consumers that are using it and the outcomes have all been very similar. You might have to admit to yourself that you DONT know everything there is to know even though you might think you do. All I'm asking is to keep an open mind, this isnt a wallet breaker to anyone that tries it, but hey if people try it once and it doesnt turn out, then dont buy it again. Im just saying that there are many consumers that are now repeat purchasers. Have a good day out whereever all you people are. Its a beautiful day up here in the tri-state midwest area.
this isnt a wallet breaker to anyone that tries it
how can you objectively say that??
You have already stated several times it is so new that not much testing has been done on it. So you have no idea if this thing is destroying your car as I type this.
I'll tell you what. Go throw a cup of sugar in your gas tank. I SWEAR you'll get better mileage!
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
It's not like there aren't new chemicals/additives that work----for instance "water wetter" is an additive to raise the boiling point of water. It works, and there's plenty of science behind it, lots of proof and testing, and so there's no problem. Race car owners use it all the time and it gets results.
So when a new "miracle product" comes out, and the public (schlumps like us basically) ask for proof, and then everyone scatters like cockroaches under the bright light---well, this is not encouraging behavior and doesn't instill faith in the product.
Are these farmers "wrong"? Yeah, probably. We'd have to see what kind of data they are keeping.
There's even an easy way to test anecdotal evidence, if the user is honest. Just have them keep records while using the product, and then make them stop using it and keep the same records. That's not "science" but it's still better than "it works because I believe it works".
"You are dead wrong on your statement that an internal combustion engine would not be more efficient without spark plugs."
Ummm, sorry, no. I'm not talking theoreticals here I'm talking actuals. In the real world, the latest generation of gasoline spark ignition/intermittent combustion engines are more efficient at converting potential calories into work than current combustion ignition/intermittent combustion engines. Like it or don't. FWIW, I've yet to see the efficiency statistics of the new Mercedes-Benz and VW Bluetec diesels, two engines that might actually be able to match a modern spark ignition engine. Time will tell on those.
"A compression ignition system is more efficient because you can achieve a higher compression ratio."
Yes, in theory, all else being equal. The thing is that "all else" isn't equal. The makers of automotive gasoline engines have been under constant pressure to improve their efficiency numbers for what, the last thirty-five years? Thanks in large part to European development, the diesel is only twenty years behind the curve, and so it is only natural for conventional diesels to be a little less efficient when it comes to converting fuel to work when compared to gasoline engines.
A couple of more years of development and your statement about compression ignition engines being more efficient will most likely come true. That said, none of this does one shred of good when it comes to helping you with your arguments. The fact is that you've come on here peddling an unproven elixir of snake oil claiming all sorts of efficiency gains. Then you get upset because not only do we not believe you, we tell you that until the product is proven, you're wrong. At this point, the more you preach and protest without providing any substantive proof, the lower your credibility will go.
In the meantime, I promise that I'll keep an open mind to any and all scientifically intriguing developments that use scientific methods to establish efficacy. The thought of using any other products, especially the ones that are promoted with the kind of arguments that you've been using, is roughly akin to adding a bottle of snake oil to a barrel of bilge water.
honda reccomends name brand gas at a high volume station...what do you think? ...i usually use mobil...do you like citgo, there are quite a few up here..what do you think of mobil and shell? what about discount gas? thanks...i try to buy mobil or sometimes citgo for convenience
The basic premise of the advertisement seems illogical. In fact, modern engines seem to run absolutely fine with good maintenance and high quality oils. This seems to be an expensive solution to a problem that doesn't exist.
As for the testimonials that this substance cured noisy valve lifters...well...a high detergent could free up a noisy hydraulic lifter than was sticking, but then, so could a small dose of ATF in your oil for about .35 cents a snootful. As for a chemical curing a worn camshaft or galled lifters, that's impossible.
As for a chemical that cleans out sludge, that's one I'd have to see to believe. It would have to be the equivalent of nuclear powered sulphuric acid to cut through that mess.
I dunno...this is the same old story with miracle products...the more startling their claims, the less I want to believe them.....it's no coincidence that those products that do not claim miracles, but rather modest improvements allied with actual repairs and maintenance, seem to work the best and last the longest on the market and aren't the subject of lawsuits. When was the last time they sued WD-40 or Redline Fuel Conditioner?
>a high detergent could free up a noisy hydraulic lifter than was sticking, but then, so could a small dose of ATF in your oil for about .35 cents a snootful.
Is ATF as good a an oil-based additive like Rislone at cleaning those things up? I had our car salesman comment that changing the oil a couple of times helps lifters quiet down. A car had driven by in the used car lot driveway with a lifter clicking and that was his response. He meant drive it a 1000 and then change again. The detergent in fresh oil would solve the problem.
I still think adequately frequent oil changes, based on your oil, your car's motor, and your driving use/environment are the key to not having those problems.
It depends on the source of the lifter noise. If it's just a piece of gunk in one lifter, yeah, a detergent might dislodge that, but if it's worn metal and large clearances, you can forget it.
My two cents is this: "if it's not a natural lubricant, for heaven's sake, don't put it in a running engine".
"That's not the test you want. That test means zilch because it doesn't apply to conditions under which a car engine lives. And we have to pay $5 to see it? C'mon.
The test you want is a fleet test of engines treated with and without the additive, all run under identical condition, and then torn down and measured for wear. Other than that, any "test" is just blue sky, smoke and mirrors for the average motorist.
Just adding to an engine doesn't prove anything. I could add a cup of apple juice to a car engine and it would probably finish the Indy 500 just fine. (just burn off)."
They have fleet testing for all the fuel additives on their website...
"They have fleet testing for all the fuel additives on their website..."
A couple of comments:
1) I took a fairly detailed look at that web site and what I saw was lots half truths and out-right fabrications buried in the marketing bilge. What I didn't see was a single publication describing any fleet tests for any of their products. I'm not saying that they're not there, just that if they are, they sure as hell aren't very obvious.
2) Based upon the Con-Man style language of the aforementioned marketing bilge, I wouldn't buy the product even if I was able to read studies published in the S.A.E. archives that independently verified the product's efficacy.
The fact remains that this product sounds like Snake-Oil, smells like Snake-Oil, tastes like Snake-Oil, and in the end probably performs as well as Snake-Oil. Said another way, this is just another confidence game out to fleece unsuspecting consumers of their hard earned money.
Obviously you did not read the test on line and its stupid people like you putting your 2 cents in as if you are an expert. If you knew anything about testing you would realize that it costs today for GF-4 380 million dollars to make a new motor oil warranty category as its voted on by thousands of engineers and enforced by the API (American Petroleum Institute). The particular test that I was talking about earlier is the Sequence test that measures wear. Your statement about it not representing the true condition of an engine could not be further from the truth as the parameters are set up to measure wear under several load conditions including low and high temperatures. Every part is measured for wear. The test which costs over $100,000 must be validated by an independent lab. It just so happens that SWRI (Southwest Research Institue) who did the test does much of NASA's and the U.S. governments testing. Go to www.swri.com and you will find that this is a billion dollar testing facility not someone on a homemade test machine. The test is run in an engine and the variables are kept to a minimum. The problem with some fleet tests is driver error even when using professional drivers on a track. Before inserting your mouth again and making you look not only bad, but ignorant, go do some homework and then when you say something, someone might think of your comments as having some value. Its idiots like you that get on a forum and bog it down with garbage!
i think calling someone stupid and an idiot doesn't help your credibility nor interest people in the products.
i think the responsibility is on the manufacturer to research, educate and prove there is an economic justification to purchasing and using the product.
if all the claims were/are true, and if the economic model is valid, the rate of adoption in product use (one would think) would be high. it would be suggested / encouraged from many different sources toward the public.
Just what is your name and degrees that make you such an expert? It looks like the site is built using a do-it-yourself web page making online tool? That's not very corporate like.
What's the exact name of the oil additive? I want to contact the SWRI folks and see what they say about whether they tested the additive. I'm also curious about the claim they do much of the testing for NASA and US government.
Since you're ranting about people questioning the additive in what seems an MML marketing scheme, remember you came here to post. I have some knowledge in these areas. Give us real info, not stuff from the MML folks.
Comments
Best Regards,
Shipo
some fuel additives contain these petroleum distillates that help clean the injectors....
Best Regards,
Shipo
we only pour in jet fuel and kerosene in our fuel tanks to clean the injectors and fuel systems, only in small percentages.
Kerosene is more viscous and closer to diesel....
but in a jam, when one has a little or no gas...like being stranded , it may be the only last resort...but One must realize that the engine may be shot after such an endeavor.
YOU are your own Warranty, when adding non spec fuel into your vehicle...
It also works the other way around:
as I recall, US helicoptors that run on jet fuel , can in a pinch, use regular gasoline, but will need major rebuild right after such use.
What you said agree completely.
T
wouldn't it be smarter and cheaper to pay to have someone come with the proper fuel to you? even a tow would be cheaper than wrecking an engine.
and think of it, in a helicopter? more than likely if the helo is down and you need to go looking for fuel - you should reconsider NOT attempting to restart and liftoff.
ok, the only thing i might consider changing fuels in is my coleman stove and lantern that i happen to know is designed "dual fuel".
cars and helos? just say no! :shades:
While I have no first hand experience of seeing a gasoline damaged military turbine engine, I too have heard that whole "It'll run but..." story. Thinking about it logically, I'm trying to figure out what damage will occur. I mean, gasoline contains less power per gallon (or pound for that matter, even though it weighs roughly a pound less per gallon) and burns cooler than the heavier distillates, so producing too much power or too hot of a burn isn't likely to happen. Hmmm, maybe due to all of the additives needed to make gasoline function properly in a piston engine, a turbine will get all deposited up. It would be interesting to find out for sure. ;-)
Best Regards,
Shipo
I would do it if i were stranded in a desert or snow bound mountain...
with that said, did you know that when normally all oil companies have specific tanks for specific products ?
There are big tank farms ( those big round flat tops ) which has many tanks, a portion of tanks for unleaded, a portion for benzene, a portion for lite gas, premium, diesel, jet, crude, etc....
but when they are in a pinch, and pumped out most of the previous product, they then would pump in another completely different product. SOmetimes, there may be a large portion of jet or water, plus water and wastes and debris still in the tank, mixing with unleaded gas , etc..
Our fuel that we put in our gas tanks are NOT as pristine as Oil companies want you to think they are.
I worked for a year as oil industry lab consultant, and had to climb quite a few tank farms and tanker ships. Take it from me, they have all sorts of stuff mixed in their tank..and then into your tank.
ok, but the sheer volume of product mixing results in a very low ratio of debris or non-spec fuel to the spec fuel right? i mean, that's why we have to change our fuel filters every so often right?
agree on the desert or snow-bound mountain scenarios. one person's life is worth much more than a plane or helo. however, even a military jet or helo pilot is probably gonna rig the unit to explode if tampered, or call in a drop if necessary - not go searching for some unknown / questionable / uncharted fuel source...
and we shouldn't do that with our vehicles either.
John,
http://www.dripslipper.com/
I guess, from your post, that you usually see the final end product...eh >? NOt really involved with what goes on in between, eh ?
I see the other end....where stuff is mixed....dirty water and crap and all sorts of stuff on the bottom of tanks, tanker ships, etc.... before and after they add products.
The stuff inside gasoline stations' tanks are better. I am sure, if your tanker truck is assigned or rated to carry a few types, than that would be what you did. I am sure your gasoline truck may not have all those pollutants visible. I am sure you know what you are talking about, based on what you see at your end.
Yes, all oil companies do their own tests....but the seller often times inflate the quality of the product...whereas the buyer sometimes deflate it....and we are the independent consultants who are called in and assay the samples objectively.
We go to all refineries, all tankers, all products.
It would seem that you have hauled alot of products, after all the mixing and clean up. The quality of fuel that you haul , while they may be within ASTM spec, are variable from batch to batch. They do not test for many dissolved pollutants in each batch of gas, for your information.
I did independent testing of a lot of oil products...so I think I know what I am talking about, but hey, maybe you are more knowledgeable than I...it is possible.
Sure, you haul the product...but we are the ones who test them and have final say in the quality and price.
SO I guess people should believe the delivery person, or the taste tester , on the quality of the guormet food ??
No disrespect intended ......
When I had to board a few ships...I took samples of the gunk...and the captain wanted to know what stuff was on the bottom of the tanks....I told him, half jokingly, "my left over biology experiment."
there was stuff like water, diff oils, crude, dark flaky stuff, moldy stuff, all sorts of weird jello like stuff.
Most of this stuff does stay on the bottom, some get filtered out...though the added product would sometimes absorb some of the gunk and stuff.
Your gasoline is different and the same . Mostly it is the same ( the internal combustion engine doesn't care that much....but in reality, each batch is slightly diff in terms of makeup and dissolved organics, additives, octane numbers, RVP vapor pressure, cloud points, etc...
Thanks
Check it out, http://blog.sfrcorp.com/2007/06/20/oil-additive-testing/
The test you want is a fleet test of engines treated with and without the additive, all run under identical condition, and then torn down and measured for wear. Other than that, any "test" is just blue sky, smoke and mirrors for the average motorist.
Just adding to an engine doesn't prove anything. I could add a cup of apple juice to a car engine and it would probably finish the Indy 500 just fine. (just burn off).
Best Regards,
Shipo
They aren't going to accept tens and hundreds of millions for a "proven" gas mileage increasing additive, but they're going to sell it to us folk and make a dollar at a time?
Hogwash.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
On 14-September-2006 marcosoft made the following post:
marcrosoft, "Fuel and Oil Additives" #822, 14 Sep 2006 1:50 pm
In my reply made on the same day (at the below link) I said, "Given that that was marcosoft's first post, I seriously suspect that A) he/she is nothing more than a shill, and
shipo, "Fuel and Oil Additives" #824, 14 Sep 2006 5:14 pm
Ummm, I guess I was only half correct, it came back for a second post (below). :P
marcrosoft, "Fuel and Oil Additives" #896, 20 Jun 2007 2:53 pm
Personally I vote for the shill to get bounced off the island. ;-)
Best Regards,
Shipo
If anyone has any legitimate testing on products, that's fine to post.
Best Regards,
Shipo
Oh, and as for your slippery dodge around the preposterous statement about not wanting to sell to the oil companies because "...they really do want to increase our efficiency." Oh puleaze. If the oil companies were really so interested, and if they really wanted to make a difference, they'd sell in a heart beat.
What small amount of fluid could possibly add 15% energy to a tankful of gasoline? It defies all logic and reason. It is....well...impossible.
Automakers spend millions...no...hundreds of millions....to get ONE more mpg out of an engine, and here we get 15% more for pennies by adding some goo that looks like honey?
This sounds like...well...a religion...in the sense that we are asked to believe a miracle.
"Do you honestly believe that the automakers are getting all they can out of vehicles as far as mileage???? That is BS, if they wanted, they could sure as heck get better mileage in all their vehicles, there are so many little things that can be done such as gear ratios and other things."
Conspiracy theorists unite. It appears that y'all have another member. In answer to your question, yes, I think they are doing pretty well given current technology.
"Im not saying I know everything about this stuff, but from personal experience and others, I stand by my claim. You can dismiss it or whatnot, but I truthfully know that when this stuff is in the gas tank, the cost per mile is driven down."
Like it or not, personal experience doesn't mean squat from a scientific perspective. Until your claims are backed up by verifiable science, then they're just so much bilge water.
"It has been widely known that an internal combustion engine does not efficiently use all the hydrocarbons in fuel. That is why the most efficient i.c engine would be one with no spark plugs."
Where on Earth did you get that little gem. Or maybe the better question to ask is, "Who told you to say that?"
FWIW, the spark ignition version of the intermittent combustion engine is actually a little more efficient than the compression ignition version. How can I make that claim when Diesel engines get so much better mileage compared to gasoline fueled engines? Simple, Diesel fuel has WAY more caloric content both by volume and by weight (in spite of the fact that Diesel weighs roughly sixteen percent more than gasoline by volume), however, spark ignition engines actually convert a higher percentage of the available calories into usable work.
"...but trust me, I'm not lying,..."
Trust you? Not a chance.
You're not lying? Hmmm, lots of gray area there. You may actually believe what you're saying about the snake oil that you're peddling, and as such, you're not lying per-se. That said, I'll bet one hundred to one odds that your truth isn't verifiable by science. So, if you're not lying and yet you're not telling the truth either, what do you call it?
"...it works and it works in other people's vehicles also. You can bicker all you want, but I know that my cost per mile is less than all of yours without it."
That's almost a direct cut and paste from some dude a couple of years back claiming that by adding acetone to gasoline you'll see something like a five to thirty-five percent improvement in fuel economy, guaranteed. Like I said before, until your claims are scientifically verified (or at the very least backed up by some heavily convincing empirical data), they mean absolutely nothing. Said another way, saying it, saying it again, and again and again and again still ain't gonna make ot so.
FWIW, take a gander at the following link. It is pointing to the beginning of the Actone debate that started in early December 2005, I'm sure you'll be able to pick up lots of good material from that series of posts. :P
brj, "Fuel and Oil Additives" #644, 1 Dec 2005 11:10 pm
Best Regards,
Shipo
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
how can you objectively say that??
You have already stated several times it is so new that not much testing has been done on it. So you have no idea if this thing is destroying your car as I type this.
I'll tell you what. Go throw a cup of sugar in your gas tank. I SWEAR you'll get better mileage!
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
So when a new "miracle product" comes out, and the public (schlumps like us basically) ask for proof, and then everyone scatters like cockroaches under the bright light---well, this is not encouraging behavior and doesn't instill faith in the product.
Are these farmers "wrong"? Yeah, probably. We'd have to see what kind of data they are keeping.
There's even an easy way to test anecdotal evidence, if the user is honest. Just have them keep records while using the product, and then make them stop using it and keep the same records. That's not "science" but it's still better than "it works because I believe it works".
Ummm, sorry, no. I'm not talking theoreticals here I'm talking actuals. In the real world, the latest generation of gasoline spark ignition/intermittent combustion engines are more efficient at converting potential calories into work than current combustion ignition/intermittent combustion engines. Like it or don't. FWIW, I've yet to see the efficiency statistics of the new Mercedes-Benz and VW Bluetec diesels, two engines that might actually be able to match a modern spark ignition engine. Time will tell on those.
"A compression ignition system is more efficient because you can achieve a higher compression ratio."
Yes, in theory, all else being equal. The thing is that "all else" isn't equal. The makers of automotive gasoline engines have been under constant pressure to improve their efficiency numbers for what, the last thirty-five years? Thanks in large part to European development, the diesel is only twenty years behind the curve, and so it is only natural for conventional diesels to be a little less efficient when it comes to converting fuel to work when compared to gasoline engines.
A couple of more years of development and your statement about compression ignition engines being more efficient will most likely come true. That said, none of this does one shred of good when it comes to helping you with your arguments. The fact is that you've come on here peddling an unproven elixir of snake oil claiming all sorts of efficiency gains. Then you get upset because not only do we not believe you, we tell you that until the product is proven, you're wrong. At this point, the more you preach and protest without providing any substantive proof, the lower your credibility will go.
In the meantime, I promise that I'll keep an open mind to any and all scientifically intriguing developments that use scientific methods to establish efficacy. The thought of using any other products, especially the ones that are promoted with the kind of arguments that you've been using, is roughly akin to adding a bottle of snake oil to a barrel of bilge water.
Best Regards,
Shipo
Best Regards,
Shipo
As for the testimonials that this substance cured noisy valve lifters...well...a high detergent could free up a noisy hydraulic lifter than was sticking, but then, so could a small dose of ATF in your oil for about .35 cents a snootful. As for a chemical curing a worn camshaft or galled lifters, that's impossible.
As for a chemical that cleans out sludge, that's one I'd have to see to believe. It would have to be the equivalent of nuclear powered sulphuric acid to cut through that mess.
I dunno...this is the same old story with miracle products...the more startling their claims, the less I want to believe them.....it's no coincidence that those products that do not claim miracles, but rather modest improvements allied with actual repairs and maintenance, seem to work the best and last the longest on the market and aren't the subject of lawsuits. When was the last time they sued WD-40 or Redline Fuel Conditioner?
Is ATF as good a an oil-based additive like Rislone at cleaning those things up? I had our car salesman comment that changing the oil a couple of times helps lifters quiet down. A car had driven by in the used car lot driveway with a lifter clicking and that was his response. He meant drive it a 1000 and then change again. The detergent in fresh oil would solve the problem.
I still think adequately frequent oil changes, based on your oil, your car's motor, and your driving use/environment are the key to not having those problems.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
My two cents is this: "if it's not a natural lubricant, for heaven's sake, don't put it in a running engine".
The test you want is a fleet test of engines treated with and without the additive, all run under identical condition, and then torn down and measured for wear. Other than that, any "test" is just blue sky, smoke and mirrors for the average motorist.
Just adding to an engine doesn't prove anything. I could add a cup of apple juice to a car engine and it would probably finish the Indy 500 just fine. (just burn off)."
They have fleet testing for all the fuel additives on their website...
A couple of comments:
1) I took a fairly detailed look at that web site and what I saw was lots half truths and out-right fabrications buried in the marketing bilge. What I didn't see was a single publication describing any fleet tests for any of their products. I'm not saying that they're not there, just that if they are, they sure as hell aren't very obvious.
2) Based upon the Con-Man style language of the aforementioned marketing bilge, I wouldn't buy the product even if I was able to read studies published in the S.A.E. archives that independently verified the product's efficacy.
The fact remains that this product sounds like Snake-Oil, smells like Snake-Oil, tastes like Snake-Oil, and in the end probably performs as well as Snake-Oil. Said another way, this is just another confidence game out to fleece unsuspecting consumers of their hard earned money.
Best Regards,
Shipo
i think the responsibility is on the manufacturer to research, educate and prove there is an economic justification to purchasing and using the product.
if all the claims were/are true, and if the economic model is valid, the rate of adoption in product use (one would think) would be high. it would be suggested / encouraged from many different sources toward the public.
Just what is your name and degrees that make you such an expert? It looks like the site is built using a do-it-yourself web page making online tool? That's not very corporate like.
What's the exact name of the oil additive? I want to contact the SWRI folks and see what they say about whether they tested the additive. I'm also curious about the claim they do much of the testing for NASA and US government.
Since you're ranting about people questioning the additive in what seems an MML marketing scheme, remember you came here to post. I have some knowledge in these areas. Give us real info, not stuff from the MML folks.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,