Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Are you under 40 and think that you might not be able to afford a brand new vehicle when you purchase your next car? If so, a reporter would like to talk to you. Please reach out to [email protected] by 12/16 for more details.
Did you get a great deal? Let us know in the Values & Prices Paid section!
Meet your fellow owners in our Owners Clubs

Fuel and Oil Additives

12021232526

Comments

  • bassprobasspro Posts: 34
    I am responding to thread 1123 through 1131. The top tier system has nothing to do with Katrina. I get the joke!! But the tier system was just Shell and another refiner or two that put in the new process units to clean up their gasoline earlier than required by law. The plant I came out of has just come on line to meet the federal requirements. Top tier will mean little soon.
    As for additives, the add pack different refiners may or may not or do or do not put in their fuel are different and they can and do change without notice. Some, but not all are added, automatically at the truck loading dock which you might get or might not get the additive for several different reasons. Also when additives are put in manually, who knows?
    There are so many place's in the chain from the crude storage to the pump, that can cause fuel problems we are lucky we have as few fuel related problems as we do in America.
    As a fact, gasoline at specific RON,VP, End Point,etc. can be different on a molecular level due to the different way they are processed. They can meet the minimum federal requirements for it's grade and still be different from Facility to Facility(refinery).
    As small as our refinery is we have the test engines(Knock and others) in our lab that will pass different molecularly different same octane fuels. That is no biggie.
  • lmacmillmacmil Posts: 1,758
    Thanks for the reply. I will probably just continue to do the bottle of Techron with each oil change method. It can't hurt and if it doesn't help, it's only $7 a couple times a year. I also try to fill up with Top Tier or major brand gas. I've heard too many (admittedly anecdotal) stories about problems related to off-brand/no-name gasoline to take a chance. In my area, some of the brand names (e.g., Phillips 66 and Marathon) are just as cheap as the no names anyway.
  • bassprobasspro Posts: 34
    Sure, there is always hope for a fuel additive that really works,but thank god the vast majority do not hurt fuel systems and I have heard of no studies that the additive negatively impact the catalyitic converter.
    As a general observation, most of the people who visit these sites are looking to learn how to better protect their vehicles (expense) for best performance,low or no unforeseen breakdowns, and longevity. The mostly untold benifit to doing that is less emissions,and leaks into and on our earth. I do not want to sound like a tree hugger, but our kind of people do deserve a pat on the back for trying to do the right thing. Again let us know if you find studies or tests that would prove the benifits of fuel additives. I would be glad to read them.
  • imidazol97imidazol97 Crossroads of America I70 & I75 Posts: 23,870
    I'm with you. I'll continue to occasionally use Techron Fuel System Cleaner (not the Injector Cleanor) once every 10-15K miles.

    The bottle is very clear that it doesn't do anything to the converter. It also helps protect the fuel gauge slider from being affected by sulfur in the fuels. Some cars have had deterioration affecting the fuel gauge readings.

    Techron is the additives which were in the Chevron fuel, which were the best at the time. I believe Chevron merged with Texaco since then. Texaco also had come up with a very good additive package. Since the additives were what was in good fuels to begin with, there's no reason not to use them.

    If I felt I had an injector problem that needed cleaning, I would use a premium grade fuel fillup with the Techron to increase the effectiveness. If it's just prophylaxis, I toss it in with my usual regular. Much of my gas comes from Kroger and Mobil.
    I don't pay any attention to the Top Tier advertising.

    2015 Cruze 2LT, 2014 Malibu 2LT, 2008 Cobalt 2LT

  • bassprobasspro Posts: 34
    Hi ALL, I did a search for out board motor issues and only found two. I have read and posted on this site quite a bit and decided to ask here an outboard motor question or two. Hope you do not mind giving me your opinions or maybe technical information for me to digest.
    As a short background my old out board was a two cycle and is now 21 years old. I have now bought into the new technology. I have bought a new 2008,EFI four cylinder,four stroke motor. (Mercury if it matters)
    As I read the information in the owners manual, it recommended only two oil products; Mercury or Quicksilver with some kind of service requirements(I assume marine) that I am not familiar with like the CI-4,CH-4,CG-4,CF,SL/SJ.
    My first question is there a conversion system to compare the two service requirement from marine to auto, if you know what I mean.
    My second question is I am going to replace the oil filter very soon and I will need to top off the oil. I want to start the process of switching over to full syn. and not the current blend the OEM recommends. What can I use that will meet their service requirements.
    As has been discussed many times on this site and others, there truly is a difference in oils,and additive packs. I want to find a syn. group IV ,or better oil to use that will meet and exceed the requirements of the motor builder.
    They also state that the required weight oil is 25w 40. I would prefer to go with a 0w40,0w50 or at least a 5w 40 for better flow characteristics,i.e. protection than the stock blend oil/add. pac.
    I need real help here at least to review information on these "new" kinds of motors. But I know in general a four stroke is a four stroke. Lets not get into the technicals to much other than to say, if the motor has roller tappets,solid tappets,odd cam profile, or some kind of timing belt or chain that needs a special lube, that I get, if that's the case.
    With a new motor I want to do the right thing for longevity and the least wear. I have less than 4 hours. Break in is, said by the book, to be done at eight hours.
    I want to change the oil and filter again then.
    Help me if you can or tell me what you would do. Thanks in advance.
  • niknmaxniknmax Posts: 5
    Hello, basspro. I just joined a company with an engine treatment. I joined because the stuff they are selling works. Now, you don't know me from a toad, and I can appreciate your doubting attitude because I have seen hundreds of claims from oil and fuel additives. As this thread reflects, they probably do something, but not enough to get change out of the jeans time after time. But I found this one is really different. Tore apart an engine that had used it for 20,000 miles and was able to see the results of the claim. Ford Ranger 6 cyl 290,000 miles on it and no wear ridges in the cylinders. The surface was as they claimed - coated with a cermet surface. Any suggestions on how to get people like yourself to consider something that I see as a real benefit?
    Nik Williams
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaPosts: 64,490
    Wait I missed something. If the engine with 290K used the additive for only 20K, and then was torn down and showed no wear, how does it follow that the lack of engine wear has anything to do with the additive? And...How do you know the engine wasn't rebuilt prior? And did anyone run the same engine without the additive for the same # of miles and tear that down to compare?
  • shiposhipo Posts: 9,148
    What you're missing is that the engine from that Ranger may well not have had any wear ridges anyway. Case in point, I recently pulled the heads off of a 3.8 (that had only had oil changes every 10,000 to 12,000 miles) from a Dodge Grand Caravan with nearly 200,000 on the clock, and not only were there no ridges, the honing marks were still on the cylinder walls.

    As for how to get folks to consider the products that you're selling, I'm thinking "good luck". Why? By simply using decent oil and regular maintenance, engines these days should easily last for hundreds of thousands of miles. With that said, I would quite honestly NEVER even consider any of these magic elixir products without a HUGE body of scientific evidence that proves their efficacy, and in more areas than just engine longevity too (i.e. measurably enhanced fuel economy, hugely increased oil change intervals, etc...).

    Best regards,
    Shipo
  • niknmaxniknmax Posts: 5
    Yep - target on. I asked those and more. Kid who owned the truck was a long time customer of my mechanic friend who knew the truck. No formal stuff just - he knew the truck.The additive builds back the wear with cermet tech - new, but a few products out there. Blew the head gasket and at that high miles, decided to put a new engine in. Logical, buyt the cermet had repaired the wear. Hard to believe, but aI have seen compression repaired to normal after being really poor. No parallel test done, but I have seen dynamic results in over 100 engines and frankly am trying to figure how to get others to consider the "mechanic in a tube of gel" that reverses wear. But is does. Any ideas?

    Nik
  • niknmaxniknmax Posts: 5
    Wear ridges is just one of the measures, not the end all. Yeah - "How" is the question. I see it work time after time on those who don't know enough to be a doubter, but we older guys have seen too many claims with nothing to see in end results. Stuff works. Figuring out how to get an interest is the challenge.
    Nik
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaPosts: 64,490
    Also an engine can have no ridge marks and be worn out anyway---worn bearings, worn oil rings, non-seating valves, worn valve guides, worn camshaft lobes. All a ridge line tells you is that the cylinder bore is not elliptical (egg-shaped).

    As for "reversing wear", that is scientifically impossible in an engine IMO. You can gum it up for a while and boost compression a bit but other than that, there's nothing in a can that replaces metal that I've aware of.

    Really all this is, is rather vague anecdotal evidence, which may have been sincerely passed onto you, but which is characteristically very unreliable and which proves....well....nothing at all. It's just a "story".

    Unless this product can be tested with a blind group (non-additive engines, run under same conditions) and verified by an agency outside of the people who make the product, then it is not above suspicion.

    I'm not surprised you're finding a challenge recruiting believers. There's no good evidence to support the claims being presented to us.

    But if you have independent scientifically rigorous testing results, fire away, I'll read 'em over.
  • shiposhipo Posts: 9,148
    To say that I'm extremely underwhelmed by your anecdotal claims is an understatement. If you want anybody to even half believe what you're claiming, you're going to have to take a bunch of engines that have long gone 'round the bend, tear them down, make dozens of measurements each, reassemble them with no changes, run them 100,000 miles, and then tear them down for a second set of measurements. Failing that, most folks with any education in the area of art called engine operation and wear will consider your product just another "Me too" brand of snake-oil.

    So, as Mr. Shiftright kind of suggested, please provide us with some scientific back-up to your anecdotal claims.

    Best regards,
    Shipo
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaPosts: 64,490
    Here's a pretty good test...."pretty good" because it does indicate some testing problems that might skew the results....but in general I offer this as an example at least of the investment in time and energy it takes to come to some sort of scientific conclusion about engine wear.

    One reason the synthetics didn't produce more dramatic results was that the conditions were not the type where synthetic excels, that is extreme of climate and extremes of engine "work". Taxicabs pretty much putt around all day and bang into things at 40 mph or under. This isn't the Indy 500 or pipeline work in Alaska or the Mexican Carrera.

    Results?

    1. Changing oil at 3,000 miles isn't necessary

    2. Slick 50, STP Engine Treatment produced no discernible benefits.

    http://www.moneybluebook.com/articles/consumerreports.oilchange.php
  • ex_tdierex_tdier Posts: 277
    Wow. Almost 1150 posts here...does anyone recall what the general consensus is?

    Additves are good or not?

    When should one change their oil, according to the dealer package specifications or the manual? Or even at 5,000 miles of city driving or 6 months, whichever occurs first?

    I recall that my dealer and different car dealers over the years does add a can of fuel additive to the tank at every one or two year service interval. This is standard and if you go "by the book", the manual typically says not to add any fuel or oil additives. When asked why they do it, the consensus always has been that the quality of fuel varies among gas stations, although the "baseline" is the same.

    I've tried the cheap Techron fuel additive and I haven't noticed an improvement but people swear on the effacy of the concentrated more expensive version. Racing enthusiasts and their mechanics only fill up with top tier fuel.

    Like someone mentioned a few posts back, there may be a benefit from adding fuel additives (finding which ones that actually work and won't gunk things up is the hard part) may help if you're using them on an ongoing basis.

    In any case, I think objective third party studies need to be done on fuel additives for vehicles.

    BTW, I didnt click on the link by Mr. Shiftright, in the event some of my questions were answered. ;)
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaPosts: 64,490
    Not too much hard data out there on fuel additives.

    Most of the posts seem to gather around three points:

    1. Total skepticism -- or, "under normal conditions with good fuel---NEVER NEEDED."

    2. The "placebo effect" --- or the anecdotal and subjective statement --"it feels better after I added it"

    3. confusion over causation vs. correlation ---- I added it and THEN my car ran better (question being---did it just clear itself up, or ???)
  • niknmaxniknmax Posts: 5
    Thank you for all of your comments. I am sincere in seeking ways to approach the industry, but with neither the time nor capital to do a project like the NY Taxi's. Please know I am only telling you what I have seen. I the have a set of the actual bearings, roller lifters, piston assembly complete with bearing and rings. They each are repaired with a ceramic surface as I described in my earlier comments. Seems the process is a ferro silicate sintered surface triggered by a magnesium heat based on friction. Sounds complex, but I am looking at the results. Over $3 billion in worldwide sales and not a single claim of damage caused by the process.

    Measurable result - compression loss caused by cylinder wear. Might anyone be interested in taking an engine they have with compression loss and trying the process? It would be insured against damage.

    I am new to these types of forums, so if what I just offered is inappropriate. please tell me. I am just trying to be creative because I know what I am seeing is real.
    Nik
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaPosts: 64,490
    Well that's an imaginative sales pitch but I don't believe one word of it myself. Having built many engines, it sounds like a preposterous theory.

    How would this mysterious ceramic know how much to build? And why would it not adhere to EVERY metal surface, instead of just pistons and bearings? Why wouldn't it build up my camshaft lobes or my timing chain?

    I'm sure there are no complaints of harm, because the additive is probably an inert substance.

    If this company can do billions in business, why can't they afford a clinical trial?

    I'm sorry but so little of what you are presenting here makes any sense. At least not so far. But you know, keep trying if you like. As soon as I hear something plausible I will raise my hand in your favor!

    :)

    Slick 50 -- lost lawsuit to FTC (false advertising)

    Duralube--lost lawsuit to FTC

    MotorUp -- lost lawsuit to FTC

    Fuelmax - lost lawsuit to FTC

    Zmax -- settled out of court

    Prolube-- busted by CR as useless, but not prohibited by FTC as yet

    MotorBond-- new kid on the block, jury's out. Haven't really dug into this one.
  • shiposhipo Posts: 9,148
    To be perfectly honest, your pitch sounds exactly like many-many others that I've been coming across for decades (literally). The pitch always goes something like this (optional constructions are underlined and separated by the "and/or" symbol "|"):

    ===============================================================================

    I've discovered this new [process | substance | preparation | additive] that can [eliminate engine wear | dramatically improve fuel economy | repair/reverse engine damage or engine wear]. I know that this sounds like many other products before it, but [I've seen it work with my own eyes | it has been proven to work by the {pick your favorite research facility, real or imagined} | our internal labs have run exhaustive tests and proven its efficacy]. As proof of how good our product is, we have sales of [some number] billions of dollars and we haven't even a single dissatisfied customer.

    If you are not completely satisfied with this product, please return it to the place of purchase for a complete refund.

    ===============================================================================

    Please understand, I'm not saying that your product doesn't do what you say it does. What I am saying is that you haven't said anything that would even remotely pique my interest, and that everything that you have said makes you sound like a snake-oil salesman (not saying that you are, just that you sound like one).

    As I said before, when you come back with some compelling and verifiable science (i.e. something way-WAY-WAY more compelling than "I've seen it work."), I'm sure that some of us, me included, will be more than happy to review your data.

    Best regards,
    Shipo
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaPosts: 64,490
    I'd have to add, that speaking only for myself, I don't understand how it does what it claims to do.
  • imidazol97imidazol97 Crossroads of America I70 & I75 Posts: 23,870
    >Seems the process is a ferro silicate sintered surface triggered by a magnesium heat based on friction.

    I have a little bit of science capability and this sounds like horse manure talk.

    2015 Cruze 2LT, 2014 Malibu 2LT, 2008 Cobalt 2LT

  • texasestexases Posts: 8,975
    >Seems the process is a ferro silicate sintered surface triggered by a magnesium heat based on friction.

    Same here. This doesn't even make sense, what is 'a magnesium heat'? Magnesium's an element, not a heat source...hope he's not saying he's BURNING magnesium...ouch!
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaPosts: 64,490
    burns pretty good actually.
  • texasestexases Posts: 8,975
    Oh, yeah, I remember burning magnesium strips in my back yard. 12 years old, no eye protection, lucky I didn't blind myself! Don't think I'd like that going on in the crankcase :sick:
  • bassprobasspro Posts: 34
    Hi niknmax, I will be honest with you, that 3 billion in world wide sales is no biggie,but that has not been collaborated along with the other claims. I read several replies and posts. With that in mind and my years in the machinist world and just 52 years walking on this earth,it would be a great stretch figureativly and literally to get me where you are today. You may or may not be a nubie to oil additives and I hope you read well the many comments written here. I for one, am pretty open minded, but almost always like to see the studies to verify any claims.
    I can assure you,you will find limited "jump on the band wagon"
    here.
    I hope you invested little and all I can say is hit the trades day circuit and maybe you will find some believers without providing proof. Basspro
  • kurtamaxxxguykurtamaxxxguy Posts: 1,798
    I'm not trying to start a flame war or sell anything here, and searched this forum for comments on two oil additives (one backed by a mix of testimonials, and one mostly by engineering tests) before writing this.

    Motorsilk showed up at a 3/09 Oregon Green festival. They were handing out small green bottles of pleasant smelling cold metal treatment that looks like hand lotion.
    Yet there's a curious gap on their web site (everything stops at 2006). One report mentioned American Guardian warranty coverage includes their product, but web searches suggested American Guardian coverage is mediocre at best.
    Another report suggested MS reduced fuel consumption in diesel engines, but that the fuel consumption went right back up when it was no longer added (so much for the "permanent treatment" nonsense).

    ASL Camguard is indeed intended for airplanes and for that reason is limited wrt friction fighting. It's rumored they're working on an automotive version.

    There's another one out out there; tungsten disulphide.
    This near-diamond hard material, ground finely, supposedly coats engine parts permanently. A crude test of adding my nano-grade sample to a tube of 0-20 engine oil, then vigorously mixed, showed it settled out after 30 minutes.
    A former Exxon chemist told me no one to date has gotten it to work.

    Meanwhile, my oil's changed at 3000 miles, and the air filters regularly, Techron additive in the gas, and so far no problems.
    If there's something better out there I'd enjoy hearing about it.
  • shiposhipo Posts: 9,148
    Until further notice:

    additives = huile du serpent

    Is there something better than oil changes every 3,000 miles? Yup, synthetic oil changes every 10,000+ miles.

    Is there somethign better than pouring Techron in your tank? Yup, not pouring Techron in your tank.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaPosts: 64,490
    Given that a modern engine will run quite happily to 175,000 -- 200,000 miles with just normal oil and normal oil filters and normal oil changes....AND that if you are operating outside the normal range of use, such as extremes of heat and cold, you can switch to synthetic oil and perhaps 7500 mile oil changes......AND that fleet vehicles (18 wheelers, construction, busses) run to the moon and back a couple of times in their lives with no "additives'......GIVEN ALL THAT....I fail to see what value these "additives" hold for anyone other than lining the pockets of the "inventors".

    Oh but you can "run your car to 500, 000 miles".....and who exactly does that? And what will this car LOOK LIKE in 500K miles after the door handles have fallen off and the suspension is probably cracked in ten places?

    Expensive additives seem to me to be the answer to the question that no one has asked. Or perhaps more accurately, the solution to a problem that doesn't exist.
  • imidazol97imidazol97 Crossroads of America I70 & I75 Posts: 23,870
    > tungsten disulphide.
    This near-diamond hard material, ground finely, supposedly coats engine parts permanently.

    I read that and analytically think that since this is a very hard mineral, why would I put such an abrasive into my oil and drive with it grinding between the bearings and the rings and cylinder walls. Also I wonder how they train the particles to stick to the cylinder walls rather than the bearings to harden them. And how do they train the particles to stick onto the walls in low spots so they're not sticking out like sand on quartz sandpaper just waiting to abraid the opposing metal moving past it?

    I understand Techron having an impact on the fuel injectors if any of the long chain organics have formed on the moving parts. I use Techron. It's other people choice NOT to use Techron.

    Of course now that I use Shell's new fuel with nitrogen in it (is that like nitrogen used in tires is a discovery to save the world? :P ), I won't have to use Techron because the nitrogen will have cleaned up all the systems. Does anyone else see humor in their advertisements?

    2015 Cruze 2LT, 2014 Malibu 2LT, 2008 Cobalt 2LT

  • niknmaxniknmax Posts: 5
    I have played the additive game for years, keep looking for something that works. I tried this one back in 2007 and have stuck with it. It does something different. After seeing it work in over 100 engines, I am convinced. Tried it first in an old engine that had cylinder wear - low compression. It worked and the compression is solid to this day. My 2002 Escape has a lot more power and better fuel economy. Bottom line it works despite all the rest of the products that don't.

    At the risk of throwing this product to the forum, it is XADO www.xadowest.com .

    They got API certification of their oils treated with the active ingredient.

    Well, lets see what comes of it.

    Guys - I tried it - it works.

    Nik
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaPosts: 64,490
    What do you mean exactly that it "works"? :) Unless you run it next to engines without the additive, and plot these two parallel engine tests over the course of the life of the engines, you have no proof of anything seems to me.

    As for having more "power", did you do a before and after dynamometer test? Or are you measuring with the seat of your pants?

    And besides, what are you trying to accomplish with additives that an engine with good oil and oil changes can't do by itself anyway?

    As an analogy, if I take your Magic Vitamins and live to be 80 and I feel "peppier", how can you ever know that I wouldn't have lived to be 80 anyway? Or that I'm just experiencing a placebo effect of spending $100 on your vitamins? Fact is, you can't. Also 80 is the natural lifespan.

    Same with engines. If Engine Group A, the ones with the additive,are run in the exact same way as Engine Group B, and Group A outlives Group B by an appreciable amount, then you have something.

    But these additive companies never do this test---because they would fail IMO. They'd fail to deliver more longevity and they'd fail on the dyno.
  • shiposhipo Posts: 9,148
    "Guys - I tried it - it works."

    Sorry, you have absolutely zero proof that it does anything of the sort. With this last post of yours, you've just crossed over into the official Snake Oil Salesman territory and as such, have completely discredited yourself and pretty much anything you'll post from now on. Your only potential salvation would be to post some verifiable science that backs up your ridiculous sounding claims, however, you've been asked to do that before and, so far at least, you've been unwilling or unable to cross that threshold. My bet is that you will continue to be regarded as a Snake Oil Salesman for as long as you continue to be a shill for the bilge water you're trying to sell to the unsuspecting folks on this site (and probably others as well).

    Best regards,
    Shipo
  • kurtamaxxxguykurtamaxxxguy Posts: 1,798
    Isn't Techron an additive for Chevron and Texaco fuels, intended to help remove deposits? Some reports suggest that its overuse might cause valve shafts to stick, so I only use it every 9000 miles or so.

    GM dealers sell Techron-shaped bottles of "GM fuel additive". Bottle Shape doesn't confirm Techron's in 'em, but OEM's often use same packaging and change the label, figuring the customer/user won't notice it.
    An oddity, if nothing else.

    As Mr. Shiftright points out, one really needs to see proper engineering tests of these products before determining whether they work. The sparse true dyno testing of these additives may be because the products fail, show no major advantage, or that mfr. can't afford dyno cost or time.
    (The one additive I use does have physical testing behind it.)

    BTW,
    XADO (pronounced Haa_do) appears to come from Russian and Chinese research, but...
    it claims successfully running treated engines (Audi, etc.) without oil.
    Haven't we've heard that claim before? :sick:

    As for these "permanent treatments" lasting 100,000 miles, tests show they usually stop working when the oil's changed (logical - there is nothing to replenish the coating!!). That means those of us with regular oil change intervals (3750 required for me) will be spending $25 - 100 every change for a modest improvement in fuel mileage. No way will that cost be recovered !!

    Caveat Emptor!
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaPosts: 64,490
    I could improve your fuel mileage by selling you straight 5W oil.

    Some additives have benefit....such as "water wetter" for one, or a strong fuel injection cleaner like BGK44. It's not all snake oil. But neither of the aforementioned additives make outrageous claims, either...and their effects (or lack therefore) are easily measurable. The water wetter's effect can be seen on your temperature gauge right away, and the BGK will either unclog the injector or it won't in a short period of driving.
    .
    But the snake oil stuff? The "effects" are vague, and difficult to measure quantitatively.
  • kurtamaxxxguykurtamaxxxguy Posts: 1,798
    An interesting company, BG Products (it took a bit of playing with web search before BG 44K homed in on its parent)
    BK had a straightforward web presentation (no screaming testimonials, etc) of a number of gas / oil additives and synthetic oils. I've not used them. The lack of testimonial hype, though, is a good sign.
  • imidazol97imidazol97 Crossroads of America I70 & I75 Posts: 23,870
    >The lack of hype, though, is a good sign.

    I found hype in their description:

    "BG Fuel Injection System Cleaner cuts through it like a hot knife through butter. Fuel deposits literally melt when exposed to the high pressure cleaning action of BG Fuel Injection System Cleaner pumping through the fuel rail."

    I was expecting a company that was all facts. I didn't realize they sold their products directly to public. I thought they only sold through the jobbers who push the product.

    They don't publish their chemical safety sheets on their site so it's hard to see if there's anything special about their fuel system cleaner.

    2015 Cruze 2LT, 2014 Malibu 2LT, 2008 Cobalt 2LT

  • zaken1zaken1 Posts: 556
    If you are still looking for an answer to your question about selecting an oil for your 4 stroke outboard motor; I can mention a few points.

    Regarding when to switch to a synthetic; it is commonly recognized by synthetic oil manufacturers that problems in piston ring seating can be created when a new motor is switched to an ester based synthetic (virtually every synthetic brand EXCEPT Mobil 1) before the break in process is fully completed. On an automobile, for this reason, I would not switch to an ester based synthetic before the motor had 5,000 miles on it (more or less 100 hours of operation). Some of the more subtle polishing of wearing parts takes that long; and it is often apparent in the increased power output of a motor as it approaches that mileage. Ester based synthetics are so slippery that they will defeat this beneficial wearing in process; which can result in the motor having less performance than it would if the break in was allowed to reach completion. And that would create a downside risk outweighing the amount of degradation which could be expected by using petroleum oil for the first 100 hours of use. However, Mobil 1 synthetic can be used from the very beginning of a break in. I have spoken with Mobil engineers about this; and they assured me that it is perfectly safe; they also said that Mobil 1 is used as factory fill for several high performance GM vehicles. After hearing that, I successfully broke in two new motors of my own on Mobil 1.

    In automotive applications, I share your preference for multigrade synthetic oils which have wide viscosity ranges. However, 4 stroke engines used in non automotive applications sometimes have significant differences in viscosity or additive requirements. For example; motorcycle engines use the engine oil to also lubricate their transmissions and wet clutches. For that reason, motorcycle oil must have additional anti-shear additives to deal with the shearing effect of operating among transmission gears. Wet clutches in motorcycles have been found to slip when used with oil that meets recent automotive specs; so motorcycle specific oil does not meet those specs. Harley Davidson air cooled engines run at much higher oil temperatures than automobiles; so they commonly use engine oil with a minimum viscosity of 50 weight; and will use oil as heavy as 70 weight in extremely hot weather.

    The fact that Mercury specifies 25W-40 oil concerns me. There must be a compelling reason that a major outboard manufacturer would go to the expense of designing and testing an oil for use in their engines; which has a very different viscosity than that used in automobiles. They state on their website that resistance to thermal breakdown is the major feature of this oil. So those engines apparently run with substantially higher oil temperatures than automobile engines.

    As a frequent participant in the Edmunds "answers" forum, I have seen many questions concerning piston slap in low mileage, late model Toyota engines; and have seen similar questions about excessively short engine life in US model Mazda RX-8 rotary engines. There is a clear answer to the Mazda RX-8 problem. It relates to the Federal EPA regulation which mandates the use of "energy conserving" oil viscosities in all new vehicles sold in the U.S. The 20W-50 oil which has traditionally been the preferred oil for Mazda rotaries is not an "energy conserving" (read: diluted) viscosity; so it is legally prohibited for dealer use in new U.S. RX-8 models. As a result, dealers are now using low viscosity oils in those cars; and the engines are frequently failing at around 50,000 miles. However, 20W-50 is still being used in RX-8 cars in Canada and Europe. And those cars are not having problems with short engine life.

    My experience with Toyota piston slap problems is that it also derives from using diluted energy conserving oil viscosities. And the low mileage modified V-8 in my Dodge van had the same problem; until I switched from Mobil 1 0W-30 (which is an energy conserving formula) to Mobil 1 0W-40 (which is a non-energy conserving, European formula). Switching to non-energy conserving oil viscosities has eliminated the piston slap in my van, and in every Toyota engine I have applied it to.

    For those reasons; I would recommend extreme caution about using low viscosity, energy conserving automotive oils in your new outboard.
  • shiposhipo Posts: 9,148
    "Regarding when to switch to a synthetic; it is commonly recognized by synthetic oil manufacturers that problems in piston ring seating can be created when a new motor is switched to an ester based synthetic (virtually every synthetic brand EXCEPT Mobil 1) before the break in process is fully completed."

    Ummm, no. Not one synthetic oil from the likes of Mobil, Castrol, Pennzoil, Valvoline, Quaker State, Pentosin, Total, Amsoil, Shell... (I could go on but you get the point) is a Group V ester based oil. FWIW, the ONLY oils that I know of that are in fact Group V oils are those sold by Royal Purple and Redline.

    Best regards,
    Shipo
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaPosts: 64,490
    Well I used BGK and it DID cut through it like a hot knife through butter! :P The lumpy idle was gone in about 1 hour of highway driving, never to return. (Mercedes 300 diesel).

    Dare say I was impressed. Of course, we were throwing a known product at a known problem and symptom. I was not looking to "improve fuel mileage" or "increase horsepower", all of which is nonsense coming out of a can.

    BGK is not a maintenance additive or a "promise" additive---it's meant to (hopefully) clean up really dirty injectors. It's no more magic than Drano. Drano doesn't promise to give you "a cleaner brighter face every time you wash up" and "up to 30% less water usage" :P

    It's promises to clean your drain, period.
  • imidazol97imidazol97 Crossroads of America I70 & I75 Posts: 23,870
    >about 1 hour of highway driving,

    Did you use the direct cleaner setup for injectors or did you put it into the fuel?

    The usual advertisement I hear for BG is from a car repair shop where they use their injector cleaner pump and run the car off the additive directly to clean the injectors. I always had the impression BG wasn't sold over the counter.

    >The lumpy idle was gone

    That's the same as my experience with Techron fuel system cleaner when I used it a couple of times and the idle had changed character.

    2015 Cruze 2LT, 2014 Malibu 2LT, 2008 Cobalt 2LT

  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaPosts: 64,490
    I double-dosed it with a near empty fuel tank and drove the hell out of the car. I got it from a shop, not a store. It wasn't cheap to buy either.
  • imidazol97imidazol97 Crossroads of America I70 & I75 Posts: 23,870
    From what I can tell from the eBay ads and comment pages on performance car-oriented forums, there are two versions. One for the tank and one for putting in with a direct pump device that replaces the fuel line to flow directly to the injectors. Some people are using the pump chemical into their tank.

    >I double-dosed it with a near empty fuel tank

    That should clean out anything that was ever going to come out! Putting cleaners into an almost empty tank before filling with the requisite volume of gasoline for the container size probably helps pickup/dissolve some things floating in the fuel or on the intake sock for the fuel pump which sometimes gets clogged and causes problems (on some H-bodies from GM at least).

    I saw BG being sold as low as $11 on eBay. At that price I would like to try it for one of my biannual cleanings. At $25 per container, I'd be better off just using only Shell, Mobile, Marathon, etc., instead of the grocery chain fuels (Kroger, which are the above-named fuels delivered in blind tankers with the standard additives).

    2015 Cruze 2LT, 2014 Malibu 2LT, 2008 Cobalt 2LT

  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaPosts: 64,490
    Diesel tanks are very rank by nature but the Benz has a very large fuel filter, and mine also had a water trap.
  • bassprobasspro Posts: 34
    Thanks for the input. I have done some research and part of what you had written was one of the reasons for the different vis and add pac. The time spent at high to max RPM in boating environments is one reason for the new classification.
    Also there is a different test that is needed to pass the new classification,in short it is for salt water moisture exposure that most automotive engines are not exposed to.
    Red line and RP did not have a oil with the NMMA FC-W classification and other than the simi syn.of quicksilver, Amsoil had the only fully syn. on the market. I had looked at a obscure company that had a claimed syn. oil that I could not get any info MSDS or spec's
    When I changed the oil filter I drained some oil until clean and ended up replacing 2QT. I will change over to the fully syn at 10 hrs. I do not want to run wide open throttle without Fully syn oil. I have gone from a 15w40 to the AMSOIL 10w40 for a little easier flow, cold.
    I have since 05, done the switch to syn. oil on three motors (non outboard) with no problems.
    Most piston rings are pre seated these days with a lapping process and piston bores are finished at 125 or better (still cross-hatched) unlike the good old days. The rest of the engine parts are different animals as far as break-in is concerned.
    Anyway, thanks again for your input and my motor is running good so far.
  • bassprobasspro Posts: 34
    Thanks Shipo, As far as I could find you are right. So the only other brand I could find with specs or MSDS etc,, with the NMMA-FC certification, was AMSOIL. I got it and will use it until or if I can find another easier to acquire product.
    I do not know, nor can I say that the AMSOIL is better than the Quicksilver at this point, because I have not looked at their spec sheets if the Quicksilver oil even has one I can access. I hope to do that soon. Basspro
  • shiposhipo Posts: 9,148
    What I find interesting regarding the Amsoil 10W-40 4-Stroke Marine oil is that it is the only oil that I've ever seen from Amsoil that is actually certified to a specific standard. Said another way, I find it curious that Amsoil has decided to certify this particular oil and yet do the soft shoe / song and dance routine when it comes to the specs that their other oils "meet". Case in point, they claim that their European spec oils are engineered to meet various manufacturer specifications, but they steadfastly refuse to submit those oils for certification testing.

    I've always felt that Amsoil operates with shady business ethics (the language regarding the application of their European oils is a prime example), and have (and will continue to) always avoid their products.

    Best regards,
    Shipo
  • isellhondasisellhondas Issaquah WashingtonPosts: 20,225
    It seems every few years another "miracle" additive hits the market.

    There are usually sold "Amway" style and they always seem to go away quickly as people find our they do nothing.

    Replace worn out metal? Impossible.

    I have seen certain additives get rid of carbon that has caused a loss in compression. Rislone seems to do a good job at this.

    I've watched old times squirt water down carburators to accomplish the same thing.

    This is very risky but believe me, it works!
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaPosts: 64,490
    I think what those additives or techniques do is mostly get rid of carbon and thus lower the compression from an artificially high level caused by the carbon (less volume in the cylinder due to carbon buildup). So you get rid of "pinging" and also "post-ignition" or engine run-on after shutting down.

    I suppose that excessive carbon could cause compression rings to stick although I've never actually seen this happen on a modern engine using modern fuels.

    The worst thing I've seen happen to modern engines is sludge, and this is best prevented by frequent oil changes or use of synthetic oils.

    Once your engine is severely 'sludged up" there is certainly nothing in a can that's going to clean it all out. You have to take it apart. Engine flushes can barely touch it, it's so tenacious in there.
  • bassprobasspro Posts: 34
    Hi Shipo, I do understand what you are saying and I too have never bought AMSOIL in the past because I have had alternatives in the automotive world.
    That being said I appreciate you info and if you happen to see or hear of a fully syn oil that meets the NMMA FC-W certification,I would be glad to look into it.
    I just went to the different out board motor sites,and goggled marine oil a few different ways and then went to E-Bay and Yahoo to shop around. I found one other brand I had never heard of and goggled it a got a marine center up on the East coast. I assumed they wear pouring up their own concoction and got out of there.
    I will write RP and Redline along with Lucas to see what they have in the pipeline and I will switch when something full syn. comes out.
    At ten hrs. I will also install an oil bypass system and start oil analysis at 50 and 100 hrs. etc... to get proper oil change intervals no matter what full syn oil I use.
    I do appreciate your incite, and hope if you see spec sheets on other full syn. products for marine service,that you or anyone else who reads this site would forward it to me.
    I am like most here and want the least wear, most dependability I can get from any motor I use. Oil is one of the main components and I plan to keep the boat for twenty plus years,if I live that long. Basspro
  • shiposhipo Posts: 9,148
    I found this list of certified NMMA FC-W oils:
    http://www.nmma.org/certification/programs/oils/registeredoil.asp?y=FC-W2008

    The list contains many oils, some of which may be synthetic, some are most likely not. The only oil brand that I'm really familiar with is Motul, and I have a great appreciation for their products (which as I understand it, are primarily Group IV synthetics). That said, I'm not sure of Motul is available in North America.

    Best regards,
    Shipo
  • isellhondasisellhondas Issaquah WashingtonPosts: 20,225
    Have you ever taken apart a sludged up engine? What a MESS!

    When I was a kid working in a gas station we had a local Japanese gardner who never had time to bring his truck in for an oil change..." Too busy"!

    But every time he needed gas, it seemed we would have to add a quart of oil. At least once a week, along with the oil, he would have us add a can of STP.

    Oh, and he insisted we use one of the "Penn" oils that used to gum up engines.

    It was an old Chevy with a 235 six and one day it finally died.

    I got the job of getting his old engine ready for a local Machine Shop to overhaul.

    I had to beat the valve cover off with a hammer and you can't believe what was underneath it!
Sign In or Register to comment.