You missed the point on my posting. If you do not want to use this product, that is "ok" with me. I am not trying to sell you on the idea of using this product. But on the other side of the issue, your opinion does not mean that the product does not perform a needed function in the upper cylinder area. I know that an "upper cylinder lubricant" in needed, because there is no lead in the fuel to lubricate the valve faces, stems and piston rings lands. Carbon will stick to hot dry surfaces, thus locking the rings into the lands of the piston, and valves into their guides. You are entitled to your opinion on this subject, even though you are wrong!
"But on the other side of the issue, your opinion does not mean that the product does not perform a needed function in the upper cylinder area."
A needed function, says who? Certainly not the engineers who developed engines that power 100% of the cars now sold here in the U.S. Wait, wait, it seems I jumped the gun.
"I know that an "upper cylinder lubricant" in needed, because there is no lead in the fuel to lubricate the valve faces, stems and piston rings lands."
Ahhh, so, there is the answer to my question; says you. It seems that you’ve spent too much time reading the Turtle Wax hype of their product and/or the hype of the various retailers that sell MMO, and not enough time actually thinking about their claims.
I’ll take each of your three areas of concern one at a time.
1) Lubricating the valve faces (and by extension I assume you mean the valve seats as well, yes, no?): Since the start of the 1975 model year, most gasoline fueled cars (and all gasoline fueled cars since the early 1980s) sold here in the U.S. have been required by law to burn unleaded fuel. The way the manufacturers altered their engines to accept this new fuel was to change the metallurgy of the valves and the valve seats. The new metals were so hard that they were basically immune to the effects of combustion and as such needed nothing to keep the interface between valve and seat lubricated. Since that time I have yet to see a single valve/valve seat failure in a car that required unleaded fuel.
2) Valve stems (and by extension I assume you mean the valve guides as well, yes, no?): Valve stems and guides are lubricated by engine oil and as such, do not need any upper cylinder lubrication.
3) Piston rings lands [sic]: Ummm, I'm starting to get the impression that you have never even looked inside an engine, or for that matter even understand how they work. What little lubrication that the piston rings themselves as well as their adjacent lands require is provided once again by engine oil. As for the piston ring lands, I don't think that I have ever seen any apparent wear on a ring land on any piston that I have ever taken out of an engine, and that goes back to engines built before 1975 as well. In fact, while I may be wrong on this issue, I don’t think that any of the lands (there are typically three per piston) normally have any contact with the cylinder wall, and if they don't touch the wall, they certainly don't need much lubrication at all. On the other hand, if the lands start touching the cylinder wall, your engine has problems WAY beyond anything that MMO (or any other lubricant for that matter) can deal with.
"Carbon will stick to hot dry surfaces, thus locking the rings into the lands of the piston, and valves into their guides."
Your credibility is sinking rapidly; you must have gotten this stuff from some marketing hype from somewhere. The piston ring lands are the area of the piston between the rings and above the top ring, and as I have already stated, what little lubrication they need (if any at all) they get from engine oil. What I assume the author of the above dubious statement meant was "thus locking the rings into the groves of the piston", and as I have already stated, the rings get all of the lubrication they need from engine oil. Ditto the valves and their guides.
While we are on the subject of carbon buildup, since the advent of the leadless environment; with the lead gone, all of the necessary lead scavengers were no longer needed as well, which produced a fuel that burned much cleaner. Thirty years later we are burning fuel that combined with the latest engines, produce less carbon and other combustion byproducts after 100,000 miles than a typical engine of 1970 produced in 1,000 miles.
"You are entitled to your opinion on this subject, even though you are wrong!"
Hehe, I could actually be insulted by that statement, however, since it seems that you are only trying to convince yourself that you haven't been wasting you money on MMO I'll let it pass. ;-)
I am not sure we can blanket all additives as snake oil in my opinion. I am sure most on the market probably are. In the late '80s, BMW actually recommended the use of Techron in the fuel tank every 2,000 miles. In fact BMW even backed it up with some rigorous research on the subject. In my opinion Techron is not snake oil. While BMW no longer recommends Techron because of probably the improved fuel quality available these days, I still put in a bottle of Technon every 5,000 miles in my three BMWs. For around $8 each bottle, even it only serves to neutralize the occasional water/moisture in the fuel tank, it is worth it IMO. I haven't had any ill effect on the engine with all my cars.
Let me understand your "professional position" with regards to MM oil. You have NEVER used this product in the fuel of your vehicles, yet you have an opinion as to it's effectiveness. You also believe everything that you read in the "owner's manual", making the assumption, that the automotive engineers that produced the vehicle know everything there is to know about engines. If that is true, I guess there is no room for improvement or experimentation. Let's stop developing new theories and products. Everything has already been invented! Let's all drink the "COOLADE"!
For your information, this product disolves carbon deposits on the rings and ring grooves of the piston, keeping the rings free to follow the contours of the cylinder walls as the piston travel from TDC to BDC. If also disolves the carbon deposits on the valves and lubricates the valve faces, stems and guides. That is exactly what "LEAD" did in the old gasoline formulations.
In addition, this product lubricates the fuel injectors and the electric fuel pump. This is especially important with alcohol in the fuel!
If you do not want to use an upper cylinder lubricant, that is your choice.
It seems we've gone from the sublime to the ridiculous. FWIW, there are plenty of products that simple common sense suggests that I should take a pass on. After all, go into any auto parts store and look at the plethora of products that claim Shinier Paint, Better Gas Mileage, Longer Engine Life, Lower Oil Consumption, Longer Life for your Leather Seats, Brakes, Tires, Exhaust System , and the list goes on. MMO is simply another bit of noise in a very noisy environment. Have you tried then all? After all, they claim to do things that you seem to want to believe.
Regarding your claims of what MMO does, I have two responses:
1) Not even the Turtle Wax/MMO web site make such a broad range of claims. So, are you inventing this stuff? Are you reading it from some third party resellers' marketing hype? Or perhaps, are these claims only on the bottle and not on the MMO site? Either way, here is what the MMO site claims:
ADDED TO GASOLINE: -Cleans and lubricates fuel injectors and carburetors -- That is redundant with the additive package found in virtually all gasoline sold in the western world. -Improves gasoline mileage -- How, by what science? Sorry, not buying that line, even a little. -Reduces and prevents varnish and gum build-up -- Oddly enough, a little varnish and gum is a good thing, it protects internal engine components from rust. Early synthetic oil also did this and many engine problems were caused in cars that were not driven daily. -Extends spark plug life -- Hmmm, my spark plugs already last 100,000 miles. -Safe for catalytic converters and oxygen sensors -- So what?
ADDED TO ENGINE OIL: -Prevents valve sticking and clatter -- That is redundant with what engine oil does, and as such, is unnecessary. -Fortifies properties of engine oil, prevents breakdown caused by extreme temperatures -- Not likely. If anything, it weakens said properties of high quality engine oil, especially synthetic oil. -Promotes easier cold weather starts -- Easier than what? My car uses a 0W-40 synthetic oil from the factory and so far the coldest weather that I've started it in was -35. It started instantly, no grinding at all. -Reduces and prevents acid and sludge formation -- If I'm not mistaken, MMO uses a petroleum oil as its base. So far, in every test that I've ever read, not one such oil (regardless of additive package) has ever been able come close to the acid and sludge characteristics of even a cheap synthetic engine oil.
2) So much for what MMO claims, now I'll move on to what YOU are claiming.
Regarding YOUR piston ring claim; the piston rings are serviced by normal engine oil and do not need any extra help. By the way, did you know that if you dissolve too much of the carbon from the ring grooves that you run the risk of unseating the rings? That's a bad thing, and fuel mileage and oil consumption will suffer accordingly. As a point of interest, assuming for the sake of argument that MMO is actually able to dissolve more carbon than the engine oil already does, where does that carbon go? Is it your belief that the MMO component of the crankcase mixture is going to hold it in suspension until the next oil change?
Regarding YOUR assertion that "If [sic] also dissolves the carbon deposits on the valves and lubricates the valve faces, stems and guides. You apparently didn't read my last post regarding that issue. Valve stems are lubricated with engine oil and modern valve seats do not need to be lubricated. Period. Even if they did, MMO would only be able to do so for the intake valves (which do not develop carbon deposits unless the ignition timing is WAY OFF). As for the exhaust valves, I seriously doubt that MMO has any value what so ever. If it did, that would mean that it was not being completely burned during the combustion process and is then being passed out through the exhaust system as some form of an oily liquid. If that were the case, said liquid would quickly destroy the catalytic converter. (See the MMO claims above.)
What are you drinking? I must be very powerful stuff to hallucinate to this extent! You are WRONG about the need for lubrication on valve faces and valve seats. Yes, valve stems are lubricated by engine oil, but the oil is a VERY small amount and sometimes it is NOT sufficient to protect the guides. Don't use the product if it doesn't meet your needs. I will continue to use this product in all my engines. I don't have any problem with an oxygen sensor or a Cat Converter. Carbon in the ring grooves will lock the rings into the grooves, thus causing "blow by" or "scoring" of the cylinder walls. The rings must be free to move in the piston grooves freely. Take a course in engine rebuilding!
"You are WRONG about the need for lubrication on valve faces and valve seats."
What are you driving, a 1966 Chevy? If so, then yes, your valve seats probably need lubrication (although I have at least one source that believes that metallurgy had progressed sufficiently by 1960 to render leaded fuel obsolete). If your mill was manufactured any time after 1971, then no lubrication is necessary. Period. Since that time, engine valves and aluminum head valve seat inserts have been made of high chromium steel and/or been powder coated with a metal alloy that is high in Cobalt, Tungsten, Nickel and Chromium (sometimes called Stellite which is yet another process in and of itself). None of these types of valves have any requirement for lubrication of the valve/seat interface. Repeat, no requirement for lubrication of the valve/seat interface. If you don't believe me, just go to your favorite search engine and execute a query on "stellite engine exhaust valves". Anybody who tells you differently is lying to you (including whoever convinced you to buy MMO). If you don't feel up to doing the search for yourself, here are a few links to help you along:
Regarding the lubrication of the valve stem, sorry babe, they require very little lubrication, in fact (are you sitting down?), certain heads are designed in such a way that the valve stems run completely DRY! Yes, DRY!
Regarding rings, ring groves and carbon; yes, too much carbon it not good, just as too little carbon is not good either. Engine oil has proven to be more than capable of keeping the piston rings happy in their groves for decades with no help from MMO. So, where is the benefit to be had from using MMO? Simple, there isn't any, using it is just a waste of money.
Regarding my knowledge of engines, while I probably could not teach such course without a refresher, I have very extensive knowledge of many different kinds of engines, their operation, underlying design and why they proved to be good, bad or just so-so at doing what they were designed to do.
So far, you've accused me of being WRONG on at least two points, however, in each case all you needed to do was a little research to find out that as a rule, my facts are reasonably correct. Do I misspeak from time to time? Yes, however, in the case of this dialogue, I have made an effort to check each fact before I wrote it. Obviously you cannot say the same.
as a jury member or judge, I'd have to say that shipo's argument sounds pretty convincing...
this coming from a guy who sometimes buys MMO for the psychological effect... it makes me feel better that I am taking care of the engine.. but who knows if it makes a measurable difference ?
gregory, the ball is in your court, and please play nicely...
If you do not agree with me don't use the product. I believe that it has a place in my "preventive maintenance program", and I will continue to use this product in the fuel of my 2003 Accord, 2004 Civic, in my 7.4 MerCruiser Marine engine and my lawn equipment. Production engines ARE NOT "blue printed engines"! It is VERY possible that the valves WILL NOT slide easily in their guides in a production engine. The added lubrication will allow them to move freely, and over time they will "wear-in". The point is simple, you do not see the need for this product in the fuel. That is "ok"!------IMPORTANT NOTE!--- The marine industry markets a fuel called Valve Tech. This fuel has an "upper cylinder lubricant" in the fuel. It is used in 2 and 4 cycle engines (both gas and diesel). Are they also wrong ABOUT THIS ISSUE? ----While you "sites" are informative, they prove nothing! Lets AGREE to DISAGREE! ------------But, ----YOU are still wrong!
I think that this dialogue has run its course. All I've heard from you is what YOU think, what YOU (want to) believe, and what YOU wish to be true.
Looking back on your posts, I'm not at all sure that you've even made a single valid point regarding modern automobile engines. So, let's try this; go and do some research (yeah, yeah, I know, you think you know it all already, but try anyway), establish a list of sources for your data and then think about it for a while. If after all of that, you haven't convinced yourself that you are wasting your money by putting MMO in the gas tanks of your cars, please come back and enlighten the rest of us as to why. By "enlighten", I mean present us with your evidence.
I'll leave you with one final comment; I remember you saying something like, "the process of clogging fuel injectors and carboning up the upper cylinder area happens over time, and because it happens so slowly, people simply don't notice it happening."
Okay, then consider this, two of our three cars are basically identical, the same engine and everything. The only real difference is the 5 years between when they were built (and the 80,000 extra miles on the older one), as such, my guess is that if your statement was correct, I would certainly notice how poorly the older of the two operated after driving the newer one. Right? Sorry bub, I know this in only anecdotal (and a sampling of only one), however, without so much as a single drop of any kind of snake oil (MMO included) coming any where near the old girl, she runs easily as well as the new one, in fact, she actually seems to have slightly better throttle response. Maybe 90K miles isn't enough, maybe I have to wait to 250K miles to notice a difference. Of course by then, like most cars, she will probably no longer be on the road.
are actually blown out of their grooves into the cylinder face by combustion blow-by on the power stroke. fortunately, the sizing means that most of the ring width remains in the piston ring grooves. their spring-steel construction pops them back away from the cylinder wall on the three other strokes. it shouldn't take much oil to lubricate them, and a ton of oil splash enters the bottom of the cylinder from the crank knuckles. the rings should be self-cleaning unless you have quite an amount of cylinder wear, oil is getting past the rings, and burning all along the piston walls in the hot blow-by coming down.
marvel mystery oil is best used for lubricating your marvel mysteries at this point. but if you run out of penetrating oil, use it up for that purpose. it is not quite as penetrating, but better than sledgehammer blows.
in these parts, SeaFoam light petroleum lubricating solvent is the snake oil of choice, as it's a local outfit. those pre-overhaul uses for a penetrating oil additive are filled by SeaFoam equally as well as any other product. plus, it's slightly aquamarine/green!
now, that's a worthwhile additive for any car! pick up some aquamarine/green today! availiable wherever finer dyestuffs are sold. a product of SuperUltraMegaChemCo Industries, PTY LTD LLC. use only as directed, do not cross against light, yo' momma, rebroadcast or other repurposing strictly prohibited.
I stopped at a gas station today, and filled up with premium fuel, (93 octane). Just before I pull the Accord to the gas pump, I pulled over to the side of the station, and poured in some MM oil into the fuel tank. I have bottles pre-measured for a full tank, half tank and a quarter of a tank of fuel. Then I pull the vhicle over to the pump, and filled the tank with that GREAT overpriced premium fuel! As the fuel was entering the tank, it was mixing with the MM oil. YES, I love premium fuel mixed with MM oil! My Accord runs great. It accelerates fast and smooth. YES, I know MM oil, and premium fuel are a "waste of money". They do nothing for the engine. But since YOU do not use these products, that leaves more for me to use! Please continue to purchase your regular 87 octane fuel.
Your arrogance seems to be exceeded only by your ignorance. In fact your last post is so absurd that I hardly know where to begin. I have to tell you, you are starting to take on the tone of a Troll, and as such, I will take the bait one last time.
Did you know that by using Premium in a car designed for Regular (I assume that your Accord is designed for Regular) that the following things are likely to happen? 1) The engine will develop less power and accelerate slower 2) The fuel economy will suffer 3) More combustion byproducts will build up inside the combustion chamber and on the exhaust valves (is that why you use MMO? Double stupid!)
Oh, and for the record, we have two cars that are designed for Regular, and that is what they are fed. We also have a car that is designed for Premium, and that is what it is fed. No more, no less.
I have been watching this "discussion" and came to the conclusion that it is not worth it. You, sir, are quite right, and your posts are absolutely correct. I agree with you, but your "opponent" refuses to see the daylight, likely intentionally.
Gregoryc1: Your posts are crap trying to disguise themselves as pseudo-science.
Regarding your comment about "...refuses to see the daylight, likely intentionally.", I've been wondering myself if/when our Troll was going to say something like, "Psych! I've been stringing you along just to see how far I could get you to go. Do you actually think that I could believe that stuff I've been writing?"
Of course just as I would have those thoughts, Mr. Troll would post another bucket of bilge water. Oh well...
No, I don't see Gregoryc1 as a troll, just a bit anal retentive when it comes to automobile maintenance. Especially considering he apparently doesn't keep his vehicles all that long and has historically leased a lot of them. This based on his posts in the Maintenance & Repair discussions related to Honda Accords.
If I leased, I cerainly would not worry whether my car performs well for the next owner due to my use of MMO when it was new.
I have only used fuel additives a couple of times, this when my previous Taurus was getting a bit up in mileage to about 70k, and was idling a bit rough. I spectulated my injectors might be spraying fuel a little coarser than when they were new. I have no idea whether the injector cleaner additive did any good, but the "problem" resolved itself. Could have been a bad tank of gas and a new fill-up fixed it. Who knows. I sold it at 98K and it was running fine. Never did have an official "tuneup" I changed the plugs twice during my ownership. My motto on tuneups: If it ain't broke, don't fix it. In other words, if it starts good, runs good, gets the same mileage as always, and passes the every other year emissions test required in my area, there is nothing needing tuning. I have the same opinion about additives.
Routine things like oil changes and all filter change I did do on or ahead of the manufacturer recommendations, but I avoid additives when I have no known problems that the additives are supposed to fix.
or you could call it a drain and flush of the wallet
or perhaps "improves sluggish geld retention"
I have never seen a major positive from any additive except radiator stop-leak, or perhaps friction modifier in the differentials. so I'm using that money now for much better things, like... ah... well... doctors.
I would like to suggest we abandon Marvel Mystery Oil and move on to other subjects of interest, or if there are none, I'll close the topic.
The whole idea of "science" is to produce "measurable and repeatable results", so unless someone is ready to field test two brand new engines, one with additive X and one without, and field strip them 60,000 miles later, or point to studies like this already done, there's not much solid ground for us to stand on. At best, we can discover the ingredients and make some sound judgments based on that (e.g., a mixture of alcohol and kerosene has certain properties).
I recently acquired a 2000 Subaru Forester which now has 41,000 miles on it's 4 cylinder boxer engine. I plan on taking a week long road trip in it to the Baja California peninsula. Knowing that the fuel in Mexico contains a very low octane level, I am wondering if adding fuel additives will help the engine during this trip.
the engine should compensate automatically for lower octane. You might bring along an extra fuel filter, that couldn't hurt. And don't leave anything in the car you'd actually like to see again.
Yes, I do make sure I am insured. I always purchase the Mexican auto insurance before I cross the border. You can even purchase it online now. Thanks for the thought!
All I can say is that, my mother's old Volvo 960 began consistently idling extremely rough around the 70/80,000 mile mark. We took it to the dealer, who noted on the invoice that they "added BG 44k to fuel tank." The problem never resurfaced before she traded it at 90,000 miles.
There are other methods of "decarbonizing" an engine, like running it hard, either by normal driving habits or by driving in a low gear for several minutes.
The proverbial "Italian Tune Up" is what we call it in the classic car world, because the high strung Italian cars really needed that after American drivers short-shifted them like they were Corvettes.
My cars never ran better than after a trip to Charleston or Atlanta in the carburetor days. It doesn't seem to make as much difference with the injected cars.
My dad always joked about how much better his 46 Chevy ran after my older brother would use it for running around in the 40s.
After reading about carbon in Northstars, I gave my 3800 a little blowing out Saturday. I realized I drive it like an older person would, too gently.
Didn't we used to dribble a very small stream of water out of a beer bottle down the carb throat at high idle to blow out the carbon? The water would turn to steam and really clean out the combustion chamber. Best done with the first empty out of the six pack, not the last of the 2nd or 3d six pack. Hydrolock was allways a possibility.
And on a lot of other make used cars we take in. I don't think it has anything to do with engineering. It's the grandma cars that come in that have never been taken over 2500 RPM. They will have a rough idle that's caused by carbon under the valve seats. They use something called "Carbon Blast". It stinks and smokes like hell but afterwards the compression is always restored. Not real common to have to do this but I wouldn't call it rare either.
And, yes, in the old days, guys would use a pop bottle filled with water. I watched this being done and it's scary. I watch a guy do this to a rough running 350 Chevy engine. He held the linkage open as he poured the water into the carburator. The Chevy pinged and rattled like hell and you wouldn't believe the stuff that came out the tailpipe! It ran perfect when he was done. This is a great way to shatter a piston if you get unlucky. I know I wouldn't try it.
Carbonization is still a problem -- especially when owners who have cars designed for 87 octane are suckered in to think 93 octane is best for their car. Nonetheless, with PCV system, the oil vapors do burn and can leave some carbon behind.
BG 44k, while very expensive, is the best gas additive out there
Are you sure this is really happening or is it a scare tactic to sell product? Well, maybe a malfunctioning engine could do this, but modern engines and fuels seem to make the probability next to zero. I'd have to see a disassembled engine rather than rely on the symptoms proving the point (i.e., "runs rough, must be carbon. Put in special additive, roughness goes away. But what was it really? Bad injectors maybe?)
If a car is carbonized, taking it on a long hard drive with the normal gas in it will remove a portion of the carbon. The car will run different after that, idling and moving.
I used to notice how my cars ran better after 10 hour trips to Atlanta or Charleston. The high speeds and long periods with no low speed driving cleaned them out.
When I take my computer controlled, fuel-injected cars one trips, I don't notice that change on return to home. That started in 89 with the 3300 in my Century. The 2.5 in an 87 Century seemed to benefit some.
Throw in a cleaner that really does help reduce the carbon chemically and you should take care of any problem. My choice is Techron Fuel additive by Chevron. It had been recommended by a mechanic because it was the best several years ago. I use it about 20K apart. It does seem to clean injectors even though I use good gas.
Comments
"But on the other side of the issue, your opinion does not mean that the product does not perform a needed function in the upper cylinder area."
A needed function, says who? Certainly not the engineers who developed engines that power 100% of the cars now sold here in the U.S. Wait, wait, it seems I jumped the gun.
"I know that an "upper cylinder lubricant" in needed, because there is no lead in the fuel to lubricate the valve faces, stems and piston rings lands."
Ahhh, so, there is the answer to my question; says you. It seems that you’ve spent too much time reading the Turtle Wax hype of their product and/or the hype of the various retailers that sell MMO, and not enough time actually thinking about their claims.
I’ll take each of your three areas of concern one at a time.
1) Lubricating the valve faces (and by extension I assume you mean the valve seats as well, yes, no?): Since the start of the 1975 model year, most gasoline fueled cars (and all gasoline fueled cars since the early 1980s) sold here in the U.S. have been required by law to burn unleaded fuel. The way the manufacturers altered their engines to accept this new fuel was to change the metallurgy of the valves and the valve seats. The new metals were so hard that they were basically immune to the effects of combustion and as such needed nothing to keep the interface between valve and seat lubricated. Since that time I have yet to see a single valve/valve seat failure in a car that required unleaded fuel.
2) Valve stems (and by extension I assume you mean the valve guides as well, yes, no?): Valve stems and guides are lubricated by engine oil and as such, do not need any upper cylinder lubrication.
3) Piston rings lands [sic]: Ummm, I'm starting to get the impression that you have never even looked inside an engine, or for that matter even understand how they work. What little lubrication that the piston rings themselves as well as their adjacent lands require is provided once again by engine oil. As for the piston ring lands, I don't think that I have ever seen any apparent wear on a ring land on any piston that I have ever taken out of an engine, and that goes back to engines built before 1975 as well. In fact, while I may be wrong on this issue, I don’t think that any of the lands (there are typically three per piston) normally have any contact with the cylinder wall, and if they don't touch the wall, they certainly don't need much lubrication at all. On the other hand, if the lands start touching the cylinder wall, your engine has problems WAY beyond anything that MMO (or any other lubricant for that matter) can deal with.
"Carbon will stick to hot dry surfaces, thus locking the rings into the lands of the piston, and valves into their guides."
Your credibility is sinking rapidly; you must have gotten this stuff from some marketing hype from somewhere. The piston ring lands are the area of the piston between the rings and above the top ring, and as I have already stated, what little lubrication they need (if any at all) they get from engine oil. What I assume the author of the above dubious statement meant was "thus locking the rings into the groves of the piston", and as I have already stated, the rings get all of the lubrication they need from engine oil. Ditto the valves and their guides.
While we are on the subject of carbon buildup, since the advent of the leadless environment; with the lead gone, all of the necessary lead scavengers were no longer needed as well, which produced a fuel that burned much cleaner. Thirty years later we are burning fuel that combined with the latest engines, produce less carbon and other combustion byproducts after 100,000 miles than a typical engine of 1970 produced in 1,000 miles.
"You are entitled to your opinion on this subject, even though you are wrong!"
Hehe, I could actually be insulted by that statement, however, since it seems that you are only trying to convince yourself that you haven't been wasting you money on MMO I'll let it pass. ;-)
Best Regards,
Shipo
Regards,
Dusty
Unlike you, I tend to believe that the folks who design and build these things know what they are doing.
Best Regards,
Shipo
For your information, this product disolves carbon deposits on the rings and ring grooves of the piston, keeping the rings free to follow the contours of the cylinder walls as the piston travel from TDC to BDC. If also disolves the carbon deposits on the valves and lubricates the valve faces, stems and guides. That is exactly what "LEAD" did in the old gasoline formulations.
In addition, this product lubricates the fuel injectors and the electric fuel pump. This is especially important with alcohol in the fuel!
If you do not want to use an upper cylinder lubricant, that is your choice.
Regarding your claims of what MMO does, I have two responses:
1) Not even the Turtle Wax/MMO web site make such a broad range of claims. So, are you inventing this stuff? Are you reading it from some third party resellers' marketing hype? Or perhaps, are these claims only on the bottle and not on the MMO site? Either way, here is what the MMO site claims:
ADDED TO GASOLINE:
-Cleans and lubricates fuel injectors and carburetors -- That is redundant with the additive package found in virtually all gasoline sold in the western world.
-Improves gasoline mileage -- How, by what science? Sorry, not buying that line, even a little.
-Reduces and prevents varnish and gum build-up -- Oddly enough, a little varnish and gum is a good thing, it protects internal engine components from rust. Early synthetic oil also did this and many engine problems were caused in cars that were not driven daily.
-Extends spark plug life -- Hmmm, my spark plugs already last 100,000 miles.
-Safe for catalytic converters and oxygen sensors -- So what?
ADDED TO ENGINE OIL:
-Prevents valve sticking and clatter -- That is redundant with what engine oil does, and as such, is unnecessary.
-Fortifies properties of engine oil, prevents breakdown caused by extreme temperatures -- Not likely. If anything, it weakens said properties of high quality engine oil, especially synthetic oil.
-Promotes easier cold weather starts -- Easier than what? My car uses a 0W-40 synthetic oil from the factory and so far the coldest weather that I've started it in was -35. It started instantly, no grinding at all.
-Reduces and prevents acid and sludge formation -- If I'm not mistaken, MMO uses a petroleum oil as its base. So far, in every test that I've ever read, not one such oil (regardless of additive package) has ever been able come close to the acid and sludge characteristics of even a cheap synthetic engine oil.
2) So much for what MMO claims, now I'll move on to what YOU are claiming.
Regarding YOUR piston ring claim; the piston rings are serviced by normal engine oil and do not need any extra help. By the way, did you know that if you dissolve too much of the carbon from the ring grooves that you run the risk of unseating the rings? That's a bad thing, and fuel mileage and oil consumption will suffer accordingly. As a point of interest, assuming for the sake of argument that MMO is actually able to dissolve more carbon than the engine oil already does, where does that carbon go? Is it your belief that the MMO component of the crankcase mixture is going to hold it in suspension until the next oil change?
Regarding YOUR assertion that "If [sic] also dissolves the carbon deposits on the valves and lubricates the valve faces, stems and guides. You apparently didn't read my last post regarding that issue. Valve stems are lubricated with engine oil and modern valve seats do not need to be lubricated. Period. Even if they did, MMO would only be able to do so for the intake valves (which do not develop carbon deposits unless the ignition timing is WAY OFF). As for the exhaust valves, I seriously doubt that MMO has any value what so ever. If it did, that would mean that it was not being completely burned during the combustion process and is then being passed out through the exhaust system as some form of an oily liquid. If that were the case, said liquid would quickly destroy the catalytic converter. (See the MMO claims above.)
Best Regards,
Shipo
What are you driving, a 1966 Chevy? If so, then yes, your valve seats probably need lubrication (although I have at least one source that believes that metallurgy had progressed sufficiently by 1960 to render leaded fuel obsolete). If your mill was manufactured any time after 1971, then no lubrication is necessary. Period. Since that time, engine valves and aluminum head valve seat inserts have been made of high chromium steel and/or been powder coated with a metal alloy that is high in Cobalt, Tungsten, Nickel and Chromium (sometimes called Stellite which is yet another process in and of itself). None of these types of valves have any requirement for lubrication of the valve/seat interface. Repeat, no requirement for lubrication of the valve/seat interface. If you don't believe me, just go to your favorite search engine and execute a query on "stellite engine exhaust valves". Anybody who tells you differently is lying to you (including whoever convinced you to buy MMO). If you don't feel up to doing the search for yourself, here are a few links to help you along:
http://www.yarchive.net/metal/valve_recession.html
http://www.yarchive.net/metal/valve_steels.html
http://www.abbysenior.com/mechanics/valve.htm
http://mgaguru.com/mgtech/engine/ch102.htm
Regarding the lubrication of the valve stem, sorry babe, they require very little lubrication, in fact (are you sitting down?), certain heads are designed in such a way that the valve stems run completely DRY! Yes, DRY!
Regarding rings, ring groves and carbon; yes, too much carbon it not good, just as too little carbon is not good either. Engine oil has proven to be more than capable of keeping the piston rings happy in their groves for decades with no help from MMO. So, where is the benefit to be had from using MMO? Simple, there isn't any, using it is just a waste of money.
Regarding my knowledge of engines, while I probably could not teach such course without a refresher, I have very extensive knowledge of many different kinds of engines, their operation, underlying design and why they proved to be good, bad or just so-so at doing what they were designed to do.
So far, you've accused me of being WRONG on at least two points, however, in each case all you needed to do was a little research to find out that as a rule, my facts are reasonably correct. Do I misspeak from time to time? Yes, however, in the case of this dialogue, I have made an effort to check each fact before I wrote it. Obviously you cannot say the same.
Best Regards,
Shipo
this coming from a guy who sometimes buys MMO for the psychological effect...
but who knows if it makes a measurable difference ?
gregory, the ball is in your court, and please play nicely...
take care...
I think that this dialogue has run its course. All I've heard from you is what YOU think, what YOU (want to) believe, and what YOU wish to be true.
Looking back on your posts, I'm not at all sure that you've even made a single valid point regarding modern automobile engines. So, let's try this; go and do some research (yeah, yeah, I know, you think you know it all already, but try anyway), establish a list of sources for your data and then think about it for a while. If after all of that, you haven't convinced yourself that you are wasting your money by putting MMO in the gas tanks of your cars, please come back and enlighten the rest of us as to why. By "enlighten", I mean present us with your evidence.
I'll leave you with one final comment; I remember you saying something like, "the process of clogging fuel injectors and carboning up the upper cylinder area happens over time, and because it happens so slowly, people simply don't notice it happening."
Okay, then consider this, two of our three cars are basically identical, the same engine and everything. The only real difference is the 5 years between when they were built (and the 80,000 extra miles on the older one), as such, my guess is that if your statement was correct, I would certainly notice how poorly the older of the two operated after driving the newer one. Right? Sorry bub, I know this in only anecdotal (and a sampling of only one), however, without so much as a single drop of any kind of snake oil (MMO included) coming any where near the old girl, she runs easily as well as the new one, in fact, she actually seems to have slightly better throttle response. Maybe 90K miles isn't enough, maybe I have to wait to 250K miles to notice a difference. Of course by then, like most cars, she will probably no longer be on the road.
Best Regards,
Shipo
marvel mystery oil is best used for lubricating your marvel mysteries at this point. but if you run out of penetrating oil, use it up for that purpose. it is not quite as penetrating, but better than sledgehammer blows.
in these parts, SeaFoam light petroleum lubricating solvent is the snake oil of choice, as it's a local outfit. those pre-overhaul uses for a penetrating oil additive are filled by SeaFoam equally as well as any other product. plus, it's slightly aquamarine/green!
now, that's a worthwhile additive for any car! pick up some aquamarine/green today! availiable wherever finer dyestuffs are sold. a product of SuperUltraMegaChemCo Industries, PTY LTD LLC. use only as directed, do not cross against light, yo' momma, rebroadcast or other repurposing strictly prohibited.
Did you know that by using Premium in a car designed for Regular (I assume that your Accord is designed for Regular) that the following things are likely to happen?
1) The engine will develop less power and accelerate slower
2) The fuel economy will suffer
3) More combustion byproducts will build up inside the combustion chamber and on the exhaust valves (is that why you use MMO? Double stupid!)
Oh, and for the record, we have two cars that are designed for Regular, and that is what they are fed. We also have a car that is designed for Premium, and that is what it is fed. No more, no less.
How is your research coming? Getting smarter yet?
Best Regards,
Shipo
I have been watching this "discussion" and came to the conclusion that it is not worth it. You, sir, are quite right, and your posts are absolutely correct. I agree with you, but your "opponent" refuses to see the daylight, likely intentionally.
Gregoryc1: Your posts are crap trying to disguise themselves as pseudo-science.
Enough said.
Regarding your comment about "...refuses to see the daylight, likely intentionally.", I've been wondering myself if/when our Troll was going to say something like, "Psych! I've been stringing you along just to see how far I could get you to go. Do you actually think that I could believe that stuff I've been writing?"
Of course just as I would have those thoughts, Mr. Troll would post another bucket of bilge water. Oh well...
Best Regards,
Shipo
If I leased, I cerainly would not worry whether my car performs well for the next owner due to my use of MMO when it was new.
I have only used fuel additives a couple of times, this when my previous Taurus was getting a bit up in mileage to about 70k, and was idling a bit rough. I spectulated my injectors might be spraying fuel a little coarser than when they were new. I have no idea whether the injector cleaner additive did any good, but the "problem" resolved itself. Could have been a bad tank of gas and a new fill-up fixed it. Who knows. I sold it at 98K and it was running fine. Never did have an official "tuneup" I changed the plugs twice during my ownership. My motto on tuneups: If it ain't broke, don't fix it. In other words, if it starts good, runs good, gets the same mileage as always, and passes the every other year emissions test required in my area, there is nothing needing tuning. I have the same opinion about additives.
Routine things like oil changes and all filter change I did do on or ahead of the manufacturer recommendations, but I avoid additives when I have no known problems that the additives are supposed to fix.
or you could call it a drain and flush of the wallet
or perhaps "improves sluggish geld retention"
I have never seen a major positive from any additive except radiator stop-leak, or perhaps friction modifier in the differentials. so I'm using that money now for much better things, like... ah... well... doctors.
but I feel much better :-D
The whole idea of "science" is to produce "measurable and repeatable results", so unless someone is ready to field test two brand new engines, one with additive X and one without, and field strip them 60,000 miles later, or point to studies like this already done, there's not much solid ground for us to stand on. At best, we can discover the ingredients and make some sound judgments based on that (e.g., a mixture of alcohol and kerosene has certain properties).
I think the gas will be fine.
(on topic words:) Don't forget the Bardahl!
There are other methods of "decarbonizing" an engine, like running it hard, either by normal driving habits or by driving in a low gear for several minutes.
My dad always joked about how much better his 46 Chevy ran after my older brother would use it for running around in the 40s.
After reading about carbon in Northstars, I gave my 3800 a little blowing out Saturday. I realized I drive it like an older person would, too gently.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
And, yes, in the old days, guys would use a pop bottle filled with water. I watched this being done and it's scary. I watch a guy do this to a rough running 350 Chevy engine. He held the linkage open as he poured the water into the carburator. The Chevy pinged and rattled like hell and you wouldn't believe the stuff that came out the tailpipe! It ran perfect when he was done. This is a great way to shatter a piston if you get unlucky. I know I wouldn't try it.
BG 44k, while very expensive, is the best gas additive out there
I've used BG 44K and it worked for me.
Best Regards,
Shipo
I used to notice how my cars ran better after 10 hour trips to Atlanta or Charleston. The high speeds and long periods with no low speed driving cleaned them out.
When I take my computer controlled, fuel-injected cars one trips, I don't notice that change on return to home. That started in 89 with the 3300 in my Century. The 2.5 in an 87 Century seemed to benefit some.
Throw in a cleaner that really does help reduce the carbon chemically and you should take care of any problem. My choice is Techron Fuel additive by Chevron. It had been recommended by a mechanic because it was the best several years ago. I use it about 20K apart. It does seem to clean injectors even though I use good gas.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
We will do a leakdown test on a used Honda. It runs well but one of the cylinders is at 30% while the others are 4-6%. That's carbon.
After using the Carbon Blast we will recheck the compression and the bad cylinder will almost always go to normal leakdown.
Just curious.
Best Regards,
Shipo