Fuel add

Stay away from STP. Go for Chevron Techron. It is recommended by Porsche and BMW. I have used it for years in all my cars.

 

+1, I've had trouble with another STP product.

 

Stay with Techron. Too many studies from credible sources say it works.

 

Hmmm, too many studies from "credible" sources? What are these sources? Just let me know one or 2, as if there are too many, its too much work/effort. Surely, just one or 2 will convince me. Also, Im sure these sources will explain "how" it works.

So far, I have not seen any credible scientific proof that any of these elixirs are even required for gas engines. sacred cows.

 

If I remember correctly, several years after it appeared on the market consumer reports did a test on it and other additives and found it effective in cleaning carbon deposits out of out of combustion chambers. I remember the photos of the treated engines and the control engines. That's all I remember and I no longer have access to CR and their archives. I did do a quick look at Google but all references are basically from Chevron and the others are guys philosophizing about their personal experience without objective data. Sorry I can't provide that study.

 

My understanding is that the polyetheramine in the Techron promotes the carbon to be pyrollyzed (burned) and it simply goes out as part of the exhaust gas. These are tiny, they should not be visible sized particles (they may even be gaseous) that would bang around inside the combustion chamber and potentially cause damage.

 

BG 44K, Techron, or Seafoam.

I am quite sure there are some reputable others, but these are definitely the best.

 

Fair enough, porphy. And thanks for the info. yes, if the site is from the manufacturer, no way that is considered an unbiased source, at least in science. Still, no manufacturer I know (car company) recomends aditives to your engine- none. So, why would we patronize these manufacturers' development of the 'crowd effect" mentality to buy their elixir in the hope that maybe it will work?

Im a car guy, like the rest here. Just very skeptical of marketing of these mostlyy unnecessary blends of snake oil additives, advertized many times, along side a girl in a bikini. I need proof. You (we) should also demand it.

 

You cant burn carbon. You cant promote the "burning " of carbon. Amines do not help carbon to be "burned". That is alchemy from the 1700's. (or logic for marketing of elixirs...)

 

Whatever the chemistry mechanism, the phenomenology was clearly demonstrated if you believe the pics and my fading memory about the Consumer Reports trial. I trust those guys not to outright lie or go to the trouble of faking results. Sorry I can't put my hands on it, however I will keep trying. Alchemy never envisaged high pressure and high temp chemistry.

 

Arnie (see above) says that Porsche and BMW recommend Techron. I have no direct info. I am also very skeptical of these claims but when I saw the CR article I began to believe. If the Porsche and BMW data is right I also don't believe that Chevron paid them to promote their stuff (I could be wrong there).

Regards

 

Polyether amine (PEA) is just a detergent. Chevron calls theirs "Techron" and Shell uses the term "nitrogen enriched". Redline SI-1 is the same thing just more concentrated.

 

chemical fuel additives generally are for preventative purposes, to keep any build up at bay... it has been a consistant theme for any of the additives, any serious fouling will not be removed by any of the additives and must be physically removed / rebuilt

I recently tried a product called "Startron" by Starbright... it is an enzyme based product
( kind of like "pac man" in fuel ) rather than relying on chemical reaction to do its' work...
it solved my issues with my small engines ( yard tools )... they make formulations for gasoline and diesel fuels, also make claims for use to stabilize fuel... the logic of their claims makes sense, it worked for me...

 

The car manufactures get agreement with the manufactures of fuel and oil additives on performance standards. Generally up to the additive companies to develop the chemistry to get there. The EPA requires deposit control additives in fuel.

 

I am not aware of enzymes that are functional in non-water based systems??

 

Right- but thats not was implied by the post- it was implied (and recomended) that one NEEDS to add EXTRA additives like techron, etc. The additives are added at the gas station after the fuel arrives from the terminal distribution site . Thats why I say not necessary to add MORE.

 

Agree. Generally no need to add more.

 

All righty then, another mystery solved....Next!

 

Not really...

fuel stabilizers are a good ( necessary ) preventative measures when used in alcohol blended fuels... it's the alcohol that speeds up fuel degradation and other issues...90 days is quoted as the time that a fuel remains within spec, after which time it starts going away

in daily drivers fuel degradition is not an issue, the fuel is rapidly consumed, but in collector cars where the fuel is allowed to possibly go stale is where one should take preventative measures... it doesen't matter whether the tanks are full or kept at minimums the fuel will degrade from spec... ideally tanks should be kept at minimum levels where degraded fuel can be quickly consumed and any new added fuel should bring it back into spec

 

I respectfully disagree, that doesn't really work out so well. Have a Jag with two tanks and the gas separated and the water goes to the bottom where the pick-up is. So, upon starting the water entered the fuel pump then the fuel filter then the fuel injectors then the cylinders. Not recommended to try and consume old gas. Pump it out or drain it. The added fuel just floats on top.

 

no disagreement... you may be addressing very old fuel in your situation that is beyond use... it is not normal to have that large amount of water in the bottom of a tank and have fuel that has degraded byeond use... generally to get that much water it must have been pumped in from a water contaminated storage tank at point of purchase... which really is not typical of water from in car related fuel storage...

in a typical low use situation a tank of fuel may last months, the last bit available to use may be slightly out of spec, not contamined totally degraded fuel ( which would be folly to use under any circumstances )

 

All I can say is what happened to me after 4-5 months sitting with fuel stabalizer. Twice. Now the car is available for tow away...anyone? This was of course the local dog piss that they sell at the convienence store nearby. High octaine too 93.