Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Maintenance & Repair Fuel and Oil Additives
1246 messages, Last post on Sep 28, 2009 at 7:37 AM
You are in the Maintenance & Repair Forum. Your Host is mr_shiftright
|
Replying to: isellhondas (Jul 01, 2008 2:23 pm) It act like a jack hammer. But if a person doesn't know what they are doing, they can bend a rod or valve in a hurry with water. Risilone has some pretty hefty solvents in it that are pretty good at eating away at carbon deposits. Generally, we don't see a lot of carbon problems on the newer vehicles, unless they have had problems with the emissions, PCV system or lack of maintenance. I've seen a lot of confusion about additives and actual cleaners. 3M makes a great injector cleaner, but it isn't something you just add to the fuel. You run it through the fuel lines. And GM makes a pretty good intake cleaner (GM Top Engine Cleaner), that is designed to clean the intake system. And it isn't just something you spray into the intake and drive away. |
|
|
I'm hearing about an additive that was developed by NASA and is marketed as an engine treatment which can reduce repairs by 85% and increase gas mileage by up to 20%. It's called Motor Silk. It comes in a kit to treet the engine, transmission and fuel system. It is suposed to treat the metal and last for 100K miles. My local dealers service manager has never heard of it. Have you any knowledge of it, its performance or its honesty in the claims made?
|
|
|
Replying to: dandyone (Jul 09, 2008 2:41 pm) "I looked into it (which you could have done, making me suspicious of your question), and it looks like it was originated by a former Nasa employee, not by Nasa. Hard to judge the honesty of claims, at least the discriptions weren't out in left field. No third-party test results were easily viewed, further raising my concern, but I don't know. I'd be surprised if any kind of treatment could increase mileage that much - of course, you said 'by up to 20%", which means from 0-20%. Gotta watch that 'up to'."
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: dandyone (Jul 09, 2008 2:41 pm) |
|
|
Replying to: texases (Jul 09, 2008 3:00 pm) He closed the question. Wonder if he is on commission. 
|
|
I posted the original inquiry in good faith that you people would give an honest opinion. Only one gave a straight answer and I really appreciate that, the rest of the posts were laced with smart ass sarcasum. And you wonder why I closed the question.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: dandyone (Jul 11, 2008 7:43 pm) It's almost like someone sincerely asking if this pill will make you younger, that cookie will make you slimmer, or this liquid drink will make you smarter. When the claims are "lose 50 lbs in one week" that's not the same as more modestly claiming "you may lose 2 lbs a week if you follow up with exercise". One claim (the latter of course) is reasonable and bears investigation and could be supported by science, the other is pretty unbelievable and will attract scorn I'm afraid. The facts seem to be that these claims are not reproducible and the "testing laboratories" are either falsified or conducted in a way to distort real world conditions. It simply makes no sense that auto manufacturers would not have dumped a can of "Magic Motor Medicine" into each and every one of their cars, and achieve for $10 per car what they cannot yet achieve even if they had spent $1000 a car. Why spend hundreds of millions developing a hybrid car that gets 45 mpg when you could have dumped Slick 50 into your Corollas? |
|
|
Replying to: dandyone (Jul 11, 2008 7:43 pm) |
|
|
Replying to: dandyone (Jul 11, 2008 7:43 pm) Be specific when you say that. Who exactly posted sarcasm? I'll be honest, I read the replies and my own reply to you and the only people that would view that as sarcastic would be someone who has a vested interest in the product. Understand that many of us see tons of these so called miracle oils, additives or what ever. Usually the only one who benefits from these products is the people selling them. So yes, a lot of us are fairly jaded towards them. We watch people, time after time, waste their money on these "cure-all, do-all" products and then we are considered sarcastic when we post our views of them? Thanks, we so appreciate that. |
|
|
|
|
So is a spark plug a spark plug a spark plug? I have a beat-up 1991 Geo Prizm with 240K miles, got it with 120K on it in 2001. Had been using simple plugs (ie: cheap) all its life with me. Had started with about 27 mpg highway, and eventually got up to 30 mpg city after spending years cleaning out engine. Recently tried Bosch +2 plugs, and my mileage went up to 35 mpg hwy, with slightly better acceleration all around. In my automotive simplicity, I would say that the gas mixture is being burned more completely, but I'm not an authority. I had also used synthetic for first time, at same time as changing to +2 plugs. I can still get 32 mpg city now, even after I've gone back to normal oil. I wonder whether such a response depends upon how old and worn an engine is. I don't think that a new car within first few years of use would get same response as I did because the engine is very new, very tight. It's combustion chamber would be very clean and sealed properly for ultimate combustion as designed and developed by the manufacturer. But would/could an aged and well used car in which the engine is very well worn without any major parts replaced (top end or bottom end) allow such a reaction as this? Do you think a spark plug is a spark plug? I doubt it because you have already mentioned that you prefer some plugs over others. So there are differences in plugs and their design and performance. Perhaps the difference in performance is dependant upon specific cars and their conditions and even how the cars are used by the drivers. I know that American automobiles have great tolerances built into them. That's why they can last nearly forever before they completely die an nasty death from malfunction. My father has a 1995 Buick LaSabre bought in about 2000, with less than 90K miles now. Has never changed the spark plugs, so they were used by previous owner, and have no idea how long that was either!! Car wtih V6 was able to get up to 30 mpg on highway. Pretty amazing and very commendable for GM. However, when I checked the plugs, the electrode post was almost burned off, almost down to rim on most of plugs from overuse. The gap was .8 instead of .6. So car was getting great mileage even with greater-than-normal gap. Performance was okay. But upon installing new plugs, the performance shot up about 300% (descriptive figure only), allowing instantaneous starting instead of little bit of starter cranking. And driving acceleration was obviously hugely better. That V6 now pulls that almost ton of metal like it almost nothing. But I bet that the gas mileage won't be up to that 30 mpg that my dad greatly admired and bragged about. So even tho' the old plugs were obviously greatly worn, they gave wonderful gas mileage. But the new plugs were more desirable for proper maintenance, and will undoubtedly give less mpg. So where do we choose? Is it simply that the larger gap of the older plugs burned the mixture more? So would gapping the new plugs larger achieve the same? Does a new car have less allowance for "tolerances" built into it with a new engine, being "tighter"? Does an old car have a greater chance at such a change of mpg when its engine is "looser". I use those terms generically, and don't even know if they can be consider real. But that's how I've described it otherwise. I'd appreciate your take on this. |
|
You are here:
Forums
Maintenance & Repair Fuel and Oil Additives
