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
|
|
|---|---|
|
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. |
|
|
Hi Guys, this is my two cents worth on this subject. My back ground includes, machinist (engine rebuilding too) and a twenty year Catalytic Cracking unit operator (made gasoline from cracked hydrocarbons). But I will still say as a novice in the internal combustion process of the gasoline engine,I stay confused about a great many claims of truth and fact. Now for my OPINION on fuel additives, I drive 50,000 miles a year in my work. In 2005 I received my first new car (i am 52) and I wanted to buy the vehicle after it met the exchange process of the company I work for. I wanted the engine and related systems to have the least wear possible when I bought it. With that in mind and the limited knowledge I had on the particulars of Gasoline I made the decision to use fuel additive in my vehicle. The reason I chose to use fuel additive was to hopefully lubricate the fuel pump, electro mechanical injector, and possibly, the valve to valve guide contact point area in the fuel intake area. This is the interesting point,I feel, I could find NO fuel additive that backed up any of the criteria I had with TEST's or FACT's Everything was just claims as far as I could see(read). So why did I use additive anyway? I know that the modern fuel systems of gasoline engines have mechanical contact areas and current newer fuels have less and less lubricating value. I wanted some lubrication, so the only way I knew to do it was use an additive that made some claim to do that. At 100,000 mile I had as extensive a diagnostive test as could be preformed by the repair shop that did all my work on the vehicle. They found no problems and the motor operated within the new engine parameters set by the manufacturer. I had the plugs and wires changed but only as a preventative. They tested all good and there was no improvement in gas mileage and the motor ran just the same as before the change. With all that said, the bottom line is, if the claim of the lubricating value is true on the fuel additive, I should not have to change the injector, fuel pump, or a valve job on the heads. It appears it is not needed at this time and I will have to let you know at 150,000 miles and 200,000 mile if I get that far whether or not I blew the money. Another aspect of fuel is, any additive, changes the burn characteristics in the combustion chamber. Fuel mileage can be helped or hurt. I would want to know that. Also the additive could contaminate the catalytic converter and or O2 unit. I have had no problems so far and will get back to you if I ever find any fuel additive that backs claims with fact. But I will continue to use them until it is PROVEN they absolutely do not work for what I use them for which is again lubrication. Many of the false claims revolve around improved gas milage, which I doubt.
|
|
|
Replying to: basspro (Aug 10, 2008 8:40 am) FWIW #1, you and I are about the same age (I'm a year younger), and over the years I've driven over a million and a half miles and have run a number of cars up into the mid to high one-hundred thousand mile range and two over two-hundred thousand. None of them have ever had any fuel additives used, and yet, none of them have ever needed a fuel pump, fuel injector, or valve job. Personally, it is my bet that you've wasted your money. FWIW #2, due to a coolant leak into the oil, I pulled the cylinder heads off of one of our cars last summer (the leak turned out to be a five cent "O" ring in the timing chain cover). The combustion chambers were nice and clean, the intake ports (down stream of the injectors) were actually glittering the metal was so shiny, and the cylinder walls still had all of their honing marks intact. Miles on the engine at the time of the work? 143,625 Best Regards, Shipo
|
|
|
Replying to: shipo (Aug 10, 2008 10:47 am) Best Regards, Basspro
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: basspro (Aug 11, 2008 6:50 am) That is correct, opinions are most welcome. Certainly one can challenge opinions but this isn't a court of law and I don't see anyone trying to make it one here. I have found over many years of hosting that it is not necessary to correct what one perceives as "wrong' information. Generally the flow of the discussion straightens everything out cordially. If you'd like to counter someone's opinion, posting a source for your ideas is a great way to de-personalize debates. This is how we all learn from one another. Thanks for your continued courtesy, MrShiftright Host |
|
|
|
|
I use mostly no-brand name gas because of the 20 cent per gallon difference between it and so called "top tier" brands. Never had any problems I could trace to the fuel. I wonder though if the lack of additives that are put into the higher priced fuel could have some long term concequences to my engine such as carbon build-up. Is there something I should be adding to my tank to make up for the lack of additives?
|
|
|
Replying to: oldfarmer50 (Aug 12, 2008 3:53 pm) |
|
|
|
|
With customer's cars that are running poorly. When we can't find anything that is apparent we will ask them..." Do you use a certain bargain brand gas? If the answer is yes, we tell them to quit buying that brand. The troubles usually disappear. I had the same thing happen when we had our boat. It quit in the middle of the lake and I got towed in. First question was the same one we ask...yes! Never used it again and never anymore problems. |
|
|
Yes, all gas has to meet "mininum" standards as does food, vitamins, and food quality. however we all know that doesnt mean much except the standards may be way too low. better gasolines have added detergents and lower sulfur content which i was told makes a difference. people like to think that cheap gasoline is good for their car, but they may not notice the consequences such as poor gas mileage or performance until it's too late. besides, whos to know if the gas stations add this or that in their tanks to reduce the amount of fuel they have to buy from the refinery,
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: ex_tdier (Aug 13, 2008 7:54 pm) Do you have any support to that concept other than advertising? E.g., Shell may advertise that their superhotrodpremiumluxurycargasfor wealthyspenders has more detergents. Is there any benefit to more detergents? The minimum has been mandated for all fuels since some day in the past when it was determined fuel injectors and other things were affected by deposits. Is there a benefit to the additives or is it like vitamines in cereals? I asked some stations about additives in various grades in the past. One manager checked his delivery sheets and showed that the same detergent additive package was added to all three grades. >lower sulfur content Again do you have support for this? It's my understanding that all fuels have the same base stock. Additional chemicals are added to control the burning properties under compression and temperatures in the combustion chamber. The higher octane rating on the pump does not mean the fuel contains more energy and will make you sporty gomobile run faster; rather the higher octane means the fuel burns slower. That slower burning reduces knock during the explosion process in the small number of cars that need it. The same base stock means the same sulfur content for that fuel delivered through the pipeline from some remote refinery. Indeed a few summers back when a couple of regions had problems with higher sulfur in fuels from certain stations, they didn't say it was premium or regular; it was just the fuel at some stations. Also it was at more than one brand's stations. That supports the idea that brands get their fuel from the same depot. Back in the 70s tankers pulled out of a depot in Northern Kentucky and they had all kinds of brands on the tankers as well as no names on many taking fuel from the depot for delivery. More recently a delivery driver would call in to an auto repair show. He said now the difference is in the alcohol content. I do not know if that's mixed at the depots or at the refinery before it goes into the pipes. He was naming that a few stations still sold 100% gasoline and they were a name brand in a higher quality area. The other deliveries for the brand that he delivered all contained alcohol. He also talked about the additive package for a particular grade that was dumped into the tank in the truck that mixed as he put the fuel in and drove to the station.
|
|
You are here:
Forums
Maintenance & Repair Fuel and Oil Additives
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
