[30ONA]

Has anyone had any problems using this? I've used it in two of my cars but stopped using it.

It caused rough start and idle till warm on both engines. In my Suzuki until warm the car would not move of lurching and spluttering. In both cases this only happened for one or two starts, then fine for the rest of the tank.

Was this behavior the product actually working or doing something it shouldn't?

[Gwagensteve]

Unless recommended by the manufacturer* it's not required. Fuel is extremely clean and coincidentally, engines are engineered to run on it.


* The only manufacturer (as opposed to dealer snake oil salesmen) which recommends the use of a fuel additive is Subaru. This is due to the horizontally opposed engine - allegedly deposits in the combustion chamber have a habit of falling off and preventing a good valve seal on cold start, leading to hard starting. At each service a Subaru branded fuel additive was added.

[30ONA]

I've seen visual results on a diesel using injector cleaner. Went from black soot all over the tale gate to none after two tanks and one bottle of cleaner. Didn't need it again after that, did 40000 then sold.

[Gwagensteve]

Diesel isn't petrol.

[30ONA]

Thanks Steve.

[Gwagensteve]

I wasn't being a dick, diesel is a much more viscous and dirtier fuel which is prone to gum and leave deposits. Helll, it's even prone to bacterial growth. Petrol is much cleaner, lighter and more solvent

[losfer]

In my opinion anything that you add to your fuel to fix a problem or try to improve something is only a "band aid" fix.
Same with your oil additives , Stop smoke , stop leak , stop stupid people buying exrtra products when a decent maintenance schedule wasnt adhered to.

The only thing ive ever added to my fuel is nitrous !

[fordem]

Have you ever looked at the "top tier gasoline" program? The difference between "top tier gasoline" and "non top tier gasoline" is nothing more than an additive package. Why do the major automotive brands all recommend the use of top tier gasoline if fuel additives are a "band aid" fix?

I've had discussions with senior management at a number of the local fuel distributors, and what they have shared with me corresponds with discussions I have read on the internet, that gasoline sold through the different brands of service stations is not unique to the brand, that the gasoline itself all comes from the same source, and that what is unique is the additive package.

Adding more additives to "top tier gasoline" may be unnecessary, but if top tier fuel is not available then appropriately chosen additives can improve performance.

I'm not certain if Suzuki has started using gasoline direct injection yet, but if they haven't, you can expect to see it in the not too distant future - as much as I dislike it, it is the way of the future - direct injection engines suffer from carbon build up or coking in the intake tract and especially on the back of the intake valves, the source of the carbon is a combination of EGR and PCV. On a port injected engine the carbon is washed into the cylinder by the incoming fuel charge, detergent additives in the gasoline will help keep this area clean, on a direct injection engine, there is no fuel in the intake tract so the only way to clean it is through periodic use of a cleaner administered via the intake tract, and you'll find that the recommended cleaner happens to be the same detergent additives used by "top tier gasoline" suppliers - PEA or PolyEtherAmines.

[30ONA]

Well I know they have at least one benefit on diesels. So I figure they can't hurt on petrol engines, especially if I run 91 all the time. So I'm going to keep using it with my services. But I won't be using the lucas brand again. I'll go back to liqu-moly.

[Marck]

Here is another question. Is it worth running an upper cylinder head lubricant in modern unleaded engines ?

[Gwagensteve]

No. modern engines are designed to run on ULP and have hardened valve seats to suit.

[Grags]

There was a time when an additive to remove deposits particularly in the EFI injectors was a thing to do on a regular basis if you wanted the engine to run right.
I'm talking back in the '80's through the 90's. and mostly to do with leaded petrol.
Used to sell lots of injector flushes with before and after readings from the 4 gas analyser to prove the differences
However fuel quality with the major brands have come a long way since.
If I was still on the tools the injector flusher gadget would probably be gathering dust these days
The only time I felt compelled to run a cleaning additive in the tank is after buying a car to start it on the right foot so to speak.
The better cleaning additives also help to get rid of moisture and other contaminants that live in the tank
I also stick with the premium 98 octane, the stuff comes with cleaning additives -cheap insurance in my book.

[30ONA]

Grags wrote:

The only time I felt compelled to run a cleaning additive in the tank is after buying a car to start it on the right foot so to speak.
The better cleaning additives also help to get rid of moisture and other contaminants that live in the tank
I also stick with the premium 98 octane, the stuff comes with cleaning additives -cheap insurance in my book.

Wouldn't cheaper insurance be using an additive at about $12 a bottle that does two tanks, compared to paying an extra 20c/l ($12 extra a tank vs 91) every fill up.

[Gwagensteve]

What are you insuring against?
Millions of engines live long and productive lives without additives.

[Grags]

Not that I've gone into it religiously but I feel that I do get more range out of my Prado 95 V6 using premium 98 over 91
I don't look at it in dollars terms- I look at it as a percentage cost difference because that's how you would measure the difference in fuel consumption so if 98 octane is generally 15% more expensive and I get some of that difference back in increased range for the same amount of litres used then I'm happy.
If you drive frugally, you'll notice a difference, if you are a leadfoot, not really
I also use the 98 in my little Vitara, the timing is manually bumped up a few degrees off the base setting to take advantage of the higher octane. I haven't recorded any mileage data on that car though, it's so economical I just don't care. I am happy to pamper it and again it's more about how I feel about my cars and me being happy with them above anything else.

[fordem]

Grags wrote:

Not that I've gone into it religiously but I feel that I do get more range out of my Prado 95 V6 using premium 98 over 91

Results may vary with the vehicle and it's fuel injection system - newer vehicles are knock sensed and capable of adjusting timing on the fly to compensate for higher/lower octane fuel, if you're driving one of these vehicles, you may see a difference, it's up to you to decide if it's worth the extra.

I am happy to pamper it and again it's more about how I feel about my cars and me being happy with them above anything else.[/quote]

If the Vitara is not knock sensed, and your Vitara probably isn't, there isn't any pampering going on, it's just money being wasted.

The discussion was not really about octane ratings but fuel additives, I'm not certain about the Australian market, but in the US, you'll get the additive package regardless of which "grade" of fuel you choose, and in Guyana where I'm from, and where I spend most of my time, we only get one grade, the premium, so our choice is based primarily on brand, and what differentiates them is additive package.

[30ONA]

And while we are going navy to the topic does anyone know why both my cars responded the way they did? Was the ecu learning?

[Grags]

you're right fordem there's no knock sensor on my Vit that's why the timing was bumped up manually.... to take advantage of a slower burning higher octane fuel that incidentally has more energy per kilo than 91 octane just saying
My contribution to this thread was more about how modern unleaded fuels particularly fuels from the major brands already have proprietary additives designed to help keep fuel systems clean over time, and the better 98 octanes sold here have more superior cleaning additives than the cheaper lower octane fuels, they even contain anti friction additives... so I use the 98 only from major brands and unashamedly 'pamper' all my cars with it because I like the security and benefits over time, and never really had the need to use additives since.
Please don't reply to me in this thread if you disagree - just look away from the screen shake your heads and get over it - move on - good boys

300NA back to your original question. Let me see if I can help explain what you might be experiencing
In your case I think it's possible that some of the rough running experienced could have simply been put down to fact that the Lucas additives had indeed broken down muck in the tank/system and the only way for the broken down muck to get away is by combining with your petrol and running through your fuel system (with your fuel) get burned and out the pipe till it was all gone.
It's possible that overnight things have cooled down and the muck came back out of suspension from the fuel and caused a bit of a gummy blob somewhere or a slight blockage at the injector tips or settled down back to the bottom of the tank where the pickup lives. Are both cars efi? lets say one of your cars has a carby, same thing, the muck can come out of suspension and sit in the carby bowl and make the car splutter till it's run through the engine and as before out the pipe.

I don't expect the ECU had anything to do with it, maybe you can run a check for possible fault codes but if the cars are running fine now, my best guess is that this is what could have happened and your fuel system is now cleaner than before.

Anyway, clearly nobody here is a fuel scientist or chemist, why not e-mail or call the manufacturer's distributor here in Australia or the parent in the USA and see what feedback they can give about your experiences with their products?

[Gwagensteve]

Grags wrote:

Please don't reply to me in this thread if you disagree - just look away from the screen shake your heads and get over it - move on - good boys

I'll reply exactly if and when it takes my fancy thanks very much.

[Grags]

Ha ha yes I've had time to reflect on my attitude and apologies

Further to this
NA 300 only 2 other possibilities come to mind
That the additive didn't properly mix with the petrol and a higher concentration sat in the bottom of the tank round the pickup
A bit of carbon got between a spark electrode

That's it

[jdk81]

Hehe that's one of Steve's shorter posts, seems you got off lightly.

[BlueSuzy]

Grags wrote:

my Prado 95 V6

Legendary car there.


I just use non ethanol BP 91. Or LPG. The non ethanol 91 is normally cheaper than the 10%ethanol another 5k's down the road.

No need for anything else, i generally change my car around 5 years anyway as i get bored with them and need something new/old to look at.

You are more than likely never going to see the start and end of a motor. Who knows what its been through at the start of your Vitara's life. Turn off the ac if you want seat of pants acceleration change.

[Gwagensteve]

^Much like there.

Quote:

Wouldn't cheaper insurance be using an additive at about $12 a bottle that does two tanks, compared to paying an extra 20c/l ($12 extra a tank vs 91) every fill up.

Gwagensteve wrote:

What are you insuring against? Millions of engines live long and productive lives without additives.

Lets not get too carried away with how effective these "additives" are. There is a great deal of marketing attached to generic and common detergents added to fuels.

We laugh at cosmetics ads that create a point of difference and brand awareness based on almost nothing except marketing speak, yet because we're blokes driving cars we're immune from this stuff and only believe in proper blokey science stuff.

So what's different between Mobil, BP and Shell 91 octane? Oh, that's right, we're told

Mobil's 91 octane helps to improve "fuel economy, emissions and corrosion protection" over what though, we're not told.
Shell's 91 octane "At Shell we are committed to helping you go further. Shell Unleaded with Fuel Economy Formula has been designed by Shell experts to give you extra kilometres.* (* Based on tests using fuel without additives and may vary by vehicle.)"
BP's 91 octane "Our regular unleaded petrol delivers everyday quality you can rely on to help you look after your car."

Likewise, each grade of fuel as octane increases is described with marketing speak about "special formulations" BP get particularly flowery because it's "specially formulated to protect your engine from black sludge" How this is done or why BP's fuel does this in a different way isn't specified. Maybe it also fights the visible signs of ageing.

All this stuff 99% marketing. The only fact we are given is the octane of the fuel. The marketing is trying to convince us to be brand loyal (or even brand aware) when all products are essentially of the same quality. The fact is that 99% of motorists will use more than one brand of fuel during an engines life so its never possible to isolate the effect of one producers fuel.

I trust everyone is aware that fuel is wholesaled - there are two refineries in Victoria, (Mobil and Viva - ex Shell) If you buy fuel from Caltex, you're not buying Caltex product Likewise BP. Yes, there is a discrete additive package for each brand once you're at 91 octane. There are small dosing tanks at terminals where the additives are injected to whoever's fuel is being pumped into the tanker trucks.

When we purchase fuel we don't know how old it is, where it was refined, or whats in the bottom of the tank. We don't know where the feedstock came from, we only know octane. And that's all we need to know, because the delivery of the correct octane is the only important variable.

If you want to spend $6 per tank on an additive and it makes you feel better, go for it. It's the $400 eye cream for car enthusiasts. If you think its prolonging the life of your engine, that's terrific. It definitely is. I can't prove it isn't, and you can't prove it is.

Out of interest the highest km's driven on passenger vehicle engines are done by taxi's. Reckon they're dropping $6 a tank on additives? Reckon they're brand fussy or use higher octane that necessary because it makes them feel good? What they're not doing is short trips and cold starts. Want to look after your engine? don't start it cold, drive it for 5 minutes and turn it off.

[Marko_SJ]

Gwagensteve wrote:

Want to look after your engine? .

I thought we were zook owners

[Marck]

Is it worth running 95 or 98 when your working the engine like high power settings in soft sand and such ? Where do you see a benifit running a premium fule in a car that isn't tuned to benifit from the higher octane? Is there any ?

I do put 95 in for beach runs but that's only because I think it reduces the risk of detination when the engine temps climb a little. I assume the 2.7 would have a knock sensor but I'm not sure.

[Grags]

Geez so the major oil companies spend millions on testing, developing fuels etc and it's 99% hype. that's a bit harsh.
What we have determined is that we are mostly tightarsed zook drivers
Well Marck as you know I prefer higher octane and yeah I like the peace of mind especially when towing a camper through deep sand on a hot day. Times like that economy is far from my mind, I just want to get through to be honest

[Gwagensteve]

Quote:

Geez so the major oil companies spend millions on testing, developing fuels etc and it's 99% hype. that's a bit harsh.

Do you know this for a fact? My belief is that oil refiners spend millions developing ways of making fuel of the minimum required quality more cheaply, from less desirable crude, and more efficiently.

This isn't new technology. We can buy incredibly high quality fuel if we want to, we're just unwilling to pay for it. ($8/litre for race fuel) so we use the minimum quality our engines are designed and tuned to run on.

I work at an oil refinery.

Steve.

[Grags]

Well in one minute on the net I discover that Royal Dutch Shell spent $1.093 BILLION on research and development. A drop in the bucket of total turnover but that's a lot of bread.
Even good old Lucas Oil spends money on R&D
you still say it's smoke and mirrors with no science on improving the product behind it?
Seriously?

[jono165]

Research and development would be inclusive of how they can make more product cheaper from more and more inferior raw product. They're not going to spend a fortune on improving the final quality of a product when what they produce is adequate for demand. Car manufacturers will tune new cars based on the fuel that is available for them.

I'd be interested to know what the additive companies spend on R&D vs marketing

[pete_79]

jono165 wrote:

I'd be interested to know what the additive companies spend on R&D vs marketing

My guess is something like the Gatorade budget.
Millions of dollars in 'scientific' institutes and thousands of studies, all to say that the original formula they created was absolutely the best and in more then 40 years nothing ever needed to be changed.