|
That's a good result, well done. Did you notice a performance improvement as well ?
|
|
Any diesel additive fans got views on the efficacy of copper bracelets for rheumatism?
|
|
You diesel chaps do seem to have such fun with all your additives ! Makes petrol motoring seem so boring !
|
|
I have some snake oil and some rocking horse manure both have magical qualities it makes you believe all sorts of fatanstic tales.
|
My Focus goes better with Power Sport 4 in the tank - that's a fact.
|
|
|
|
I imagine these they hydrogen generators work for diesel engines just as well as they do for petrol ones, also. Combined with a good squirt of diesel addative and you'd get - well, lots of MPG. Lots and lots, maybe.
|
"My Focus goes better with Power Sport 4 in the tank - that's a fact."
Of course it does
|
|
I used to bald, but thanks to Power Sport 4 I'm hairy as a bear.
|
|
Do you rub it on your head or drink it?
|
Drink it with a dash of diesel.
Lovely.
|
I've never used additives (Renault say 'non'), but I after logging my fuel economy over the past 2 yrs / 35,000 miles in a Mondeo diesel and a petrol Volvo, doing the same 35 mile journey at the same time of day, every day, I have enough evidence to tell me that different brands of fuel can affect fuel consumption by anything up to 5%, and in the Mondeo's case, it was a supermarket diesel brand that consistently gave over 45 mpg in a car which used to average nearer 43.
If this is the case, and I genuinely believe it is, why should an additive not make a difference?
Has any independent testing been done by the car mags? I would have thought the practical mags like Car Mechanics would have jumped on it.
|
|
Air speed,air temp,humidity all make large measurable differences in performance so I wouldn't read to much into your findings.
|
If this is the case and I genuinely believe it is why should an additive not make a difference?
An addative might make some difference - whether it's worth it in terms of price, I doubt. If Shell, BP, or whoever could legitimately claim that their fuel is better than the others in terms of price/mile, or power output, I am sure that they would. Therefore, if it was cost-effective to use addatives of the type mentioned here....
Has any independent testing been done by the car mags? I would have thought the practical mags like Car Mechanics would have jumped on it.
They would, of course, have to consider advertising revenue. They probably aren't likely to kill the Golden Goose.
It ought to be mentioned that HJ has recommended Millers Diesel Power Sport in "The Daily Telegraph" for certain purposes.
Consider this, from: www.theultimatefinish.co.uk
"Benefits:
* Increases powers by upto 17.5%
* Reduces emissions - up to 70% less exhaust smoke & up to 20% less carbon emissions
* Increases MPG - up to 7% economy improvements
* Cleans injectors
* Increases fuel rating by upto 4 octane numbers
* Improved throttle response
* Easier starting, quieter, smoother running engine
* Prevents fuel from ageing"
So, according to that, it "cleans injectors" (is this necessary?), "improves throttle response" (would one really perceive this, I wonder?), and engines "start easier" (benefit=??), are "quieter" (how so?), and are "smoother running" (same perception question), and it prevents fuel from ageing (this cannot of course be an absolute effect, unless it's a real miracle). It seems to me that the above effects must be measurable in some way, even if they're infinitesimally small, or legal action might be forthcoming. With regards the "Increases X by up to Y%" statements, well, the words "up to" clearly include the number "0" so it might be described so, and have no effect on X at all (although the effect should not be negative!).
The only thing that seems to me undeniable is that it costs a bit over tuppence a litre of fuel to use this stuff.
|
So according to that it "cleans injectors" (is this necessary?)
Yes, injectors get gummed up/ coked up, this happens over time and is related to fuel quality, age, useage, and engine design etc. Use of detergent additives in fuel is seen as beneficial by major fuel producers, in the same way as detergent additives are in oil. Unfortunately pressure from retailers discourage the use of additives because it costs...
A dirty injector does not have optimum spray pattern and can lead to poor atomisation - the symptoms of which are smoking, so reduced efficiency, power and driveability. More traditional methods of addressing injector problems are, having them cleaned by a diesel specialist, changing the injectors, italian tuneups and trading in the car for something else.
IMO Millers claims to improve power/mpg etc basically stem from its abilty to clean injectors. So maximum benefits will be seen by old smoky engines, and minimum gains would be had from brand new engines - although cleanliness will be maintained. In my experience with a VW 90bhp AHU TDi at 80,000 miles it took 3/4 tanks for the injectors to be cleaned using Millers. Initially smoking increased significantly and disappeared afer 3/4 tanks.
"improves throttle response" (would one really perceive this I wonder?) engines "start easier" (benefit=??) are "quieter" (how so?) are "smoother running" (same perception question)
IMO Definitley yes.
These are all due to the "Cetane booster". Increasing cetane number of diesel improves the ignition quality of the diesel and reduces diesel "knock" by slowing the combustion. Look it up.
This is the reason I use Millers. In my experience it turns a harsh diesel into a perceptibly smoother beast. It does happen gradually over a couple of tankfuls (maybe more if the injectors are dirty) and so it maybe too subtle for some to notice. But y
You do notice it when you stop using it. Of course results may vary as some engines are inherently smoother than others (even the same engine types)
it prevents fuel from ageing (this cannot of course be an absolute effect unless it's a real miracle).
Presumably it prevents oxidation, I personally have never experienced diesel fuel ageing and my opinion is that a well designed fuel tank system would prevent it largely from happening.
I am very cynical by nature, and dismiss the vast majority of additives. (My experience of Slick50 taught me a lot). But Millers DPS4 works for me.
|
use addatives
What is an "addative" [ oft repeated by some ]?
|
What is an "addative"
Drat. You've got me there. I blame computers, excessive use tends to make my spelling and grammer atrocious. I notice the same goes for writers in "The Daily Telegraph" (not HJ).
|
Drat. You've got me there. I blame computers, excessive use
Agreed. I have to consciously fight against it myself.
Your not alone. Ignoramuses on "The Register" have lead me to loose the ability to spell come common words. I often want to correct there errors and give them a peace of my mind just for the piece of my mind.
* [ You're, led, lose, their, piece, peace ]
Edited by jbif on 29/08/2008 at 18:28
|
|
|
Quoting me, Andy Bairsto wrote: "My Focus goes better with Power Sport 4 in the tank - that's a fact."
Of course it does!
Andy,
I said my car goes better with the additive, which is a statement based on my experience.
Yet all you can post in response is sarcastic drivel which is effectively calling me a liar.
I suggest that before you start making bold statements in future, you do a bit of research and try and get some facts.
I did have another suggestion for you, but I'll not post that, if only to save the mods the trouble of deleting it.
|
Now now
You don't mess with ifithelps when he's had a slug or two of Millers for breakfast, I can tell you. :)
|
|
And having swallowed all that cetane improver stuff you might not take much cremating, either.
|
This matter can only be settled by objective and controlled measurement. It is the sort of thing that a motoring program on TV could do, but wont.
What a pity because it would form an example of Public Service broadcasting that actually performed a useful service for the public.
|
This matter can only be settled by objective and controlled measurement
Some of this additive stuff tested in the USA:
www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/consumer/autos/aut10.shtm
"Devices Tested by EPA
The following list categorizes various types of "gas-saving" products, explains how they're used and gives product names. Those with asterisks may save measurable, but small, amounts of gas. All others have been found not to increase fuel economy.
Fuels and Fuel Additives. These materials are added to the gas tank.
The EPA has evaluated: Bycosin; EI-5 Fuel Additive; Fuelon Power; Johnson Fuel Additive; NRG #1 Fuel Additive; QEI 400 Fuel Additive; Rolfite Upgrade Fuel Additive; Sta-Power Fuel Additive; Stargas Fuel Additive; SYNeRGy-1; Technol G Fuel Additive; ULX-15/ULX-15D; Vareb 10 Fuel Additive; XRG #1 Fuel Additive.
Oils and Oil Additives. Usually these materials are poured into the crankcase.
The EPA has evaluated: Analube Synthetic Lubricant; Tephguard. "
Edited by jbif on 29/08/2008 at 18:36
|
Objective measuring using scientifically controlled conditions where all the variables are strictly controlled is one way of measuring, changing any of the variables and you may well get a different result.
What matters is the particular result achieved by an individual, albeit by some combination of manipulation/adjustment of their own set of variables. One person may find a large improvement whilst another a small improvement or none at all or even negative. Much depends on the set of skills an individual has and how well they can consistently apply them.
For example, a pilot can hit a target 100 times out of 100, whereas someone else achieves 90 out of 100, who would you prefer as your wingman ? Sounds easy to answer until you look further into the data variables such as weather and combat conditions at the time. Considering the 90 out of 100 was achieved in demanding conditions whereas the 100 out of 100 was achieved in near prefect conditions we conclude the 90 out of 100 is an overall better achievement once the variables are considered.
The same type of achievement considerations apply when measuring fuel additive effectiveness, fuel consumption, impact on engine reliability and economy, increased/decreased exhaust pollution etc.
|
Objective measuring using scientifically controlled conditions where all the variables are strictly controlled is one way of measuring changing any of the variables and you may well get a different result.
That is why I'd love to see some sort of real test results on these products. It is simply not good enough for "X" to say that "I use product Y and it does Z" and then for someone else to deny it. Measure these things on a test-bed (maximum power, economy at various constant speeds, etc., etc.) and see what really happens. I was interested to see the US figures pointed to by the link above. I'd like to see more such.
|
I'm in the process of trying this additive with different brand fuels. One problem I have is how to add it to a tank. At the moment I put two tanks dose in a plastic fuel can then top that up with diesel. Then after shaking I decant about half into the tank.
Is there an easier clean way? With the anti roll-spill seal, anti syphon bits and a long run to the tank from the filler is there a way of doing that they doesn't either leave lots in the fuel filler neck/mouth or not get it mixed up enough.
Thanks,
Simon
Edited by hypocrite on 30/08/2008 at 00:31
|
Is there an easier clean way? With the anti roll-spill seal anti syphon bits and a long run to the tank from the filler is there a way of doing that they doesn't either leave lots in the fuel filler neck/mouth or not get it mixed up enough.
I just put it into the tank before I fill it, the process of filling should mix it well enough.
Andyfr
|
I've mentioned this on another thread, i came across an independent testing of millers on the web thingy..
I remember seeing the photo's of before and after use of the injector nozzles and spray patterns from the same injectors, reasonable proof of the cleaning properties.
I unthinkingly failed to save them, but as this thread is still running, maybe someone else may have seen this or may have more success than me in finding this test.
|
yes but how....The fuel filler spout reaches a couple of inches down the filler pipe and doesn't wash the sides until even further down. Should I use a funnel ? Otherwise with the small inset fuel opening on my car I don't see how I can get it all in. Evaporation?
Should I use a finger to hold the flap open then try to tip the measuered dose in. I'm not conviced that I can get that to work accurately every time.
thanks,
Simon
|
yes but how....The fuel filler spout reaches a couple of inches down the filler pipe and doesn't wash the sides until even further down.
I always fill right to the brim.
|
|
|
|
|
|
