|
I'm also a regular user of Millers. Its good value (£9.75 from a motor spares trader on Ebay) and those of us who use it have noticed an improvement.
When I'm out of it I might go for a tankful of Shell V Power Nitro+ diesel. With that the car definetly feels punchier.
There's quite a few chaps on peugeotforums.com using 2 stroke on a variety of models - many of which have a DPF. None of them have reported any issues. I've known them a long time so I've no reason to doubt them.
You could argue that standard fuel should be enough, you're right, it should. But it isn't, and many of us notice a difference when using supermarket fuels too.
|
|
I don't suppose anyone has any links to tests proving these claims in performance?
I don't expect any replies.
My car drives differently daily, with out any additives.
|
|
|
You could argue that standard fuel should be enough, you're right, it should. But it isn't, and many of us notice a difference when using supermarket fuels too.
I have been using Supermarket fuel almost exclusively now since the 80's (both petrol and diesel). When I occationally have to fill up using one of the branded varieties the car feels exactly the same and does the same consumption as normal (within the usual range).
Personally I think that the people who believe that paying more makes the car feel better are simply justifying their decision to spend more on fuel. Phrases like "many of us notice a difference when using supermarket fuels too" mean absolutely nothing, the average driver could never tell, I would be stunned if a professional racing driver could tell in a blind back to back test. People are simply posting what the adverts are telling them should happen. I would bet that not one of the posters on here has carried out a back to back blind test.
When I was racing people used to turn up with all sorts of wonderful brews all of which were illegal since the regs required pump fuel. No one checked, no one protested, why, because they came nowhere. On Supermarket fuel I won a cabinet full of trophys and my engine never missed a beat. If I had thought that spending a few extra pence on fuel would have given me an edge I would have willingly spent it but it was all total nonsense then just like it is now.
|
|
>>When I was racing people used to turn up with all sorts of wonderful brews
I recall 105 octane being available at Siverstone during a recent historic event.
Whilst marshalling at other events I've asked some competitors what produces that wonderful aromatic cloud that obvously ain't R40, only to be met with a blank stare!
|
|
|
People are simply posting what the adverts are telling them should happen. I would bet that not one of the posters on here has carried out a back to back blind test.
Sorry, Skidpan, you've gone too far on this one. I have stated above what I found with my 205 Dturbo (admittedly several years ago now) and you are saying that I am just playing back what the ads say. That is presumption on your part.
For most of my life I have treated advertising with disdain, in fact I usually ignore it. As regards using diesel injector cleaner, I was taking the advice of the proprietor of this website in his annual Book of Motoring Answers, so you can argue the toss with him. All I can say is that the running behaviour of that car changed for the better after chucking in some magic mixture. I don't suppose it was what you would accept as a 'blind test' but take it or leave it. As I keep saying, people believe what they want to believe.
Or perhaps injector cleaner does not count as an 'additive' ?
|
|
|
I would bet that not one of the posters on here has carried out a back to back blind test.
No-one, owners, manufacturers, fuel companies or additive manufacturer, has ever carried out a proper test that's statistically sound AND published the results.
It can't be done by owners on the road - it would need a year without additive and a year with additive to eliminate weather variations and usage pattern variables and even then "normal" use shows variations in fuel consumption more than the claimed figures - as for longevity you'd need two cars run in convoy for their lifetime and then stripped to see the benefit, or otherwise.
The tests could be done in a laboratory - perhaps they have, so why haven't the results been published.
|
|
|
Personally I think that the people who believe that paying more makes the car feel better are simply justifying their decision to spend more on fuel. Phrases like "many of us notice a difference when using supermarket fuels too" mean absolutely nothing
The same thing could be said about your statement:
I have been using Supermarket fuel almost exclusively now since the 80's (both petrol and diesel). When I occationally have to fill up using one of the branded varieties the car feels exactly the same and does the same consumption as normal (within the usual range).
I've noticed you seem to be full of hate and negativity for other people's opinions when they differ to your own equally unscientific anecdotes. I don't know or care why this is, but its not helpful or welcome.
|
|
|
|
|
Collos, this is your final warning. By all means disagree with others, but do so politely and preferably with something positive to contribute.
Avant - I notice that Collos has not responded to my request for more details, or shown us what he would have liked to read.
|
|
The diesel additives have been proven to reduce the smoke emissions, Smoke emissions are caused by soot in the exhaust gasses.
Soot is carbon matter caused by incomplete burning of fuel. If this soot is reduced significantly by using these products, It means that there must be a more complete burning of the fuel, If more of the fuel is burned completely then there must be more energy produced from it, Therefore there must be some increase in power output. It's simple science.
|
The diesel additives have been proven to reduce the smoke emissions,
Where is the evidence for this?
Or does it simply say on the bottle "reduces smoke emissions".
My manual clearly says "do not use fuel and oil additives".
Even if it made a tiny improvement in power no one would notice it.
|
|
If additives worked, the fuel companies would add it to their fuel - oh yes, so they do - no need to add any more then!
|
If additives worked, the fuel companies would add it to their fuel - oh yes, so they do - no need to add any more then!
I remember Formula Shell petrol, Apparently that had everything it needed and it met the BS standards for fuels but, It did not stop it wrecking alot of engines.
You have to remember just because something meets a BS standard does not make it a fantastic product, It just means it meets the minimum required standard.
|
|
Over the years I have tried additives and not noticed muh difference. I have had my current car for 3 years now and I have used premium and supermarket fuels with a tendency for Esso as it is the nearest fuel station. Some weeks ago I noticed that they had starting selling Esso Supreme Diesel and I thought that I would give it a go. Although I didn't notice a difference straight away the car changed overnight after the second fill-up. It is quieter, more responsive and will hold a higher gear at lower revs. I have been so impressed by the improvement that I have stayed with it for months now. I know it is costing me more but the car is so much nicer to drive. Regards to all.
|
|
|
|
The diesel additives have been proven to reduce the smoke emissions,
Where is the evidence for this?
In the real world of MOT stations, With test equipment to measure emmisions.
|
The diesel additives have been proven to reduce the smoke emissions,
Where is the evidence for this?
In the real world of MOT stations, With test equipment to measure emmisions.
MoT test stations doin't measure diesel emissions - just visible smoke.
|
MoT test stations doin't measure diesel emissions - just visible smoke.
Smoke in itself is an emission is it not? That is how it is written in the MOT testers manual section " 7.4 Exhaust Emissions - Compression Ignition".
to Clarify the terms, 'Smoke is a collection of airborne solid and liquid particulates and gases emitted when a material undergoes combustion or pyrolysis'
Edited by Wackyracer on 10/12/2013 at 18:45
|
MoT test stations doin't measure diesel emissions - just visible smoke.
Smoke in itself is an emission is it not? That is how it is written in the MOT testers manual section " 7.4 Exhaust Emissions - Compression Ignition".
to Clarify the terms, 'Smoke is a collection of airborne solid and liquid particulates and gases emitted when a material undergoes combustion or pyrolysis'
It's not "measured" during the MotT, no equipment is used, it's a visual check.
|
It's not "measured" during the MotT, no equipment is used, it's a visual check.
Well for the past x years, my mot tester has been giving me a bit of paper showing measured opacity c/w with max limits.
He must be bs'ing me then!
Edited by brum on 10/12/2013 at 19:47
|
It's not "measured" during the MotT, no equipment is used, it's a visual check.
Well for the past x years, my mot tester has been giving me a bit of paper showing measured opacity c/w with max limits.
He must be bs'ing me then!
Exactly ! I bet if your using an additive it goes thru on the fast pass (single run up) too. Mine always pass on the fast pass with a very low reading of well under 1.
|
|
MoT test stations doin't measure diesel emissions - just visible smoke.
Smoke in itself is an emission is it not? That is how it is written in the MOT testers manual section " 7.4 Exhaust Emissions - Compression Ignition".
to Clarify the terms, 'Smoke is a collection of airborne solid and liquid particulates and gases emitted when a material undergoes combustion or pyrolysis'
It's not "measured" during the MotT, no equipment is used, it's a visual check.
Absolute nonsence! They do it with a Diesel smoke meter, The same as VOSA do at their own testing stations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am the last person to buy anything that's not absolutely necessary, and for many years I would never consider additives after bad experiences in my youth with slick50.
But in my experience and with my 1998 car millers does offer me long term benefits. I can tell the difference, a smooth thrum instead of the typical loud clatter, no smoke, easy starting, consistent performance (ref xtrailman)
Again I repeat, any performance benefit is mainly due to cleaning coked injectors and higher cetane no. (which doesnt improve mpg or power, but runs quieter due to a slower burn)
Maintaining a clean burn with low smoke levels coming through the exhaust, may possibly be beneficial for dpf longevity, but I'm not likely to buy a car with a dpf.
|
I would never consider additives after bad experiences in my youth with slick50.
|
|
I wish i could post the pictures, but my previous PC crashed and i have no idea where to find the report in question...i believe one of our posters found the link for me last time.
A university research lab conducted tests with Millers Diesel additive (not sure what it was called at the time) probably 5 years ago, on a Seat Leon ISTR, the lab stripped the injectors out and showed pictures of them before and after some time running with Millers in the fuel.
The injectors before were very cruddy, after about 3 tankfuls of Millers mix they were much cleaner with improved spray patterns.
I don't believe i wasted my money and i used MIllers for many years of trouble free motoring whilst i ran Diesels...just as others who never used it will have done the same, i'm not trying to convert anyone and Millers hardly need my recommendation for sales either, if i still ran Diesel i would still be slinging a dose in every tankful.
My 93 Landcruiser used to astonish the MOT tester because it was such a clean runner...Millers helping keep the injection system clear?, i have no idea, i thought it helped, and it wasn't through sales blurb, you won't anyone more cynical.
|
|
Google doesn't give any university test.
|
|
Seems like the HJ site already has the details of what results were found in independant tests!
www.honestjohn.co.uk/news/parts-and-accessories/20.../
|
|
Adding the words " Independent testing has shown that, in addition to reducing carbon emissions by up to 20 per cent, Diesel Power ECOMAX and Petrol Power ECOMAX can also improve fuel economy by up to 7 per cent." to a press release doesn't constitute evidence, where's the link, where's the test detail.
Does anyone know what proper scientific testing involves ?
|
|
With all due respect RT, You didn't even know how they test Diesels during an MOT.
I have carried out smoke tests on Diesel vehicles at a VOSA centre, So I do know a bit about the subject.
I don't use millers now but, IIRC Millers developed their diesel additive for truck racing.
|
Results of using an additive.
www.vwt4forum.co.uk/showthread.php?p=1618685&p...5
Short-term fix to get rid of crud in a poor condition engine in a 15-year old truck, too old to even need to comply with Euro 1, over 0 miles which even the additive manufacturer didn't expect!
Yes, cleaners work - but the pro-additive supporters are arguing for long term use in modern engines to improve engine longevity - so real evidence still needed.
Edited by RT on 11/12/2013 at 08:24
|
|
I did read a post from someone who worked in the fuel industry, and i believe what he says.
He said the fuels were all the same base fuel, but different companies used different additives, he reconned that the supermarket fuels had additives 2 to 3 years out of date, compared to the newest ones in the well known companies.
But the benefits would only be seen over a high milage.
I don't do more than 30K now over 4 years before i change cars, so using more expensive fuel would be a complete waste of money, so i always use the cheapest available, and never had any engine problem to date related to fuel.
|
Results of using an additive.
www.vwt4forum.co.uk/showthread.php?p=1618685&p...5
Short-term fix to get rid of crud in a poor condition engine in a 15-year old truck, too old to even need to comply with Euro 1, over 0 miles which even the additive manufacturer didn't expect!
So what are you suggesting? Apart from the fact you didn't read the post properly? The car was driven for 7 days( you can see the dates) - he said in the post the speedo was broken hence the zero mileage on the print outs.
You seem to be suggesting that as soon as the additive has run through the tank the 'crud' as you put it will instantly be back as if by magic. Have you ever seen how injectors are cleaned by professsional injection specialists using ASNU machines? I guess not.
And what bearing does the fact that it is an old truck have to do with it? It's emmisions after using the additive are much lower than the required standard for any diesel, The figure for a pass on a euro 5 diesel is 1.5 so this old knackered truck as you are implying actually has emissions lower than the required standard for a euro 5 diesel fitted with DPF.
Yes, cleaners work - but the pro-additive supporters are arguing for long term use in modern engines to improve engine longevity - so real evidence still needed.
Long term use of additives will keep the injectors in good condition with as near perfect spray pattern, Which in turn means lower emissions, Better fuel economy (how ever small that might be) and a slight increase in power (regardless of how small.
I'll quite happily keep buying something which I know with experience works for me.
|
|
You're happy to accept evidence of one event, which may or may not be representative of your usage, or anyone else's usage.
My logical, scientific, mind says that that IF something is a good thing then someone, somewhere, would have carried out a proper long-term test to prove it and then publish the results - they haven't - so either the tests haven't been done - or they have been done but didn't show the results wanted.
|
You're happy to accept evidence of one event, which may or may not be representative of your usage, or anyone else's usage.
No, I have seen these kind of results first hand for myself, On various ages and euro 5 too.
I've been using diesel additives for over 15 years.
My logical, scientific, mind says that that IF something is a good thing then someone, somewhere, would have carried out a proper long-term test to prove it and then publish the results - they haven't - so either the tests haven't been done - or they have been done but didn't show the results wanted.
And my Logical, Scientific and rational mind says, That if I have personally seen various occasions of something that has worked, Then it must actually work.
Maybe you'd like to comment on how Shell's advertising of the Shell fuel save fuels ended up being scrapped after it was proven that it don't give you extra miles per tank full, Or maybe as they are a huge Fuel producer with big TV adverts and some lab testing result they waffle about you believed it all?
|
Maybe you'd like to comment on how Shell's advertising of the Shell fuel save fuels ended up being scrapped after it was proven that it don't give you extra miles per tank full, Or maybe as they are a huge Fuel producer with big TV adverts and some lab testing result they waffle about you believed it all?
I didn't accept it for the same reason I don't accept diesel additives - there's no objective test data published.
What are additives, which additives, how many additives, how mamy additives in the additive compared to the number of additives already in the fuel - it's like a piece of string - additives are undefinable in an objective way.
My car's engine is designed to run on EN590 diesel - I use EN590 diesel - until someone publishes any objective test data then that's all I use.
It's designed to use ACEA-C3 oil - I use ACEA-C3 - you'll be telling us next that an additive to the oil would be a good thing!
|
|
And my Logical, Scientific and rational mind says, That if I have personally seen various occasions of something that has worked, Then it must actually work.
I agree. Every time I see clouds, I do a rain dance and it rains.
You have obviously never read of drug tests where the users are given a perfectly innocuous substance and told it will have a certain effect - and it does. It's called the placebo effect..
|
And my Logical, Scientific and rational mind says, That if I have personally seen various occasions of something that has worked, Then it must actually work.
I agree. Every time I see clouds, I do a rain dance and it rains.
Well, That is very interesting and really does mean,hmm, Nothing.
You have obviously never read of drug tests where the users are given a perfectly innocuous substance and told it will have a certain effect - and it does. It's called the placebo effect..
Of course I know how they do it and am aware of it but, What does any of that have to do with a measured result using a calibrated Diesel smoke machine? Or does the smoke test machine get affected by the placebo effect too?
You think additives don't work, You can't show any print outs from calibrated machines and tests to prove they don't - The which report is dubious to say the least.
I think they do work and I have seen test results of lowered smoke emissions on many ocassions to show it does something. Not to mention several cars and light trucks that have had injectors with faults and with some diesel additives the injectors have been ok afterwards.
I actually have alot of info including the full ingredients list for the fuel treatment I use, The chemical they use to increase the cetane is the same as all the fuel companies use.
|
You're happy to accept evidence of one event, which may or may not be representative of your usage, or anyone else's usage.
My logical, scientific, mind says that that IF something is a good thing then someone, somewhere, would have carried out a proper long-term test to prove it and then publish the results - they haven't - so either the tests haven't been done - or they have been done but didn't show the results wanted.
These sound like the words of a conspiracy theorist. This thread is as good as any at showing (you will be bored by this) that people will believe what they want to believe. Saying that there are no convincing test results 'proves' neither that it does work nor that it doesn't.
Like many of you I am a trained scientist, tho not one that has worked in engineering. I am not a regular user of additives and I don't go out of my way to get either the cheapest or the dearest fuel. But my own limited experience has shown me (never mind published test results, which can easily be invented) that a car which has been fed only basic diesel can run more cleanly by throwing a small amount of potion in the tank. What more do I need to know?
|
Saying that there are no convincing test results 'proves' neither that it does work nor that it doesn't.
That's exactly my point !
|
|
And what bearing does the fact that it is an old truck have to do with it
Quite a lot as the technology has changed dramtically in the past 15 years. Modern injection system are a light year ahead of 15 year old ones. After all, modern tolerances are much tighter so what works in an old siimple system may not work in a moidern one.
|
|
Don't waste your breath, Wackyracer - you won't convince scientologists you know!
And just watch, they'll insist on having the last word......
|
Don't waste your breath, Wackyracer - you won't convince scientologists you know!
And just watch, they'll insist on having the last word......
You mean Scientists that waffle on and on about subjects they have such little knowledge of they didn't even know they measured diesel emissions with a machine? That really makes me want to take notice of them, Arm chair experts I call them.
I'll carry on using the additive I use and I'm not bothered 'wasting' money on it as I won't be 'wasting' money buying a new diesel pump and injectors.
|
I'll continue too...based on my experience, and confidence in my engineering background.
Edited by brum on 11/12/2013 at 15:00
|
I'll continue too...based on my experience, and confidence in my engineering background.
Based on my personal experience of not having had any problems in 39 years of driving whilst not using additives (and my dads 60+ years of driving with no additives) and the simple fact that there is no proven independant evidence they do any good I will continue not to waste any money on such a useless product.
Guess we will have to agree to disagree but I know 100% who is correct and who is living in cloud cookoo land.
|
|
While there are salesmen and such gullable people these snake oil additives will continue to sell.
|
I'll continue too...based on my experience, and confidence in my engineering background.
Based on my personal experience of not having had any problems in 39 years of driving whilst not using additives (and my dads 60+ years of driving with no additives) and the simple fact that there is no proven independant evidence they do any good I will continue not to waste any money on such a useless product.
Guess we will have to agree to disagree but I know 100% who is correct and who is living in cloud cookoo land.
+1
I must be lucky = since using diesels in the past 20 years I have had no problems with no additives. Maybe following makers' instructions on fuel and servicing helps
(When I read posts on not changeing anti freeze and using additives I think it's wonderful that we have so many expert engineers driving vehicles on the road.
But then I'm only a dumb physicist...
Edited by madf on 11/12/2013 at 15:45
|
|
< But then I'm only a dumb physicist...>
No-one could ever call you a dumb physicist ... :-)
|
|
< Guess we will have to agree to disagree but I know 100% who is correct and who is living in cloud cookoo land. >
Actually, 'knowing 100% who is correct' is quite a good definition of living in cloud cuckoo land .... :-)
|
< Guess we will have to agree to disagree but I know 100% who is correct and who is living in cloud cookoo land. >
Actually, 'knowing 100% who is correct' is quite a good definition of living in cloud cuckoo land .... :-)
Andrew isn't that the truth right there! It is not often I agree with you but, I can't disagree this time.
|
(and my dads 60+ years of driving with no additives)
I didn't know that there were diesel cars available 60+ years ago!
and the simple fact that there is no proven independant evidence they do any good I will continue not to waste any money on such a useless product.
And not forgetting the simple fact that there is no proven independant evidence they do not work either.
|
|
Citroen introduced diesels in 1933 with Mercedes-Benz introducing them in 1936.
|
|
Plenty of German diesel trucks and cars in the last war.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_engine
Edited by Collos25 on 11/12/2013 at 18:55
|
|
I didn't know that there were diesel cars available 60+ years ago!
I remember BMC made a 1.5 diesel engine based on the B series - fitted to a few A55s in the 1950s and to the A60 from 1961.. so 60 years ago..
IIRC my father drove an A55 diesel for a week as a loan car - dreadfully noisy and slow.
|
|
Maybe I should have said, Diesel cars were not common 60 years ago.
|
|
Or why dont you simply admit you are wrong?
Besides his dads comment didn't mention a diesel car, just 60 years of motoring.
|
Or why dont you simply admit you are wrong?
Besides his dads comment didn't mention a diesel car, just 60 years of motoring.
To coin a phrase from bromptonaut " Dear pot ,A letter from kettle. "
|
Google doesn't give any university test.
Try a proper search browser where the first 19 pages of hits arn't paid ads..;)
www.seatcupra.net/forums/showthread.php?t=188065
Can't find the original but a poster scanned the essentials.
|
|
Would the mods please lock this thread as its deteriorated to a slagging match.
Time everyone looked at the way they behave.
|
|
I agree absolutely with Brum and with several others who have E-mailed us.
Diesel additives are hardly a subject where insults need to be traded. Thread locked.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
