Been testing Oil

[Firebirdjones]

That's the most I've ever heard of.

I always see about 1 or 2 mpg pickup with several different gas powered vehicles here, both fuel injection and carb.

[peedot36]

That's the most I've ever heard of.

I always see about 1 or 2 mpg pickup with several different gas powered vehicles here, both fuel injection and carb.

Was the first test of the mileage after 11 of the 17.5 gallons were burned. We will see what the next results show.

[Firebirdjones]

Don't know if you're asking...

I've used this stuff in 9 different vehicles over several years. I check mileage with every fillup and add 2 cycle accordingly, so it's always in the tank now.

Was always a stickler for checking mileage before hand going back many years, so I can honestly say, on average, each car sees at most about a 2 mpg pickup in mileage now. Not that I'm too worried about it, I run it for the sole purpose of having lubricity in the fuel to lubricate the valvetrain and upper cylinders of the engine.

[pajeff02]

FBJ - what are your thoughts on these direct injection engines and buildup of junk on the back of the valves through the oil that is ingested?

[Firebirdjones]

FBJ - what are your thoughts on these direct injection engines and buildup of junk on the back of the valves through the oil that is ingested?

I think it's going to be a real problem as the miles pile on. I'm already hearing/reading complaints from a couple of tuners,,,, and just dropped off an engine at the machine shop last weekend and accidently got on the discussion of direct injection with Koerner and he is not a fan at all with what he's seen come in the shop lately.

The biggest benefit with 2 cycle oil was to add lubricity back into the fuel. With direct injection you aren't getting that lubricity on the valve seats, valve guides, not to mention the cleaning abilities. You still get it in the upper cylinders and tops of pistons but you are loosing some of the benefits with this direct injection and fuel being introduced passed the valve heads rather than behind them.

I'd still use it however because my biggest concern in a gas engine would be keeping those injectors clean since they are right in the middle of the combustion process.

Just a little tidbit of info I find interesting. I recently tore down a 454 I had in my 79 pickup. This engine had right at 105,000 miles on it before it spun a rod bearing. I always ran Lucas fuel treatment in this engine which does the same thing. A few years ago I switched to 2 cycle oil and continued the same maintanance. I couldn't believe how the piston tops, valve heads and combustion chambers looked when I tore this engine down. It looked like it had 30,000 miles, not 108,000. Everything was remarkably clean with very little carbon buildup at all. Every exhaust valve had a nice grey color and the intake valves were clean as a whistle. Even the dish in the piston tops (where buildup usually occurs) were clean and free of any excess buildup.
Disassembling heads to lap valves in, and interested to see how the backs of the valves look. Engine block had no cylinder bore wear at all, doesn't even need bored, and the piston skirts still look like new. I was simply amazed when I tore this engine down after all the towing it's been through. Don't know if my routine oil changes, or quality oil, or the 2 cycle fuel treatment, or if it was a combination of all 3 were the cause of such a clean engine with little wear, but I'm not going to change my regimen after seeing this engine.
I just need to stop over reving it so I don't spin another rod bearing

[pajeff02]

That is what I was afraid of. Ugh.

Sounds like you suffered some serious H.F.C. (Heavy Foot Carnage)!

[Firebirdjones]

That is what I was afraid of. Ugh.

Sounds like you suffered some serious H.F.C. (Heavy Foot Carnage)!

Yeah, not terrible but spun 2 rod bearings. Shut it down quickly but not before it bent the crank from heat.

Leaving now to pick up the block, crank, and rods. Resized all rods, straightened and turned crank. Block needed align honed since the heat distorted one of the main caps. Bores were beautiful, not out of round enough to require boring, so a simple hone with a new set of rings will do. In all, for 100k mile engine that's 36 years old, it was in great shape.

I did this over 2 years ago, and just stuck a crate 502 in the truck at that time. Decided it was time to rebuild and reinstall the original 454 and use that 502 for another project

[Naaman]

I think it's going to be a real problem as the miles pile on. I'm already hearing/reading complaints from a couple of tuners,,,, and just dropped off an engine at the machine shop last weekend and accidently got on the discussion of direct injection with Koerner and he is not a fan at all with what he's seen come in the shop lately.

The biggest benefit with 2 cycle oil was to add lubricity back into the fuel. With direct injection you aren't getting that lubricity on the valve seats, valve guides, not to mention the cleaning abilities. You still get it in the upper cylinders and tops of pistons but you are loosing some of the benefits with this direct injection and fuel being introduced passed the valve heads rather than behind them.

I'd still use it however because my biggest concern in a gas engine would be keeping those injectors clean since they are right in the middle of the combustion process.

Just a little tidbit of info I find interesting. I recently tore down a 454 I had in my 79 pickup. This engine had right at 105,000 miles on it before it spun a rod bearing. I always ran Lucas fuel treatment in this engine which does the same thing. A few years ago I switched to 2 cycle oil and continued the same maintanance. I couldn't believe how the piston tops, valve heads and combustion chambers looked when I tore this engine down. It looked like it had 30,000 miles, not 108,000. Everything was remarkably clean with very little carbon buildup at all. Every exhaust valve had a nice grey color and the intake valves were clean as a whistle. Even the dish in the piston tops (where buildup usually occurs) were clean and free of any excess buildup.
Disassembling heads to lap valves in, and interested to see how the backs of the valves look. Engine block had no cylinder bore wear at all, doesn't even need bored, and the piston skirts still look like new. I was simply amazed when I tore this engine down after all the towing it's been through. Don't know if my routine oil changes, or quality oil, or the 2 cycle fuel treatment, or if it was a combination of all 3 were the cause of such a clean engine with little wear, but I'm not going to change my regimen after seeing this engine.
I just need to stop over reving it so I don't spin another rod bearing

I've been wondering whether my new set up would benefit (tolerate) the 2-cycle oil. I used it in my last engine. I'm hesitant to try anything "special" in the new set up, though.

[Firebirdjones]

I've been wondering whether my new set up would benefit (tolerate) the 2-cycle oil. I used it in my last engine. I'm hesitant to try anything "special" in the new set up, though.

Ultimately that's up to you. However I run this stuff in all my setups, new and old, carb or fuel injection, high dollar and low buck. I mainly run it for the lubricity purposes, something gas no longer has without lead. The fact that it has some cleaning ability is just a bonus for me.

Been doing it for more than a dozen years, but back then I used the Lucas oil fuel treatment because it didn't have the harsh chemicals that other fuel cleaners do, it was more of a lubricant compared to others which is what I wanted. I only switched to 2 cycle TCW3 when Sarge convinced me to try. They both do the exact same thing, accept the 2 cycle TCW3 is literally 1/4 of the cost. Been using the 2 cycle for about 4-5 years now and extremely happy with the results.

What I wont do is use the really harsh chemicals and cleaners in any of my engines like the sea foam cleaners, and other fuel additives that have really aggressive cleaning packages in them. Very hard on seals and other soft parts, and does absolutely nothing to lubricate the valve train and fuel system.

[mephy]

Ultimately that's up to you. However I run this stuff in all my setups, new and old, carb or fuel injection, high dollar and low buck. I mainly run it for the lubricity purposes, something gas no longer has without lead. The fact that it has some cleaning ability is just a bonus for me.

Been doing it for more than a dozen years, but back then I used the Lucas oil fuel treatment because it didn't have the harsh chemicals that other fuel cleaners do, it was more of a lubricant compared to others which is what I wanted. I only switched to 2 cycle TCW3 when Sarge convinced me to try. They both do the exact same thing, accept the 2 cycle TCW3 is literally 1/4 of the cost. Been using the 2 cycle for about 4-5 years now and extremely happy with the results.

What I wont do is use the really harsh chemicals and cleaners in any of my engines like the sea foam cleaners, and other fuel additives that have really aggressive cleaning packages in them. Very hard on seals and other soft parts, and does absolutely nothing to lubricate the valve train and fuel system.

And don't forget the better combustion due to the better atomization of the fuel.

[Naaman]

Ultimately that's up to you. However I run this stuff in all my setups, new and old, carb or fuel injection, high dollar and low buck. I mainly run it for the lubricity purposes, something gas no longer has without lead. The fact that it has some cleaning ability is just a bonus for me.

Been doing it for more than a dozen years, but back then I used the Lucas oil fuel treatment because it didn't have the harsh chemicals that other fuel cleaners do, it was more of a lubricant compared to others which is what I wanted. I only switched to 2 cycle TCW3 when Sarge convinced me to try. They both do the exact same thing, accept the 2 cycle TCW3 is literally 1/4 of the cost. Been using the 2 cycle for about 4-5 years now and extremely happy with the results.

What I wont do is use the really harsh chemicals and cleaners in any of my engines like the sea foam cleaners, and other fuel additives that have really aggressive cleaning packages in them. Very hard on seals and other soft parts, and does absolutely nothing to lubricate the valve train and fuel system.

I've been considering trying this after a few tanks of gas to help me get a baseline on the fuel economy as well as to familiarize myself with the characteristics of the new rig.

My car does idle slightly "choppy" but I think that has more to do with the cam (mild as it is) and possibly a lack of exhaust flow (stock manifolds) relative to the intake (which has been opened up from the lid to the intake valves).

The reason I think this is because on the first cold weather start up each morning, the engine bogs and "struggles" for a just a moment before settling into the warm up cycle. I imagine it is because the intake capacity (machined heads) is too high for low rpm (i.e. the very initial starting of the engine) operation--the slow moving air can't fill the space quickly enough... kinda like how a high rise intake manifold on a race car requires an idle of 3k just to keep from stalling...

Sound about right?

In any case, I'm not expecting a smoother idle, but perhaps smoother revving or better fuel economy (I track this with every tank of gas anyway, so might as well see if I can squeeze a few more miles out of each tank).

[pajeff02]

To this day, I have not a clue the mpg our car gets.

[langss]

Well its getting close to that time of year again, and for a change I'm not dreading having to have the 92 smogged again. Since I have had such good luck, We have also been using the oil in a 91 Subaru Legacy with approx 200xxx on the clock and an 07 Mustang Gt with approx 68xxx on the clock. Both cars showed an improvement in about one tank of gas. For what the oil costs, I think the return is more than worth it.



[/QUOTE=langss;2838126]I just got back from having my 92 Camaro Smog Tested and I'm happy to say that it passed with better numbers than the last time. This was also I might add on 2yr old gas that I had added the tcw3 right after the last smog test.(see post #986).This time the car only had about 500 miles and I didn't have time to run the gas out so I just went for it. Again anybody that's having trouble passing the oil works.[/QUOTE]

[Firebirdjones]

I've been considering trying this after a few tanks of gas to help me get a baseline on the fuel economy as well as to familiarize myself with the characteristics of the new rig.

My car does idle slightly "choppy" but I think that has more to do with the cam (mild as it is) and possibly a lack of exhaust flow (stock manifolds) relative to the intake (which has been opened up from the lid to the intake valves).

The reason I think this is because on the first cold weather start up each morning, the engine bogs and "struggles" for a just a moment before settling into the warm up cycle. I imagine it is because the intake capacity (machined heads) is too high for low rpm (i.e. the very initial starting of the engine) operation--the slow moving air can't fill the space quickly enough... kinda like how a high rise intake manifold on a race car requires an idle of 3k just to keep from stalling...

Sound about right?

In any case, I'm not expecting a smoother idle, but perhaps smoother revving or better fuel economy (I track this with every tank of gas anyway, so might as well see if I can squeeze a few more miles out of each tank).

To this day, I have not a clue the mpg our car gets.

Gas mileage has always been mainly just a curiosity factor with me. I do get a kick out of what each car gets and how much I can squeeze from it with driving habits and tuning, and becomes an interesting conversation piece. But in the end I really don't care if it gets 10mpg or 30 mpg. My daily drivers since I was 16 years old at best were 10-15mpg cars, and I still drive them today, so I'm used to it. I don't mind keeping those oil companies in business When I jump in something that gets close to 20 I'm shocked

[Naaman]

I tend not to worry about fuel economy because of the way that I drive. I have a heavy foot when I accelerate and I don't worry about fuel consumption. But when I have a 110 mile commute or when I'm making a cross-country drive, I like to go as far as possible before stopping for gas.

[Firebirdjones]

I tend not to worry about fuel economy because of the way that I drive. I have a heavy foot when I accelerate and I don't worry about fuel consumption. But when I have a 110 mile commute or when I'm making a cross-country drive, I like to go as far as possible before stopping for gas.

And for that exact reason is why I dropped to 3.73's that I spoke of in your thread earlier, my wife was commuting 200 miles round trip daily (Prescott to Scottsdale) And even though it was getting 26-27 mpg with that mixed bag of driving, I still had to fill it up every night when she got home, damn thing doesn't hold that much gas

[Naaman]

Tell me about it. And I have the 15.5 gallon tank instead of the 16.8...

[Firebirdjones]

My newer Duramax is the same way, why GM only puts a 26 gallon tank in those things boggles my mind. I towed accross country pulling my 28 foot trailer, getting 11 mpg, I had to pull off for gas every 200 miles. What a pain in the ass that was. Makes me wish I'd have bought a long bed instead, they at least come with a 32 gallon tank. I'm seriously thinking of installing a custom large tank.

At least my old 79 1 ton has twin 20 gallon tanks from the factory, they did it right back then, lol. Accross country with the same trailer I was going 400 miles between fillups, much less stressful. I'd rather have fewer stops and bigger fillups, especially when pulling a trailer.

[Naaman]

A friend of mine had a 220 gallon tank in the bed of his Cummins Dodge. Drove from MT to AZ without stopping for gas.

[Firebirdjones]

Yeah, I'm looking at custom tanks that fit in place of the stock tank under the truck. I don't want anything in the bed, I still use it as a truck.