Quote:
Originally Posted by UFO
Post results. I am curious to read more than anecdotes about smoother idling, you know to save fuel you should not be idling much anyway, right?  |
True for us, but (in my pending plan), the use of a blinded "Subject", with non-Ecodriving habits, could help with statisical power. In addition, could a rough idle be a sign of an engine's overall operating efficiency (incluing non-idle)? Only a hypothesis. There is a lot of uncharted territory here in which to explore.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WesternStarSCR
But, this is why it is an open discussion, vs. a very specific test; so people can try it out for our own reasons, and report experiences, anecdotal, scientific, or otherwise, and others can make of it what they want from our experiences
Hope that helps explain this thread. No one has skin in this game, like some other threads, pushing expensive fuel additives. So it seems to encourage more honest dialouge I have found.
|
Very well said. We seem to be using different manufacturers, retail/wholesale outlets, and really trying to keep a clear, Scientific mind about it. None of us seem to have a financial stake in it's sales/usage. Whatever is reported can be judged by the reader.
Product and Implementation:
I found Pennzoil Marine Synthetic Blend at Bass Pro for $8/quart (gallons are also availalbe). If this is the same Pennzoil product as mentioned, check with stores that sell watercraft if you're having trouble finding a variant.
As for mixing, I have an old squirt bottle with measured lines -- so I add 3oz, seal the opening, put it in a ziploc bag with a paper shop towel, and squirt it down the filler tube at the pump -- then re-close the lid, zip up the empty bottle/towel and toss it in the back for later. I went with 0.7oz more than planned due to the approximate amount left as viscous residue that did not completely empty from the bottle.
52 miles is too early to tell anything regarding results.
tjts1 -- Yes, it looks humorous, but perhaps humor us? I appplaud skepticism -- but in this care there is plenty of discussion with possible benefits, some ad-lib testing, and a prime situation for proper experimentation here (especially additives, which are constantly debunked, well before they get here). Any supporting documentation for the causual pic's implications? I personally think it's fun to test mods -- this caught my eye since it doesn't take significant time to implement/document and presents with low risk based on background info. It's been a while since I contributed to a good test of anything FE-related, so I decided, "why not?"
Unless there is documented, repeatable, un-biased testing showing either good/bad or solid commentary (from Chemical Engineers / experts, high-level powertrain experts, and the like), then it seems cheap and easy-enough to try. The diesel fuel additive test shows an above-average lubricity example for this compound (and relatively inexpensive), which provides another citation of reference.
If it does nothing at all for us (or worse) at least we'll have some supporting documentation and hopefully rationale for further testing of this and similar products. Continuing the ability to add options to the list of EcoMods is why a lot of us do this. Trust me, I only get "paid" in fuel savings (and hopefully a better enviroment). As far as time: it's volunteer work for a good cause (for whatever the reason people come here).
RH77