Quote:
Originally Posted by UFO
With such slight claimed increases you are going to need better control over your subject. How will you control fuel brand/octane? Ambient temperature variations? Vehicle condition?
|
It is the context of this thread, and cost of the additive, that makes this less of a risk, and less need of controlled conditions. If this was in fact an ABA test of a religious use of an addtive that was, lets say, $10 a quart, I may not be so inclined to use it is often. If at all. Or be part of test group.
Conventional TC-W3 is about $2.50 a quart at WM. That covers about 160 gallons of fuel. About 10 weeks for her.
If I get even
slight positive MPG increase over time, and / or less burning of the expensize synthetic oil that her 3.8 Chrylser has (supposedly a common issue, burns about 1 qt for about 1,500 miles), then in the case of her van, it will be worth it.
If the LS1 forum, and the lubrictiy testing are even half way accurate (keeping some E10 related issues at bay, keeping compression up a bit, and keeping things clean and lubricated, things that will be impossible to measure), then I think it will be inexpensive insurance. She drives her van hard. Eats up the front brakes too...
For my car, I am more in tune with how it is running, so once again, if I get increased MPG, it will be hard to tell, for sure, but I am going to track none the less. I know when I am having rough starts, etc. I also hope to get a UG for Christams or in January, so that should help.
But, I do not stress over this; this thread was more of a postive reaction to a seller of Amsoil additive that was boldly stating MPG claims with no evidence, other than testimony. And his penchant for being testy when asked fo such evidence
Here is an inexpensive, off the self product, that
MAY help MPG, as it has shown to do that for others who have also attempted their best controlled testing as well.
But,
no bold claims that we need to prove or disprove. Just people saying hey, its cheap, looks like a lot of people have tried with different levels of success since at least 2008, so that it seems to be low risk in relation to products people may be spending more money on anyway, which also have a small or non-existent body of evidence for thier claims.
In fact, my botle of Lucas UCL states clearly that the
'bottle should pay for itself with MPG increase'. Of course, no evidence listed...
I think the worse it can do is keep things running well, if you believe the reports from others on the internet from the last 6 years. Any MPG gain is bonus. And maybe, the MPG gain is
because , over time, the lubricants and detergents are keeping things clean and smooth? Don't know, I hope to see.
I do appreciate your involvement and questions. They are good questions.
This research reminds me of a group research project, with a goal of 'lets see what we find out ourselves', which may or may not pass the level of any particular scientific test protocal. But, we hope it is valuable none the less.
The more we are upfront with the fact that this is an open discussion, with a broad range of people and test or use methods, the more people will hopefully see that we are just trying to add to a body of evidence that already has a positive internet track record.
Someone trying it and saying it made his car run like crap is just as valuable as someone that said it now idles smoother, but no MPG gain. So who knows where this thread will go.
Later!