Oil additive testing

[suspectnumber961]

So...how goes the testing? I'll be waiting till next month to do the MS in the engine...want to put some miles on my last oil change.

Here is a pic of auto trans fluids after dropping the pan, cleaning/new filter. 1st is original ATF after over 100K miles...2nd is after running only a few hundred more miles and redoing the pan only...third is after 1500 miles during a full flush/new filter...this final batch of ATF still was gunky and had metal fines in it that could be seen in the sun....it was at least 2/3s new ATF.



New synth ATF plus the MS additive. I also added a large neo magnet on the outside of the trans pan in addition to the OEM ceramic one inside it.

Mechanically...I think engine assemblies can take more abuse than most give them credit for...though ancillary components like the O2s might not?

As far as the sludge being loosened up and causing problems...I think it isn't an issue of circulating gums and varnishes...it's the potential blocking of the pickup screens...mostly seen with turbos that run hot?

[bwilson4web]

The additive requires 1,000 miles before a second oil and filter change to remove the trapped and suspended varnish and gunk. The challenge is I had not stored two tanks, 20 gallons of gasoline, to keep the fuel constant.

Given the variation in ethanol and refinery output, gasoline does not have a constant, heat energy. Worse, this is the time refineries switch from a winter to summer blend and the gas station tanks are just a mix during the transition. So my next best alternative is to measure the change in fuel energy with each tank and use the accumulated offsets to adjust between the pre-treatment and post-treatment engine fuel consumption.

Two warm-up cycles were completed including a drive and cool-down. The series #6 is the last of the first tank and series #7 is the first of the new tank after 10-15 miles to replace the fuel in the gas lines.

The first chart shows the data adjusted so the end of "N" occurs on the right edge:


By careful timing, the starting temperatures were identical but the shift from "N" to "D" was not well controlled. However, when the thermostat opens at ~85C, there is a notch and plateau while the rest of the engine coolant keeps the engine at a constant, operating temperature:


Close examination shows the thermostat opening is an excellent candidate for a constant temperature state to use for fuel rate measurement:


We can see the fuel burn rate plateaus at these point:


So using my old eyes:

2.75 gm/sec - 1st tank, MAF rate
2.71 gm/sec - 2nd tank, MAF rate

(2.75 - 2.71) / 2.75 = 1.46% higher energy of second tank gas

I'll have to do the same calculation between the 2nd and 3d tanks . . . in about 450-500 miles or another three weeks. Then I'll have to wait to the end of the 3d tank to do the last oil change and consolidate all of the data.

One good side effect is now I have a much easier protocol to evaluate relative gasoline energy content than the earlier, hill climb tests used two years ago. Unlike the hill climb tests that run the engine at peak power levels, these tests are not affected by relative octane ratings.

Bob Wilson

[suspectnumber961]

In this general area about all gas comes from the same refinery...except for the additives that might be different? I have tested gas for ethanol content by adding some water and shaking a graduated cylinder to get it "dissolved" into the water....works...crudely. Can't find non-ethanol laced gas near here though.

Rereading the instructions...I guess they do say that a max of 1K miles is needed to bond the boron...though it sort of goes against the grain to change it again after 1K miles. But if it does loosen up some gunk...probably a good idea to get it out.

With that sort of accurate and detailed testing...I think you should test some fuel additives? I had good luck recently using Techron....but only saw an mpg gain using about 1/2 to 1/4 the concentration they call for...after using the higher concentration though. Would be interesting to see if Techron or other additives are adding "energy content". Hard to distinguish between "increased energy content" and "increased lubricity" and "decreased gunk drag" (new term ) in some cases?

Gasohol vs straight gasoline...regular vs premuim?

Or better yet...the MS fuel system additive. Easy for me to say....

[bwilson4web]

Originally Posted by suspectnumber961

In this general area about all gas comes from the same refinery...except for the additives that might be different? I have tested gas for ethanol content by adding some water and shaking a graduated cylinder to get it "dissolved" into the water....works...crudely. Can't find non-ethanol laced gas near here though.

Since I have the means to measure gasoline characteristics, I've given up on discussions of gasoline sources other than the specific station and pump. I always use the Shell station, 11900 Memorial Parkway, Huntsville, AL. During my hill-climb studies, I used different brand name stations but always the same station since the local tanks would have unique batch history ... the combination of fills. Beyond that, speculation is not as useful as metrics. <grins>

A couple of years ago, I bought a hydrometer and graduated cylinder to measure gasoline density but I could not find a correlation with energy content from the hill-climb data. The hill-climb data was repeatable over different samples from different stations.

Originally Posted by suspectnumber961

Rereading the instructions...I guess they do say that a max of 1K miles is needed to bond the boron...though it sort of goes against the grain to change it again after 1K miles. But if it does loosen up some gunk...probably a good idea to get it out.

That is what attracted me to this particular additive, the chemical bonding to the metal surface. This also explains why more of the varnish and gunk would go into suspension. We're doin' chemistry in the engine.

In contrast, the other additives require either pre-treatment before assembly, use during assembly or some non-trivial percentage within the oil. Change the oil and the additive is diluted to non-existence. Each change requires more additive.

Originally Posted by suspectnumber961

With that sort of accurate and detailed testing...I think you should test some fuel additives? I had good luck recently using Techron....but only saw an mpg gain using about 1/2 to 1/4 the concentration they call for...after using the higher concentration though. Would be interesting to see if Techron or other additives are adding "energy content". Hard to distinguish between "increased energy content" and "increased lubricity" and "decreased gunk drag" (new term ) in some cases?

Gasohol vs straight gasoline...regular vs premuim?

Or better yet...the MS fuel system additive. Easy for me to say....

In testing, we like to hold as many variables constant and have only one change. That is why finding the 'notch and plateau' when the thermostat opens has been such a lucky find.

BTW, I did a Shell ethanol test against straight gas last year, Pure, both 93 and 87 octane, and the Shell 87 came out better. This is not surprising as two years ago, Shell, Chevron and Exxon 87 tested better than Citgo, Texaco and BP and Shell and Texaco. I also tested 91/93 octane and found a measurable effect at high power settings, as would be expected. But the increase in spark advance did not equal what the higher energy, 87 octane gas was doing.

Bob Wilson

[suspectnumber961]

I've messed around with a lot of different oil additives from moly that is also supposed to "plate" surfaces, but needs to be re-added each oil change. To Tufoil which has a good rep...but is not permanent. Teflon.

Have also used Militec...and did an "experiment" with it where I had a failing bearing in an old vacuum that screeched (dry)...tried lightweight oil...gear oil...grease...moly....teflon....none of which lasted long...then added some Militec....does not last forever...but much longer than anything else I tried. Militec uses chlorinated hydrocarbons...many are afraid of these. Several other "clones" of this type of additive out there.

Several years ago I was on a forum where a guy from Malaysia was adding regular boric acid to his motor oil...manual trans...diff and claiming good results...I was too chicken to try this.

Once owned a 280ZX where I had additives in the full drive train and saw around an 8-10% mpg gain...I was changing the engine oil every 3K...one time using Teflon...the next moly...the next Militec...etc. Back way before gas prices went up.

So in my experience...additives work...though I'm not so sure they've all paid for themselves. But if you mention additive use on forums...you can get some strong reactions.

I suspect that with the MS...the formulation is made to intentionally clean the engine surfaces to allow the boron to bond. You can get some interesting info on bobistheoilguy.com...but not much due to the proprietary nature of lube products....those who know don't talk...those who don't...do. So I should just shut up? ;-)

[bwilson4web]

Originally Posted by suspectnumber961

. . .<good stuff> Militec uses chlorinated hydrocarbons...

I was not aware of these, thanks!

Originally Posted by suspectnumber961

. . . But if you mention additive use on forums...you can get some strong reactions. . . . those who know don't talk...those who don't...do. So I should just shut up? ;-)

I certainly enjoy the conversation!

As for forums, it remains something of a hard problem. On one extreme are the sociopathic SPAMMERs; then those with an "Ox to gore;" a larger pool of regular folks who want to learn and share, and then; those precious few who seem "obsessive compulsive" about finding out what is real. Herding cats seems easier than keeping some sense of order and polite behavior.

Ten years ago, I participated in a Unitarian, USENET group that had a 'robot moderator.' Using simple pattern matching, it automatically handled those who came to tell us we were all going to h*ll. Having been a moderator and currently one at MyHybridCar, I've learned more about member and even moderator behavior than I ever wanted to know. In fact, I had to 'fire' one web forum site which has had the happy effect of giving me more time 'in the lab.' <grins>

I enjoy sharing my results and answering questions because without fail, I often learn something not known before. But as long as folks 'play nice' with a sense of humor, I'm a happy camper.

Bob Wilson

[bwilson4web]

LATE THOUGHT:
I'm saving copies of the source data, CSV format, in the YahooGroup, "Prius_Technical_Stuff" in an open, shared, data folder. I'm not sure how Ecomodder prefers to handle data sharing and I'm not a great fan of using 'attached files' as they tend to get 'lost'. I'm not pimping the other site as much as sharing where folks can find the source data for these charts. <wink>

ORIGINAL THOUGHT:
We had a side conversation and we agreed to share this:

Originally Posted by suspectnumber961

Actually the way you explain things forces anyone interested to actually try and understand the graphs and your comments...I kept wishing you'd end by writing a simple synopsis and conclusion...but that would be too easy! Seriously.

Still not sure how you'll account for variations in gas quality for the MS test...just that you've determined that there are variations. This leaves a lot of room for......guess what....fuel additives. ;-)

What I'll eventually have is:

• fuel burn rate - baseline oil before treatment
• % - 2nd tank vs 1st tank
• % - 3d tank vs 2nd tank
• fuel burn rate - baseline oil change after 1,000 miles
• raw % - post 1000 miles vs baseline oil (raw!)
• net % - sum of three percentages (adjusted for gasoline effects)

When I have the numbers, I'll have to be very careful about the signs but the math is fairly simple. But here is a simple example.

2.6 gm/sec - baseline oil burn rate
2.6 gm/sec - after 1000 mile change burn rate
0% = (2.6-2.6) / 2.6 :: no change in fuel burn rate

2.7 gm/sec - 1st tank burn rate
2.8 gm/sec - 2nd tank burn rate (fuel has less energy so more is burned)

-3.57% = (2.8 - 2.7) / 2.8 :: 2nd tank has -3.57% energy

So if the ending fuel burn at the end of the oil test is the same but the gas has -3.57% less energy, then there was a reduction in drag of -3.57% due to the oil additive. . . .

Originally Posted by suspectnumber961

LaPointe just hated those lightweight oils...but I never saw any gains from using the heavier stuff like he mentioned. So I guess it's lighter oils and oil additives for me.

But this is the first car I owned where it might have the sensitivity to show some results...but since it is a ULEV...the O2 after the cat might be controlling the fuel mix more than with the regular version? Tail pipe is white glove clean...but the tops of the pistons...even after Techron were carboned up....so a lot of fuel is burned in the cat. The 2011 version (with more HP) gets 34 highway vs 28 highway for the 2003....so higher fuel prices and some legislation automagically forced them to find a few more mpg....looks like they found some of the "if it worked the car companies would already be doing it" mpg?

I admit sharing this thought. If something is so dang good, it would make sense to have the manufacturer put it in.

Originally Posted by suspectnumber961

[bwilson4web]

Sad to say but the recent tornadoes in North Alabama meant my 03 Prius had to revert to house-power inverter mode and I was not able to do another tank-to-tank energy test. This means I'll only be able to report "gross" engine efficiency changes.

I won't be able to report a specific friction/energy change because the potential friction reduction is in the same order of magnitude as different gasolines. I had to use a gallon from the neighbor and another gallon left over from my last fuel studies, 93 octane stuff.

Sorry, events beyond my control,
Bob Wilson

[suspectnumber961]

Too bad...but at least you have enough long term mpg data that you might do some comparison...additive vs none?

[bwilson4web]

My wife's 2010 Prius is another candidate and we're coming up on 20k. But I'd like to do my testing after the 3 yr/ 36k mile warranty expires. I don't want to risk a warranty potentially worth thousands to test someone else's oil additive. <grins>

Bob Wilson