Go Back   EcoModder Forum > EcoModding > General Efficiency Discussion
Register Now
 Register Now
 

Reply  Post New Thread
 
Submit Tools LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 04-09-2013, 11:38 PM   #121 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
RobertISaar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: camden, MI
Posts: 324

MC SBX - '95 Chevrolet Monte Carlo LS
Last 3: 29.75 mpg (US)
Thanks: 7
Thanked 55 Times in 46 Posts
i don't think octane will be measurably changed...

if the oil were 1 octane(which it's pretty certain to be a LOT higher than that), then adding it at a rate of 1:640, it only makes up .15625% of the total fuel. assuming it's getting mixed with 87 octane, that's 86.86 octane.... statistically insignificant.

__________________
  Reply With Quote
Alt Today
Popular topics

Other popular topics in this forum...

   
Old 04-10-2013, 05:11 PM   #122 (permalink)
.........................
 
darcane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Buckley, WA
Posts: 1,586

Ninja 650R - '06 Kawasaki Ninja 650R
90 day: 52.02 mpg (US)

B*tch - '01 Honda Civic HX
Team Honda
90 day: 38.09 mpg (US)

Ms. Hyde - '06 Cadillac CTS V
Sports Cars
90 day: 16.93 mpg (US)
Thanks: 375
Thanked 480 Times in 311 Posts
I'm confident that octane is not changed significantly.

My Civic has been pinging at low rpms since I bought it. I've been trying to figure out why, but still haven't sorted it out. With low octane gas (87 octane from Costco) it will ping up to about 1900rpm. With high octane gas (91 from Costco) it only pings up to 1700rpm. I've tried several tanks with TC-W3 and several without both with high and low octane gasoline, and there is no change in behavior from the TC-W3 oil, only from what octane rating the gasoline is.

If the TC-W3 oil would affect the octane rating, I would expect a change in how bad my engine pings.
__________________
2001 Civic HX Mods


Past Cars:
CTS-V

2003 Silverado Mods
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2013, 01:50 PM   #123 (permalink)
EcoModding Apprentice
 
lovemysan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: kansas city, mo
Posts: 140

gutless wonder - '02 Saturn sl sohc
90 day: 40.17 mpg (US)

econoburban - '05 chevy surburban 2wd LT
90 day: 19.43 mpg (US)
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Bumping an old thread. RH77 what was your conclusion on the TCW3 additive? I used a quart of pennzoil tcw3 in my suburban. Mixed it to the recommended dosage. My conclusion was the engine does NOT run smoother. The fuel economy got a little worse on every tank. I also experienced hard starting during the test period on multiple occasions. I think its placebo. My amsoil guy laughed at me. He's said "in 30 years I've seen people put a little bit of everything in the fuel there's no magic just buy good oil and good gas". The only thing that really affects mileage fuel wise for my suburban is ethanol free 87 octane. I pick up 5-12%.
__________________
2002 Saturn SL
sohc + 5spd = 50mpg
mod pics see link below

http://s75.photobucket.com/albums/i3...emysan/saturn/

Real men have wheel skirts.


  Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2013, 07:06 PM   #124 (permalink)
radioranger
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Canton CT
Posts: 442
Thanks: 140
Thanked 43 Times in 32 Posts
I have to say it didnt work as hoped, although in my carbureted boat it works great, I dont think a modern engine benefits at all at this point ,my truck ran worse .
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2013, 12:05 AM   #125 (permalink)
Depends on the Day
 
RH77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Kansas City Area
Posts: 1,761

Teggy - '98 Acura Integra LS
Sports Cars
90 day: 32.74 mpg (US)

IMA - '10 Honda Insight EX
Team Honda
90 day: 34.76 mpg (US)

Tessie - '06 Acura TSX Base
90 day: 28.2 mpg (US)
Thanks: 31
Thanked 41 Times in 35 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by lovemysan View Post
Bumping an old thread. RH77 what was your conclusion on the TCW3 additive?
I still have some receipts to enter, and compare the same months over the last few years. There was a distinct difference (worsening) in idle smoothness, and operation under load (stumbling). Look for the results soon for FE -- I think there may have been a slight improvement, but possibly not significant.

By the way, where do you find fuel without Ethanol?

Take it easy...

RH77
__________________
“If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be called research” ― Albert Einstein

_
_
  Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to RH77 For This Useful Post:
WesternStarSCR (05-02-2013)
Old 05-02-2013, 12:44 AM   #126 (permalink)
Busting Knuckles Often
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 135

Blue Maxx - '04 Chevrolet Malibu Maxx LT
Team Chevy
90 day: 26.96 mpg (US)

Tink's Van - '08 Chrysler Town & Country Touring
90 day: 19.09 mpg (US)

2004 5 Speed Goldrolla - '04 Toyota Corolla CE
Team Toyota
90 day: 36.3 mpg (US)
Thanks: 313
Thanked 28 Times in 20 Posts
I am still using it. I agree it is hard to quantify with our imperfect, non-lab testing. I have been getting good FE in my Chevy, hard to say it is directly related to the TC-W3

Both cars are running great though, I am always careful never to put too much in, and had no stumbling or idling issues though.

The Chrysler 3.8 that normally needs a qt of oil after 2 -3 months went 4 months before I had to add this time. So perhaps a bit of better ring sealing is going on in this case.

I guess my conclusion is that it is much less expensive than dedicated occasional bottles of Lucas UCL or FI cleaner that I would have bought from time to time anyway, so I am going to stick with it.

i am not so sure I would do it on a new, Direct Injection car, for fear of carbon buildup on intake valves. But, no DI car is in my garage anyway.
__________________


  Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2013, 08:57 AM   #127 (permalink)
EcoModding Lurker
 
Prophecy99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: PA
Posts: 90

Maxima - '02 Nissan Maxima GLE
Thanks: 2
Thanked 20 Times in 14 Posts
im still using it, been about 6-7 tanks, no complaints and only positives
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2013, 09:07 AM   #128 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
nemo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: US
Posts: 994

Chief - '06 Pontiac Grand Prix
90 day: 19.41 mpg (US)

SF1 - '12 Ford Fiesta S
90 day: 20.31 mpg (US)
Thanks: 192
Thanked 235 Times in 182 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prophecy99 View Post
im still using it, been about 6-7 tanks, no complaints and only positives
Would you care to elaborate? FE results and observations, etc.
__________________

  Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2013, 11:48 AM   #129 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 1,663

Volt, gas only - '12 Chevrolet Volt Premium
90 day: 38.02 mpg (US)

Volt, electric only - '12 Chevrolet Volt Premium
90 day: 132.26 mpg (US)

Yukon Denali Hybrid - '12 GMC Yukon Denali Hybrid
90 day: 21.48 mpg (US)
Thanks: 191
Thanked 393 Times in 283 Posts
I've been using this for a few months. Did some car repairs so I can't speak on fe, but I do seem to get more fuel pressure or up to pressure faster. The car used to crank 2-3 times then stumble a little and start, now it turns over twice and starts smoothly. That being said the car does have 210, 000 miles on the original fuel system and injectors.
__________________




  Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to ksa8907 For This Useful Post:
WesternStarSCR (05-07-2013)
Old 05-02-2013, 01:00 PM   #130 (permalink)
Depends on the Day
 
RH77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Kansas City Area
Posts: 1,761

Teggy - '98 Acura Integra LS
Sports Cars
90 day: 32.74 mpg (US)

IMA - '10 Honda Insight EX
Team Honda
90 day: 34.76 mpg (US)

Tessie - '06 Acura TSX Base
90 day: 28.2 mpg (US)
Thanks: 31
Thanked 41 Times in 35 Posts
My FE Conclusion...

The comparison of 4 tanks using the additive vs. tanks during the same time of year (fuel fills from December-March, inclusive) were taken into consideration. The data set from the first Winter of 2005/2006 was noted as an outlier due to considerable experimentation, and not considered part of the Control Group -- Winter seasons in 2006/2007 up to 2011/2012 were considered.

Mean Average...
Control Group:
Sample Size = 39 fuel fills
Average = 32.61 MPG

TCW3 Additive Group:
Sample Size = 4 fuel fills
Average = 33.48 MPG

Is the increased average FE statistically significant?

Using a Single-Factor ANOVA at a confidence level of 95%...

The P-value was 0.53, F = 0.40, and Fcrit = 4.08.

Conclusion/Explanation: To qualify for the least validity, the P-Value needs to be 0.05 or less, meaning there is at least a 95% chance the data differs in a meaningful way. In this case, the P-value indicates a 47% chance -- which is very weak in Statistics. I also ran the full control group, and the similar Winter season of 2010/2011 -- the latter produced a P-value of 0.38: better, but still not significant.

Final Statement: TCW3 did not significantly improve fuel economy, based on previous Winter seasons; further, engine idle smoothness and occasional "stumbling" under load were noted as unscientific observations. Further testing is not considered at this time.

RH77

__________________
“If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be called research” ― Albert Einstein

_
_
  Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to RH77 For This Useful Post:
some_other_dave (05-02-2013), WesternStarSCR (05-02-2013), wmjinman (07-14-2015)
Reply  Post New Thread


Thread Tools




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright EcoModder.com